In a recent hearing, Mark O’Mara, lead defense attorney to George Zimmerman, told the court that due to time constraints, he would not ask for a separate immunity hearing prior to the June 10 trial date. The Guardian reports:
The real focus is going to be on getting ready for a jury trial,’ O’Mara said at a hearing on Tuesday…
‘As you know I’ve been counting. We’re only at 96 days [from trial] right now. So that only gives us time to really get ready for one hearing. And that’s going to be a jury trial where he gets acquitted. George wants to have a jury of his peers decide the case.
However, the matter may not be so cut and dried:
De La Rionda [assistant special prosecutor] said he was ‘bewildered’ by Tuesday’s change of defense tactics. The hearing ended with O’Mara announcing he reserved the right to still seek a new stand-your-ground hearing despite telling Nelson she could clear her calendar for the two weeks beginning 29 April that had been set aside for the legal argument.
O’Mara is obviously keeping his options open, I suspect, because he has more than sufficient reason to believe that the prosecution is not going to play fair–as it has not thus far–and he does not want to give them any advance notice of his ultimate strategy. An immunity hearing, which would essentially be a mini-trial before the judge, not a jury, would give the prosecution just that, and if the judge did not grant immunity and thereby dismiss the state’s case, O’Mara would arguably be in a worse position. While there are indications that the political potency of the case has somewhat diminished, O’Mara certainly can’t afford to dismiss potential political calculations in the judge’s decision making. Keeping the prosecution guessing–particularly this prosecution team–is a sound tactic.
As I noted in Update 15 (the applicable statutes and analysis are there), an immunity hearing or a defense explicitly based on the “stand your ground” portion of the Florida statutes (776.013 (3)) is not necessary to invoke immunity from criminal prosecution and civil suits (776.032). In other words, if Zimmerman is acquitted at trial on the basis of self-defense, he is still immune from civil suits, and the criminal case is over, once and for all.
For those interested in the finer points of potential defense strategy, I recommend a visit to Talk Left, where Denver defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt has been following the case and has the ins and outs from a defense perspective. Merritt also pronounces on the next issue, which is the primary topic of this article: the incredible exploding DeeDee.
Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend, the state’s most important witness in the George Zimmerman murder case, was caught in a lie, it was revealed Tuesday.
It was not the first piece of misinformation tied to her, but it was the most damaging to date and left prosecutors in a very awkward position.
They had to publicly acknowledge that their star witness had lied under oath and had to answer questions about what they intend to do about it.
Reporters asked: Will you charge the 19-year-old Miami woman with perjury?
The state’s lead prosecutor, Bernie de la Rionda, gave an ambiguous answer: ‘You can all read the law and make your own decision.’
The woman had told prosecutors she was in the hospital on the day of Trayvon’s funeral.
‘In fact, she lied,’ defense attorney Don West said.
The Sentinel, which has been sympathetic to the Martin narrative propounded by the Scheme Team, also noted:
Despite’s Tuesday’s revelation, there is no indication the woman lied about what she heard on the phone the evening Trayvon was shot. But she appears to have given Crump another piece of bad information: her age.
He told reporters in March, when he played excerpts from the recorded interview, that she was 16 years old. In fact, she was 18 at the time. Crump has said he did not knowingly misrepresent her age.
There are, in fact, compelling reasons to believe DeeDee was not truthful about what she heard on the phone, but this is not the only bad news for the prosecution. As I reported in Update 18, a report written by Florida Department of Law Enforcement agent Kenneth Wayne Moore reveals that Scheme Team attorneys Benjamin Crump, Daryl Parks and Natalie Jackson were almost certainly present at the interviews of not only Dee Dee, but Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton. This obviously raises the possibility, perhaps even the probability, that DeeDee was extensively coached prior to her recorded interview. My analysis of that interview in Update 11 also suggests that very real possibility (and the probability of deception). The fact that de la Rionda, in the opening of that interview, suggested that others were present, but breached protocol and did not identify them–he identified only himself and Investigator T.C. O’Steen–does nothing to assuage such concerns.
It has also been reported that Crump has lawyered up, and has told the court he did not misrepresent DeeDee’s age, which, of necessity, means she must have lied about that too, unless Crump simply made an assumption, which does not reflect well on his professional competence. O’Mara has arranged to depose DeeDee within the next few weeks. Should DeeDee admit that the Scheme Team and/or de la Rionda coached her, even encouraged her to lie, the contention by some–and me–that Corey and de la Rionda could find themselves following the footsteps of disgraced Durham prosecutor Mike Nifong could very well materialize. Obviously, any such development would be even more destructive to the state’s case–probably fatally so–and to anyone involved in it. That the prosecutor has coordinated with the Scheme Team seems obvious. To what degree the Florida Bar might consider that unethical, illegal, or be willing to do anything about it, remains unclear.
I have often opined that Special Prosecutor Angela Corey would have to be a complete idiot to use DeeDee in court. This recent development only reinforces that belief, but considering Bernie de la Rionda’s interview of DeeDee, it is no surprise.
In choosing witnesses, prosecutors must consider a variety of factors. Among them: is their testimony relevant and are they credible? Of these two, credibility is, in many ways, most important. Juries are the ultimate deciders of fact and of the credibility of witnesses. If a jury decides a witness isn’t credible for any reason, they can disregard every bit of their testimony. The danger here is that if any of the prosecution’s witnesses can’t be believed, a jury might decide that none of them–including the prosecution–are credible. DeeDee is a textbook case of a non-credible witness.
HOW CAN I BLOW UP IN YOUR FACE? LET ME COUNT THE WAYS…
A primary consideration in the use of any witness is what that witness can contribute to the Prosecution’s case. Can they help to fulfill any essential element of the offenses charged? Can they help to establish motive? Opportunity? Can they place the defendant at the scene of the crime? As I noted in Update 2, the statute under which Zimmerman is charged has three essential elements:
(1) A human being must have been unlawfully killed, and;
(2) by means of an act imminently dangerous to another, and;
(3) that act must reveal evidence of a depraved mind regardless of human life (but without premeditation to cause the death of any particular person).
Notice that each element is linked to the others by “and,” not “or.” This is significant in that each and every element of the offense must be proved. The prosecution utterly failed to do this in its charging affidavit. They could not provide probable cause that the crime had been committed, yet the case was allowed to proceed. But don’t take my word for that. Visit Update 2 where you’ll find that former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, and former Justice Department attorney Mark Levin, among others, share the same opinion. I’ll return to this issue later, but let’s examine why DeeDee would be a disastrous witness for the Prosecution.
DeeDee speaks poorly and may present herself poorly in court. Rightly or wrongly, people who are not well spoken are accorded less credibility, not only in court, but in life in general. DeeDee, who is black, speaks in a heavy “black” dialect. In Update 11, I noted:
In reading this transcript, you’ll notice that Dee Dee speaks in patterns common to some black people (and those of other races as well, including some of the white bread persuasion), particularly dropping portions—or all—of suffixes and prefixes. She also entirely drops some prepositions, some verbs, and like a great many teenagers, speaks with lazy diction and often mumbles. Many of her sentences are fragmentary, and she will often apparently change thoughts in the middle of a sentence. All of this—and more—made preparing this transcript unusually difficult. As a teacher of high school English, I am perhaps better prepared than most to understand this kind of ‘relaxed’ speech, but I was often forced to listen to a given sentence many times before I understood—mostly–what Dee Dee was saying.
DeeDee often dramatically drops the volume at the end of sentences and even phrases. I don’t mean to be unkind, but DeeDee, to at least some people, might not sound very intelligent. These kinds of problems of intellect, enunciation and diction do not establish or support credibility.
As I noted in Update 11, all race cards are expired at this Internet ATM. I make these observations not based on race, but on long years of experience, and as a teacher of English, speech and debate. While race may be, for some people, a part of determining the credibility of a witness–it is not and never has been for me–issues such as the facts and circumstances of the case, apparent intelligence, general appearance, body language, strength of character or apparent lack thereof, and similar observations are of greater importance to most people. By all means, take the Update 11 link and listen to her statement. Judge for your self.
DeeDee claims to have known Martin well, and for a very long time. There is no way for the prosecution to avoid establishing this. This background information provides the foundation for her conversation with Martin that night and for her interpretations of what she claims to have heard– whatever it might have been– filtered through her knowledge of Martin. However, laying this foundation opens a very wide and unwelcome door for the defense, a door the prosecution would surely wish to remain closed.
Teenagers constantly talk about themselves, their friends and their interests. They are all about social media and Internet use–a topic de la Rionda was careful to almost entirely avoid in his taped interview with DeeDee. Why would he avoid that? DeeDee told him she knew Martin since kindergarten, some 11-12 years, and intimated that they were close. What teenager with that kind of long standing relationship would not know all about the behavior, habits, boasts, activities, even the crimes, of their close friends? DeeDee certainly knows all about Martin’s social media presence, about his thuggish, misogynistic persona, about his frequent boasting about drug use (and actual drug use), and likely, about his multiple school suspensions and potentially, any crimes he had been involved in. By putting DeeDee on the stand, by laying the necessary foundation for her testimony, the prosecution will almost certainly open the door to her testimony about all of these matters. If she hesitates or it seems to the jury that she is trying to conceal information about Martin, she will not only destroy her own credibility, but quite possibly the careers of the prosecutors, for any attorney–any officer of the court–is ethically bound never to knowingly allow any witness to provide false testimony.
Cell phone records may not support her testimony. DeeDee told de la Rionda that her conversation with Martin was marked by frequent cell phone troubles. She suggested that she often could not hear what was being said or happening and they had to call each other back repeatedly. De la Rionda did not try to clarify these matters at all–an amazing omission–and instead changed the subject.
The last information I had on this topic indicates that cell phone records–including times and GPS data–may be incomplete, and/or that the prosecution was trying to avoid making them available to the defense, which seems to have been their standard operating procedure with evidence in this case. When and if accurate cell phone records are made available, DeeDee and the prosecution may be in even greater trouble than has been previously imagined. At the very least, DeeDee’s own testimony will call into question whether anything she claims to have heard is accurate, relevant, or revealing of anything believable.
DEEDEE’S TESTIMONY:
DeeDee’s statement is generally far less revealing than one might imagine. It is nothing at all like the narrative has characterized it. It is frequently confusing and contradictory, a situation not helped by de la Rionda’s utterly inept interviewing technique. Consider this exchange from early in the interview:
BDLR: OK, how long have you lived there?
Dee Dee: [Redacted]
BDLR: Your whole life?
Dee Dee: Hmmm…[mumbling]
BDLR: OK, where did you live before that?
Dee Dee: [Redacted]
BDLR: OK, the reason I am asking you is because I am from Jacksonville, so I want to make sure the record’s clear…that we’re here in uh [redacted] Umm…
Dee Dee: A year or two…or eleven…[mumbling]
BDLR: What?
Dee Dee: Ten years…or 11.
BDLR: I’m sorry, what?
Dee Dee: Eleven…or 10 years
BDLR: OK, where do you go to school?
Dee Dee: [Redacted]
BDLR: And how did you know Trayvon?
Dee Dee: I know him for a long time…we just…we started talking.
BDLR: How did you meet up with him…from school? Or friends? Or…
Dee Dee: By coming by my house…
BDLR: OK…
Dee Dee: …with his best friend.
BDLR: Who was his best friend?
Dee Dee: [Redacted] Yeah.
BDLR: OK, so you’ve known him for how long about? Approximately…
Dee Dee: Kindergarten…?
BDLR: Kindergarten…wow, that long. So he was a good friend of yours…right?
Dee Dee: Yeah, he was alright…
BDLR: OK, and he was a good guy, wasn’t he?
Dee Dee: Yeah…sumpin’…
We’re left wondering if Martin actually was a good guy. De la Rionda stumbled along:
BDLR: OK, and at…some later…later on…like in the last year or so, did you become closer friends?
Dee Dee: Yes.
BDLR: OK…did you guys ever start dating at all?
Dee Dee: Hmm mmm [unintelligible].
BDLR: But would you guys talk on the phone all the time?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
DeeDee eventually said, in response to whether she was Martin’s girlfriend: “Yeah, we were getting there.” She told de la Rionda that on the day of the shooting, she was talking with Martin by phone “all day, it seem…” DeeDee said she was speaking with Martin on the way to the store, at the store, and after he left the store.
About Zimmerman watching Martin:
Dee Dee: A couple minutes later he come and tell me this man is watchin’ him.
BDLR: OK…did he describe the man who was watching him?
Dee Dee: Yeah, he said white.
BDLR: OK, did he say whether the man was standing, sitting…
Dee Dee: In a car.
BDLR: In a car?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: What did he say about the man who was watching him…
Dee Dee: He was on the phone.
BDLR: He was on the phone?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK, and what did Trayvon say after that?
Dee Dee: He was telling me like…like he a man watching him, so he like started walking.
BDLR: He, Trayvon, started walking?
Dee Dee: He goin’ start walking.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: And then…the phone hung up. And I call him back again. And then, I say ‘What you doin’?’ and he say he walkin’ and he said this man still following him, behind the car. And I’m like…or like, he told me…he tell me..he put his hoodie on, so I like…
BDLR: He, Trayvon, put his hoodie on.
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK…
Dee Dee: Cause, he said it was startin’ a little bit dripping water….
BDLR: Uh huh.
Dee Dee: So he put his hoodie on. So I said, ‘What’s going on?’ He said this man is still watching him. Like in a car…so he about to run from the back. So then I told him, go to his dad house. Run to his Dad house.
BDLR: Go to what?
Dee Dee: Run to his dad house.
BDLR: To his dad’s house?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: So he say he about to run for the back cause its mo’ easier, he said. So, next thing I hear, he gettin’ run. And I can hear that the wind blowin’…
BDLR: So you could tell he was running at that time…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
So the “man” was “standing” “sitting” in a car, and following Martin too. Notice that de la Rionda does nothing to clarify these obviously contradictory assertions.
If you have not read Update 11, or have not read it for some time, I recommend taking the time to review it. It provides a far clearer picture than these excerpts can provide. Thus far, DeeDee’s statement does nothing but support Zimmerman’s versions of events, including Martin’s running from Zimmerman. This next brief excerpt can do nothing but badly hurt the prosecution:
BDLR: OK, and then what happened?
Dee Dee: And then…he say he lost him.
BDLR: He lost..like…the man?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
Again, DeeDee has supported Zimmerman’s account. If Martin lost Zimmerman, why didn’t he simply do what he told DeeDee he was intending to do–run to his father’s home? If he did this, he would have been inside and out of sight long before Zimmerman could have had any idea where he went. The following excerpt provides a bit of insight into the generally confused nature–and the blatantly leading questioning–of the entire interview:
BDLR: So, was Trayvon at that time…you could tell he was like, out of breath, like excited…
Dee Dee: Yeah. . .
BDLR: …like, like…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: Then…
In this excerpt, notice how de la Rionda tries to put words in DeeDee’s mouth:
Dee Dee: He lost him; he was breathin’ hard. An…by the sound his voice…voice kinda change…
BDLR: Who? Trayvon?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK, what do you mean by that, his voice changed?
Dee Dee: [unintelligible] I know he was scare.
BDLR: I’m sorry?
Dee Dee: I know he was scare. He…
BDLR: How..how…could …tell…and I know what you’re trying to tell me, but if you could, describe to me how you could tell he was scared.
Dee Dee: Voice was getting kind of low…[unintelligible]…breathin’ har’…
BDLR: So, you could tell he was emotional like somebody who was like in fear?
Dee Dee: Yeah…he say he lost him…
BDLR: OK…he was breathing hard?
Dee Dee: He say he lost him…breathin’ har’, you know. And I like, he goin’…so he say he lost him. And then a couple…and then he say he right by his ass…he ru’, he go’ keep ru’ ’til hi’ dad house.
BDLR: OK, let me make sure I understand that he’s saying that he’s “right by his ass”…meaning the guy is right by Trayvon?
Dee Dee: No, he say he lost the guy…
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: And then he ran from the back…
BDLR: Right.
Dee Dee: He say he lost him.
BDLR: OK.
Notice that DeeDee is sticking by her statement that Martin told her he was going to run to his father’s house and that he lost Zimmerman. This too supports Zimmerman’s statement that he lost Martin and had no idea where he was, which he told the police dispatcher. Notice again that de la Rionda doesn’t seem the least interested in clarifying any of this. What, for example, does “And then he ran from the back” mean? The back of what? No doubt de la Rionda knows that the substance of this has already been testified to–repeatedly and without alteration–by Zimmerman. DeeDee can’t add anything that isn’t already known, undisputed and on the record. The other possibility is that de la Rionda is afraid that DeeDee will add things even less favorable to Martin and the narrative and is desperately trying to avoid that.
Let’s fast forward to what would potentially be the most important part of her testimony:
Dee Dee: And then he told me like the guy was getting close..like..and he told me the guy was getting real close to him. The next I hear, “What are you following me for?”
BDLR: OK, so let me make sure I understand this…so, Trayvon tells you the guy’s getting closer to him…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: …and then you hear Trayvon saying something…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: And what do you hear Trayvon saying?
Dee Dee: “Why you followin’ me for?”
BDLR: “Why you following me for?”
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: And then what happened?
Dee Dee: I hear this, ya know, man… it wa’ like a ol’ man…
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: …say, ‘Wha’ you doin’ aroun’ here?’ [mimicking a man’s voice—lowering the pitch of her voice]
BDLR: OK, so you could definitely tell another voice that was not Trayvon’s.
Dee Dee: Yeah, yeah…
BDLR: And you heard this other voice say what?
Dee Dee: Yeah: “What are you doin’ aroun’ here?”
BDLR: “What are you doing around here?” OK.
Dee Dee: And I call Trayvon…’Trayvon, wha’s goin’ on, whas goin’ on?’
BDLR: This is you saying that…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: Then..I callin’ him…he didn’t answer.
BDLR: No answer from Trayvon.
Dee Dee: Yeah..and I hear, I hear a sound like “bump.” You cou’ hear that Trayvon bump…somebody bumped Trayvon, ’cause I could hear the grass.
BDLR: OK, so you could hear that there was something going on…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: Like something hitting something?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: You could hear..I could hear the grass thing.
BDLR: Out of the…
Dee Dee: Yeah…
BDLR: …I guess out of the speaker…out of the…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK, and then what happened?
Dee Dee: And then…I was still screaming, I was saying, ‘Trayvon, ‘ ‘Trayvon’…
BDLR: And there was no response?
Dee Dee: Yeah, and next thing I hear…and next thing, the phone just shut off.
BDLR: The phone shut off?
Dee Dee: It just shut off.
BDLR: OK, did you hear any kind of screamings like ‘Help me’ or anything like that?
Dee Dee: No.
BDLR: OK. Did you hear any kind of shot?
Dee Dee: No.
BDLR: OK. When the phone shut off, did you try calling back?
Dee Dee: I try calling back like 3 or 2 times.
BDLR: OK, did you ever get any response?
Dee Dee: No, and text [unintelligible]…
None of this is helpful to Martin, nor does it contradict Zimmerman’s account. We know that Zimmerman did not venture down the sidewalk toward Martin’s father’s home any appreciable distance. He remained at or near the “T” intersection of the sidewalks. DeeDee has inadvertently put Martin near that intersection. How else could Zimmerman be anywhere near him?
Further, DeeDee has Martin verbally beginning the confrontation. Notice too that after hearing a ‘bump” and “the grass thing,” DeeDee heard nothing else and had no further contact with Martin (bizarrely, she later claimed to have heard someone saying something like “get off” through a dead phone!). Again, I recommend you review the transcript and my analysis in Update 11. I have little doubt the unbiased reader will come to the same conclusion I did: DeeDee is an absolutely deadly witness for the prosecution’s case.
Shortly after this excerpt, DeeDee began to embellish her testimony. It appears she was adding things that may have been earlier discussed, but de la Rionda, apparently understanding the ethical swamp into which he was being drug (drug himself?), tried to shut her off without appearing to shut her off.
For one final bit of insight into why her testimony is so potentially damaging to the prosecution, consider this exchange, which took place late in the interview before de la Rionda probably fled in terror:
BDLR: Alright, listen, I know this has been very hard for you. But I do appreciate you taking the time to talk to me today, and obviously you know we record all this, because we’ve had a recorder right in front of you. But I do thank you from the bottom of my heart that you’ve come forward, and you’ve agreed to give this statement today. OK? I know this is very hard I can tell by looking at you, that you’re very emotional about this. It’s very understandable…
Dee Dee: [Makes a kind of “uh-uh” sound].
BDLR: …because you cared about him. But all we’re trying to do right now is seek the truth here. That’s why I’m taking this statement.
Dee Dee: I got guilt.
BDLR: Huh? [Obviously surprised]
Dee Dee: I got guilt.
BDLR: You’ve got guilt?
Dee Dee: Mmm-hmm [Yes].
BDLR: Why do you feel guilt?
Dee Dee: Real guilty.
BDLR: Huh?
Dee Dee: Real guilty.
BDLR: Why do you feel real guilty?
Dee Dee: Real guilty.
BDLR: Because you were talking onto the phone and you couldn’t do anything about it?
Dee Dee: I ain’t know about it.
BDLR: Huh?
Dee Dee: I ain’t know about it.
BDLR: You didn’t know what had happened to him?
Dee Dee: Nuh…
BDLR: You’re saying, right? In terms of you were on the phone…
Dee Dee: ‘Cuz I know him.
BDLR: OK. Alright.
Dee Dee: [Unintelligible]
BDLR: OK…
As I noted in Update 11, I almost felt sorry for de la Rionda by this point. Here’s the section where the prosecution has admitted DeeDee lied:
BDLR: OK. I’m not saying that they did. I’m just making sure the records’ clear on that….Um…you obviously found out about what happened to Trayvon, right? And at some point you ended up knowing that he was killed, right?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: Were you able to go to the funeral or to the wake?
Dee Dee: I was goin’ to go, but…
BDLR: OK, what happened?
Dee Dee: I didn’ feel good.
BDLR: OK, did you end up going to the hospital or somewhere?
Dee Dee: Mmmm…Yeah, I had high blood pressure.
Any competent defense attorney, and O’Mara appears to be that, would absolutely shred DeeDee using nothing more than her own words. She will not inspire sympathy in jurors. The prosecution should fear what O’Mara will learn from DeeDee on the stand. Any explanation of the bizarre, disjointed statements she made will only serve to make her even less credible, and will make de la Rionda look utterly incompetent, perhaps even criminally culpable. Imagine DeeDee telling the court of the presence and participation of Crump, Parks and Jackson. Imagine her explaining the source of her guilt. Pity too de la Rionda if the judge allows the defense to question him under oath, as she very well could, since de la Rionda foolishly made himself a witness by questioning DeeDee himself.
THE ELEMENTS:
Once again, the elements of the crime, each of which must be proved:
(1) A human being must have been unlawfully killed, and;
(2) by means of an act imminently dangerous to another, and;
(3) that act must reveal evidence of a depraved mind regardless of human life (but without premeditation to cause the death of any particular person).
DeeDee has no information at all that would tend to support or prove a single element. Martin was indeed killed, but the trial will decide whether that killing was unlawful and she can add nothing to help make that determination. If Zimmerman’s self defense claim holds–and there is no currently known evidence to contradict it as the prosecution’s investigator has testified–all else is moot. DeeDee, who wasn’t there and who may have heard only a ‘bump,” and something about grass, and who wasn’t meaningfully asked to explain even that, certainly can’t testify to any act imminently dangerous to another. And if DeeDee can be believed, the only thing she heard someone–she can’t testify who it was–saying was “what are you doin’ ‘round here?” and that in response to Martin’s initiating the conversation. This is hardly evidence of a depraved mind regardless of human life.
DeeDee can’t even place Zimmerman there. She cannot establish a motive, nor can she establish opportunity or means.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
DeeDee’s credibility is utterly shot. She can do nothing but harm the prosecution, and the prosecution has only itself to blame. Corey and de la Rionda seem to have been coordinating this prosecution with the Scheme Team–who lobbied for Zimmerman’s arrest–from the beginning of its involvement with the case. Such coordination was not only unethical, it could do nothing but prejudice the case by inflaming the court of public opinion, which was clearly the Scheme Team’s goal. Professional, ethical prosecutors take pains to avoid entanglement with lawyers who might have designs on civil suits, and particularly those who seek to rouse public sentiment about a case. Such involvement raises all manner of ethical issues and the very real potential for undue influence, makes jury selection horrendously difficult if not impossible, and risks the obstruction of justice.
It is clear that the Scheme Team was involved in de la Rionda’s interviews of Martin’s parents and DeeDee, and it’s entirely likely they were present for those interviews. It is also possible they discussed matters with these people before, during, and after the tape stopped rolling. Anyone recording a witness must ensure that the tape never stops rolling and that everything said is faithfully recorded. Crump has had to submit documents to the court explaining multiple interruptions in his interview with DeeDee.
What may have happened is Corey and de la Rionda allowed their egos and their political ambitions to take possession of their legal judgment. Involved deeply with the Scheme Team from the start, they were willing to uncritically follow their lead, which took them to DeeDee and de la Rionda’s disastrous interview with her, an interview that should have been done by investigators, never a prosecutor.
I suspect the prosecution knows it is in real trouble in many ways. I also suspect that Corey’s ego will not allow her to back down, and like the Duke LaCrosse case, this will end very badly for Corey, de la Rionda and others connected with this case. Confident, ethical prosecutors do not force the defense to go to court for every little bit of discovery. They are delighted to freely provide it because they know it will convince the defense of the strength of their case.
During my police service, working with prosecutors, I often delivered and summarized updates to my cases to defense attorneys. They were glad to have the information, but less than happy about the additional evidence damning their clients.
In cases like this, ethical prosecutors would not only have quickly informed the defense that DeeDee was caught in lies, they would likely have dismissed the case. In very real ways, unless they are concealing additional, highly relevant evidence, evidence due the defense–that’s always a real possibility with this prosecutor–DD was their star witness, the only witness who could shed any light even slightly favorable to the prosecution on what happened. Without DeeDee, they have only Zimmerman’s account, an account they’ve admitted they can’t contradict, and the several eye and ear witnesses whose testimony also supports Zimmerman’s account. Even the FBI’s investigation has apparently absolutely contradicted the racialist narrative.
It would be wise to keep in mind one additional thought, a thought I’m sure Mark O’Mara cannot possibly fail to have had: DeeDee has already committed perjury. The prosecution has been forced to admit it in court. This puts them in a severe ethical bind. Their star witness is a perjurer. There is no denying it, no covering it up. Ethical, professional prosecutors would be bound to prosecute her, yet doing so would absolutely and finally destroy any shred of credibility she might yet retain. Ms. Corey and her staff have not yet show any shred of ethical probity.
When this case is over, DeeDee’s perjury won’t be forgotten, the special prosecutor won’t be around to protect her from prosecution, and she did it not as a juvenile–another lie propounded either by her or by Crump–she did it at the age of 18, as an adult. She might well be persuaded to tell the entire truth about things, as a means of avoiding future prosecution or at the least, mitigating punishment. That truth has the potential to be very damaging for those behind the narrative and the prosecution. I’ve little doubt this is much on the minds of Ms. Corey and Mr. de la Rionda.
And as you’ve seen in this article and Update 11, the prosecution had nothing with DeeDee to begin with. It was Crump who claimed that DeeDee’s “evidence” was prima facie proof of Zimmerman’s guilt–and it was this supposed “evidence” that almost entirely backed the prosecution’s decision to charge Zimmerman–but when she went on the record with de la Rionda after Zimmerman’s arrest, that “evidence” evaporated. One way or another, DeeDee is going to blow up in the prosecution’s collective faces yet again. For the defense, she really is the gift that keeps on giving.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Just the one phrase, ” I heard the grass.” should be enough to ruin her testimony. Earlier, I said it was poetical. It is more than that. Who hears grass? What does the sound grass make? It makes one think the phone was on the grass and the grass was so loud that Dee Dee could hear it growing. Poetical but not a “sound” testimony for Dee Dee.
My question is: how did this chase-around-the-complex ending-at father’s-house become the version of events when it is so contradicted by the evidence?
Zimmerman wrote the first saw Trayvon using a cut through by Franke Taafe’s house while doing what some describe as casing houses. Zimmerman never specifically used that verbiage, and eventually boiled down the suspicious activity to casually walking and looking into homes. In any case, Franke T’s place is on the opposite end of the complex from where Trayvon was eventually shot.
Mark –
Your concluding sentence is irrelevant to the point you seem to be making at the beginning. You also omit several points to Zimmerman’s rationale for concluding that Trayvon Martin appeared suspicious. He was loitering between two residences in the rain; he didn’t appear to be en route to anywhere; he was not dressed as if he was out for exercise; he was doing all this in a housing complex that had about 30 reported crimes (including 7 burglaries) in the past 10-12 months (according to the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office). Now, concerning where the shooting took place – it was along the most direct route FROM that initial observation point to Brandi Greene’s residence. If you were trying to imply something odd about where Trayvon was shot in relation to where he was first observed, you fail.
Excuse me, Mark – my comment was meant for RuleofOrder, who routinely ignores compelling evidence, and just as frequently inflates irrelevancies.
Dear Mark Martinson:
This is a central part of the narrative. The evidence–ironically even DeeDee’s statement to BDLR–indicates Martin did not run home when he had the chance, but either hid in the area of the “T” and waited for Zimmerman to return, or perhaps ran some distance toward his father’s home, and reversed his course, again, putting himself at or near the “T” to approach and attack Zimmerman. If this is so–and there is no evidence to say otherwise or to support the narrative–the narrative of an evil white-hispanic man, far taller and heavier than Martin, chased Martin, who was fleeing for his life clutching his tea and Skittles–the narrative must be false. Fame and fortunes hang on that narrative, and it will not be easily–if ever–abandoned.
One thing you may have missed, Mike, is that (according to the transcript below) she tells BDLR that she’d already lost the connection with TM and that she tried calling him back. THEN she adds additional things that she supposedly “heard” after she already admitted that she tried calling him back and got NO ANSWER!
This case is so full of lies, it’s hard to keep them all straight!!
BDLR is a HORRIBLE interviewer and Dee Dee is a HORRIBLE “witness”.
_________________________________________________________
Dee Dee: And I call Trayvon…’Trayvon, wha’s goin’ on, whas goin’ on?’
BDLR: This is you saying that…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: Then..I callin’ him…he didn’t answer.
BDLR: No answer from Trayvon.
Dee Dee: Yeah..and I hear, I hear a sound like “bump.” You cou’ hear that Trayvon bump…somebody bumped Trayvon, ’cause I could hear the grass.
BDLR: OK, so you could hear that there was something going on…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: Like something hitting something?
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK.
Dee Dee: You could hear..I could hear the grass thing.
BDLR: Out of the…
Dee Dee: Yeah…
BDLR: …I guess out of the speaker…out of the…
Dee Dee: Yeah.
BDLR: OK, and then what happened?
Dee Dee: And then…I was still screaming, I was saying, ‘Trayvon, ‘ ‘Trayvon’…
BDLR: And there was no response?
Dee Dee: Yeah, and next thing I hear…and next thing, the phone just shut off.
BDLR: The phone shut off?
Dee Dee: It just shut off.
BDLR: OK, did you hear any kind of screamings like ‘Help me’ or anything like that?
Dee Dee: No.
BDLR: OK. Did you hear any kind of shot?
Dee Dee: No.
BDLR: OK. When the phone shut off, did you try calling back?
Dee Dee: I try calling back like 3 or 2 times.
BDLR: OK, did you ever get any response?
Dee Dee: No, and text [unintelligible]…”
__________________________________________
As i read and re-read the critical parts of that interview, I am personally convinced that BDLR’s compound questions and complete lack of duly diligent follow-up questions was an intentional tactic, and not a result of mere incompetence.
Note that every question provides a shield of plausible deniability for Witness 8, and BDLR does not follow up, thereby avoiding any requirement for Witness 8 to clarify her meaning.
Witness 8 will go quietly into the night. She will not be charged with perjury. (And, because of the way the interview was conducted, I do not believe that she should or would be convicted, even if charged.) Two weeks from tomorrow, I will be surprised if we see that her name makes the final witness list.
BDLR is a well respected prosecutor of murder cases in Jacksonville. I think he knows how to do a good interview and ask appropriate follow ups.
I few of the obvious follow-ups: (1) how often did the phone go out; (2) how long was the conversation from the time TM started running until the phone went dead; (3) did TM ever say he couldn’t get home because the door was locked or he was lost.
The defense will be deposing W8 soon. The deposition will probably last all day, if not longer.
Dear Mr. Martinson – You claim that Bernie de la Rionda is a “well respected prosecutor of murder cases in Jacksonville.”
In 1988, de la Rionda prosecuted a woman named Delores Lynn Blok. She was convicted of manslaughter for leaving her child in a car on a hot day. Her conviction was reversed a year later by the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.They ruled that the prosecution had not proven a prima facie case of criminal conduct.
In 1996, de la Rionda prosecuted a murder case in which the defendant, serial killer Gary Ray Bowles was represented by a public defender and pleaded guilty.
Now, I don’t know de la Rionda’s prosecutorial history, but according to the FBI’s website, in his 27 years experience he has 250 jury trials, 67 of which were homicide cases.
If the two cases I mentioned above are any indication, though, this guy’s success has come mostly against under-funded public defender’s – many of whose clients plead guilty, or convictions that are overturned on appeal. Does he actually win any cases where the defense attorney is in private practice? Do his convictions routinely get overturned on appeal?
Methinks he is accustomed to working in an atmosphere where the costs are all paid for by the taxpayer, and he doesn’t have to worry about how much money he wastes – like when he prosecuted Delores Bok, and now in THIS case.
I also think he is out of his element when he is facing a competent attorney. Respected prosecutor of murder cases? Why???
she said she got disconnected and she called him back and she started asking him trayvon trayvon whats going on. She never said he did not answer the phone. she said he did answer her , then she started hearing things on the phone.
All they need from dee is her phone records and her statement that she was the last person trayvon talked to. her life story. NO NO
A group on facebook transcribed as best we could Mr. Crump’s recording of W8 on March 19th. A PDF of the transcription can be found here:
http://sdrv.ms/WD0AVX
I find it incredible that Mr. Crump didn’t notify the Sanford Police or FDLE when he learned of W8 and let professional investigators look into the matter.
Instead he chose to interview her himself over the phone, in the presence of the press.
Throughout the recording, Mr. Crump can be heard whispering over W8’s statement. An Unknown Male voice says ok which appears to signal W8 to stop talking a few times throughout the recording.
Recently, ABC News updated their online story of the March 20th press release advising of W8 to add a portion of the recording that was not submitted to the defense. It appears to be the 3rd segment of recordings. Why this version, isn’t on the recording that Mr. Crump submitted needs to be answered.
In her original telling of the story, found on the ABC Clip, W8 does say the initial verbal confrontation was done by Trayvon Martin. “What you following me for?” She then hears “What you talking about?” Mr. Crump leads here into changing it to “What you doing around here?” She says Trayvon started to explain himself and on the recording an unknown male voice says “Ok” and she stops talking.
In clip 6 of what Mr. Crump submitted, he asks her about not going to the wake. She says “He didn’t call back so I thought, okay, he done knocked the phone on the grass, cause I thought it was a fight. And then, and then the next day” The recording abruptly ends.
In clip 7, Crump starts off saying “Say if loud and say it slow” We don’t hear the question.
This recording left no doubt in my mind that Mr. Crump had talked to this witness prior to recording the telephone interview. He reminds her that today she said told him she would tell the whole story, (in clip 2) and he talks about how she sounded clearer on the phone. So he decides to call her back on his phone. That leaves me with the impression he had already talked to her on his phone.
W8 provides too much detail of known facts that you just can’t picture Trayvon telling her. For example, I put my hoodie on. At one point, she said he put his jacket on. Why would he describe that to her? However, Trayvon is seeing GZ watching him from a truck. I can’t see Trayvon telling her that was a car. She repeatedly refers to GZ’s vehicle as a car.
I’m left with the impression this witness was coached and that the State of Florida is not seeking the truth in this case. As Mr. O’Mara said of this case, the irony is rich. A group of civil lawyers have tramped all over an individual’s civil rights to get an arrest and a “show trial”. I’m deeply angered by this.
By the way *waves* Hi, Nettles! Good to see you. :)
Hi Chip! Great to see you as well :)
I have looked everywhere for you and was so sorry to see you leave the TH. I always enjoyed your in depth knowledge and insight into this case and missed your respectful thoughtful comments so it’s nice to catch up with you again. Where else do you hang out?
Hi Jordan!
I’ve been trying to post on Talk Left but I fear if I don’t figure out how to post a html formatted link, I’m not going to last long there either :)
I can be found on the facebook debate page of GZ/TM supporters. I post using my real profile, Annette Elaine Kelly. You can find me there and if debating isn’t your thing, feel free to message me on facebook. http://www.facebook.com/GzVsTmDebateCenter
The two elements of Witness 8’s testimony that absolutely corroborate Zimmerman’s statements:
1) She states that Martin claims he “lost” Zimmerman
2) She states that Martin verbally accosted Zimmerman
We know that the altercation started near the sidewalk “T”, and not 380 feet away, near Brandi Green’s back porch, based on the location of the fight debris, and the locations of the various witnesses. Thus, based on Witness 8’s testimony we know that, after “losing” Zimmerman, Martin either waited near the sidewalk “T” or (worse) circled back to the sidewalk “T”, and that Martin, not Zimmerman, initiated the confrontation.
The defense could stake its self-defense claim on these points alone, and win acquittal at trial, if not immunity before trial (assuming the system exercises constitutional jurisprudence, rather than political witch hunts).
Although W8’s testimony corroborates Zimmerman’s statements, I still question whether she heard any of this. I think it’s just as likely that everything she said could have flowed from what she heard in the media and also some general story that the altercation happened near the house. Perhaps she heard TM say “I’m running home” and then nothing after that. She’d assume upon hearing that he was shot that he didn’t make it home in time. Her narrative (to the extent that she has one) consists of a walk/run home and just not making it in time. BDLR should have asked her how long she thinks the entire chase lasted.
W8 says she kept encouraging Trayvon to go home. Why would she need to do that, if it was his intent to go home?
Well, I could imagine someone saying “go home, go home” But combined with the account that Trayvon was walking when he should have been running, it’s a little suspicious.
The affidavit of probably cause says GZ followed TM “through the complex.” I think the state will argue that GZ chased him to the house, TM tried to lose him by heading toward the T, and at some point (probably near where the body was found) started an altercation. Of course this is contrary to all the evidence.
There’s no such thing as Probably Cause, just FYI.
True, but most people understand that he meant “Probable Cause” as opposed to “Probably Cause” when he wrote it. BTW, no one likes a grammar nazi, FYI.
Mr. Martinson – the State can argue anything they want. If they argue that Zimmerman chased Trayvon Martin through the complex. I would like them to answer the following while they do:
1. If Zimmerman chased Martin, why did he not do so until Martin disappeared to the south? At that point, Martin was 125-150ft away. Why did he wait?
2. If Zimmerman was chasing Martin, how does one explain the calm voice while speaking with the dispatcher for the two minutes that were remaining on the phone call AFTER Martin disappeared?
3. If Zimmerman was chasing Martin, why did Zimmerman take 25 (+/-) seconds to reach the “T” from his car – that’s slow walking speed, in case you didn’t know.
4. If Zimmerman walked to the “T” (and he did), Martin could walked slowly and been been halfway to Brandi Green’s condo by the time Zimmerman reached the “T”. But that’s not what happened, because their encounter began AT the “T”. Why was Martin anywhere NEAR the “T”, is he was scared and running, as Dee Dee claims? The answer should be obvious.
The prosecution will flounder miserably – this is a case that will forever taint and minimize de la Rionda and Angela Corey…
GZ saw martin turn down the T he admitted – he lied about he didn’t know where he went – and yes he did run from clubhouse, GZ knock on jermery door on the 911 tape and talk to him. then he went around building were he saw martin coming out of hiding and confronted him.
GOD, you’re not very bright!!
You wrote: “GZ saw martin turn down the T he admitted – he lied about he didn’t know where he went – and yes he did run from clubhouse, GZ knock on jermery door on the 911 tape and talk to him. then he went around building were he saw martin coming out of hiding and confronted him.”
1. Zimmerman told the dispatcher he saw Martin run toward the back entrance (i.e., to the south from the “T”. Does that mean he knew Martin’s EXACT destination? NO! Just his direction, which he had pointed out.
2. Who ran from the clubhouse??? NO ONE!
3. Zimmerman knocked on “Jeremy’s” door? By Jeremy, do you mean Witness #20? The same guy who (along with his wife) swore under oath that they didn’t look outside, step outside or do ANYTHING concerning what was happening outside? The same guy who says he and his wife didn’t open their triple-locked back door, and who only went outside via the FRONT door AFTER police had arrived? You are claiming Zimmerman knocked on their door? STUPID!!
4. So, Zimmerman went around the house and confronted Martin who had come out of hiding?
We agree on ONE thing – that Martin was hiding, and came out of hiding. Otherwise you have no evidence of ANYthing you wrote…you’re just kinda dumb.
@idilla:
How is that a lie? Martin turned down the dog walk from the “T”, and Zimmerman didn’t know where he went, because after Martin turned south from the “T”, Zimmerman couldn’t see him anymore.
Dude, lay off the mushrooms next time you listen to the call recordings.
I suppose now is where you tell me that you can also hear a cockatoo?
Again: where is the evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin, and not the other way around?
Nettles, I found this exchange specially interesting, it also came from the ABC clip, I think Gutman picked-up on it as well as it is implied in his reporting, yet it is no where else.
“Trayvon, unintelligible, the man He bout to beat him, so I say Trayvon go home”.
If you interpret this to mean that TM was afraid the man was going to hurt him, that’s significant, it would show that TM was scared of the man(GZ). This instrumental to the charge of Murder 2. Guttman pick-up on it, he reported it as TM was scared of GZ before GZ cornered him. Yet this is not mentioned anywhere else on any other recording. On the other hand if you interpret that as I do that when she said “Trayvon, unintelligible, the man He(Trayvon) bout to beat him(GZ), so I say Trayvon go home” then this changes, as it means that TM went “from the back” towards GZ with the intent to hurt GZ. It also begs the question of why is she telling TM go home if he was already heading home, as she said earlier. Not an innocent statement anymore, and contradicts what she says later. Which to me is the reason there’s no follow-up on this. BDLR asked her in his interview did TM tell you he was scared? That was an opening to quote TM, instead she talks about lowering his voice and other non-sense.
I thought the same thing and I wondered if that sentence “Trayvon, unintelligible, the man he about to beat him, so I say Trayvon go home” is the reason this clip is not on the file that was submitted to FDLE.
By all accounts, they used 2 cell phones to record the entire thing. In Mr. Crump’s affidavit he said multiple phones were used.
It is not consistent that if TM was scared, he refused to run. “He ain’t gonna run”.
We know that for at least 2 minutes, TM was lost to GZ. How did GZ make up that ground? According to W8, neither was running. Both were walking fast.
The day after this telephone interview took place, Mr. Crump did his presser. At the 9:03 mark, Mr. Crump admits that Trayvon tried to look into George’s car.
W8 didn’t give that statement during this recording. Where did that come from? Both Mr. Crump and Mr. G. Zimmerman say Trayvon came close to George’s car.
That too is not consistent with a scared boy.
I believe that if the family knew they would not think anything of it, several family members are on record saying that GZ deserved the beating for following TM. Attorney Parks said on live TV during a Hannity interview. The thing is I think Crump or someone else pointed out that if TM went back with the intention of beating GZ their case crumbles, and they avoid that part, maybe erase it on their tapes but could not from the ABC tapes.
I agree. I think W8 did tell the family what she heard and they pressed on anyway. They feel they are “owed” and if the Zimmerman family get their lives trashed using lies and twisting facts, it is o.k. because after all, George did kill Trayvon. Justifiably or not….someone has to pay.
I miss your comments at the Tree, which sites do you visit, we can talk there.
hey folks you can always come across to my site and have a conversation. I miss all of you.
At the end of the day, all our discussions may be moot. I cannot fathom DeeDee showing up for a deposition. The larger question on my mind is who will announce that and how will they explain it.
I am also still troubled by the lack of evidence proving conclusively that she was actually on the phone with Trayvon during the moments before the shooting. As far as I know no “official”phone records or ping logs have ever been produced for that time frame except for a copy and paste job by Crump.
There is also a cloud of mystery surrounding Trayvon’s phone(s,) Was there one or two phones? And where are the complete records and ping logs for them? How is it possible that the specific information for 2/26 has vanished? Too many more questions for now but I bet others have them, too.
O’Mara does not appear to be concerned as witnessed by the absence of additional depos demanding this and other discovery including the full toxicology report.
I guess it’s possible he has those things but I find it odd that he ain’t talking. Aren’t we entitled to know?
Does the possibility of a Richardson hearing still exist?
I, for one, am disappointed that O’Mara might abandon the immunity hearing to which George is certainly entitled. Nelson would have never given him two weeks for it anyway and I suspect it could be accomplished in 2, maybe 3 days. What are the actual risks in doing that?
It will be interesting now to see if someone spills the beans and exposes the corruption and lies that are irreversible. Who will go first?
I have asked a lot of questions but the folks here appear knowledgeable enough to help me with some intelligent answers so thanks for any assistance.
Wolverines.
Dear Jordan2222:
Good questions. Keep in mind that the justice system works primarily informally. Lawyers–and judges–conduct much of their business off the record as a way of doing routine business. That O’Mara may not have petitioned the court for a given bit of discovery or a given deposition probably means nothing more than that he has not yet exhausted his informal resources and still has hopes of accomplishing his objectives without having to petition the judge to order it. The public would not normally be aware of most working of the system unless and until they are put on the record.
I suspect DeeDee was actually on the phone with Martin, and for a considerable period of time, on the day he died. The rest, including the accuracy and truthfulness of her testimony, is very much up in the air. I suspect we’ll discover in short order that her age and a phantom visit to the hospital are far from the only things about which she may have lied. Keep in mind the possibility of DeeDee invoking the 5th amendment. Wouldn’t that be a charming development!
Actually, no, we aren’t entitled to know all of the facts the Defense knows in defending a case. This case is bizarre in a variety of ways, but one of the most bizarre aspects is that normally, it is the prosecution that avoids engaging the media, and that does all it can to keep from revealing its case to the public to avoid prejudicing a jury pool. In this case, the roles have been almost entirely reversed. It is wise of O’Mara to hold his cards close to the vest in this case, particularly as he is more than aware that everything is not only being exposed in the real court, but in the court of public opinion.
No doubt, O’Mara will continue to petition the court for discovery as long as the prosecution continues to hide, slow roll, and lie about such materials.
As I’ve noted, by not having an immunity hearing, the principal benefit for the defense is that the prosecution will not have the benefit of a preview of the defense case and strategy prior to a trial. If the judge did not dismiss at the immunity hearing–and that’s likely given the political dimensions of this case–O’Mara would have given the prosecution a tactical advantage without obtaining any upside for his client.
Who will tell the truth first? Many are building up what may potentially be substantial professional and/or criminal liabilities through their own egos and stupidity, but it’s hard to predict where any of this will be going. I simply don’t know the people or the Florida system well enough to make such predictions.
Thanks again, and wolverines indeed.
Thank you for your detailed reply. I have now become convinced that O’Mara made the right call by foregoing the immunity hearing although he reserved the right to do that later. I suspect that Nelson would only give him 2 or 3 days to do that if he chose, because I do not believe she ever intended to give him 2 weeks.
One more question: Realistically, how much actual influence does the BGI have in this and do you believe that Nelson ever really meets with the DOJ-CRS before any of these hearings?
Dear Jordan2222:
Would you please clarify the acronyms “BGI” and “DOJ-CRS” for me? Acronyms are flying fast and thick in this case, and I want to be certain I’m speaking about the right people/entities.
Black Grievance Industry (aka Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Ben Jealous and others)
More here but also worth a google search:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/category/bgi-black-grievance-industry/
USDOJ: Community Relations Service – Department of Justice
http://www.justice.gov/crs/
Dear Jordan2222:
Ah! Now I see what you mean. This is pretty simple. I tend to refer to the “BGI” as the “Racial Grievance Industry.” In any case, they thrive on racial strife and shaking down government and corporations. We can depend upon them to milk every dollar and bit of publicity possible. Should they provoke riots, should property be destroyed and people injured or killed, that’s just the small price we pay for their efforts at establishing perfect “social justice.”
The Department of Justice is another matter. On one hand, the FBI’s report apparently completely cleared Zimmerman of any hint of racism. However, this is the most corrupt and racially biased DOJ in history. In fact, the DOJ’s Inspector General released a report only last week, particularly focusing on the the voting rights section of the DOJ, exposing rampant racism and corruption. The DOJ can file charges of many kinds against Zimmerman, but I suspect they’ll wait until after the trial in Florida. If he is acquitted, I think it likely the DOJ will file as many charges as they possibly can and try to run with the headlines to the advantage of Democrats and Mr. Obama. They could do this because federal jurisdiction is separate from state jurisdiction, and trying Zimmerman essentially twice for the same offense, using the same evidence and same witnesses, isn’t double jeopardy. It sounds crazy, but it’s true. There is no downside for racialist zealots at the DOJ i filing against Zimmerman, regardless of a complete lack of evidence. Their pockets are bottomless–it’s all taxpayer money–and they’ll throw so many charges at Zimmerman he might be convicted on only 1 of 100, but still do many years in jail while allowing the racial grievance industry to tack a hide to their trophy wall.
Thomas Perez, the head of the Voting Section not only lied to Congress, but presided over the corruption outlined in the AG’s report. For his good works, Mr. Obama has nominated him to be the Secretary of Labor. Mr. Obama has, to date, lived down to my worst expectations. I expect no more of him in this case.
I’ve been trying to post on Talk Left but I fear if I don’t figure out how to post a html formatted link, I’m not going to last long there either :)
I can be found on the facebook debate page of GZ/TM supporters. I post using my real profile, Annette Elaine Kelly. You can find me there and if debating isn’t your thing, feel free to message me on facebook. http://www.facebook.com/GzVsTmDebateCenter
Aussie, I will check out your page. Thanks!
I have a facebook account but rarely use it for lack of knowledge but my family and friends visit there
https://www.facebook.com/#!/wayne.matthews.16503?fref=ts
. My real name is Wayne Matthews. I do however, know how to paste a link. I just copy it from the url in the web browser and paste into the body of the text like this:
The decision not to hold the immunity hearing before the trial was a hard one, I’m sure. Put yourself in George Zimmerman’s shoes for a minute. He needs a public airing of everything, inside a courtroom, for the general public to understand why the shooting was justified. There’s way too much misinformation out there about his case. However, the judge for reasons known only to herself appears to be fast-tracking and not giving the time needed to prepare for both. The defense has limited time and limited money.
There is heavy pressure on this Judge at an immunity hearing and while most George Zimmerman supporters will tell you the evidence screams for a favorable ruling, the reality is it is too much pressure on one person. Judge Nelson doesn’t have what it takes to make the call. From what I’m hearing no judge would. So consensus is, the defense will not prevail in getting a decision from a lone person. They can appeal but the trial still proceeds full steam ahead. Potential Jurors will be hearing he failed to prove his case as they are being selected for jury duty.
Now that the decision has been made to have a trial, GZ gets a chance to have the public airing and he now has a judge who is not under so much pressure. I’m looking to see a leveling once again of the rulings. There is no reason for her not to ensure that GZ is given every opportunity to present his defense and be given everything in discovery before trial. The defense has taken a huge weight off this Judge.
She is the judge for the NBC suit as well as any other civil cases as this is her last criminal matter.
Almost immediately, I saw a change in the judge. When BDLR stood up and tried to imply the defense had waived it’s right to an immunity hearing, she was quick to correct him. No, this stick is still in their bag of tricks.
Also, now the defense can watch the State put on their case and see what they have. In all likelihood, we may not hear another word from GZ until after the trial is over. At an immunity hearing when asking for a favorable judgement due to self-defense, almost always the defendant should testify to give a compelling argument why self-defense is so. Often they are the only witness to everything and credibility is key.
I believe the State was “banking” on that and wanted to use whatever advantage they could from that testimony in GZ’s trial. With going directly to trial, the defense now has the luxury of deciding AFTER seeing the State’s case, if GZ on the stand is more likely to help or could possibly hurt the case against him and makes a decision accordingly. George also gets the much needed public airing of the evidence to bring those in the public up to reality on the facts of the case. Just today, on a Roland Martin clip, the woman on his panel called George a murder. Hard to believe this is going on in America. http://youtu.be/aumEHPBiMNo BDLR was “bewildered” and I’m certain he now has to reconfigure his strategy.
Another added bonus to delaying any immunity hearing is having to hire the experts for one hearing not two. Once this trial is done, GZ may not need an immunity hearing b/c no one in their right mind would sue when the facts are known.
The vibe I am getting is this was a very smart move by the defense, giving their constraints; time and money. Next up they are deposing W8 and the Martin family. Stay tuned. I predict things are going to get quite interesting.
Dear Nettles18:
Thanks for your accurate and insightful comment!
Jordan,
As I understand it, the phone records are protected so what the State and the defense have will remain private unless and until they convince the Judge they need to submit them into evidence. What we do know from the discovery motions, is that the GPS coordinates were missing for Feb. 26th along with the chain of custody log for the travels Trayvon’s phone appears to have gone on. Just before the Feb. 5th hearing started, I heard BDLR hand Mr. O’Mara the 12th Supplemental discovery that is suppose to have the GPS data in it. The Judge did order in that hearing that the chain of custody documents be given to the defense by Feb. 8th and the defense posted it on the website on the same day they got it, Feb. 8th. http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0213/response_motion_discovery_cell.pdf
You may recall we all discussed this as it appears there is a huge hole in the timeline for the phone and a flip-phone was said to have been returned to the evidence lock-up after the phone travels.
To date, neither Mr. Crump nor BDLR has shown any interest in verifying that W8 was the actual person on the phone. We know from discovery, BDLR had the phone records subpoena on the same day he took her statement. 6 hours before she sat down with him, Simple Mobile informed the State there was no subscriber listed to that phone number. So the phone could have been anyone’s. It will be left, as so much of the investigation of this case has been, to once again on the shoulders of the small overworked defense team to ascertain that this girl is attached to this phone.
http://s311.beta.photobucket.com/user/TalkLeft/media/zimmerman/fdlereport.jpg.html#/user/TalkLeft/media/zimmerman/fdlereport.jpg.html?&_suid=136313720782002985017270829911
Like you, I don’t think she will say much more. I expect to hear problems with taking her deposition. As the state has promised to get W8 to her deposition can they be held in contempt or sanctioned if they fail to do so?
Dear Nettles 18:
Welcome to SMM and thanks for your informed, intelligent commentary. It’s much appreciated.
Depositions are generally like any other activity conducted under subpoena. I’m not sure whether DeeDee has actually been issued a subpoena for her deposition, but as the prosecution has promised the court to make her available, they could easily be held in contempt for failure to do as they have promised. However, courts are generally very reluctant to hold officers of the court in contempt.
If she has not been subpoenaed and the prosecution does not turn her over as promised, the next obvious step would be for O’Mara to inform the court and ask for a subpoena, which the court would surely grant. Once served on DeeDee, should she fail to do as the subpoena directs, the court could and likely would have her arrested and brought before the court to show cause why she should not be held in contempt.
The interesting part is that DeeDee could not refuse to sit down with O’Mara for a deposition, but she could simply invoke the 5th Amendment and refuse to say anything. Wouldn’t that be grand? A supposedly non-culpable and disinterested witness invoking the 5th? As I noted, DeeDee is the exploding gift that just keeps exploding in the prosecutor’s face.
Should she invoke the 5th, in a rational system of justice, that would make it far more likely she would be prosecuted for perjury. Whether the Florida system of justice is rational remains to be seen.
Thanks again!
So a charge of perjury is the “penalty” if she were to invoke the 5th amendment?
“Should she invoke the 5th, in a rational system of justice, that would make it far more likely she would be prosecuted for perjury.”
Wouldn’t that also require a continuance of the trial until she complies?
If not, this would be exactly what the State wants. I say that because I believe they would prefer that she disappears entirely.
I thought I read somewhere that Crump said she had her own attorney, but cannot confirm that. Do you know if she does?
Dear Jordon2222:
Please allow me to clarify a few points. DeeDee has every right to take the 5th; we all do. No citizen taking the 5th, particularly in a criminal matter, may be in any way harmed for so doing. The right against self-incrimination is one of our fundamental liberties.
The problem for the prosecution–if that occurred–is the embarrassment of having its prize witness taking the 5th rather than testifying openly and honestly. This is particularly so because she has not–as yet–been charged with committing any crime. She would face no prosecution or penalty for taking the 5th.
My assertion is, however, that if she did that, other, ethical prosecutors would surely want to look more closely at her and her involvement, particularly considering the current special prosecutors have had to admit she already committed perjury in this matter. Any charges against her for perjury would be a separate, future matter.
Again, if this happened, it would not delay the trial, but would make the prosecutors look extraordinarily foolish, and would also make an ethical Florida bar carefully investigate the conduct of the prosecutors. She would get a pass on testifying only because she would be making it clear that the entirety of her testimony would consist of taking the 5th. The judge would likely ask her if that was her intention, and if she said it was, would excuse her. She cannot be held in contempt for taking the 5th, nor would there be any continuance in the trial.
I don’t know if she has her own attorney at the moment, but would not be the least surprised. I would not be surprised at all if such an attorney was a member of the Scheme Team.
Nettles18
Thanks, as always, for your insight. Mike says she could be charged if she takes the fifth and refuses to answer questions so IDK.
Would that delay that trial or give the State a pass or her having to testify?
Thanks Mr. McDaniel. I’ve enjoyed your updates on this case and most especially refer to update 11 (KABOOM) a lot. Great work there! Thank you.
Dear Nettles 18:
You’re very kind, and “Mike” will do nicely, thanks.
Hey Mike, can you please correct the tile from “Matin”to “Martin.”
Regards
Dear itsMichaelNotMike:
Arrgggh! Done. Thanks for the catch. It’s so hard to be purfekt.
After 25 years of litigation, mostly in fed court, I KNOW that MOM West deliberated long and hard with the Zimmerman family on what to do.
Heck, I have spent hours in discussion with clients on whether to proceed with a court or jury trial.
When I call it right, the client thinks I can walk on water. When a bad call, I second guess the decision for the remainder of my life.
MOM West will make the same motion to dismiss, except waiting until the State is done with its case in chief requires the State to reveal all its cards.
If MOM West filed a SEPARATE motion to dismiss that would: A) educate prosecutors on the defense strategy; and B) Give the State two bites of the apple.
So this is a good call. Keep Angela guessing.
It seems to me that the defense is making a calculated strategy based upon burdens of proof. The decision is between proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) at a pre-trial hearing versus making the state prove NOT self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. While the preponderance of the evidence standard is the easiest one to meet, the judge has already telegraphed her decision to deny the pre-trial motion (by focusing on jury selection and seating arrangements at the trial.) The judge may change that bias later on though, because she seemed more amenable to defense requests after the W8 fiasco. It may be a good strategy to put the burden on the state, because it is the hardest one to meet. That seems to be why BDLR exclaimed that he was “bewildered.” The state has lots of work to do in order to meet that burden.
In addition, the strategy also seems useful in that gz will not have to testify at the pre-trial hearing and give away his case. Likewise, prospective jurors will know if he failed to prove self-defense and perhaps be biased by that.
All in all, it seems that the burden one way or the other is now squarely on the state. Best of luck!
I’m sorry if this seems like a stupid question, but how can the prosecution proceed without calling W8?
In the affidavit for probable cause, it states “Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.”
This obviously never made much sense, since if he was trying to return to his home with any real effort, he would have gotten there before Zimmerman was off the phone, but at least with W8’s testimony (garbled as it is), there is some indication that he was trying to do that. Without it, how does anyone know what he was doing or trying to do?
And if there’s no evidence that he was trying to return home, what evidence is there that Zimmerman “continued to follow” him? It doesn’t seem like there’s any at all.
Another, probably more minor point is when it says that Zimmerman “didn’t want the person who he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime” to get away. But, without W8’s testimony, we now have no evidence at all of what Martin was actually up to. I suppose there isn’t any evidence that he was about to commit a crime, but there’s no evidence that he wasn’t, either, so how can they say that his assumption was “false”, rather than simply “unfounded”?
So if they don’t call W8, then it would seem that they have no evidence for one of the major parts of their affidavit for probable cause. What happens then? What happens if the prosecution can’t even prove that they ever had probable cause to bring charges against him in the first place? I would certainly hope that there is some sort of recourse that could be taken if the prosecution can’t even present probable cause for filing charges, but then not dropping the charges once they become aware of this.
Thanks in advance to anyone who has more legal knowledge than I do, who is willing to clarify this.
Dear HammerHead:
Welcome to SMM and thanks for your good questions.
In the affidavit, which is one of the most legally inept documents I’ve ever seen, the prosecution is calling assumptions facts, facts not in evidence. Martin obviously did not return to his home. You’re quite right that if he really intended to go home, he would have been indoors and dry long before Zimmerman could have had any hope of catching up to him. DeeDee’s (W8) interview with de la Rionda suggests that Martin told her he was running for home, and she claims to have repeatedly encouraged him to do that, but he told her he was not going to do it. Without specifically saying that Martin told her he was hiding to wait for Zimmerman, or that he doubled back from somewhere near his father’s home so as to confront Zimmerman, she places him at the “T” of the sidewalks where the attack began.
The evidence is that Zimmerman “followed” Martin only to the extent that he was trying to keep him in sight to direct the police he believed might arrive at any moment to him. There was no hot pursuit, no active chase with Zimmerman hoping to tackle or otherwise stop Martin. Every indication is that he was merely trying to do as the dispatcher asked him to do: relay what Martin was doing. There is, as you note, no evidence to the contrary.
Regarding the assertion in the affidavit that Zimmerman falsely assumed Martin was going to commit a crime, again, that’s an example of the prosecution making things up out of thin air. Zimmerman has consistently said only that Martin appeared to be acting suspiciously, which was why he immediately called the police. There is no evidence Zimmerman made such an assumption, and even if he had, given the outcome of the confrontation, no rational way to know what Martin intended or was contemplating. DeeDee’s statements are, to put it mildly, less than reliable.
There was no probable cause in the affidavit to sustain the charge, yet the judge issued an arrest warrant based on that affidavit. Prosecutors can’t generally be prosecuted for mistakes in charging, but depending on everything else that occurs in this case, may violate the ethical code for lawyers in Florida and might be disciplined in some way. I don’t know enough of the Florida bar and its reputation for integrity in these matters to venture a guess on the possibility of such proceedings.
Can they proceed without DeeDee? Certainly. Their case, even with DeeDee, will consist of trying to spin the evidence to favor the narrative rather than fact. They would be fools to put DeeDee on the stand, yet their egos and political considerations may force them to do it. It won’t be pretty.
Thanks for the speedy reply!
This is even scarier than I thought then. I had always assumed (naively, I suppose) that, at some point, the prosecution would have to provide some evidence, of some kind, no matter how feeble, to back up what they put in the affidavit. While obviously the physical evidence doesn’t back up their claim, at least when W8 was in the picture, they could say that at least she said that’s what happened. That’s a pretty pathetic bit of evidence, but at least it isn’t nothing at all. “Nothing at all” is what they have without her.
I guess I thought that maybe, after going through all the discovery, there might be some kind of pre-trial hearing O’Mara could request, where they could demand that the prosecution “put up or shut up” before the trial even started. I suppose that’s what the immunity hearing was supposed to be, but that would require Zimmerman to testify that everything was self-defense. I wasn’t thinking about anything that would involve Zimmerman’s defense, as much as something that required the prosecution to present any evidence at all, if that makes any sense.
I understand the logic of not punishing prosecutors for making mistakes, but this seems like it goes beyond the territory of “mistake” into “flat-out lie”. The physical evidence indicates that Martin was clearly not attempting to return home, and without even Dee Dee’s “evidence”, the only evidence that exists obviously contradicts what’s in the affidavit. I guess prosecutors could always hide behind the excuse that they were duped by the ever-so-wily Dee Dee, but I don’t see how, if she’s going to be out of the picture, that carrying on with the prosecution can even be legal.
I guess all I can do now is hope to stay out of the clutches of the criminal justice system for the rest of my life.
To: Mike McDaniel
What is the relevance now of the PCA… charging document? Can or will it even be used in court, and if so, how?
Dear Jordan2222:
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by “charging document.” In this case we have the affidavit by the prosecution, which was its support for an arrest warrant for second degree murder. I’ve explained in detail elsewhere why it was entirely defective, yet the judge ignored that and authorized the warrant. O’Mara could have objected to that at any time, calling the arrest into question, but absent the judge dismissing the entire case with prejudice–meaning it cannot be refiled–the prosecution could have simply put together another affidavit, and another, etc. in the hope of coming up with a legal carcass that smelled a bit less badly.
A part of any defense is arguing that the state has not met its burden of probable cause, but this need not require any specific, direct reference to the affidavit. O’Mara might make reference to the affidavit at trial, but it will likely not be a pivotal matter. Expect after the prosecution’s case, O’Mara will move to dismiss because the state has not met its burden of PC. At that point, mention of the affidavit is most likely, but again, not absolutely necessary. Defense lawyers commonly make such motions even if there is plentiful PC, hoping the judge hasn’t been paying attention. In this case, there is no PC, but given the political dimension of the case, it’s unlikely to be dismissed at the point. The judge will likely want to put the onus of decision-making on a jury.
Thank you. PCA means Probable Cause Affidavit aka charging document to some. I had read that the time limit to challenge it directly expired before O’Mara had time to do so.
“but there’s no evidence that he wasn’t, either, so how can they say that his assumption was “false”, rather than simply “unfounded”?” — Trayvon’s “spotted” locations all exist on a line between the 7-11 to the residence he hung his hoodie at. Trayvon Martin was found with Skittles, cash, beverage, and cell phone. While the exact verbiage cannot be cleaned, only connection times, we know he was on his cell phone sometime during that walk. These are not hallmarks of some one commiting a crime.
They say that the assumpt is false, because in saying its the opposite and that he was in preparation of a crime, its now a baseless accusation, with burden of proof. Hardly the image a defendant needs to portray. Smoke and mirror, in this case, are much more potent that leveling a charge they can’t prove.
“While the exact verbiage cannot be cleaned, only connection times, we know he was on his cell phone sometime during that walk. These are not hallmarks of some one commiting a crime.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t you think George Zimmerman was committing a crime while he was on a cell phone?
And the affidavit didn’t say George Zimmerman thought he was committing a crime. It says he thought he was going to commit a crime. I don’t see how being on a cell phone means that you can’t be planning on committing a crime.
“They say that the assumpt is false, because in saying its the opposite and that he was in preparation of a crime, its now a baseless accusation, with burden of proof.”
Yes, that’s what I said. An assumption for which there may not have been any evidence. I don’t see how that’s worse than an assumption that the evidence shows to be false.
“Smoke and mirror, in this case, are much more potent that leveling a charge they can’t prove.”
By saying that the assumption was “false” rather than merely “unfounded”, the prosecution is leveling a charge it cannot prove. It cannot prove that Zimmerman’s assumption was FALSE, rather than simply UNFOUNDED.
“Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t you think George Zimmerman was committing a crime while he was on a cell phone?” — No, I don’t.
“I don’t see how being on a cell phone means that you can’t be planning on committing a crime.” — Seeing some one walking down a street in the rain, your mind leaps to “planning a crime”?
“It cannot prove that Zimmerman’s assumption was FALSE, rather than simply UNFOUNDED” — Unfounded, and false. The two can work together. Rather than me trying to back into this, I will ask you shortly: exactly how do you prove some one -isn’t- going to commit a crime at any given moment, short of incarceration? What possible evidence would/could satisfy your supposition?
Well, I don’t think it’s very productive to go back and forth arguing about one word in a fairly minor clause of this document, but here goes.
“No, I don’t.”
My apologies. But if not you, lots of other people do. They think he stalked, harassed, pursued, and I don’t know what all else, all while he was on the phone. And many more people, including apparently the office of Angela Corey, think that he was about to commit a crime, despite being on a cellphone (with the police, no less). So being on a cell phone doesn’t seem like any evidence at all that someone is not getting ready to commit a crime.
“Seeing some one walking down a street in the rain, your mind leaps to ‘planning a crime’?”
No, but seeing someone hanging around a building after it closes, in the dark, certainly makes it seem likely. But the question isn’t whether there is evidence he was going to commit a crime. It’s whether there is enough evidence to completely rule out the possibility, which you would have to do, if you wanted to prove his assumption was “false”.
“Unfounded, and false.”
How do you know that it’s false? You don’t know what Trayvon would have done if Zimmerman hadn’t shown up, or if he hadn’t seen Zimmerman observing him. Nobody does. Call it the “Zimmerman Uncertainty Principle” if you want.
“exactly how do you prove some one -isn’t- going to commit a crime at any given moment, short of incarceration?”
I guess you really don’t, do you? Which is why you should be so cautious about calling anyone’s assumptions “false”.
“What possible evidence would/could satisfy your supposition?”
As of now, there really isn’t any. There isn’t any evidence I could think of that would prove that Trayvon was not going to commit a crime. If “Dee Dee” was still in the picture, her testimony that he wasn’t would fall under the “some evidence of some kind” category, but without it, there really isn’t any.
I agree, there are lots of people whom think alot about Zimmerman. My supposition is that his actions gave TM reason to think he was in danger. He did stalk and pursue, but only by common lexicon, not by legal terminology. Since TM ran from him, and he did indeed follow, harassment could get tacked onto the list, but again, not in the legal sense. Zimmerman just acted down right stupid, and stupid isn’t a crime. This is an overcharge, no doubt, but I can’t abide by the actions Zimmerman took as something a responsible adult does.
“No, but seeing someone hanging around a building after it closes, in the dark, certainly makes it seem likely. ” — buildings. Plural. It was an apartment complex, and he was walking through, on his way home. There is not much else TM could have seen or “hung around”. Its an apartment complex.
“As of now, there really isn’t any. There isn’t any evidence I could think of that would prove that Trayvon was not going to commit a crime. ” — makes it a pretty damn high bar to clear for argument sake, huh? You are literally saying Trayvon could never demonstrate innocence, even in the commission of a non crime. This means, to you, he is already guilty of SOMETHING, but exactly what cannot be determined, despite no victim, property damage, witness to anything (evidence), etc. A lot of people would call that “inherent bias”. I will stick with logical impossibility. You have set the defense to a criterion you admit is impossible to achieve.
“— makes it a pretty damn high bar to clear for argument sake, huh? You are literally saying Trayvon could never demonstrate innocence, even in the commission of a non crime.”
No, what I am saying is that the prosecution should literally almost never say “falsely assumed”. It’s that simple.
“This means, to you, he is already guilty of SOMETHING, but exactly what cannot be determined, despite no victim, property damage, witness to anything (evidence), etc.”
it most certainly does not. The prosecution said that Zimmerman “falsely assumed” Trayvon was going to commit a crime. THEY are accusing Zimmerman of making a false assumption. I am merely saying that they should not say this, without specific evidence that his assumption is actually false. I have already explained, a couple of times now, that there isn’t any evidence he was committing a crime or not. I have explained that the prosecution cannot prove Zimmerman’s assumption is FALSE without proving that he WAS NOT going to commit a crime. If they had said his assumption was simply “unfounded”, then that would be fine. I would have no problem with that. The problem is that, by calling Zimmerman’s assumptions “false”, they are asserting that they have evidence Martin WAS NOT going to commit a crime (something which nobody could possibly know, and without Dee Dee’s statements, something for which nobody even claims any evidence).
“A lot of people would call that ‘inherent bias’.”
A lot more people would call it “a fairly simple and obviously true statement”. Why you are having such a hard time with it, I don’t know, but you should really probably just stop trying.
Okay, so continue the opinion through. His assumpt was unfounded. It had no basis or foundation in fact. What correct accusations -ever- come from no basis in fact?
Food for thought: a false accusation is one that does not have grounding in truth or fact. Unfounded also means not having a foundation in truth or fact. If Zimmerman is stating that Trayvon was going to commit a crime with no evidence (fact), that would be a false accusation, since there is nothing to back it up. Saying Zimmerman’s accusation is false quite given the defintions of “unfounded” and “false accusation” is still quite apt.
Jeez. If I had known that we would still be arguing over this fairly minor point, I would never have brought it up.
“What correct accusations -ever- come from no basis in fact?”
I didn’t say accusation. I said “assumption”. And lots of assumptions end up being correct, even if they have no basis in fact. That’s why people keep making assumptions. If they didn’t end up coming true fairly often, people wouldn’t keep making them.
“Saying Zimmerman’s accusation is false quite given the defintions of ‘unfounded’ and ‘false accusation’ is still quite apt.”
No it isn’t, because an “assumption” is not the same thing as an “accusation”. If Zimmerman had said “This man is about to commit a crime!”, then it would be a false accusation. An assumption is “This man might be about to commit a crime!”. Since we don’t know what Trayvon WOULD have done if Zimmerman hadn’t spotted him, there’s no way to know.
Look. Suppose, for whatever bizarre reason, I assumed that Mike McDaniel was going to drive to the grocery store this Saturday. Would that be a “false assumption”? It might be or it might not be. We would have to wait until Sunday to find out. Either way, right now, it’s an unfounded assumption, because I have no real evidence that he IS going to go to the grocery store or not.
If, on Sunday, he produced a receipt from the grocery store, showing that he had indeed.gone to the grocery store, my unfounded assumption would not have been “false” at all, since it did indeed come to pass. So my unfounded assumption might indeed turn out to be trueI .
But suppose that, heaven forbid, Mike McDaniel was shot and killed tomorrow afternoon, before he had a chance to do anything on Saturday.
Would my assumption be false? There’s no way to know. What you can say is that I have no basis for my assumption, but you can’t say that my assumption is “false”, because we would never end up knowing whether or not he would have gone to the grocery store if he hadn’t gotten shot.
I’m sorry, but, if you don’t understand the difference between something being false, something being true, and something that might be true, but without sufficient evidence, then I’m afraid there isn’t much point discussing a legal case with you. These distinctions are actually very important in legal matters.
Sometimes people are so convinced they are correct that the powers of logic and reasoning just simply shut down. At that point, any replies only add to their “confusion” or whatever that state of mind is called. In other words, you are wasting your time but thanks for trying with this person .
To Rule of Order –
You wrote: “I agree, there are lots of people whom think alot about Zimmerman. My supposition is that his actions gave TM reason to think he was in danger.”
Your “SUPPOSITION” is that Zimmerman’s actions gave TM reason to think he was in danger. Here is my conclusion, and it is NOT derived from mere supposition:
TM was pissed that he was being followed and hid (or doubled back) to get a look at Zimmerman and see whether he might be able to do something about it. He was not ‘threatened’ by Zimmerman. Here’s why I believe so:
1. Zimmerman (armed with a 9mm handgun) never left his vehicle until Martin had disappeared some 125-150ft away. And when he DID exit his vehicle and walk toward where he had last seen Martin, he walked – rather slowly. It took him 25 seconds (about 5-6 ft per second). Hardly shows any intent to pursue and catch up with someone.
2. Until struck by Martin, Zimmerman never ventured south of the “T” in the sidewalks. That is where Witness #11 and Witness #20 heard the physical encounter began and progress south to Witness #6’s backyard. That is also where Zimmerman’s keychain flashlight was dropped in its “ON” position. Had he chased Martin south, and the encounter began there, no doubt the debris trail of evidence would NOT have begun at the “T”.
3. According to Dale Gilbreath, the prosecution’s investigator, there is no evidence that Zimmerman wasn’t returning to his car when the encounter began, and there is no evidence to show he initiated the encounter.
4. Zimmerman’s friends, acquaintances and others interviewed by the FBI all described Zimmerman as non-confrontational. His previous calls to the non-emergency dispatcher and to 911 showed he was not confrontational – in one he even told the dispatcher he didn’t want to get near the subject.
5. Trayvon Martin had MORE than ample time to return home while Zimmerman casually continued a phone conversation with the dispatcher, but he DIDN’T go home. Perhaps he was overcome by too much testosterone…
There simply is NO evidence that Trayvon Martin felt threatened (certainly Dee Dee’s testimony can’t be trusted). Yours is a “supposition” not backed by the evidence – and quite likely arrived at because it supports your conclusion that Zimmerman was the one who was wrong. Mine is a conclusion arrived at from the available evidence, and by a LACK of credible evidence to the contrary.
Juggler
What you term conclusions are based on suppositions.
1.
You suppose that Zimmerman “walked – rather slowly” from his truck.
What is this based on – other than Zimmerman’s say so?
You suppose that it took him 25 seconds to the T at a certain walking pace.
Listening to his voice and background sounds on the NEN, he sounds as if he is in a hurry. The sounds apear to have probmpted the dispatcher to ask “Are you following him”? It does not sound in the least like “walked – rather slowly”.
On the Piers Morgan show on April 1st, 2012, Robert Zimmerman asserts that running was involved, when he addressed the “F*cking ” bit. He said that Zimmerman was running and that therefore whatever “utterances from strain under their breath” he made would not be words.
.
2.
You suppose that Zimmerman never went South of the T. You suppose that because the couple in the corner house thought that the noises that became loud enough to intrude over the TV came from near the T, that the confontation must have started there.
Assuming that they were correct in estimating where those noises came from, this says nothing about any part of a confrontation beginning before the sound became noticable over a TV indoors.
There was after all a gap of 2 minutes 30 seconds between the end of the NEN – at which stage he says he started for his truck – and the first 911 connecting. The walk would have taken him 20 seconds to the T – 30 seconds max to the ‘attack point’.
.
3. Gailbreath was a tourist a that bond hearing. O’Mara ambushed him to score PR. The state was not there to present a case.
Zimmerman says he was returning to his car. If the state was there to argue the case, they might have mentioned the problem of a 30-second walk taking him 2 minutes+.
.
4.
That’s a selective list for the “not confrontational” vote.
Assaulting a TSA officer is hardly non-confronational.
There is the matter of his ex and the woman thrown about.
Bouncers are not necessarily confrontational souls, but someone decribes him as snapping.
His treatment of a ME work colleague might not be described as confrontational, but certainly cowardly and psychological bullying.
.
5.
Zimmerman had MORE than ample time to walk to RVC for an address (if indeed he actually did so) and return to his truck. He would have been back and sitting in his truck for some minutes at the time that the confrontation seems to have happened.
But he DIDN’T just do the necessary walk. Perhaps he was overcome by too much testosterone…
.
As to Martin feeling threatened….
“He’s running……………..He ran.”
Why would he run?
A supposition that I have seen was that he was carring drugs, and thinking Zimmerman to be an undercover narcotics cop, ran to stash the goods
Having stashed them, he ran back – minus the drugs but still carrying the bulky drinks can etc. He ran back to attack the undercover narcotics cop – who presumably would be armed. Right. That makes perfect sense – I suppose?
So if he ran, then something about Zimmerman’s actions would have alarmed him, Right?
No wrong – because he never ran.
The Hannity interview was a spin jop. Part of the spin was to dismiss any idae that Martin would have felt threatened by Zimmerman.
So now he’s not running. He sort of skipped – and more importantly “not in fear”.
To his credit, Hannity seemed taken aback by this assertion. “You could tell that?”.
Come along. Zimmerman really overplaying there :)
Given Zimmerman’s description of what happened up to the point, it would be strange if Martin did not sense some level of threat from the driver of the truck that had stopped to look at him back at the pedestrian shortcut next to Taaffe’s house and then waited for him at the clubhouse before following him into Twin Trees.
It might also be understandable that he would have felt safe after leaving the street (and the truck) for the central footpath area.
.
Yours are “supposition”s not backed by the evidence – and quite likely arrived at because it supports your conclusion that Martin was the one who was wrong. Mine is a conclusion arrived at from the available evidence, and by a LACK of credible evidence to the contrary. :)
Whoa! I just had some sort of deja writ thing there!!
1 – Perhaps, but my supposition (unlike yours) has evidence to support it. EVIDENCE – not conjecture, and not bias. My conclusion is drawn by matching up the timing in the call from the point where Zimmerman exited his vehicle to the point where he told the dispatcher, “He ran.”. In his re-enactment video less than 24 hours later, he describes this as the point at which he looked south from the T” and determined Martin had taken off. That is approximately 25 seconds. Now, taking into account where Zimmerman was sitting parked in his vehicle (again, stated in the re-enactment and not contradicted by the officers present) – a distance of approximately 125-150ft west of the “T”, that means that Zimmerman covered the distance at a pace of somewhere between 5 and 6ft per second. A grown man walking on level ground Zimmerman WAS) would cover that distance in that amount of time. You suggest that Zimmerman’s voice suggests he was in a hurry. I disagree, and I recommend you call a friend and have him/her walk in drizzling rain under windy conditions and talk to you on their cell phone for 30 seconds or so and see what THEY sound like – it will be uncannily how Zimmerman sounded. I have done ALL of this – not just sat at a keyboard “supposing”.
2. INCORRECT. I have concluded that Zimmerman never went south of the “T” for several reasons. First, there is no evidence he did. Second, Witness #11 and Witness #20 stated they specifically heard the loud voices at the left rear of their residence (i.e., at the T”) and they could hear it move south into Witness #6’s yard. You suggest these two witnesses “estimated”. For GOD’S SAKE, they HEARD it. Hearing is a very valuable tool. If I close my eyes and you are 100% directly in front of me and you speak, I will be able to determine where you are. If you move slightly to one side, I will know if you are slightly to my left of my right. It’s not assuming anything. It is human perception. Now when you couple their perception with what Zimmerman said, and the fact that the shooting occurred in Witness #6’s yard, AND the flashlight keychain was found at the “T”, it is mere LOGIC, not blind supposition. Once again, your “surgical timeline” is not compelling – it contains too many potential variables and requires too much exactness on your part to be valid – an exactness you cannot support.
3. Gilbreath a tourist?? He was purposely evasive in his answers. HE was on the witness list and he is a seasoned investigator. If he didn’t know an answer, he could have said he didn’t know – that he didn’t have his notes in front of him. As far as Zimmerman returning to his vehicle, once again, you seem fixated with a particular speed and route. You don’t entertain the possibility Zimmeman paused…or anything. He’s not a friggin’ ROBOT!!
4. The “assault” charge was tossed out – no prosecution of it and no conviction. I recommend you listen to the recording of Witness #44, who witnessed the incident that precipitated Zimmerman’s arrest. The undercover cop did not identify himself according to witnesses, and merely pulled an acquaintance of theirs out of the school library. Oh, and one of those “select” members on the list included his ex-fiancee who had filed a restraining order against him back in 2005. Despite their poisonous relationship, even she couldn’t call him confrontational – and said he was the opposite. His treatment of a ME co-worker is unsupported by any other witnesses and could NOT be considered confrontational by a reasonable person. It has not been alleged he ever did violence to that person, that he threatened to, or that the person felt physically threatened or intimidated. At worst, Zimmerman was accused of being ethnically insensitive – but NOT confrontational – so please don’t re-define words here. Oh and the person saying he snapped??? Who was that person? Is he a witness in the case? Is there any corroboration? Why do you rely on someone who spoke to the press anonymously? It is without merit, and even if it DID happen it was in 2004-2005 – near 1/4 of Zimmerman’s life ago.
5. Why was Zimmerman’s walk “necessary”? He had lost Martin, had given UP on him and had provided the dispatcher with his phone number and was prepared to answer his phone when the police called. A direct and purposeful walk might have got them there according to your stringent timeline, but without a reason to rush there, why do you suggest there is a gap? You say he may have had too much testosterone. His previous calls to 911/police dispatches strongly suggest otherwise. Likewise, his response to the dispatcher when the dispatcher suggested he not follow Martin was completely in agreement. He simply said “OK”. he didn’t even SUGGEST that it might be better to keep an eye on Martin. And he certainly didn’t feel like he was being held back when the dispatcher suggested it.
I really don’t feel the need to go on with you on these. You are a blowhard who has been repeatedly schooled by others more intelligent and unbiased on this case than you, and it is mere insanity for you to continue to maintain your idiocy in light of the evidence – not mere supposition as you are prone to.
Hammerhead…
I’ve had the same problem with that specific wording in the APC as well… how do you accuse someone of “profiling” and “falsely assuming” without any proof that Martin was in fact not behaving suspiciously that night? They even lied and stated that Martin was living in the neighborhood, as if to suggest that Zimmerman had mistakenly profiled a neighbor.
The biggest problem with this accusation came in December when the Serino reports were made available. A criminal background check performed by the SPD in March had turned up a Miami Gardens PD field contact report (stop and frisk) on Martin from November (just three months earlier)… and of course, this was in addition to the Miami-Dade Schools PD records leaked by the SPD detailing the drugs and drug paraphernalia, the vandalism, the trespassing, and the jewelry and burglary tool.
Long story short, the state knew that George wasn’t the first person to observe Martin and perceive him as ‘suspicious’… he wasn’t even the second person. Both the Miami-Dade Schools PD ~and~ the Miami Gardens PD had also both recently concluded that Martin’s behaviors were suspicious.
Where there’s smoke, there’s usually fire…
I cannot find a legal opinion about whether or not the PCA is still relevant and, if so, how it will be addressed in court. Maybe it no longer matters since they got the arrest.
“burglary tool”
Why is it no one ever says “screwdriver”?
I hear “burglary tool”, and I think lock picks, tension wrenches, pick guns, maybe freon and graphite dust, possibly a slim jim or blank key…
To Rule of Order – are you asking why no one ever says “screwdriver” because you really want to know? Or is that merely a rhetorical question.
I will treat it as a sincere question.
The term “burglary tool” is used because of the nature of the screwdriver’s discovery. If Trayvon Martin was a mechanic or a carpenter, no doubt it would have been referred to as a mere “screwdriver”.
But Trayvon Martin was NOT a carpenter or a mechanic. He was a student, and in his possession, inside a backpack were found several pieces of women’s jewelry (for which he had NO explanation, except that he was holding them for an unnamed friend), and a screwdriver. A lone screwdriver – not a toolbox or tool kit. A screwdriver.
Now, this may be a stretch for you, and I DO hope you can keep up, but when a student carries a backpack – oh, I digress – I didn’t explain WHY he was searched did I?. My apologies.
Well, Trayvon Martin was searched because the school security team witnessed him vandalizing school property on videos from security cameras, and when he was detained, they searched his backpack, finding the aforementioned jewelry and “burglary tool”.
So, when a student (who was being approached because he was observed defacing school property) is found with a bunch of women’s jewelry (for which he has no logical explanation) and a screwdriver, for which he has no legitimate use in school, it can be deduced that a logical security guard would conclude that it was some sort of burglary tool, and not in the possession of the student to merely tighten the screws in the desks of his various classrooms.
I hope this is enlightening to you…
Jugg, sadly, no, it wasn’t. In the end, it was still a screw driver. Spin, sir. Its spin. Call it a burglary tool, ergo, he must be a burglar. Or, call it a screw driver – cause thats what it was. How frequently do you see tooth brushes advertised as “does a great job of scrubbing mildew from underneath toilets”? Does that mean the tooth brush is NOT a tooth brush now, and instead its a “creavase cleaner”? Again, when some one says “burglary tool”, where does YOUR mind go? Tool box or James Bond? Answer honestly.
BUZZZZZ – Sorry, but your logic doesn’t work here. The term “burglary tool” was not coined by ANYone assigned or related to this case. It was the term used by the security personnel at Trayvon martin’s high school, based on the circumstances and the evidence they had available to them, coupled with their experience.
Aside from that, you are daft to suggest that I subscribe to your personal definition of “burglary tool”. I prefer to use one of several UNbiased legal definitions I have found. One of them is:
“Burglary tools” are just that…tools that you use to commit a burglary . These tools include instruments such as a screwdriver, pliers, ceramic or porcelain spark plug chips or pieces, or any other tool or instrument that you might use to break or enter into a car, building or other space in an unlawful manner.”
The term is NOT limited to times when its carrier is actually found guilty of burglary.
Again, I say, the screwdriver in Trayvon Martin’s possession had no legitimate purpose under the circumstance – a student IN school. And when it was found in his possession along with several pieces of women’s jewelry, the logical conclusion was to label it a “burglary tool”.
You can continue to make things up as you go along in order to support your conclusions. I prefer to collect evidence and paint the picture based on that.
Well, the part in question is a tool. The likelihood that Martin used the tool as a burglary implement is slightly questionable since said tool is shaped like a screwdriver. Now, this tool is useful for several things like ditch digging, nose picking and scratching paint. In a pinch it can even be used as a weapon(Serenity: Mal against the Agent). Being useful in a burglary is one of it’s many applications.
Joel – that’s right…being a burglary tool IS one of its potential applications. And if you were at the school when Trayvon Martin, who had been observed defacing/vandalizing school property, and you were the one questioning him, and YOU were the one listening to his responses and reading his body language, and YOU had any familiarity with him, and you determined it was merely a harmless screwdriver, then the conclusion that it was a screwdriver would very likely be a good one.
But you were NOT there. You did NOT question Trayvon Martin. You did not hear his answers or read his body language. You did NOT see the jewelry he had in his backpack or the screwdriver. You did NOT have the opportunity to use your experience as a security guard in that school to conclude under the circumstances whether the screwdriver should be described as a burglary tool or not.
But the security guard at the school WAS there and DID do all the above, so unless you have real evidence or reason to believe his conclusion is false, then you don’t have a leg t stand on in concluding anything contradictory to what the security guard did.
Isn’t that what I just said? Personally, I think Martin used it to pick his nose. And I think the item should be referred to as a “Floridian Nose Pick” aka burglary tool as opposed to a simple screwdriver.
Dear Juggler523:
You’re quite right. Where the law is concerned, whether a screwdriver is called a screwdriver or a burglary tool depends upon circumstances, more particularly, context and intention. As a detective, I spent several years specializing in catching car burglars. Again, under the law, a man holding a screwdriver while repairing an engine is holding a screwdriver. The same man with a screwdriver in his back pocket while in possession of a car stereo stolen from a car is also in possession of a burglary tool. This is not mere semantics. Where the law is concerned, language matters, and it is the circumstances, actions and apparent intentions of the individual that invokes certain terms.
Being found in possession–at school–of women’s jewelry obviously not his own and for which he apparently had no rational explanation, as well as a screwdriver, Martin was in possession–in law and in common sense–of contraband and a burglary tool. It is, by the way, common for the police not to be able to immediately tie a given piece of what is obviously stolen property to a specific crime. People often do not bother to report crimes, do not report them with sufficient specificity to enable positive identification, or in some cases, aren’t actually aware they’ve been burglarized.
“Where the law is concerned, whether a screwdriver is called a screwdriver or a burglary tool depends upon circumstances, more particularly, context and intention.” – unless we are talking about assault weapons. In which case, even though we have ascribed a legal description to them, it doesn’t fall anywhere in a “firearms lexicon”, and so is just as easily dismissed as a hollow construct.
I especially enjoy how you go on to portray that in the absence of a victim, or report of stolen property, it MUST have been as such. Trayvon wasn’t even charged with anything. But, he was in possesion of a screwdriver, and that MUST have been the “tool” he used to “burglarize” an (unknown) that belonged to (unknown).
I carried around a screw driver at school. It was one of those promo ones, it had the pen cap clip thing. There is no reasonable reason I had it. Occasionally, I had computer parts in my bag. So… logically, I was burglarizing the school computers, since even though the school didn’t KNOW they had been robbed, and I had the tool, I was guilty of a crime. Right?
Look, guys, it’s a screw driver. If its not an assault weapon, its not a burglary tool.
You can create analogies all you want – and by the way, yours about the little promotional screwdriver is idiotic.
First, you were not in the room when security people determined the screwdriver was a “burglary tool”, so you have no idea why they determined it was so. Again – he was found with a backpack that contained several pieces of women’s jewelry, which he said he was holding for a friend – a friend he refused to identify. This was after he had been caught on film vandalizing school property.
Now, your stupid comparison – that you sometimes carried computer parts in your bag – so you could be accused of burglarizing computers?
Honestly, you seem to possess pretty good communication skills – so why do you use it expressing idiotic notions?
“You can create analogies all you want – and by the way, yours about the little promotional screwdriver is idiotic.
First, you were not in the room when security people determined the screwdriver was a “burglary tool”(NOR YOU), so you have no idea why they determined it was so. Again – he was found with a backpack that contained several pieces of women’s jewelry, which he said he was holding for a friend – a friend he refused to identify. This was after he had been caught on film vandalizing school property.
Now, your stupid comparison – that you sometimes carried computer parts in your bag – so you could be accused of burglarizing computers? (waiting for you refute)
Honestly, you seem to possess pretty good communication skills – so why do you use it expressing idiotic notions?”- Well, to keep with the computer based analogy, GIGO. That, thus far, has what Zimmerman’s ‘evidence’ has produced.
Sort of like how you tie vandalism (which in this particular instance revolved around graffiti) to burglary. Should I ask for cuffs or not, btw? The site host says the people with the property don’t know I robbed them. I had the tools, the components, and the limited know how. They in all likelyhood don’t know I robbed them.
Refute???? Let me again paint the picture of Trayvon Martin. He had been caught on VIDEO defacing school property with a permanent marker. When he got nabbed, he had in his possession a backpack that contained several items of women’s jewelry, which he said he was holding for an unnamed “friend”. He as also carrying a screwdriver, for which he had no legitimate purpose. During questioning by security personnel, they determined it was a “burglary tool”. This has NO comparison to your little pocket protector promotional screwdriver in the least.
Were you ever suspected of any criminal action while in school that would draw attention to your nerdy screwdriver as possibly having been used in any kind of burglary? Didn’t think so.
Go ahead and continue to mince words and compare things that are different. The evidence in its totality paints Trayvon Martin as a junior thug who had little discipline or regard for rules (THREE school suspensions in less than 6 months). You can second guess the security people who spoke with him about his screwdriver/burglary tool and backpack jewelry store all you want, and you will not have a leg to stand on. But do continue. It’s fodder for the rest of us, whose LACK of bias in this case allows us to paint a more accurate picture of the evidence.
“Refute???? Let me again paint the picture of Trayvon Martin. He had been caught on VIDEO defacing school property with a permanent marker” —I am waiting for a Sharpie to now be called a vandalism tool.
“This has NO comparison to your little pocket protector promotional screwdriver in the least.”
“… to your nerdy screwdriver as possibly having been used in any kind of burglary? Didn’t think so.”
“. It’s fodder for the rest of us, whose LACK of bias in this case allows us to paint a more accurate picture of the evidence.” — yeah, your lack of bias speaks volumes. ;) Good luck, Jugg.
Yes, LACK of bias. If you can point out ANYthing I have posted that isn’t based on the evidence, combined with reason, I welcome you to do so. But simply making blanket implication statements like you “volumes” comment is pure ignorance.
Love the title, ” The Incredible Exploding Dee Dee” .
Can’t wait for the fireworks…..
I haven’t posted here in a long time but I just had a “ping” hit me. I have been reading a book by Nelson Demille “Plum Island”, which is where that came from by the way. I used that because he described it so well. I had this ping some time ago adn had it again today, concerning the DD interview. When Bdlr attempts to establish how long DD and TM had known each other DD states 10 or 11 years, then since kindergarten. How well does this sit with someone who is 18 at the time of the questioning? This would mean she must have been 7 or 8 and still in Kindergarten? Okay, so I caught myself with that today, but it seems the response to 10 or 11 years was how long she lived at her current location. But of course we can’t tell because it is redacted, where she was before that (or was it ever really answered?), but it seems strange that there is that difference in time to me of how long (Kindergarten) she knew TM, but she only lived in her current location, for 10 or 11 years. Just an un-provable theory of another lie at the moment, but still a “ping” if you see what I mean. Maybe we will find out maybe not. Still worth looking into for those who might be able to find out, like MOM or West.
Heh! A’course it could just mean she is as dismal at math as she is at speaking her mind! Just sayin’.
Cheers!
Dear Mike McDaniel,
Re: your comment #8434 above
“Dear Jordan2222:
Would you please clarify the acronyms “BGI” and “DOJ-CRS” for me? Acronyms are flying fast and thick in this case, and I want to be certain I’m speaking about the right people/entities.”
* BGI = Black Grievance Industry, as represented by Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Benjamin Crump, Natalie Jackson, Rep. Corrine Brown, et al.
* DOJ-CRS = U.S. Dept. of Justice – Community Relations Service.
” The Community Relations Service is the Department’s “peacemaker” for community conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, and national origin. Created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, CRS is the only Federal agency dedicated to assist State and local units of government, private and public organizations, and community groups with preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders, and in restoring racial stability and harmony.”
[read more:] http://www.justice.gov/crs/
First time commenting here, Mike, and I want to let you know how much I appreciate the work you do here. I’ve been a regular ever since your initial post on the GZ case. Your articles are always thorough, insightful and very well written.
A+ and many thanks for what you do, Teacher!
Dear JB from SoCal:
Thank you for your kind comments and for reading. I’m most grateful.
Follow up to my post about the BGI, and The DOJ-CRS
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/03/13/racialist-dysfunction-report-labels-doj-civil-rights-division-rife-with-racialist-dysfunction-2/
to mike mcdaniel your welcome very interesting reading – agree with some disagree with some ,,,but all debateable…like that.
@RuleOfOrder:
Note the key word supposition. The question is: does any evidence support that supposition?
Here, you’re arguing facts not in evidence. You are assuming that one particular scenario out of many plausible scenarios is the one that actually took place.
I have presented another, equally plausible scenario:
1. Zimmerman sees Martin, but drives on past him
2. Zimmerman then pulls over, at some point past the clubhouse (and possibly where his vehicle was found) to stop and call NEN
3. Martin then approaches Zimmerman’s vehicle, then goes past it
4. Martin then makes to elude Zimmerman’s visual contact
5. Zimmerman, following instructions from the NEN operator, gets out of his vehicle to try to reacquire visual contact with Martin
This scenario is completely free of “pursuit” or “stalking”, both colloquially and legally.
Where is the evidence to prove your scenario, and to disprove my scenario?
That’s not harassment, no matter how you slice it.
He took a risk that he was not legally obligated to take, but a risk that he was fully within his legal, ethical, and moral rights to take. The risk of getitng out of his vehicle to attempt to see where Martin went simply does not make Zimmerman legally (or ethically or morally) culpable for Martin’s unlawful use of force against him.
Correction: you do not believe that the thus-far-unfounded scenario of actions you believe to be true were something that a responsible adult does.
The scenario I present is something perfectly reasonable.
Demonstrably false. Martin’s 7-11 transaction, less than a mile away, took place 40 minutes prior to Zimmerman laying eyes on him. Martin was obviously doing something other than going straight home, for at least 30 of those 40 minutes.
Whatever Martin was doing (legal or otherwise), we can say with certainty that “going to the store and going immediately home” was not his intent; otherwise, he would have been inside Brandi Green’s home long before Zimmerman could ever have seen him.
Have you considered that this is the very reason that Zimmerman found Martin’s actions/behaviors suspicious? There was nothing reasonable for him to be out doing, at that place and time.
I contend that, with respect to Zimmerman’s self-defense claim, whatever Martin was doing prior to the moment he chose to punch Zimmerman in the face is entirely irrelevant. It simply doesn’t matter.
Now, if the defense can show that Martin was engaged in unlawful activities that evening, those activities may speak to Martin’s character and provide supporting circumstantial evidence – but it is entirely unnecessary. Zimmerman can prove self-defense with far more than a preponderance of publicly known evidence.
The only thing I want to know is: what do the ping logs and GPS data show regarding Martin’s path and location for the four minutes between when Zimmerman lost sight of him, and when the physical altercation began.
IMHO, the fact that Martin was not inside Brandi Green’s home is evidence enough that his intent was something other than merely getting away from the dude talking on the phone in his vehicle. But if those data show that he actually doubled back to the sidewalk “T”? Case dismissed, with prejudice.
You’re right… there’s a huge difference between going directly home, and merely being on the way home.
For example.. on my way home today, I stopped for gas and stopped at the grocery. I did not go directly home. If we’re being literal, I wasn’t ‘on my way home’ at all until I left the grocery.
Now we don’t know what Martin was doing ‘on his way home,’ but we do know that he did not go directly back to Brandy’s. And we know that when he hadn’t returned hours later, his dad wasn’t the least bit concerned…. which is extremely peculiar if they thought (as Chad claims) he was ‘on his way home.’
fact- we know gz parked his car at club house – fact we know trayvon was at clubhouse getting out of rain- fact we know gz called nen while at club house..fact we know trayvon and gz both had cellphones- fact we know trayvon was on foot . fact we know gz was driving. unknown and in question was gz alone in car – and was he alone at crime scene- unknown how did he really get injured. their are many answer out their but whats done in the dark always comes to light..my hope is sooner than later so we can stop guessing.
To idilla –
It is NOT a fact that Trayvon Martin was at the mailboxes to get out of the rain. That morsel was provided by Dee Dee in her interview with Bernie de la Rionda on April 2, during her interview with him. It was already common knowledge that Zimmerman had observed Martin near the clubhouse as he moved from where Zimmerman had initially seen him. You confuse fact with probable fiction (whatever Dee Dee says)
There is NO evidence that ANYone was i the vehicle with Zimmerman, and in fact, the lack of another voice in the background of the 4+ minute phone call witht he dispatcher is evidence there was not. That goes double for the scene of the shooting.
For anyone to claim that Zimmerman was not alone with Trayvon Martin is preposterous.
First – if Zimmerman was NOT alone, why was no one else seen by Witness #6, who SAW Martin and Zimmerman?
Second – if Zimmerman was not alone, why was he subjected to the beating by Martin, without the other person(s) helping him?
Equally preposterous is to suggest that Zimmerman’s injuries were NOT inflicted by Martin. I will assume you are questioning how Zimmerman was injured because you suspect Martin didn’t do it?
First – Zimmerman’s blood was ON Martin’s clothing.
Second – the first witness on the scene saw Zimmerman’s injuries and took a photo of them before he was even placed in the police car.
There is no need for so much guessing. There is evidence for some things, and there is a LACK of evidence to dismiss mere supposition – like you suggesting Zimmerman may not have been alone. I recommend you spend some time researching all the evidence that is available – do it in an objective manner and you will discover how LITTLE there is to even remotely suggest that Zimmerman committed a crime.
Yes that is a fact I saw the pic of him in the clubhouse video, other wise I would not have said it was a fact.he is standing their until he walks off. GZ had stated the clubhouse camara were not working but they were.
Oh, hey Chip, sorry, didn’t see you down here.
“The question is: does any evidence support that supposition?” — no, the person that would be able to corroborate it is dead. ;)
“Here, you’re arguing facts not in evidence” — I am not arguing, am relating it. Unless you are stating it didn’t happen, of course.
“Where is the evidence to prove your scenario, and to disprove my scenario?”
Well, your number for runs into the same problem I have. That being the corroborator is dead. We don’t know his intent, and its just as likely he -was- heading in the direction of home. Doing that would block line of sight, in general, no desire to elude required.
regarding 5, 12 seconds from his exit of the car, he is told not to do that. I feel comfortable in stating “told not to do that”, because that is what Zimmerman took away from the conversation, enough to write it down on his statement to police. So… logically speaking, if he has told not to… how do you put it, reaquire visual contact… what is he doing? He seems to be at odds with himself, because he WRITES he was heading back to his car after the advisement, and was immediately set upon. He speaks (NEN call) to the operator about… well, nothing for 2 and a half minutes (real time), and he relates in his walk through that he was looking for an addy that just happened to be in the direction Martin went, but he never got. 3 distinct stories. Zimmerman “reaquires” Martin near the location he “unaquired” him a few minutes earlier. Witnesses (not Dee Dee) hear an argument. Zimmerman hasn’t explained that part yet.
My evidence? We have the time. We have the place Trayvon fled to. We have Zimmerman chasing the asshole that gets away. We have Zimmerman finding said asshole in the vicinity of the place he was lost at. We have an unexplained argument. We have Zimmerman giving 3 retellings of his actions at this point. We have SOME one calling for help. Zimmerman states that Trayvon did at some point in time, and that he doesn’t believe the voice on the recording sounds like him. We have none of Zimmerman’s DNA in the most likely of places to corroborate an assault, and no finger prints or DNA on the gun that Zimmerman says Martin was going for. Given the above, I think my scenario fits pretty well, too.
“you do not believe that the thus-far-unfounded scenario of actions ” — getting out of the car to follow some one is not infounded. Its Zimmerman’s admission, and recorded. I find that act incredibly irresponsible, said irresponsibility was doubled down on by lingering about with his Taclight.
“otherwise, he would have been inside Brandi Green’s home long before Zimmerman could ever have seen him.” — you mean the second time, right? After Zimmerman injected himself into the situation, yes, Martin’s intentions changed. To what, it seems is being argued as either assault, or inquisition.
“Martin was obviously doing something other than going straight home, for at least 30 of those 40 minutes.” — okay, sure, talking on the phone, hanging out under a tree when the rain picked up, etc. I was specifically referring to when Zimmerman had him under visal aquisition. In an apartment complex, at night, you really have no choice but to “hang around” the buildings if you are walking home.
“There was nothing reasonable for him to be out doing, at that place and time.” — walking at 7:15 at night. In an apartment complex. Nothing reasonable. I’m sorry, what? How does a return trip from 7-11 in an apartment complex in which you are a guest become unreasonable?
“IMHO, the fact that Martin was not inside Brandi Green’s home is evidence enough that his intent was something other than merely getting away from the dude talking on the phone in his vehicle” — yes, Martin had the time to get to the house. Zimmerman also had ample time to return to his vehicle when said he was (in the written version of events). Neither arrived at their stated and assumed destination.
ruleoforder:
My evidence? We have the time. We have the place Trayvon fled to. We have Zimmerman chasing the asshole that gets away. We have Zimmerman finding said asshole in the vicinity of the place he was lost at. We have an unexplained argument.
Time, Chase, Argument. Time-enough that had TM wanted he could have gotten away.
Chase-what chase, before GZ lost TM, after? If after, where did he chase him, he already was at the T?
Argument-Something that can’t be proven, even DD does not say anything about an argument. The burden on the prosecution to prove it, hearing some loud voices an argument don’t make.
So you have nothing, which is exactly what Investigator Gilbreath said.
“Argument-Something that can’t be proven, even DD does not say anything about an argument. The burden on the prosecution to prove it, hearing some loud voices an argument don’t make” — actually there were two some ear witnesses in the complex before the yelling for help, and shot. If I recall, one of the witnesses even likened it to rowdy teens. city-data.com/forum/true-crime/1677923-george-zimmermans-new-judge-debra-s-25.html — while being a forum, it offers a great compilation of what various witnesses stated at first, and then what they later recalled, if an “edit” was made.
“even DD does not say anything about an argument. ” — DD says she heard grass. I have made sure I don’t rely on anything DD says because from the get go when it comes to piecing together what I think happend, she sounded coached. Assuming you DO want to use her testimony (and I can’t imagine why unless you intend to cherry pick it), she also states the phone went dead after a brief exchange between the two.
“enough that had TM wanted he could have gotten away” — and likewise, Zimmerman could have made it back to his car, if he was going there.
“Chase-what chase, before GZ lost TM, after? If after, where did he chase him, he already was at the T?” — the whole scope of this encounter. From Frank T’s place to the eventual shot. Zimmerman’s motive was surveillance, accusation, then pursuit. Some how he acts surprised when the very thing he set out to do (even if it -was- just to watch, and not confront) occurs.
Martin’s hands weren’t tested for DNA.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Not every touch transfers DNA. Also, Zimmerman says that Martin went for his gun, not that Martin actually got a hold of his gun.
That your “scenario fits pretty well” does not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, my scenario. If that holds true, Zimmerman by law must be acquitted.
People who use Zimmerman’s, “that doesn’t even sound like me” statement to claim that he was admitting that he wasn’t yelling are either stupid or intellectually dishonest. I assume you’re simply the latter.
Seriously? As if it isn’t a common and well-known phenomenon to hear one’s own voice, especially one’s voice during a traumatic event, and say, “that doesn’t even sound like me“? People say the same thing, just hearing themselves on a recorded voice mail. (I react similarly whenever I hear a recording of me speaking.)
The claim that Zimmerman’s statement is somehow inculpatory is a fool’s errand, and belies that the one who makes the claim is not arguing in sincerity.
“Martin’s hands weren’t tested for DNA.” —- so what part of that counters that Zimmerman’s DNA was not found on Martin’s hands?
Underneath Martin’s fingernails were, btw, in which Martin’s blood was found, but none of Zimmerman’s. As I stated previously, that is a likely place it would have been, assuming there was any to be found.
“Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Not every touch transfers DNA. Also, Zimmerman says that Martin went for his gun, not that Martin actually got a hold of his gun.” —- Considering Zimmerman’s opinion of his forgotten gun, and how much he would like use to believe of Martin’s martial prowess, “Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Not every touch transfers DNA. Also, Zimmerman says that Martin went for his gun, not that Martin actually got a hold of his gun.” is pretty darn conviiieiiieeniiiient.
“The claim that Zimmerman’s statement is somehow inculpatory is a fool’s errand, and belies that the one who makes the claim is not arguing in sincerity.” — so then you can prove one way or another, and according to you Zimmerman DID NOT say Martin called for help?
I’m saying that the point that Zimmerman’s DNA wasn’t found on Martin’s hands is moot. It is tautological to say that that which was not tested was not found.
Testing the fingernail beds for DNA is a test for defensive behavior. If Zimmerman’s DNA had been found under Martin’s fingernails, that result would have indicated that Martin was defending himself against Zimmerman.
Score one (more) for Zimmerman’s claim that he was acting in self-defense against an aggressor Martin.
And…?
Straw man.
I was responding specifically to the claim that Zimmerman saying, “that doesn’t even sound like me” was an admission that it was in fact not him screaming.
As for what *I* can prove one way or another: that’s not my job. The prosecution bears the burden of proof, and any plausible scenarios – any merely possible scenarios not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt – demand, by law, that Zimmerman be acquitted. So the question is: what proof do you have, who claim that he is guilty of… something?
“Straw man.
I was responding specifically to the claim that Zimmerman saying, “that doesn’t even sound like me” was an admission that it was in fact not him screaming..”
Sraw man? BS. He says it. He also says Trayvon called for help during their altercation. Straw man means its an argument -I-created then refuted. I didn’t, they are Zimmerman’s words, and used in context to the conversation at hand. You can offer no immediate meaningful explanation for his answer aside from anecdotal evidence of what “everyone” thinks about their voice.
“As for what *I* can prove one way or another: that’s not my job.” — side step, avoiding the question. Zimmerman voices his disbelief that its him. He states Trayvon called for help during the altercation. You can offer nothing to refute that. Do you have an another artful dodge in which to employ, or would you rather just rely on the “Do you have evidence of this” standby, even though its been plainly made record of?
“Testing the fingernail beds for DNA is a test for defensive behavior. ” — I wasn’t aware fingernail beds knew the difference from offensive and defensive behavior. Would it be safe to assume then, that Zimmerman’s fingernail beds held defensive DNA behavioral patterns?
“I’m saying that the point that Zimmerman’s DNA wasn’t found on Martin’s hands is moot. It is tautological to say that that which was not tested was not found.” — and -I- am saying the one immediate factor that springs Zimmerman from all this foolishness wasn’t done. Zimmerman’s gun was checked for Trayvon’s DNA, even though George never said he touched it. George said Trayvon had his hands ALL OVER his head, and yet…. no tests. Hm. Sticky wicket.
martin ran and GZ ran – i have listen to that 911 call over and over and they ran from the club house period. then GZ lost him in the dark, trayvon assumed he lost him too in the dark..
Zimmerman ran from the clubhouse? If that’s the case, how did he get his vehicle to Twin Trees Lane??? Did he park it there, run back to the clubhouse and then run from there? Account for the car!! How did it get to it’s final parking spot on Twin Trees Lane, where the police found it after the shooting??? Yeah, didn’t THINK you could answer that one!
Idilla and Juggler,
Listening to the NEN, it is clear that at the time Zimmerman was in the truck and attempting to describe his location, he was somewhere in Twin Trees and past the mailboxes.
Assuming that Martin actually went along the East-West path and turned South down the central path…
1) The time between Martin passing/leaving the truck at a walking pace and apparently increasing pace run/skip to disappear down the central path
2) The time from Zimmerman leaving the truck and apparently slowing (or getting out of the wind)
……… indicate that the truck was parked up towards the East end of Twin Trees.
What we don’t know is the precise position or the direction in which it was facing.
Zimmerman in his walk-through describes driving into Twin Trees and parking up towards the corner – and in an East-facing direction (looking towards the T-junction).
In other interviews he is a bit vague about the location on a map.
Taaffe says Zimmerman told him that the truck was parked facing West – facing towards the clubhouse – and that Martin approached from the clubhouse direction.
The clubhouse pool area CCTV indicates that a vehicle drove into Twin Trees, did a U-turn and parked facing the clubhouse (West) just at the time the NEN connected.
Zimmerman’s walk-through account of starting the NEN when parked at the clubhouse front ‘has issues’ with both achievable movements and background noises in the timeline. That account also has issues with reasonability. He would have had to drive away from Taaffe’s and neighbors’ houses leaving them at the mercy of the suspicuous guy. He would then have to delay over a minute before dialling NEN, as he says that Martin walked past him at the clubhouse front in the early part of the NEN.
The actual position and direction faced have always been a mystery.
SPD didn’t treat the truck as evidence. Zimmerman’s wife and Osterman apparently just drove it away. One officer apparently canvassed the area for vehicles. I have not seen a detailed report. It might not go beyond registrations and vehicle makes.
So… “where the police found it after the shooting”
Has anyone seen evidence of exactly where and how the truck was parked?
What we don’t know is the precise position or the direction in which it was facing.
Not exactly. During the re-enactment, Zimmerman pointed out to the police almost EXACTLY where he remembered leaving his vehicle. None of those present contradicted his comment at that time, or even at all in recorded interviews before or after. The location of his vehicle never came into question – rather, Zimmerman’s pinpointing of where he left his vehicle never did. As far as the direction it was facing…not particularly relevant, especially taking into account the dispatcher’s request to be kept informed as to what Trayvon Martin was doing.
By the way, I am STILL looking forward to the post in which you spend an appreciable amount of time discussing something relevant.
Given that Zimmerman’s memory in that walk-through is demonstrably faulty – as it also is in interviews – his description of his arrival into Twin Trees can not be simply accepted as accurate just because he says so.
Given that they did not know where he had parked it, they were hardly in a position to contradict him.
The direction it was facing is very relevant as to the accuracy of Zimmerman’s account. The indications that his account is not accurate are as I stated them in the comment that you responded to.
I feel your pain :)
.
You wrote “where the police found it after the shooting”
You may have made that up.
It seems that the cops had no particular interest in how Zimmerman got there.
@SlingTrebuchet:
Indeed.
Because “how he got there” is completely irrelevant.
Does the location of his vehicle, or the direction it was facing, provide evidence that he acted with a depraved mind, or that he was not acting in self-defense, or in any other way impact or contribute to the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman?
What are you getting at with all of this ad nauseum parsing of Zimmerman’s narrative? Are you trying to say that, because he did not accurately recall/state the exact timeline of locations and events prior to the actual physical altercation that his account of the altercation itself is untrustworthy? (And as a corollary, that because he didn’t recall/state the exact, blow-by-blow account of the physical altercation itself that he is likewise untrustworthy?
Is that your entire play here?
Again: the actual, objective evidence:
1. Zimmerman suffered obvious physical injuries
2. Martin suffered no physical injuries (other than the fatal gunshot wound)
3. Multiple witnesses saw Martin on top of Zimmerman
4. Police reports indicate that Zimmerman’s back was wet and covered with grass, as if he had been lying on the ground
5. At least one witness stated that Martin was forcibly preventing Zimmerman from getting up
6. The nature of Zimmerman’s injuries substantiate both that he suffered the commission of a forcible felony, and that he had reasonable fear of imminent risk of life or great bodily harm.
That is more than sufficient evidence to substantiate a claim of use of deadly force in self-defense.
The State is on record, admitting that they have no evidence to refute that claim, or to prove that Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor.
In attempting to refute such a claim, you present: Zimmerman parked his truck in the wrong direction. Why? Why is that relevant? Why is Zimmerman’s ability to recall exactly how many punches Martin landed, or exactly how many times his head hit the ground while being mounted by Martin relevant? Why is where Zimmerman walked in the approximately 90 seconds between the end of the NEN call to the commencement of the physical altercation relevant?
Chip,
I understand your position completely I think.
You base your position on a subset of the evidence that is currently publicly known.
There was an altercation
WItness evidence has Martin on top of Zimmerman for a number of seconds
Zimmerman’s jacket showed signs of him having been on his back
Zimmerman came out with a bleeding nose (likely broken) and two clean cuts on the back of his head.
Martin came out with an abrasion below the knuckle on one finger and a gunshot wound.
You say that the nature and balance of injury (ignoring the gunshot) proves that Martin was the initial aggressor.
You say that the nature of Zimmerman’s injuries and the fact of him being seen for a number of seconds on his back on his back were in themselves a reasonable basis for him to be in fear of his life from Martin.
End of.
Any glaring conflicts in Zimmerman’s various accounts, no matter how gross, are not relevant.
Zimmerman’s credibility is in no way relevant.
There is in fact absolutely no need for Zimmerman to account for anything.
.
You say that “approximately 90 seconds between the end of the NEN call to the commencement of the physical altercation” is in no way relevant.
This however would mean that the altercation lasted 1 minute and 44 seconds up to the shot. During that time, Zimmerman made no apparent attempt to defend himself apart from eventually shooting Martin. The altercation would have moved a distance of 50 feet before ending up on the ground. They did not move the 50 feet with Martin on top of Zimmerman. During this movement, Zimmerman had no means of escape and made no apparent attempt to fight back.
This and any other matters are all irrelevant however.
.
It remains to be seen if a court agrees with your position.
It also remains to be seen what evidence and interpretation the prosecution will present.
Sling – where do you come UP with the crap you sling?
You wrote (to Chip): “You say that “approximately 90 seconds between the end of the NEN call to the commencement of the physical altercation” is in no way relevant.
This however would mean that the altercation lasted 1 minute and 44 seconds up to the shot. During that time, Zimmerman made no apparent attempt to defend himself apart from eventually shooting Martin. The altercation would have moved a distance of 50 feet before ending up on the ground. They did not move the 50 feet with Martin on top of Zimmerman. During this movement, Zimmerman had no means of escape and made no apparent attempt to fight back.”
Uh….the time span between the end of the NEN call and the beginning of the altercation IS irrelevant – since 90 seconds certainly doesn’t stretch outside the threshold of Zimmerman’s claim that he was en route back to his vehicle.
During the fight, Zimmerman made no apparent attempt to defend himself apart from eventually shooting Martin? That remark is utterly STUPID!! How do come up with that??? How do YOU define “defending one’s self”?? You think Zimmerman simply lay there with his arms at his side allowing Trayvon Martin free access to his face and head with repeated blows? That’s just stupid! Some of Martin’s blows certainly landed solid…others were obviously not so solid. Not all landed to Zimmerman’s face, but it is OBVIOUS Zimmerman was injured – to say he attempt no means of self-defense is idiotic.
Yes, the altercation moved approximately 50ft into Witness #6’s backyard before it finally went to the ground – all the while Zimmerman attempting to deflect Martin’s blows. At that point, Martin mounted Zimmerman and continued his onslaught, altering between striking Zimmerman, covering his mouth to prevent his screams, and banging his head against the sidewalk. During that time, Witness #6 came outside and observed part of the beating. Only after re-situating and exposing his firearm, which was tucked into his waistband, did Zimmerman remember he was armed (kinda hard to keep that point in the forefront of one’s mind when one’s cognitive abilities are being compromised by repeated cranial impacts). And that is when he drew his weapon and shot Trayvon Martin.
Your repeated dissection of every second, and taking Zimmerman’s account to the LETTER is really unintelligent. A I have said before, you are “Monday morning quarterbacking” the entire scenario, failing to take into account the totality of the evidence It is this available totality that renders your obsession with minute details so silly. SEE THE BIG PICTURE!! Stop focusing on a single ingredient of the recipe.
That line is absolutely hilarious!
What I am doing is seeing the big picture. What you are doing is focussing on ingredients.
Let me illustrate:
Your ingredient:
As an ingredient it might seem plausible.
The distance from the roadside on RVC to the T is 94 feet. Zimmerman said that he was attacked a bit beyond the T. Say 100 feet. To take 90 seconds, he would walk at just over 1 foot per second.
A normal walk for 90 seconds would have taken him over 380 feet. That would be well past his truck and about 100 feet short of the Clubhouse mailboxes.
So?
If he takes 90 seconds to get to just beyond the T, he is playing a game. You know – where you walk by putting the heel of left foot to the toe of right foot, then move right foot heel to toe of left, etc. You do it by only moving a foot every second. la-la-la-laaa! Such fun.
So Zimmerman is walking back from the truck pretending to be walking a tightrope very very slowly.
And why not? There is nothing illegal about doing that. In fact, it’s fun.
That’s fine as an ingredient.
What about the BIG PICTURE?
He had gone to RVC in order to get an address. He did that because he was unable to describe where he was. He needs an address to which to direct the cops to meet him.
Having got to his goal, he doesn’t give the address to the dispatcher. He asks that the patrol ring him to find out where he is. He then sets off for the truck.
He’s expecting a call any moments for the incoming patrol. When they ring, they will ask him where he is at. Now there’s a problem. He won’t be able to tell them.
He could turn around and hurry back to RVC and give then a house number at which to meet him.
He could get to his truck as fast as possible so he could tell them “When you come in, make a left. No. Don’t make a left, You go past the Clubhouse. No. Straight in and don’t make a left, you go past the mailboxes and you’ll see my truck.”
Alternatively he could head for the mailboxes – which was the meeting point that the dispatcher had suggested and Zimmerman had agreed to before suddenly changing at the last moment to ask that the patrol ring him to find out where he was at. He could head there as fast as possible because the patrol could be ringing him any moment.
500 feet to the mailboxes
– at a normal walking pace he would cover that in under 120 seconds
– at a fast walking pace he would cover that in under 85 seconds. Wut? 85 seconds? Ah the hell with it, slow down a bit. Take it a bit easier and take 90 seconds to get to the mailboxes. No wait! 90 seconds? Why does that sound familiar?
If he’s not going to wait at a RVC house number, then a fast walk to the mailboxes is the only sensible alternative.
No wait!
At 90 seconds, he’s only covered a fifth of the distance to the mailboxes.
He’s playing a game, pretending to walk a tightrope very very slowly to pass the time until the patrol ring him and when he won’t be able to tell them where he is at any more. la-la-la-laaa! Such fun.
But hey! There’s nothing illegal or felonious about that. It’s only completely illogical and nonsensical in the BIG PICTURE. It just a “stretch outside the threshold” of reasonability. It’s just a ‘beyond breaking point’ sort of “stretch”.
.
He’s expecting a call. It’s kind of important.
Unlike many people, he does not seem to have a routine of keeping his phone in a certain pocket or whatever. It would be to polite answer as quickly as possible when the patrol ring him. Well, at least he will hear it ringing and that will help him to find the phone. The sensible thing would to keep the phone in his hand, but he sticks it in some pocket or other that he can’t remember.
That’s OK. Stuff like that happens – even when one is expecting an important phone call.
.
What about the BIG PICTURE?
If he’s attacked 90 seconds after the NEN ends, then he is attacked 1 minute before the first 911 connects.
At some stage in that minute, Witness 11 and 20 hear what sounds like a loud argument. They mute TV and listen. They hear what seems to be a scuffle that appears to move Southwards from the area of the T. W.11 dials 911. 45 seconds into the call, a shot is heard.
How much of the minute was taken up by W.11 reacting and dialling? Listening to her interviews, she was quick on the draw. She mentions troubles in the area. She’s active in the homeowners association and knows of Zimmerman and NW activities.
If it took her 30 seconds, than that would leave 30 seconds during which any noises of a fight outside the house did not reach them.
Remember that this ‘minute from the start of the fight to the 911 connecting’ is based on Zimmerman playing walk-the-tightrope-very-slowly-la-la-laaa when any glimmer of reason would have had him walking fast and being at the mailboxes 400 feet away and 1 minute before the time of the 911 connecting.
.
Accepting within the BIG PICTURE the plainly ridiculous ’90 seconds to the T’ for the moment……
Some 30 seconds of this fight was conducted in silence. Neither of them did any loud arguing or shouting before that. We seem to be in agreement that they must have been upright until the time that they move 50 feet south. Otherwise the back of Zimmerman’s jacket would not have looked like it just came out of the cleaners, and the back of his head would have be mashed with debris.
Two guys standing, having a fight in silence and not moving from the T for the first 30 seconds or so.
Remember that the 30 seconds or so would be dependent of Zimmerman doing the slow-tight-rope walk in his hurry to be somewhere he could describe when the cops called him.
.
We only have Zimmerman’s word as to the detail of the fight – and his memory of the night seems to be decidedly faulty for whatever reasons.
Witness.6 did not observe a beating. He observed two figures horizontal on the grass. He saw no hands or faces. He saw no straddling. He didn’t observe them on the footpath. He says that as he closed and locked his door and went for the phone, they appeared to be moving in the direction of the path. He thought that the one underneath was trying to sit up but was falling back.
.
This fight that was conducted in gentlemanly respectful silence for the first 30 seconds or so did not seem to have resulted in any defensive bruising such as might be expected in a fight that would have lasted around 1 minute 45 seconds. On Zimmerman we have an injured nose and perhaps some unremarkable abrasions on his face. On Martin we have a small abrasion on one finger. It would appear to have been a relatively gentle affair for such a duration.
Remember that the 30 seconds or so would be dependent on Zimmerman doing the slow-tight-rope walk in his hurry to be somewhere he could describe when the cops called him.
Bear in mind that if had walked (and not in a hurry) from RVC towards his truck, that fight would have lasted over 3 minutes, commencing with about 2 minutes of silence and non-movement.
.
That’s fine as an ingredient.
What about the BIG PICTURE?
Zimmerman was sitting in his truck. The real suspicious guy who was up to no good and on drugs or something walks right up to the truck with “something in his hand” and ZOMG CIRCLES THE FREAKING TRUCK WITH CONFRONTATIONAL BODY LANGUAGE.
Something other than “repeated cranial impacts” must have been compromising Zimmerman’s cognitive abilities at the time, as it does sound rather like the kind of situation that would call for some sort of consideration of possible defensive measures.
From the NEN:
He had over 30 seconds of Martin walking towards him, with gradual addition of things that might be threatening. At no time beforehand or during this walk do his cognitive abilities get to considering self defence.
Their is also no evidence provening he was going to to commet any crime that night either- all we know is he went to the store, talked to dee-dee, went to clubhouse to wait for rain to slow-up while talking to dee-dee, Ran or (skipped) away from GZ, Wrestle with GZ, got shot in the chest and died, thats all we know so far for a fact.
…which I have always maintained is irrelevant, anyway. The first crime was committed the moment someone acted as the initial physical aggressor in the physical altercation that led to Martin’s death. (Based on existing evidence, I am quite comfortable in stating that Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose, and was thus the initial aggressor.)
Confirmed.
As yet unconfirmed – and this is something that is a slam-dunk, no-brainer to confirm, if forensic evidence (i.e. ping logs for the phones in question) corroborate such a phone call.
As yet unconfirmed. Zimmerman states that he saw Martin among the houses, not at the clubhouse. Martin’s GPS data could confirm whether he spent any time at the clubhouse, or at the mail shelter; unfortunately, those GPS data are, as of yet, mysteriously missing for the night in question.
Confirmed.
But at this point, you miss a couple important points:
1. We know that Martin did not go home in the four minutes between the time he eluded Zimmerman’s visual contact, and the time the altercation started.
2. We know that one person verbally accosted the other.
3. We know that Martin used force against Zimmerman – force that, absent a self-defense claim, was clearly unlawful
Based on witness testimony, it would be more accurate to say that Martin mounted Zimmerman. There is no evidence of a wrestling match, since no witness ever saw Zimmerman on top of Martin.
Confirmed.
Based on “all we know so far for a fact”, what is the probable cause for arresting Zimmerman for second-degree murder?
Zimmerman states that he first saw Martin on the grass area “between the houses” beside Taffe’s house. There was nothing suspicious about being between the houses there in itself, as this is the well-known pedestrian shortcut in and out of the community.
He says that he stopped to observe Martin.
He says that he then drove past Martin, around the next corner and straight on the the front of the clubhouse on Retreat View Circle. He says he pulled in there to park as the NEN connected.
He says that Martin passed him there at the front of the clubhouse while he was on the NEN.
He says that Martin stared at the truck and then walked down into Twin Trees and out of sight.
He says that he then backed out of the Clubhouse front and drove into Twin Trees. He says he then saw Martin up at the East end of Twin Trees. “He’s here now”
He is absolutely clear on Martin passing him at the front of the clubhouse while he was on the NEN. He takes us through the actions in the Walk-Through. It is hard to be mistaken about such things.
For some reason. he did not mention this passing the dispatcher in the NEN.
This actually raises a number of problems.
1. Martin would have to walk past him a the Clubhouse front in the early seconds of the NEN if he has to get up to the East of Twin Trees when Zimmerman reports seeing him up towards the path area, disappearing for the first time, and then reappearing and coming down to circle the truck.
2. He drove to front of the Clubhose. Martin walked. This means that Zimmerman must have delayed for some minutes before dialling NEN.
3. If Martin passes him at the Clubhouse front in the NEN, there is no time for him to even pass through the mailboxes, nevermind pause there. So Martin can not have been in the mailboxes.
4. It means that Zimmerman saw Martin near Taaffe’s house and thought him suspicious – looking at houses where there had been break-ins. He then drove away, leaving Taaffe and neighbors at the mercy of a suspicious person. He waited some minutes before calling NEN. He’s “lost visual” on Martin since he drove away. He’s now going to tell the dispatcher that he’s seen a suspicious person somewhere, and that the best address he can give is the Clubhouse — despite the fact that the last time he saw the suspicious person, the person was casing Taaffe’s house – which is on Retreat View Circle (the only road name that he could remeber) and the number of which he is probaly familiar with.
5 Clubhouse pool area CCTV apparently shows the lights of a vehicle entering Twin Trees, making a U-turn and parking facing the clubhouse right at the time that the NEN connected. – When Zimmerman says he was pulling into the front of the Clubhouse.
.
Given that Martin is dead, don’t hold your breath waiting for a self-defence claim.
.
Witness testimony is that he describes them as wrestling. They were both horizontal on the ground at the time. He saw them only for a number of seconds of an altercation that lasted a minimum of one minute and perhaps up to two.
Another witness thought it was one person on the ground, so definitely no mounting/straddling then either.
Chip-their r 3 witness that saw GZ on top,sorry. And yes their is proof that trayvon was at clubhouse standing. FBi proof.sorry again.An
Three witnesses saw GZ on top? Before the shot was fired? Or AFTER the shot was fired? Specify, and then identify them. Once you do that, I will explain why your implication is so ignorant that you just need to put your keyboard down and develop a hobby.
Chip stop say everything is irrelevant you kow thats not true, everything that happen that night is relevent basically because it happen their was a life taken and their are facts to what happen and at this point we all are trying to figure out truth from fiction, partial story from real story.
THERE!!!! Not “their”. PLEASE!!
No, actually; that’s not true.
Unless there is evidence that either Zimmerman or Martin was doing anything otherwise unlawful at the time of the physical altercation, then what happened before and leading up to that altercation is statutorily irrelevant.
For the same reason that I don’t care why Martin went to 7-11, what he was doing for the 40 minutes between his purchase and his encounter with Zimmerman, whether or not he had any drugs in his system at the time, or whether he was wandering about, looking into houses, or merely standing out of the rain; I likewise don’t care what Zimmerman was doing (or how accurately he can recall/relate what exactly he was doing).
I don’t care, because none of those actions, by either person, were inherently unlawful (barring different results in a full tox report, I don’t even really care about the trace THC in Martin’s system, even though it is evidence that he had dome something unlawful at some point in the past).
The statutes are quite clear: the only relevant actions are the initial unlawful use of force, and what happened after that initial unlawful use of force.
You (just like Sling) need to introduce a bunch of irrelevant nonsense, because you (just like Sling) believe, despite what the evidence indicates, that Zimmerman is a murderer. You know that the actual, material, relevant evidence doesn’t support your belief, so you attempt to convict Zimmerman on the basis of things that simply don’t matter.
Chip- why is it that you wont even let your mind even think that their could even be any possibility that GZ admitted that -he number one Killed trayvon number two ran, followed,chased,profiled , He LOOKs like he’s on DRUGS, He LOOKS likes he up to NO GOOD. THOSE assholes All ways get away. With that being said he has already made up his mind about trayvon. Gz was not right and for some reason reading your blogs you can’t see that.
Idilla, the problem is that people like Chip HAVE already very seriously entertained all the possibilities, and have concluded that even the WORST case scenario for GZ according to the evidence is that he committed no crime – certainly NOT 2nd degree murder. His prosecution is a case of the state attorney becoming too personally involved in order to pursue her persona agenda. Bottom line – people like her are not accustomed to facing top notch defense attorneys. They too frequently overcharge in order to get a plea bargain. It’s win-win for them. They get a conviction and don’t have to do much work to get it. But here they are, facing Mark O’Mara and Don West, who are head and shoulders above Corey and de la Rionda. If this was a 2 on 2 basketball match, MOM and West would look like NBA All-Stars compared to those two lackeys!
@idilla:
Zimmerman admitted that he shot Martin. I have never refuted that Zimmerman shot Martin. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else – someone who has refuted this point?
Zimmerman has not admitted to running after, following (with intent to accost), or chasing Martin.
Zimmerman has stated that he followed the path that Martin went, in order to determine where Martin went after Zimmerman lost sight of him.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman ran or chased after Martin.
Profiling is not illegal. And, given that the evidence indicates that it was Martin who assaulted Zimmerman, I would say that Zimmerman’s initial assessment of Martin was spot-on.
More importantly: running after, chasing, following, and profiling are not inherently unlawful acts, do not constitute “initial physical aggression”, do not constitute “imminent use of unlawful force”, and do not deprive Zimmerman of the right to use force, or deadly force, in self-defense.
Zimmerman was “not right” about what, exactly?
And even if Zimmerman were “not right” about whatever it is, does being “not right” preclude him from defending himself – much less, prove that he is guilty of murder?
@ rule of law,
The prosecution said that Zimmerman “falsely assumed” Trayvon was going to commit a crime. THEY are accusing Zimmerman of making a false assumption. I am merely saying that they should not say this, without specific evidence that his assumption is actually false. I have already explained, a couple of times now, that there isn’t any evidence he was committing a crime or not. I have explained that the prosecution cannot prove Zimmerman’s assumption is FALSE without proving that he WAS NOT going to commit a crime.
This is where DD came in, her testimony was used to imply that Trayvon was not engage in a illegal activity. Without her testimony the State will have to prove that GZ’s was wrong in perceiving Trayvon as suspect. GZ never claimed that Trayvon was in the act of committing a crime, only that he was suspect, because it was raining, cold, hanging around, and looking at the houses. I do not see anything unreasonable about those observations, in light of the previous problems in the community. I believe that is why GZ used the Non Emergency number, rather that 911.
GZ was suspect sitting in his car , talking about trayvon as a suspect..neither one of them had ever seen each other as far as we know so we cant assume anything about the other . GZ was not the police . Trayvon was not doing anything wrong . This shooting should have never happen. And stop believing stuff you will never know GZ real reason for calling non-emergency. unless he really wants to tell you in his own time like the truth he will tell that maybe in his own time.
You see someone sitting in his vehicle talking in cell phone as suspect? Yet, you feel that someone walking slowly on a dark, cold rainy night as completely innocent. Wow, this is the sort of logic that allows criminals a free hand.
Yes if I see someone sitting in their vehicle and their talking about me descibing what I am wearing an talking about me . Boricuafudd -if I am walking in the rain I am more than likely, trying to get somewhere cause I don’t have a car,and last time I checked you can walk anytime of day anywhere you want as a citizen. I was not their so I can’t say at what pace trayvon was walking to get out of rain.
See above regarding false assumpts and foundation for accusations.
The problem I have with how you describe things is that you are making jumps and conclusions, that we not made by GZ. At no point did GZ accuse Martin of doing something illegal or that he was planning on doing anything illegal. GZ did assume he was high, but that was based on his observations.
Also forgotten on this conversation is the fact that the dispatcher thought that what GZ was describing was worth dispatching a cruiser. With enough urgency that it arrived just a minute after.
” At no point did GZ accuse Martin of doing something illegal or that he was planning on doing anything illegal” — so then why call the cops? That is the nature of calling a LAW ENFORCEMENT officer if you see some one you think is “up to no good” (GZ’s words). His description of Martin, btw, was prefaced with a profile of robberies being committed in the neighborhood.
Exactly, he did not ascribe any deed to him, he merely was reporting to the police something he thought was suspicious. Police get calls like that all the time, they don’t always respond, it is the dispatcher that determines the merit of the call, and act accordingly. Notice that in this case the dispatcher did not do that. He felt that the call warranted the attention of the police, and dispatched someone to tend to it.
Zimmerman starts off by framing his concern about burglars.
He then states Martin fits the profile of said burglars, based off race. Age, pparently, wasn’t so sure of. (not saying he is racist, just saying that is the only criterion he was able to use)
He states Martin is up to no good.
He the calls Martin an asshole that “always gets away”.
What do you think he was “suspect” of? What do you think Zimmerman things Martin is “getting away” with when he ran?
Analogy:
I am not saying you smell bad, but I have to Febreeze the couch after you sit in it.
I am not saying you smell bad, but I light scented candles when you walk in the room.
I am not saying you smell bad, but you smell an awful lot like other people that smell bad.
What, you’re offended?
Dude, I didn’t say you smelled bad.
yes if i was out in the rain and took cover under a clubhouse shelter to wait for rain to slow up an a car pulls up shining its headlightgs on me and then i hear him or her talking about me describing what i am wearing and other things.. yes i would get scared and yes i would put on my hoodie and start running from them..yes i might even walk
pass car to see if they are the police and if not i would run as fast as i can..But i would not take them back to my home if i knew an adult would not be their..but if i think i lost them then i would continue home.
Their is pictures from the clubhouse with martin standing their and also leaving – their is pictures of GZ parking at clubhouse with his lights shining on Trayvon. Fact.
Which discovery release or supplement includes these pictures?
(I assume you mean that there are stills taken from security camera video?)
The Clubhouse CCTV recordings were included in discovery – but I forget which one. Late in 2012?
Good luck to anyone going through them.
They are low-rez and timelapsed, so don’t expect anything less than difficult.
I had a quick look at a couple. It’s sort of like watching a movie about someone writing a book about the making of a movie about paint drying.
Someone with a lot of time produced a very detailed analysis.
This blog comment has a link to the detail:
There is more discussion on that page.
I get what he says about car lights, but I don’t have time to grab and process frames from periods where he says a figure is seen at a door or a piece of vehicle bodywork can be seen.
I’ll wait to see if the prosecution uses them in the trial.
The most interesting finding as far as I’m concerned is a finding that a vehicle entered Twin Trees, paused by the mailboxes and then drove into the East-West stretch. It makes a U-turn and stops facing the clubhouse. This is right at the time the NEN call connects.
It’s interesting because the vehicle is parking facing the clubhouse – and mailboxes – exactly as Taffee says Zimmerman told him, facing the clubhouse with the call starting there and Martin approaching from the clubhouse direction.
It’s interesting because Zimmerman’s Walk-Through description of Martin walking past him at the front of the clubhouse during the call doesn’t work against a timeline of events described in the NEN. That walk past would also raise questions about what Zimmerman was doing after he drove away from Taffe’s house (and the suspected burglar Martin).
It’s interesting because DeeDee mentions Martin sheltering in a mail place. If that refers to the mailboxes beside the clubhouse, then there is a huge confilct with Zimmerman describing Martin walking past him at the clubhouse front during the NEN.
Are you talking about the clubhouse videos, that were out of synch and that at best showed shadows and lights flashing? You really believe that those recordings show anything that the prosecution will be able to use? Fact.
The clock on the CCTV system was indeed out of synch, but appears to have been resynced via examination of the unit and by cross-referencing the time of arrival of police cars after the event.
While they don’t give a wonderfully consumer-friendly real-time record of two guys running around, they certainly show activity of vehicle lights throughout.
I think the vehicle that loitered by the mailboxes and then did a U-turn in Twin Trees just about when the NEN connected is interesting.
Maybe Zimmerman forgot that there was a vehicle parked facing the clubhouse when he drove into Twin Trees after starting the NEN at the clubhouse front – and seeing Martin walk past him there during the NEN. The lights of that vehicle would have tended to blind him and make it difficult for him to see Martin up in the dark area towards the T. He has never mentioned the presence of such an annoying vehicle.
While the particular vehicle(s) in question can not be identified from the CCTV, there is something about the timing of everything that a jury might consider as a ‘preponderance of evidence’ that yet another chunk of Zimmerman’s stories don’t stand up.
More of that sort of timeline and CCTV analysis at http://imgur.com/a/bcAII
It might predict the sort of analysis of material that the prosecution are sitting on.
The actual videos are in discovery. Other material is in discovery.
What is not in discovery is how the prosecution intend to “join the dots”.
They will connect the dots and I will be watching just to hear GZ explain this one. He problemly forgot this happen and blame it on his ADHD. He already said his memory is bad.
Where are the pictures??? DO provide a link. I am going to assume that you have seen them, right? Yeah – I didn’t THINK so!!
chip-no matter what if GZ comes clean an confess you would still say he should be found innocent. Your a lost cause aleast everyone else is trying to figure out what really happen. not you
If Zimmerman “comes clean” and confesses? Your “if” is a ridiculous hypothetical. He will NOT confess to anything but shooting someone in self-defense. I mean, honestly, it’s just rather ignorant of you to attempt to inject an “if” into this. If dogs and cats mated….if pigs flew…if Oswald had not shot Kennedy…..your “if” is not reality.
To the contrary: when I first heard of this case, I had no preconceived notions regarding what happened. Over the course of the past year, I have considered all evidence that has been made available, and have drawn the obvious conclusion that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that Zimmerman committed second-degree murder, and the preponderance of publicly available evidence clearly indicates that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
If the evidence showed otherwise, I would conclude otherwise.
You, on the other hand, stubbornly hold on to your belief that Zimmerman is a murderer, regardless of what the evidence shows.
I leave the challenge open: disprove me. Provide some evidence that refutes Zimmerman’s claim that he acted in self-defense. Having done that, provide some evidence that Zimmerman committed a second-degree murder.
That was well put, Mike.
I make no secret of the disgust I feel for the standard of interviewing by BDLR in that interview. The audio, far more than the transcript, really hurts my brain.
I think that I have found a good metaphor for the interviewing of DeeDee.
There is an episode in Star Trek Voyager named – The Darmok Episode
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Darmok_%28episode%29
The Enterprise crew encounter a new race of beings.
The Universal Translator can translate the words of the alien language into English, but the sentences don’t make any sense. The Translator translates English words into Tamarian words, but the sentences don’t make any sense to the Tamarians.
There is much frustration on both sides by a failure to communicate.
“Data and Troi deduce that the Tamarian language is entirely based on metaphors derived from their own experience and mythology, making their language extremely difficult for a non-Tamarian to understand because without knowing the people or things in the metaphor, the metaphor is impossible to comprehend. ”
.
DeeDee is a Tamarian.
BDLR doesn’t get it.
A lot of people don’t seem to get it. One extreme form of ‘don’t get it’ I have seen a few times goes along the lines of “She say she heard the grass!! BWAHAHAHAHAH”.
.
Tamarian DeeDee has a story to tell.
Apart from the ‘metaphor’ challenge, there might be an additional challenge in that the Tamarian DeeDee has been introduced to the Enterprise crew by another alien named Benj Amin – who might have tried to explain Enterprise language to her.
.
Calls logs presumably show Martin’s phone in communication with another phone number on the night.
I have seen suggestions that this phone number was not DeeDee’s. If it is necessary to establish this as true or untrue, I should think that an comparison of the call pattern for that number before the incident with the pattern after the incident would indicate whether or not the same person had that phone number throughout.
.
I am bemused by the screams of perjury – assuming that this refers specifically to the BDLR interview.
BDLR appears to have a style of feeding leading questions to his subjects.
He feeds a question to a Tamarian that is not alone leading, but is also ambiguous. Intergalactic war would not be a surprising outcome.
To my mind, for this to be perjury, she
1. did not go to the hospital
AND
2. did not go somewhere
….. as well as this being material to the case
Why she did not attend the funeral or behave as a non-Tamarian-DeDee might have expected her to could be looked at. Hospital might have been offered before the interview (to the Benj Amin initally?) to cover some other reason that might have no bearing. However, in the interview it was BDLR who suggested it – and he gave her “or somewhere” as an option to respond to.
.
What an entertaining post!!!! Wow.
“When he gets his turn, he might well use his skills to destroy her – simply by getting her to respond in Tamarian to a barrage of questions.”
Yeah, or he could just say “Seriously? Are you even considering putting my client in prison for decades because of some chick who says she ‘heard the grass’? What is this, East Germany?”
“However, in the interview it was BDLR who suggested it – and he gave her ‘or somewhere’ as an option to respond to.”
Right. Well, whether or not it’s perjury, the question is, will the jury believe that she didn’t know what he meant by “hospital or somewhere”? I suppose they might, if they are already predisposed to thinking that Zimmerman is guilty. Any honest person hearing that is going to say “Yeah right. Why doesn’t she just say that her fingers were crossed, so that lie doesn’t count?”.
The problem is that, if you think “Did you go to the hospital or something?” might mean “Did you go to the hospital, or did you go to Baskin-Robbins to get some ice cream?”, then you might think any number of bizarre, highly improbable things, and your grasp of the English language is so malleable that anything you say could literally mean anything.
I get what you’re saying with your “Tamarian” metaphor. But can you understand that, unless the jury is filled with “Tamarians”, then anyone who tries clarifying what Dee Dee meant to the jury runs the risk of making the whole thing look so tortured and improbable that they, themselves, look dishonest?
It was an interesting idea, though.
You’re doing a BDLR there – even though you do it to ridcule :)
What you are not doing is asking a simple question.
With your line of questioning, you could sit there for hours or days or forever going through a list of places that you think she might have gone to, and asking her if she went there.
Using a list of all the street names in the city would be more advisable than nominating a list of all the businesses of all types in the city. You might come out without an affirmative answer if your list is not actually comprehensive.
You should include all parks and any places that DeeDee might not think of as being on one of the streets on your list.
You also have problems if she thinks of the street or business as other than the formal legal name.
Maybe she did, for example, actually go to Baskin-Robbins, but for her and her peers, it’s always “Robs” and asking about “Baskin-Robbins” would get a Wut?
It’s worse than that.
Not alone are you going through a list of many thousands of possible locations (that you hope is a completely comprehensive list). You almost infintely multiplying the possibilities by asking if she went to each of those locations for very particular purposes. It’s most unlikely that you will ever get a Yes.
Maybe she did actually go to Baskin-Robbins, and knows it as such.
But…. she didn’t go there to get some ice cream. She went there to get a small chocolate cake (that just happend to have a little decorative piping of their mint ice cream on top. It’s not ice cream. It’s a cake.
Look at your question “Did you go to the hospital, or did you go to Baskin-Robbins to get some ice cream?”
…. No. She didn’t go to hospital AND she didn’t go to Baskin-Robbins to get some ice cream. The truthful answer to your question is “No”.
She’s not necessarily answering “No” in order to hide the fact that the got a small chocolate cake. She’s answering your dumb question truthfully.
She answered BDLR’s dumb question truthfully.
The questioning (both BDLR’s and yours) is crap questioning.
.
If DeeDee is being interviewed on or off the stand, then it should be blindingly obvious to anyone of even moderate intelligence the any questioning has to be simple step by step. This is advisable with any witness, but most particularly with DeeDee..
For example:
Did you go to the funeral?
Why did you not go?
What did you do that day?
Did talk to anyone about that?
Did you take any medication?
Where did you go?
What time was that?
The outcome would be that we would have unambiguous answers to unambiguous questions.
It takes careful questioning and reflection on the answers given so as to frame following questions.
What BDLR seems to do is to ask leading questions ( some of them ambiguous) and go charging off on some tack like a dog chasing a ball. He’s all over the place.
If anyone can get Zimmerman acquitted, it will be BDLR.
Whoever takes DeeDee through her story will have to do it simple step by step. Simple questions and no moving on until the answer to each simple question is clear. They will have to strip aside the metaphors. To do that they would need insight into DeeDee’s ‘alien’ culture.
“Far more revealing would be the rumored deciphering of the sounds in the background of the 911 calls.”
And yes, that’s just exactly what this case needs. More rumors of evidence that’s about to come out any moment now!!! and blow this thing out of the water.
Phooey, I say.
Sort of like an assaulted bus driver.
“Sort of like an assaulted bus driver.”
OK, well, I say phooey to that as well. I am perfectly willing to admit that the pro-Zimmerman side has come up with plenty of goofy conspiracy theories as well. Notice that, in my comment, I didn’t say that any particular side had a corner on the market of goofiness.
Touche. ;)
Yes indeed!
We need more rumors.
Rumors relating to evidence that is already released are particularly useful.
How about the rumor that the dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow – and that as he began to return to his truck, he was attacked. That one was started by Zimmerman in his written statement.
How about the rumor that Zimmerman told the dispatcher that he was returning to his truck?
That one started by Zimmerman in his Walk-through. It was repeated by Mike in his recent Update.21 “and telling them he was on his way back to his vehicle to meet the responding officers.”
How about the rumor that the shot was fired within a minute of “We don’t need you to do that”?
That one was started by Hannity in July in the presence of Zimmerman and O’Mara. I don’t know where he got it.
How about the rumor that if Zimmerman was not attacked “within 30 seconds” of “We don’t need you to do that” then he was certainly attacked within 30 seconds of the end of the NEN call. That one was started by Zimmerman in the presence of O’Mara on Hannity over 4 months later.
How about the rumor that Martin was running?
That one was started by Zimmerman from the outset – contemporaneously in the NEN call and backed up by “fled” in the statement – but amended to ‘sort of skipped’ and “not in fear” on Hannity over 4 months later – for some reason.
How about the rumor that Martin was spaced and staggering in the 7-11 (due to drugs that only left minor traces in his system)?
What about the rumor that smoking pot sometime in the past few days turns people into homicidial maniacs?
What about the rumor that the spaced-out Martin suddenly turned into “an athlete” when he began running/sort-of-skipping?
How about the rumor that Zimmerman was knocked backwards (i.e. to the North-West) onto the ground by a punch, and then while still on his back under his own weight and that of another, moved about 40 feet Southwards over wet ground without the back of his head or jacket showing any signs of such a trip – other than some blades of grass wiped off the jacket to leave it looking like it just came back from the cleaners?
He was pinned helplessly to the ground for all of that journey and would have to be so pinned as he had opportunity to escape or defend himself either initially or over the space of at least one minute while punches and head-poundings continued mercilessly for over one minute.
How about the rumor that Zimmerman was straddled immediatly on the ground. He tried to sit upright but Martin grabbed his head and shoved it into the concrete sidewalk several times. While on 40 foot journey Southwards on his back with Martin on top, he tried to tried to sit up a number of times – but each time Martin slammed his head into the sidewalk. Nada effect on the back of his jacket, but for the back of his head all this resulted in just two minor cuts and some blood running cleanly without any smearing/smudging down towards his neck and chin – as if he had been upright when any bleeding occurred. That’s one hell of a rumor. It should be promoted more.
How about the rumor that Martin had x-ray vision and could see a 4″ x 0.8″ strip of dark metal – not alone in the dark but also through his own leg? That’s kewl!
How about the rumors about Zimmerman’s disposition towards violence? Like ‘snapping’ and throwing a woman about while working as a bouncer… or slapping an ex?
How about that rumor about him assaulting an ATF officer. This is definitely a rumor as such a thing does not seem to be on his criminal record – although there appears to be something about having to enter a diversion program that included anger management sessions.
How about that rumor that he had been mentoring/drinking with underage companions in a bar?
How about a rumor that Zimmerman is secretly a Tamarian deep inside his head – and actually comes across as being less credible than the card-carrying Tamarian DeeDee when his accounts are examined properly?
.
Rumors ‘R Us!
I forgot to mention the rumor started by a neighbor of Zimmerman’s parents.
She said Zimmerman’s parents had insisted Zimmerman had acted in self-defense. “What they told us,” the neighbor said, “is that he was reaching for his cell phone and Trayvon Martin saw his gun and reached for the gun and there was a struggle.”
There is also a presistent rumor that his nose was broken. This one runs and runs despite the diagnosis by his doctor the next day that the nose was “likely broken” but that Zimmerman refused to have it checked out.
A month later (on April 1st – hello!) Robert Zimmerman on the Piers Morgan show says that the nose is “still broken” and “still healing”. Presumably the “likely broken” diagnosis had been checked into further and a new medical report issued?
On the same show, Robert started a rumor that Zimmerman was running and that therefore whatever “utterances from strain under their breath” he made would not be words and defintely not “f*cking …….”.
Roll on the trial I say!
Or how about the rumor that nothing you’ve just said shifts the burden of proof to George Zimmerman?
How about the rumor that, if there was a fight, obviously somebody attacked somebody, and Zimmerman is the only one with any visible injuries?
How about the rumor that several people witnessed the two of them struggling on the ground, and the one with the best view never wavered from saying that the black guy (that would be Trayvon) was the one on top? Sorry there’s not enough grass on his jacket for you, but that’s the way it is.
How about the rumor that, if you wipe blood off, and it continues to flow when you stand up, it’s obviously going to flow downward?
I think you are trying a little too hard.
Hammerhead,
For the first three paragraphs you are absolutely right. If “absolutely” has too many syllables, then substitute a theoretically impossible percentage greater than 100.
There was a continuous sequence of events over about 15 minutes.
For a few seconds near the end of those minutes, they were observed wrestling horizontally on the ground with Martin apparently on top.
At the end of it, Zimmerman had some minor injuries, whereas Martin had a scratch on one finger and a fatal gunshot wound.
Absolutely nothing else is material.
It does not matter how the fight started or what led up to it. THe history of either is totally immaterial.
It does not matter that the fight would have lasted one minute at the very minimum and perhaps up to two minutes – and that actual injuries are not consistent with such a fight as described.
It does not matter that Zimmerman’s accounts are full of glaring holes, conflicts and illogicalities.
All that really matter is that he says he was in fear of his life. Some minor cuts and Martin being on top for a few seconds are quite sufficient to support this.
End of.
… This assumes that the law is an ass – which might actually be quite a reasonable assumption.
On the other hand, the defence appears to be expending huge amounts of time and money on matters that would be completely immaterial if the legal situation were actually as simple as you appear to suggest.
.
As to the blood…
The photograph in question was taken by a resident about 2 minutes after the shot.
This was before he was handcuffed and taken to a squad car. Quite apart from the timestamp, you can see that he is not cuffed and holding a phone to his ear.
This was before he received any attention from EMTs at the squad car.
Your proposition is that someone wiped his head before that photo was taken.
Wiped? As in with a cloth? That completely cleaned all traces of blood, mud, grass?
Just wiping would leave a film of blood all over.
So someone actually washed it totally clean…
Who did that?
Why does nobody mention such a cleaniing?
I think you are trying a little too hard not to think.
“So someone actually washed it totally clean…
Who did that?
Why does nobody mention such a cleaniing?”
The EMT cleaned him up as he was handcuffed in the back of the Police car. Look it up.
“I think you are trying a little too hard not to think”
Right back atcha . . .
Correct!
EMT cleaned him up as he was handcuffed in the back of the Police car.
Yes.
That’s what happened. It’s documented.
Also documented is the time that the photo was taken.
This was before he was handcuffed and taken to the Police car – and later cleaned up by EMT.
So the photo is what he looked like before anyone cleaned him.
There is no mud, grass, smearing.
All the blood is flowing downwards.
He was upright during any bleeding.
Not that it matters anyway, as all that matters is that he says that he was in fear of his life.
To SlingTrebuchet:
So many of your conclusions are unwarranted.
You stated above:
“So the photo is what he looked like before anyone cleaned him.
There is no mud, grass, smearing.
All the blood is flowing downwards.
He was upright during any bleeding.”
There is no mud, grass, smearing??? Oh, REALLY!???
Why you are wrong. If you closely compare the photo of the back of Zimmerman’s head – taken a the scene – to the photo of the back of his head taken later at the police station, you can see in BOTH photos an area above and to the right of the laceration on the right rear of his head that appears to be smeared blood. It is evident in both photos – indicating it is NOT an area that may have been smeared AFTER the EMTs cleaned him up. In fact, there are blood trails on the back of his head in BOTH pictures, indicating he wasn’t even completely cleaned up by the EMTs – probably due to darkness.
All the blood is flowing downwards? Oh, REALLY??
Why your conclusion is without merit. You have NO way of knowing if all the blood flowed downward, and/or whether some of it may have been flowing in another direction prior to Zimmerman standing upright. Of COURSE, the blood flowed downward when he WAS upright, but your conclusion that it ALL flowed downward – even the blood in the photo – is without any means of verification whatsoever.
He was upright during any bleeding? Oh REALLY??
Why you’re conclusion is absolutely wrong. You have no idea exactly when Zimmerman began bleeding. However, we DO know with absolute certainty that Zimmerman’s injuries were caused by Trayvon Martin and that he began bleeding before he broke contact with Trayvon Martin. We know this because Zimmerman’s blood was found on Trayvon Martin’s sleeve cuff – the INNER shirt he wore beneath his hoodie. Initially after shooting Martin, Zimmerman claimed he believed he had missed – this was due to Martin’s initial reactions – which Zimmerman felt were not indicative of a person just shot. So he tried to restrain Martin, holding Martin’s arms out to the side – but very quickly realized he had indeed shot him. Later, Martin’s hands were found beneath him, as he lay face down – probably due to his last movement in life, trying to feel for his injuries to see how bad he was hurt. Had Zimmerman only bled after he was upright, the blood would NOT have got on Martin’s sleeve – certainly it would not have magically got on his INNER shirt without also staining the outer short – which it did not do.
I am wondering wy you even think the conclusions you made above are even RELEVANT to any argument.
Now Juggler, :)
The photograph I was referring to was that of the back of Zimmerman’s head.
The photo was taken before he was cleaned up.
The timestamp has it before the record of his being handcuffed. He is not handcuffed. He is holding a phone to his ear. The prosecution will know who he was talking to before, then and later.
It would be another 20 minutes before EMT cleaned him up at the squad car.
The remarkable thing about that photo is that blood is flowing cleanly down from those two cuts that didn’t need sutures or any medicinal miracles other than “continue to wash with soap and water”.
You think you see some area that could be a smear of blood on top right? OK. I’ll leave that to the experts. I’ll just stick to the blatantly obvious – the blood flowing cleanly downwards.
The back of that head…..
……>> according to Zimmerman <<…..
Hit the ground up near the T-junction.
It got slammed repeatedly into the concrete there.
It then moved 50 feet Southwards – and more than 50 feet if he fell backwards from an attack delivered from the South East.
I say 50 feet (minimum) because that is how far South of the T that Martin's phone ended up. He either dropped it there at the beginning of something or it fell out of his pocket at that position at some stage during a struggle.
It is most unlikely that he would have held it in his hand while making a premeditated assault on Zimmerman, and then punching and ?one-handed?-pounding his head while they moved 50 feet+ South.
During this journey that head was grabbed and pounded and pounded into the concrete.
The journey was not entirely over concrete. I suppose it could have landed on concrete at the outset and then pounded its way down the path for 50 feet or so to directly opposite John's porch. Then it would have pounded 10 feet or so North Westwards over grass to where John reports seeing them first. Then it would have pounded Eastwards back to the path.
That's the head you see in the photograph.
When did it start bleeding? Very shortly after it got cut.
Did it get cut 50 feet North and pound its way southward?
Maybe it got cut and a little blood got smeared top right just before he got up. Then all the blood you see flowed.
Consider the photo of the back of the jacket taken later at SPD. Did that land on the ground up at the T and then toboggan its way 50 feet Southwards, 10 or so North West and then East – under the weight of two men?
Yes. Really :)
– but maybe you have a smudge top right. If that is blood, it’s not much.
.
If a struggle started up at the T, then it looks as if it moved on foot 50 feet South and then North West for them to end up on the grass wrestling as Witness 6 observed them. He observed them like that for some seconds, then locked his door and headed for stairs/phone. It would seem that only at this late stage would Zimmerman have received cuts to the back of his head. We don’t know what happened with them after that other than Martin got shot, etc.
.
MOM asserts that SYG does not really apply to the case as his client was pinned to the ground from the outset and therefore unable to make any retreat.
The clean state of head and jacket would seem to say otherwise.
.
Some of Zimmerman’s blood on Martin…… how could that get there?
It’s transferred directly by contact or indirectly.
Neither method would do the job if the source is the back of the head I think.
Most probably the source is the nose.
Blood could get to Martin’s clothing by perhaps being ejected from Zimmerman’s nose, or from nose to Martin’s hands and thence to his clothing, or from nose to Zimmerman’s hands (ZOMG my nose) and from his hands to Martin’s clothes as Zimmerman frisked/checked him afterwards. Blood on Inner but not Outer might seem a bit odd purely from fisticuffs.
.
It’s very relevant.
The physical evidence of the state of Zimmerman’s head and jacket indicate that his account of the struggle is far from accurate. He can’t have been punched to the ground up at the T. This and the state of his head would discount head-slamming at the outset.
The clean flowing blood in that photo would indicate that any contact by his head with a blunt object happened very late in the struggle.
He claims that he was straddled and punched repeatedly. Witnesses now indicate that both were horizontal for the few seconds during which there were observed. The state of his face does not indicate a minute or more of punching. Certainly the likely broken nose indicates a forceful contact with something.
So…..
Zimmerman clearly does not recall the NEN very well. He invents a great deal about the dispatcher pressing him for Martin’s whereabouts.
What does he remember about the final minutes?
He says that the NEN ended with him specifying a meet at his truck/mailboxes –
In reality, he changed from the meet at the truck to the patrol having to call him on arrival. It was a sudden last-minute change for some reason.
He says that he began walking back and was jumped just past the T. In reality, this would mean arrived at the ‘attack point’ 2 minutes before the first 911 connected.
He reports a very brief exchange of words (as featured in some bad movie that I linked earlier). Earwitnesses report something more extended.
So far, his memory sucks.
Then we have a little flash of clarity in a fog of very sucky memory.
He recalls a punch.
Then the memory gets sucky again as he can’t recall what must have been a progress on foot for about 50 feet South.
Then another little flash of clarity. He remembers being on his back.
Then the memory gets sucky again. He remembers John looking out his porch door, but he imagines that he had a conversation with him.
Then another flash of clarity. He remembers Martin going for the gun. He had actually completely forgotten that he had a gun, but now he remembers.
How Martin might have known that Zimmerman had that little gun tucked inside his waistband is perhaps difficult to say. Nevertheless Zimmerman remembers “you got a piece” and “You gonna die tonight MF”. It is not impossible that these are in fact lines from a movie.
Then it gets to very detailed memory. There is wrist control, there is an unholstering. There is a moving of an arm so as not to shoot it.
These clear memories come from a time when his head feels like it is going to exlpode and he is being smothered.
There’s the problem.
Zimmerman’s memory of the lead up and of the fight itself is demonstrably faulty.
At every stage of the night, his memory is demonstrably faulty – not just petty detail but major events.
Where his stories can be cross-checked, they mostly fall over.
Without his faulty memory, what have we got about the struggle?
There were noises of a struggle.
The struggle appeared to move South from the time that it became loud enough to hear over TVs indoors.
The struggle would have lasted for 1 minute at minimum assuming that it was detected in its very early stages.
The two were seen wrestling horizontally on the ground for some seconds towards the end. Nobody saw the end.
Zimmerman had a bleeding nose (likely broken) and two cuts on the back of his head. Head cuts would appear to have occurred very late in the struggle. Time of nose impact indeterminate.
Martin has a gunshot wound and an abrasion on one finger.
Forensics yet to be unveiled and interpreted in detail.
.
The only reliable account we have from Zimmerman of the lead up is contained in the NEN recording. It’s reliable in terms of what he says at what times. It’s unreliable perhaps as to his impressions.
He says “Running…He ran”, but apparently he now thinks it was more skipping and “not in fear”. He had not mentioned a first walk past that the clubhouse.
Much more remarkably, he had not mentioned an extremely alarming circling with confrontational body language – and this only seconds after the dispatcher had said “Just let me know if he does anything, ok?”
.
Then you got Frank Taaffe, the greatest friend a man could have, talking about how Zimmerman had fed up issues and wasn’t going to take it any more, they always get away, f*cking poonks, a last second change of plan followed by 2 minutes or so unexplained, before a fight with out any reliable witness as to how it began or progressed.
We have a demonstrably awful memory that can remember a small number of self-serving seconds with clarity.
.
What r the teacher teaching in florida -Dee-Dee proper english is awlful- i go a very bad headache trying to understand it …I feel very bad for her …I had to try to figure out what she was trying to say. And what she said : Trayvon said to her…wow is all i can say wow…
“What r the teacher teaching in florida -Dee-Dee proper english is awlful- i go a very bad headache trying to understand it”
Must… resist… temptation!!!
Too… easy…!
As brother Al says: Resist we much .. and stuff or something… Great role model.. speaks perfect Ebonics
I got a very bad headache. Again what are the teacher’s teaching. Dee-Dee is 18 teen and her proper english is very bad. Dee-Dee english is bad. Something is very wrong their, that is all I am trying to say.
sLINGTREBUCHET- you are so well spoken with your rumors -i cant help but believe you, if i was on a jury gz would be convicted asap.
No- one has yet to explain how GZ got scratch on head and face GZ never said either we know from trayvon fingernails he didn’t scatch him..And yes he did have his head cleaned before handcuff -remember the evidence first aid kit with twizzer on top.
In other words there is reasonable doubt. How do you say “NOT GUILTY” in Tamarian.
“How do you say “NOT GUILTY” in Tamarian” —
“Can’t connect the dots”.
The question of what Tamarian metaphor might be applicable does not arise as yet.
We don’t know all of what the prosecution have. We only have some of it.
This is not the trial.
This is a bunch of people voicing their opinions.
Some of the opinions do not seem to be based on analysis of the detail of available source evidence.
It is abundantly clear that Zimmerman’s accounts do not stand up when analysed against knowns. He is in no way a reliable witness.
There were no eyewitnesses to the the beginning, to most of, or to the end of the altercation.
One might take into account the charcters of the pair.
The defence appear to intend to point out to aspects of Martin’s history and assert that this indicates a predisposition to violence.
The prosecution could do the same for Zimmerman. In that case they could point to actual reported violence, including an assault on an ATF officer.
The defence might point to small traces of pot in Martin’s system and that the 7-11 items could form an intoxitant with the addition of cough medicine. Although Martin did not appear to be under any significant influence of anything accoring to the analysis, they might assert that ongoing use in the past might be relevant to any actions that they assert he made.
The prosecution could point to known side-effects of the medications being taken by Zimmerman, long-term and short-term. The fact of the drugs being legally prescribed has no bearing on the side-effects.
They could point to Zimmerman’s words and tone as recorded in the NEN, add to that the violence in his history and drug-side effects as well as the conditions necessitating the drugs.
.
Given the shortage of direct witness evidence, we become more reliant on what expert witnesses will make of the material that is available.
We are not going to see that until the trial.
.
It seems to me that “doubt” works both ways.
Chip, for example is wont to post a list of assertions and statutes.
One of the assertions is that Martin was committing a felonious assault.
Available evidence (as opposed to Zimmerma’s unreliable word) puts doubt on that assertion. Where that kind of thing leaves the statutes would be up to the courts – when they consider the totality of the evidence, and not just what is being bandied about on Internet fora.
Sling,
Thank you for spelling what I have just said “reasonable doubt”. What the prosecution has discovered so far, does not meet the burden, hoping that the prosecution will have something more, does not make it so. Reasonable Doubt.
I watch GZ reinactment and i have every reason to believe he was lieing because he was to far from the crime scene and he couldn’t explan why. And when he looked down were crime scene was he couldn’t go down their and he couldn’t tell how he got down their,- he said he a had to push trayvon just to get pass the tree- but this couldn’t have happen cause he was already punched and knock to the ground at the T…and he left out the wrestling and the fussing loudly the witness said they heard and saw. He left out what John said he told them to stop. He left out that he had picture of his injuried head taken before police arrived , He left out that he walked around the body holding his head before police arrived then walked over to talk to a man before police arrived too.. All recorded by a witness on the 911 call. This witness said she wish she had a gun so she could have went out and helped the little boy. This witness said GZ said “I Shot Him Dead”. Yet GZ is saying I didn’t know he was dead until police told me. GZ also said the young man was in his late teens on 911 call then on stand in court he said “I thought he was around my age. Shall I go on GZ keep lieing I don’t know why is the truth that bad. You commit the crime you must do the time.
Idilla,
Thank you for at least prefacing your response with I believe. As to the re-enactment done by GZ, you will notice that it was done in daylight, everyone has testified how dark it was that night, yet people expect GZ to remember the exact spot the fight started, the exact spot he fell on the ground, the exact spot it ended. That is not how memory works on the best of circumstances, under distress is even more chaotic.
This is not a perfect metaphor but it will suffice, this from personal experience, I was in the middle of a 4 car accident. I did not cause the original accident but saw as it developed, and tried to manuever around to avoid getting hit unsuccessfully. When asks to describe what had happened, I had little memory of the crash itself, I was wrong as to the location, the color of the lead vehicle, and a few other things, but I did remember getting out of my car and pulling someone out, but I did not know who.
The point is in traumatic situations when you are acting instinctually, not thinking you brains only gets freeze frames, not a narrative as it might other wise. When people say he was 20 feet short, so he was off by 6+ plus yards, or 8 steps all of which can be covered in a matter of seconds.
Lastly, you are talking about Selma and Moira, the ones that did not see anything but days later heard a kid crying under her window. We’ll see if she is even called by the prosecution.
we havent figure out what really happen yet no verdict..
during z reinactment he said trayvon covered up his mouth with both hands and told him to shut the f..k up all the while also punching him in the head and face ,also bashing his head repeatly on the concrete . then just before he shoots him trayvon take one of his many hands and trys to go for the gun which trayvon is covering up with his bent leg (if trayvon was straddling him he should have felt the gun along time ago) but z man said he didnt try to go for it until z man starting screaming with trayvon covering his mouth so hard he couldnt breath – yet z man he could scream loudly help me – help me ….good lie z-man now tell me the truth…
He did not say all of these things happened simultaneously. (Simultaneously means all at the same time.. FYI.)
Some logical thinking is required unless you just want to hear it your way instead of the way it actually occurred. Geesh!!!
First of all I think you need to watch the reinactment again cause it makes no sense. If your nose is bleeding and i have your mouth covered with both my hands and i pressing down on your mouth with all my weight …and your able to scream 14 times you should also be able to bite me to get my hands off your mouth. Remember you trying to save your life.( my mistake about making it sound like he said all theses things happen at once) but never the less he did say all of these things did happen.And it just doesn’t make sense.And i do want to heard it the way it actually occurred. At this point in time that has not happen yet.
Please no one can scream that clearly with their mouth being covered like GZ claim.
Which reenactment did that occur? I saw the only one and George didn’t say Martin had more that two hands.
Also, it should be obvious except to those who grasp at anything to absolve Martin from any wrong doing, that Martin was all over George. George shouldn’t be required to give a blow by blow account after getting punched in the nose. Most people can’t. Still, I watched the reenactment again and I was struck about how he described it. It was pretty much linear. progression with Martin doing various things to George, like slamming his head, then holding his mouth, then George squirming to get off the cement, then Martin changing his position to George’s squirming which allowed Martin to feel the gun and go for it. Where George was a little quicker and managed to get one shot off. Not really that confusing. At no point did George say Martin had more than two hands.
if i am covering your mouth and you cant breath and i am using my other hand to reach for a gun …how are you screaming loudly help me. and i am also suppose to be telling you to shut the f..k up. ..but why i already have your mouth covered . (also with your nose bloody and bleeding seen in photo – trayvon should have had gz dna on his hands, and gz should have trayvon blood of gz on gz shirt when trayvo was sliding his had down gz shirt to try to get the gun,,right?
To idilla –
Can you please point out where George Zimmerman ever said that Trayvon Martin’s hand was covering his (Zimmerman’s) face the whole time? You seem to imply that it was.
While you are doing that (or trying to), can you also point out in the re-enactment where Zimmerman said he fell down at the “T”? You seem to imply that he said he did. I ask you, because when I saw the re-enactment, Zimmerman SPECIFICALLY shows how the fight moved to the south (in the direction of Witness #6’s backyard) as he tried to fight Martin off with his hands. I mean, the re-enactment I saw shows Zimmerman point out hos he fell tot he ground near Witness #6’s back yard, and that someone came out (he point’s to the general direction of Witness #6’s apartment), and he asked them for help. He also said he was getting his head banged against the sidewalk. How coincidental that Witness #6 corroborated all of this – that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman…that there were cries for help….that he saw Zimmerman scooting away from the sidewalk…
Wile you are futilely trying to explain those, here’s one more for you. Were you aware that George Zimmerman’s blood was found on the sleeve cuff of Trayvon Martin’s inside shirt? Zimmerman bled from two places – his nose and the back of his head. It’s not very likely that Martin’s hands were near the BACK of Zimmerman’s head, but it sure does support Zimmerman’s statements – to find his blood on Trayvon Martin’s sleeve cuff. If you don’t think so, how DO you think the blood got there?
@SlingTrebuchet:
Yes, I am wont to return to the Statutes. You are wont to return to irrelevant matters that took place before the physical altercation that are completely irrelevant to Zimmerman’s self-defense claim.
Zimmerman’s broken nose is prima facie evidence of a felony battery under Florida statute, and under that same statute, felony battery is considered a forcible felony, the commission of which justifies Zimmerman’s use of deadly force in self-defense.
You also ignore that under Florida law, unless the State has evidence to refute Zimmerman’s claim that Martin was the initial aggressor and that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense, Zimmerman’s claim must be accepted as true. Period.
What Zimmerman was doing for some two-minute period before the physical altercation started is irrelevant, unless the State can show that Zimmerman was doing something otherwise unlawful during that time.
Zimmerman’s ability to recall exactly how Martin’s physical assault unfolded is likewise entirely irrelevant, if at the time he used deadly force, he had reasonable fear of imminent risk of great bodily harm or of death.
The severity of his injuries are not a direct statutory concern. What part of that do you not understand? Or do you merely ignore it, because it doesn’t fit your narrative regarding what happened?
You don’t like it when I bring up the Statutes, because you know that you have no argument against the plain reading of those Statutes.
You want to talk about preponderance of circumstantial evidence, but you limit your scope to mostly irrelevant matters (what happened between the end of the phone call and the commencement of the physical altercation), while ignoring the most relevant of such circumstantial evidence. To wit:
1. Zimmerman was uninjured before the physical altercation
2. Only Zimmerman and Martin were involved in the physical altercation
3. Zimmerman suffered a broken nose during the physical altercation
4. Zimmerman suffered lacerations to the back of his head during the physical altercation
5. Zimmerman was screaming for help for at least 40 seconds during the physical altercation
6. Every witness to any part of the physical altercation saw Martin on top of Zimmerman
7. The first officer on the scene observed Zimmerman with a wet, grass-covered back, as if he had been lying in the grass
8. One witness said that Martin was beating/punching Martin, and was preventing him from getting up
9. Martin was uninjured, except for the fatal gunshot wound
The preponderance of this evidence is that Martin was a physical aggressor. The preponderance of this evidence is that Zimmerman was not a physical aggressor. The preponderance of this evidence is that the physical altercation was one-sided, and thus that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. This obvious conclusion is something else you ignore, because it also does not fit your narrative.
When faced with this obvious conclusion, you then turn to the straw man that, if the case were so open-and-shut, then there is no reason for the defense counsel to invest so much time and energy into other aspects of the defense – as if Zimmerman doesn’t have a constitutional right to a duly diligent defense, that refutes any and all aspects of the prosecutions allegations, regardless how specious.
And then when all else fails, you return to immaterial – and merely alleged, and never proven – inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s statements, as if to imply that such immaterial inconsistencies, even if proven, would somehow impeach his testimony that Martin was the initial physical aggressor.
No wonder your conclusion is always, “let’s wait for the trial” – because your only hope is that a jury will act contrary to obvious Statutes and jury instructions, and somehow convict Zimmerman.
Chip
What I see is that you attempt to speak ex cathedra on what happened and how this fits into the statutes. It sounds like great TV court performance, but it falls over when examined in detail.
.
I don’t know why you insist on “broken nose” when the medical diagnosis very clearly says “likely broken”. Why is “broken” so important to you that consistently misrepresent the medical diagnosis?
Surely the more accurate “likely broken” is still sufficient for felony battery?
I remind you of the actual medical diagnosis, not because it is central to anything, but simply because it interests me that you persist in denying the obvious. “Broken” as opposed to “likely broken” is an emotional stunt. It ignores fact.
You say that Zimmerman was screaming for help. This is not proven, yet you insist on asserting it as unassailable fact.
You say that “Every witness to any part of the physical altercation saw Martin on top of Zimmerman”. This is disingenuous, at they only saw some seconds of an altercation that lasted for 1 minute at very minimum and perhaps up to 2.
You say “One witness said that Martin was beating/punching Martin”. You omit to say that the same witness later said that it was too dark to see hands or faces, and that for the seconds that he had them in view, they were both horizontal.
All we actually have is that for the few seconds that he had them in view, he says that Martin seemed to be pinning Zimmerman down. This was shortly before the moment of the shot, which no witness observed.
You ignore the obvious paucity of current evidence regarding the altercation, because it does not vindicate your narrative.
Zimmerman’s account of the altercation is clearly at odds with the evidence.
According to earwitnesses, he is wrong about the extent of the verbal exchange.
According to photographs of the back of his head and of his jacket, he is wrong about being knocked to the ground and pinned at the outset.
According to the level of injuries to his face, he is wrong about being punched for 1 to 2 minutes.
According to the photograph of the back of his head, he is wrong about Martin repeatedly pounding his head into the concrete from start to finish. That photograph, taken before he received any medical attention, indicates that however he received those injuries they only began to bleed after he became upright. It also does not indicate that his had had been incontact with the ground and moving over it. The same applies to his jacket.
Had the altercation actually proceeded exactly as Zimmerman claimed – with head-pounding and punching over 1 to 2 minutes, then one might accept that he had developed a reasonable fear of serious injury of death.
However, it seems clear that it did not actually proceed that way.
The fact that the documented level of his injuries and his actions and condition immediately after the shot indicate might indicate his fears were unfounded does not mean that he did not actually fear.
Tey question would be, given that the altercation would appear to have been upright over at least 40 feet or so of travel, followed by a pinning of a number of seconds (10?, 20?) , would his fear have been reasonable?
.
The clear inconsistencies writ large even in the pages of this blog. These demonstrate clearly that Zimmerman’s account of the events is significantly at odds with time and space. He is not a credible witness.
Why then should anyone accept his account of how the atercation began?
It is clear that he can’t remember how it progressed.
Why then should anyone accept his account of how it ended?
You can label the major holes in his accounts as “merely alleged, and never proven” all you want. You dismiss them becase they do not fit your narrative.
They exist and will not doubt be trotted out in court to destroy Zimmerman’s credibility.
His memory of lead up and altercation itself is demonstrably faulty in major ways.
Why should his memory of two instants be accepted as accurate – particularly when these two memories form the essentials of his defence?
.
Matters are by no means as simple as you assert them to be.
The activities of the defence would go beyond diligence if matters were in fact so simple.
Sling T
Is it your view that GZ was the aggressor?
What medical report says likely broken? it says fractured.
ftsk420,
I am referring to the report of his family doctor on the next day.
This was in the first evidence dump and is available via the gzlegalcase site.
It clearly says
“likely broken but does not appear to have septal deviation. The swelling and black eyes are typical of this of this injury. I recommended that he be evaluated by ENT but he refused.”
There is a standard diagnosis code in the header of the report that appears to indicate “Broken Nose”. There are people who claim that this means that the actual diagnosis was that the nose was broken – despite the clear text in the body of the report. Such people have yet to come with the standard code for “Likely Broken Nose” and which the associate should have used to describe the actual written diagnosis had it been in the menu offered to them by the system..
.
Can you supply a link to the medical report that you are looking at?
The one that says “fractured”?
@SlingTrebuchet:
Now you’re simply engaging in intellectual dishonesty. You know exactly what the diagnosis code is, and the exact diagnosis to which that code pertains.
The diagnosis is:
ICD Code 802.0: Nasal bones, closed fracture
You can tell that it is the diagnosis, because it is listed in a table that has been helpfully titled Diagnosis.
The reference to “likely broken” is in a section titled Decision Making Process
I would much prefer to continue to assume that your reading comprehension skills are sufficient to understand that the text under Diagnosis refers to the actual diagnosis, and that the text under Decision Making Process refers to the process used to determine the appropriate diagnosis. Of course, that you willfully continue to deny that the diagnosis, as stated in the medical report, is Nasal bones, closed fracture belies not a lack of reading comprehension skills, but rather cognitive dissonance required to continue to believe your specious narrative about what happened that night.
The diagnosis is “Nasal bones, closed fracture”. Deal with it.
Ok Chip :)
Lets see how this works.
Doctor examines Zimmerman.
He determines that the nose is “likely broken” as the bruising is typical of such an injury. He seems to be in doubt. He recommends that Zimmerman have it checked out by ENT but Zimmerman refuses.
Then doctor goes to write up the report.
According to you……
His full decision process is to say that as the nose is “likely broken” then it logically follows that it is “actually broken”.
This is what you are proposing.
What you are saying is that if something is determined to be likely, then it follows that it must be a certainty.
You should try backing horses. You would make a fortune.
Why would the doctor select that particular diagnosis code?
Was it simply that the code was closest one to a nose that was “likely broken”.
Or……
Did he subscribe to your theory that something that is likely is actually a certainty? Why is he still a family doctor? Why isn’t he in a mansion on his own private island paid for out of the proceeds of backing certainties in horse races?
Or……
Did he intend to select the “Nasal bones, likely fractured” code, but clicked on the wrong entry on the list?
What is the standard code for “Nasal bones, likely fractured” anyway? Surely there is one. Do you know what it is?
@SlingTrebuchet:
So, I take it from this response that you now, finally, admit that the actual diagnosis was nasal bones, closed fracture, and are left with only an attempt to rationalize away why that was the official diagnosis?
Don’t you think that, if the State thought the diagnosis to be incorrect, or if the State thought that “likely broken” versus “closed fracture” was statutorily significant, they would have deposed, as something more critical than a Category C (i.e. that basically means that her statement is contained in the medical report itself) witness, the doctor who made the diagnosis?
The State deposed Lindzee Folgate, the doctor who wrote Zimmerman’s medical report. She is included in the State’s 9th discovery supplement, and listed as a Category C witness (“Category C. All witnesses who performed only ministerial functions or whom the prosecutor does not intend to call at trial and whose involvement with and knowledge of the case is fully set out in a police report or other statement furnished to the defense;”)
So, the State has no intention to call Lindzee Folgate at trial, to explain why “nasal bones, closed fracture” actually means “likely broken”.
Funny, that.
you can slice it any way you like…bottom line when the smoke cleared gz head was busted all the way around. martin was laying on the ground with a bullet hole. some things speak without words. not to mention their (phone) witness has already been pegged a liar. so in order to prove gz started anything i dont see that possible unless they change the autopsy report somehow (which i dont doubt) they have altered videos,pictures, 911 audios and everything they have tried to twist has came up empty. i got the popcorn ready. if i can sit here and see holes all in this. omara will cut this up like a ninja.
No Chip.
The actual diagnosis was “likely broken”.
If the doctor considered that it was definitely broken, then the body of the report would have read “We discussed that the nose is broken”.
What you are at is an insane bureaucratic fantasy that a choice from a list of available codes that does not cater for the specifics of the diagnosis is in fact the diagnosis and overrides the detailed report.
It’s like a disease with you.
Read the body of the report. It very clearly says “likely broken”.
What do you think happend there?
Option.1
She examined Zimmerman and determined that the nose was broken.
She started filling in the form from the top down and entered the diagnosis code.
When she got down to the body of the report, she changed her mind and went for “likely broken”. Furthermore, she lied. She wrote that she had discussed with Zimmerman that it was “likely broken” despite the fact that she had determined that it was actually broken.
She didn’t bother to go back up to the top of the form and amend the code from “Nasal bones, closed fracture” to the code for “Nasal bones, likely closed fracture”. What is that code by the way?
Option.2
She examined Zimmerman and determined that the nose was likely broken.
She discussed with Zimmerman that it was likely broken.
She started filling in the form from the bottom up and entered her “likely broken” diagnosis.
When she got up to the headers of the report, she changed her mind and decided that it was actually broken. She might have hocered over the code for “Nasal bones, likely closed fracture” (What is that code by the way?) but in the end selected the code for “Nasal bones, closed fracture”
She didn’t bother to go back down to the body of the form and amend the “likely broken” to “was broken”
.
No. Not in the slightest.
It just shows that the state has more sanity than you.
In the larger picture, it really doesn’t matter if the nose was actually broken or likely broken. The only thing of significance is that there was an impact on the nose of enough force to cause bruising. A force at one angle could cause an obvious break. The same exact same force at a slighly different angle might not obviously break or not break.
In terms of the struggle, it’s not really relevant.
The state very wisely is not going to bore-the-pants/infuriate everyone (and mostly the judge) by putting the doctor up on the stand for that detail. The key point is that Zimmerman got whacked on the nose by something.
.
Up above, I wrote
.
So comes the trial………
O’Mara starts to make a deal about a “broken nose”.
The state helpfully points out that the actual diagnosis was “likely broken”. “It’s really a minor point, but let’s all try to get things factually correct.”
O’Mara won’t have this. He rends his garments. He weeps and wails. His client suffered a broken nose as a result of a vicious felonious assault by the criminal Martin.
The state says “Look it’s really not a problem, but the body of the report clearly says “likely broken”. Any sane reasonable person would read the report and see that the detail says “likely”.
O’Mara won’t have it. “Broken”
The state sighs and shakes its head sorrowfully. It suggests to the judge that since the defence is making such an issue of this detail then perhaps the doctor should be called to testify – although the state clearly did not intend to call her.
The doctor gets dragged in and testifies that her diagnosis was that the nose was “likely broken”. That was her opinion. She discussed that with Zimmerman and that’s what she wote in the report. The reason for the use of the “Nasal bones, closed fracture” code was that it was the closest available – there being no “Nasal bones, likely closed fracture” code available – or it was an error. Her detailed report speaks for itself.
The judge looks at O’Mara and all the wasted time and thinks – “You idiot”.
Others do the same.
.
Again ……… Up above, I wrote
Chip, you are a fascinating person.
You got your butt nailed to an emotional stunt.
Dear SlingTrebuchet:
I’ve seen hundreds of broken noses in my many years of police work. Judging only from the color photos of Zimmerman taken shortly after he was assaulted, his nose was broken. That’s what a classically broken nose, a nose broken in a fight, looks like. Any rational jury and judge will have no trouble accepting that reality.
1. Unsure not proven yet.
2 We only know for a fact they were wrestling.
3 Not proven yet
4 not proven yet
5 Fact state said voice people said it was not GZ screaming on 911 call.
6Not true wintess saw a white shirt on top
7 Fact the were wrestling in grass John told them to stop
8 John the witness took the mma style story back he said it was dark and he made a misstake.
9 Fact this was proven
@idilla:
Try reading the evidence that the State has disclosed, and then comment when you have even basic knowledge of this case.
Seriously? You think there is some evidence to indicate that Zimmerman was injured before the physical altercation with Martin?
You think there is evidence that anyone other than Zimmerman and Martin were involved in the physical altercation?
Medical record in evidence – diagnosis: broken nose
Eye-witness accounts, photographic evidence, medical record all prove lacerations to the back of the head
Not scientific, not admissible.
Three police officers heard Tracy Martin admit that the voice wasn’t Trayvon Martin’s.
Zimmerman, at the scene, before knowing of the existence of a recording, claims that he screamed for help, but nobody came.
Your point? Martin was wearing a white shirt under his hoodie. Zimmerman was wearing a red jacket.
No, he didn’t. Try listening to his interview.
He said that Martin was mounting Zimmerman “MMA” style, on Zimmerman’s legs (i.e. a “low mount”), and that he was either beating him or forcibly holding him down, and keeping him from getting up.
The only thing that Witness 6 recanted was that he could see Zimmerman’s face when he claimed that it was Zimmerman screaming for help. He reasserted that he believes that it was the “man on bottom” screaming for help, and gives reasons. Listen to the recording if you want to hear them.
We might as well add:
10 The State (via Gilbreath) is on record, in court, stating that they have no evidence to refute Zimmerman’s account, or to prove who started the fight, or to prove that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.
Based on all of the above, this case should never have been prosecuted to begin with. The prosecution is in direct violation of the self-defense immunity clause, because the State brought the case with absolutely no evidence to disprove self-defense. The probable cause affidavit was a criminally perverse joke to begin with, and is utterly impeached with the implosion of Witness 8.
This prosecution is a specious political railroading, and a disgusting miscarriage of justice.
BORICUAFUDD- I agree with what you said about rememoring things, cause i also had a personal experience and i remeber every thing that happen to me at the crime scene, but where I was recused I could not get how the inside of the home right in my brain I didn’t realize how stress and tramatized I was. The in side of the home was nothing like I descibed It was so off. I also had to go back to show police where I was when the crime
happen and descibe what happen its degrading but I told only what I remember.But the criminal lost his memory he said he didn’t remember me.but his DNA did remember me. So yes again I Do agree with you about memories.
Chip- I never said he was injuried before – what I am questioning is after shooting martin and before police arrivied he had plenity of time. look at all the stuff he did before they came messing with the body- walking around the body holding his head,, taking pictures, talking to a man. .
So you are claiming that there is evidence that Zimmerman self-inflicted his observed injuries in the time after the shot, but before police arrived?
How much time elapsed, exactly? Should be an easy question to answer, since the exact times are known.
Many people have head DeeDee saying that she heard grass. It sems to have come out that way if you listen to the words. I sincerely doubt that she thinks that she heard grass.
As I understand matters, Tracy Martin was jumped with a recording of screams.
“Is this your son?” (screaming in the last seconds of his life)
“Hell yeah! I’d recognise those screams anywhere. No doubt about it.”
or
Just no, no , no
Speaking as a parent, I doubt very much if I could definitively identify the sound of one of my children screaming in terror v. somone else screaming in terror. The fact of the sounds being picked up in the background of a telephone conversation – with the mouthpiece inside a nearby house and about 50 foot distant might not help any chance I might have of doing this.
.
If he was aware of any screaming going on, he would be well advised t claim it was him. Any awareness of a possibility of a recording does not come into it. THere were people in the houses.
.
Try listening to the interview. Listen to the recording if you want to hear them.
He initially gave a dramatic “MMA” story – with punches.
He later changed that to seeing both horizontal, one on top of the other. not sitting/straddling. – best described as wrestling.
He explains that “MMA” stemmed from his impresssion that the one on top was in control – as in pinning the other down. This was sort of MMA his concepty of something in MMA – the control.
He says that he could not see hands or faces.
He says that he just assumed that the one underneath was screaming. He had no other reason for thinking who was screaming.
.
Much has been made of the state being questioned at that hearing.
What happened was that O’Mara realised that Gilbreath just happened to be in the court – and had him called. Gilbreath had no particular mission in being there. He brought nothing with him. He had made no preparations. He does not seem to have had a complete picture of the evidence at that stage.
The state wasn’t there to produce evidence and argue the case.
It was a clever PR stunt by O’Mara. That is all.
.
Witness 8 has not imploded. That’s more PR.
.
Aaaaaaaaannnndddd…. wait for it…. I’m gonna say it again…(because it’s absolutely true)….
………………………….It will all come out at the trial.
Sling,
You can try to parse it anyway you want, but the fact that the lead investigator for the prosecution after almost a month, did not have anything to disprove GZ is significant. Has the prosecution added any significant piece of evidence that was not available to them at that Hearing. That’s okay you don’t have to answer because the answer is no.
The prosecution has a story, and it is trying to fit the evidence into this story, it is hoping that if they put enough holes into GZ story, then people will overlooked the glaring holes on theirs.
As a parent myself, I pray that my sons will not be caught in a situation where the full weight of the State comes down on them just based on an emotional story with very little fact or evidence.
boricuafudd,
Can you supply a list of all of the evidence that the prosecution have please?
I certainly have never seen such a list, and would not expect to see it at this stage.
Just from the evidence that appears to be available currently, I would justify a manslaughter charge.
As for M2, I don’t know to what extent a court would treat Zimmerman’s words and tone in the NEN. I don’t know to waht extent the unreasonablilit of his
I don’t know what a court would make of him ending the NEN call with an abrupt change of plan to have the incoming cops ring him to find out where he was at – and this being followed by a 2.5 minute gap before the first 911 connects. This would be in the light of him being less than 30 seconds to the ‘attack’ point from where he says he was standing at the time.
I don’t know what a court would make of his account in the Walk-through up to the time that he says that he drove into Twin Trees. I doesn’t actually work against clock, geography and reason. It also does not work against ehat the Clubhousr CCTV appears to indicate.
Whatever about the variations in his stories at the time, I don’t know what a court would make of the remarkable amending of aspects of the story on Hannity. I have described this performance as one of a tight-rope
– trying to remove any hint Martin had any cause to be alarmed by Zimmerman’s interest (not running any more and certainly not in fear)
– trying to minimize any hint that Zimmerman should have been cautious in “going in the same direction
– trying to do the above while still portraying Martin as a threatening thug.
The Hannity PR stunt made his management of the story and the attitude to facts nakedly obvious.
.
If credibility is an important consideration in a court’s decisions, then Zimmerman suffers badly.
His big problem is that when he tells a story, he looks people in the eye. He is sincere. He is being helpful. He seems convinced of the truth of what he is saying and he is convincing.
Then a conflict is pointed out and we get “I don’t really remember”.
No wait George!
A while back you told us a story – sincerely and convincingly – looking us in the eye. Yes sir.
There was no hint that there might be faulty memory involved. You gave us detail.
Now as soon as something is cross-checked you say you don’t really remember.
It gets so that you can’t take anything he says as the reality.
If he started out honestly and said something like “As far as I can remember ….” he would be on better ground.
.
I proposed a drinking game for a trial in which Zimmerman would be cross-examined.
Every time he would say “I don’t remember “, we would have to drink.
I’m pretty sure we would end up with alcoholic poisoning.
Sling,
While the drinking game sounds fun, I seriously doubt that GZ will take the stand, he does not have.
You are right there is no list from the prosecution, but likewise there is no evidence all we have is discovery, some of which may not make into trial. That is what I was referring too. The NEN call, part of DD’s testimony as well as other things may never make it into evidence as they can may be challenged for cause.
Due to Florida’s sunshine laws, don’t expect many surprises at trial, what we have seen is pretty much what the prosecution has. They have told the Defense pretty much that.
Yes, the prosecutor will try to use the discrepancies in GZ statements, but that alone is not conclusive. A story is not evidence, and the burden is high for the prosecution. The burden of proof lies with them, saying it does not make sense, opens the door then you have to prove it, beyond Reasonable Doubt.
boricuafudd
I have read that the State cannot use all of George’s statements and that they will have to choose one that the judge agrees is most consistent with George’s account but IDK.
I think that Zimmerman being cross examined on the stand would be a huge problem for the defence.
If anyone thinks that DeeDee being cross examined would be a riot, think of the major cluster-f**k that Zimmerman would be.
This would explain why there is no SYG-type hearing.
The trial is most probably going to be one in which the defence mostly sits like a potted palm looking at the prosecution trying to prove a case with as little reference to Zimmerman’s accounts as O’Mara can manage.
The eventual outcome really isn’t my problem.
I have no input on the particular statutes and formal rules of evidence.
I’m more interested in what happened.
I spent a lot of time listening to him on the NEN, over and over. That was the core of my mini-blog on the matter.
I don’t see Zimmerman as a premeditated racist killer.
He’s an incompetent bungler. He also exhibits signs of being a control freak.
The way I read him, he got really pumped up as Martin approached – and then Martin passed on, leaving Zimmerman full of adrenalin and no outlet.
Martin passing out of his sight seems to have been a trigger. He lost it. He’s on a combination of adreneling overdose, his medication side-effects and the condition that promped them.
Listening to him from then on, he is greatly exercised about (Martin) getting away.
He’s frustrated.
Something definitely happened at the end of the NEN call, when he suddenly changed the plan. He noticed something.
Then there is that unexplained gap.
Afterwards there is an account of a fight where the detail doesn’t work against the available evidence. There is a quest for an address to turn “following” into “going in the same direction”.
I think that it is a least manslaughter.
If he walks from this, it’s an encouragement for incompetent vigilantes to cause mayhem.
Sling, I appreciate the honesty, there is really nothing else to be said.
Fact still remain their was only wrestling. No fighting ever occur no proof GZ told yet another lie, and I ask what was up with the twizzer on top of the first aid kit.In Pics
Juggler,
The main point of pointing to the actual character of Zimmermna’s injuries is not to somehow portray them as not rising to some level under some law.
The point is to demonstrate that Zimmerman’s account of the struggle as a whole must be very innacurate.
The inaccuracy does raise a problem for the defence assertion that Zimmerman was pinned to the ground at all times such that he was both unable to extricate himself and unable to defend himself by any other means than shooting.
.
By the way…..
Martin did not have scraped knuckles. The autopy reports a single small abrasion above the knuckle on the ring finger of his left hand.
GOOD GOD, Sling –
You grill Chip for what YOU say is an ignorance of the facts, and then you simply make up your own. In part above, you wrote the following:
“Zimmerman’s account of the altercation is clearly at odds with the evidence.”
That is merely your opinion. Reasonable pesons could very easily disagree with you
“According to earwitnesses, he is wrong about the extent of the verbal exchange.”
Really?? Did earwitnesses hear every moment of the verbal exchange between the two? Seems to me, the fact that the exchange took place outside, in the light rain WHILE people were ALL inside – most stating they were watching television ought to call that into question.
“According to photographs of the back of his head and of his jacket, he is wrong about being knocked to the ground and pinned at the outset.”
Again, your opinion and unsupportable with any conclusiveness.
“According to the level of injuries to his face, he is wrong about being punched for 1 to 2 minutes.”
Did Zimmerman ever indicate that every punch thrown by Trayvon martin landed, or that the entire time the two were in a scuffle, Trayvon Martin never ceased for a moment in attempting to punch him? I will answer that for you – NO.
“According to the photograph of the back of his head, he is wrong about Martin repeatedly pounding his head into the concrete from start to finish. That photograph, taken before he received any medical attention, indicates that however he received those injuries they only began to bleed after he became upright.” It also does not indicate that his had had been incontact with the ground and moving over it. The same applies to his jacket.”
First, that is YOUR opinion. As I stated in response to another post of yours, you cannot support that conclusion. You cannot say whether any blood did or did not drip directly from Zimmerman’s head tot he ground, nor can you say with any certainly there was no smearing or even that the blood you DO see was all flowing downward. Obviously, it appears that there was significant blood flow downward, as if it did so while Zimmerman was bending his head down. As far as his jacket – you can’t say ANYTHING about his jacket from the photo, one way or another – it only shows his collar and part of a shoulder. But you cannot deny Officer Smith’s observations – he saw Zimmerman VERY shortly after the shooting and wrote in his report of grass and wetness on the back of Zimmerman’s clothing. How do you dismiss that? Also, how do you dismiss Witness #6’s statement that eh SAW Zimmerman on his back on the ground??
“Had the altercation actually proceeded exactly as Zimmerman claimed – with head-pounding and punching over 1 to 2 minutes, then one might accept that he had developed a reasonable fear of serious injury of death.”
Of COURSE the altercation didn’t proceed exactly as Zimmerman claimed. He was being BEATEN. He wasn’t observing a boxing match or filming someone fighting. He was the recipient!! He was making statements from memory within 24 hours of their occurrence (his statements to police and the re-enactment). Honestly your comment about him likely developing a reasonable fear of serious injury or death occurring after 1 to 2 minutes is very ignorant. Clearly you are implying that Zimmerman was NOT in reasonable fear of serious injury or death. That is fallacious. There is NO time limit for fear.
Fact – Zimmerman was struck repeatedly and injured by Trayvon Martin. It doesn’t MATTER how many times or how long it took!!
Fact – Trayvon Martin mounted Zimmerman and was observed on top of him by Witness #6. The condition of Zimmerman’s clothing as observed by Officer Smith corroborates this as well.
Fact – The struggle between the two lasted a MINIMUM of 45 seconds during which ONE of them was screaming repeatedly for help.
Fact – The gunshot did not occur until at least 45 second into the 91 call on which is heard the repeated screaming.
Fact – Trayvon Martin’s remains show NO sign of injury, other than the gunshot wound and scraped knuckles.
The law regarding lethal force in self-defense doesn’t even REQUIRE injury, so your implication that someone be beaten for “X” amount of time before they are justified in developing a reasonable fear of serious injury or death is asinine. You are a Monday morning quarterback.
Perhaps you don’t mean to imply it, but your words very clearly DO imply that injury must be inflicted before someone can be reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death. I guess if someone ran at you with a pitchfork, you would let them impale you before you could reasonably develop a fear of serious injury or death. No, you WOULD reasonably fear serious injury or death, and if you possessed a firearm, you would shoot them. Zimmerman’s head injuries indicate his head was being struck by a hard object (aka a SIDEWALK). One need not self-assess impending unconsciousness to defend one’s self.
And YOU critique Chip for HIS so-called assumptions!!
number one they were wrestling that how GZ jacket got wet and had grass He was not on his back long cause jacket look very clean at police station- again fact their was not punching, fact no scraped knuckles you made that up. their was not beating you made that up too. where is you proof.i can prove mine..
You wrote:
“number one they were wrestling that how GZ jacket got wet and had grass He was not on his back long cause jacket look very clean at police station- again fact their was not punching, fact no scraped knuckles you made that up. their was not beating you made that up too. where is you proof.i can prove mine..”
Number one – DUH!! We all know that. He didn’t HAVE to be on his back long. But he WAS on his back, and Martin WAS on top of him.
Number two – No punching…no beating? So I guess all the scrapes, bumps and bruises on Zimmerman’s face and head just appeared spontaneously??? And his nose just began to bleed on its own? And the probable broken nose? That just happened??? Stupid!
Number three – No scraped knuckles??? Well, according to the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy, Trayvon Martin has a 1/4th x 1/8th inch abrasion (i.e., scrape) on his left ring finger. Did he make that u
we only have GZ word for when he got injured-fact we only have GZ word for why he really shot trayvon, we wont know anything until trial start but for now we have to just take his word.
It is not unreasonable to expect that Zimmerman may not have perfect recall of the events of that Sunday evening when Martin was shot, even though he may have reported honestly what his recollection of events was, and it seems curious to me how so many people think the case turns on the credibility of the statements of Zimmerman. I have said that if the account of Zimmerman is dismissed entirely and just the physical evidence and witness statements are taken into account, along with the evidence field at the scene, there exists a preponderance of the evidence which favors a reasonable conclusion of justifiable homicide. Circumstantial evidence is consistent also with that reasonable conclusion. The complete forensics analysis on the phones may provide even more insight about the actual movements of the two subjects with regards to the timeline, to give us a bird’s eye view of the movements of the two subjects corresponding to the timeline of events described by witnesses other than Zimmerman.
Martin was a visiting guest at RTL which was a gated community, and there is an aspect about the death of Martin that is similar to what would be the response if a guest or a possible intruder at a tourist resort or a hotel was dead as result of homicide. As a matter of course in the preliminary investigation, the “hotel detective” or private security as well as the police would check the last incoming and outgoing phone calls for that guest. In this case the deceased was a “John Doe” for many hours, even though a cell phone reasonably believed to belong to the deceased was found on the ground 10 feet from the body. A cell phone found next to a body is key evidence which would be reasonably expected to be treated with great and immediate curiosity by investigators, even if simply trying to ID the deceased. The police narrative describes the phone found as having a dead battery. And then a lengthy debacle is described about police difficulty associated with the phone due to the dead battery and other “alleged” impediments to police investigation involving that phone. However, such “alleged” impediments as reported to have delayed police investigation involving the phone are difficult to believe, because a dead battery is a non issue with regards to the access to the manufacturers ID information for that phone printed upon a label underneath the battery cover, only a screwdriver being required to access that ID information. It is reasonable to believe that as long as cell phones have been used, that homicide detectives and evidence technicians would be very well aware of this FACT. Therefore, the police narrative regarding the phone of Martin found at the scene is highly suspect, and there could very easily be TWO stories which exist about the investigation involving that phone, {1} what actually was done with that phone on 2-26-2012 or in the immediate few hours following discovery of that phone, which is confidential criminal intelligence information, and [2] the publicly released police narrative which describes a misleading story that simply is not credible. It would be interesting to get to the bottom of this business involving key evidence IMO, and a good time for having done that would have been BEFORE a capias for Zimmerman was ever issued.
CHip so if martin was wearing a white shirt under his hoodie – Your saying he took the hoodie off.. this is a question- then how did he get it back on before he got shot. unless GZ was wearing his gray shirt that looks white in the dark ,or GZ was also wearing a white shirt under his clothes…That why i am saying unproven – it was dark martin had on dark clothes, at the top, GZ had on gray shirt and red and gray jacket.
You think the only way for anyone to have seen a white shirt would been for Martin to have completely removed his hoodie?
There’s absolutely no chance whatsoever that the hoodie could have moved during the altercation, thereby exposing the white shirt underneath? There’s absolutely no chance that witnesses looking into the dark saw a partially exposed white shirt, rather than a white shirt completely exposed?
And what’s most critical: the “white shirt” witness still saw a red shirt on bottom.
Chip- The more evidence that comes in the more guilty GZ looks to me …I am sorry -you try to explain things gz did away and facts show different trayvon never punch,hit or touched gz nose fact no bruses to his hands fact, none of gz dna on his hands or under his finger nails. he never grabed his ears,neck,or head to pound it on concrete fact no dna ,fact no blood on concrete, fact none of trayvon blood on gz except the tiny spot on the bottom inside of his coat seleve mixed with gun powder resudue. If i say i was on the bottom and i shot some one in chest and thir heart exploded and their lungs collasped. making a 3/8 inch hole i should have blood on the front of my clothes. gz had NONE. explain that one away chip plz..
To idilla –
First – you are grossly incorrect about the transfer of Trayvon Martin’s blood to Zimmeman’s clothing.
Bloodstain “N” found on Zimmerman’s jacket (Exhibit DMS-19) indicated that Trayvon Martin’ DNA was present
Bloodstain “U” found on Zimmerman’s jacket (Exhibit DMS-19) indicated that Trayvon Martin was a possible contributor.
So, your comment that none of Trayvon Martin’s DNA )blood) was found on Zimmerman’s clothing is ignorant of reality.
Second – Trayvon Martin was shot through two garments of clothing (a hoodie sweatshirt and a Nike brand inner sweatshirt. Unlike in the movies, as you seem to imply, his heart did not “explode”. And immediately upon being shot he sat up, and ultimately fell to the ground facedown. The mere fact that ANY of his blood got on Zimmerman at all indicates he was on top of Zimmerman when the shot was fired. Had he been standing or on the ground, the blood would not have even gone through two sweatshirts and onto Zimmerman.
Third – You said there was no blood on the concrete – how do you know that? Is there any lab evidence that the concrete sidewalk was even tested? Yeah, I didn’t think so. So, you can’t honestly say none of Zimmerman’s blood was on the sidewalk.
Fourth – You said no blood on Martin’s hands. I looked again at the DNA results and there is no evidence his hands were even swabbed for DNA – so how can you say none of Zimmerman’s DNA was there? Sure, the underside of his fingernails were tested, but when someone is beating someone ELSE up, usually the fact that their fists are clenched precludes the underside of their fingernails from gathering any foreign DNA. So you can’t honestly say none of Zimmerman’s blood was ON Trayvon Martin’s hands.
I have pretty much shot every single one of your arguments to hell. If I missed any, let me know. It will be my pleasure to continue to continue this intellectual beatdown
CHIP- no i am not saying he self inflinted his wounds and I am not saying someone else did all I am saying is their is not solid proof yet being presented to us but during the court preciding when the investorgator took the stand their was a hint that this proof would becoming when he said “the concrete did not cause the injuries to GZ head it was something else” this is not his word for word you have to go back and listen but this close to what he said as I can get…Without going back and writing down word for word what he said….
There is a diagram that a witness drew up that show Zimmerman on the botttom Trayvon on top and they are on the concrete.
not…the drawing dont show that.
Chip – It’s in the medical records Fact the heart did explode ond both lungs collasped he died instantly. I would not go their and say untrue things about the dead. If you read What I said about GZ clearly I said what report said he had just trayvon blood on his seleve inside his coat jacket only no were else.
sorry Chip that was for juggler523 about the jacket and things..
You wrote:
“It’s in the medical records Fact the heart did explode ond both lungs collasped he died instantly. I would not go their and say untrue things about the dead. If you read What I said about GZ clearly I said what report said he had just trayvon blood on his seleve inside his […]”
Number 1 – where in the medical record did it say his heart exploded? Please point it out specifically. I have the autopsy report in front of me. It says:
“The injuries associated with the wound: The entrance wound; perforations of left anterior fifth intercostal space, pericardial sac, right ventricle, right lower lobe of the lung with approximately 1300 milliliters of blood in the right pleural cavity and 1000 in the left pleural cavity; the collapse of both lungs.
Number 2 – how do you define “instantly”? If you mean he was dead when he hit the ground, you are dead wrong. One witness saw his leg move independently. Witnesses saw Zimmerman holding his arms out tot h side while he was face down, and when the police arrived, his hands were beneath him – indicating he moved! Medical experts agree he lived for a few moments after the shot – perhaps as long as a couple minutes. You can read about their opinion here:http://www.orlandosentinel.com/videogallery/71863846/News/Experts-say-Trayvon-lived-for-moments-after-shooting
So, since you have NO evidence of what you claim, and I do – you’re wrong. Easy!
Number 3 – I don’t have a CLUE what you are trying to say on that last point. concerning his sleeve…
the small of blood on his jacket sleeve tells me and anybody else that he was on top. and during the trial you will see tm died instantly no talking, none of that period.
You wrote: “the small of blood on his jacket sleeve tells me and anybody else that he was on top. and during the trial you will see tm died instantly no talking, none of that period.”
First, are you saying that the small [amount] of blood on Zimmerman’s jacket tells you and anyone else that he was on top?? I would really like you to clarify that, will ya?
Second, you think that during the trial it is somehow going to be proven that TM died instantly? Really? How so? I’m asking, because according to two medical experts, TM survived for some time following the fatal shot. He may have lived for several minutes.
According to two experts (Dr. William Anderson – a forensic specialist and former deputy medical examiner for Orange and Osceola counties – and Dr. William L. Manion, a board certified anatomical, clinical and forensic pathologist and lawyer in Mount Holly, N.J. – who reviewed Trayvon’s autopsy for the Orlando Sentinel, Trayvon Martin survived for several minutes after the shooting.
According to Dr. Anderson, “You’re talking about minutes, at least, for him to survive. I think he would have been conscious … for a little time anyway.”
During an interview March 24 with agents with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Firefighter Stacey Livingston, who arrived ten minutes after the shooting, said: TrayvonMartin “had a small bullet hole in his chest area that wasn’t even bleeding.” Not on the outside. Inside, however, his chest cavity had filled with 2,300 milliliters of blood, according to the autopsy. That’s about one-third of a healthy person’s total blood volume. Trayvon’s heart had kept pumping, but with each contraction, blood was leaking or gushing into his chest, depending on the size of the bullet hole.
Dr. Anderson and Dr. Manion agreed that Trayvon remained conscious for a time. Anderson suggested the teenager may have been conscious for several minutes. Manion estimated it at just 20 to 30 seconds. Trayvon Martin would have remained alive for a few minutes, both doctors agreed, as his wounded heart continued to pump. One piece of evidence that Trayvon did not die instantly, both doctors said, was the color of his fingernails. Shiping Bao, the associate medical examiner in Volusia County who performed the autopsy, wrote that Trayvon had “cyanotic nail beds.” That means they had turned blue, something that happens when there’s not enough oxygen in the blood.
There is other evidence that Trayvon survived for a short time. One witness told authorities that after the shooting Trayvon moved his leg.
Then there is Zimmerman’s account. In a re-enactment for Sanford police the following day, the 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer said Trayvon moved and talked after he was wounded. “I didn’t think I hit him because he sat up and said, ‘OK you got me. You got it. You got me. You got it,’ something like that,” Zimmerman said. What else had he said, police Investigator Doris Singleton had asked during an earlier interrogation at police headquarters. “Ow, ow,” Zimmerman said.
So..uh….HOW do you think it’s going to be PROVEN that Trayvon Martin died instantly?
@idilla:
Say what, now? Does blood have some previously unknown, anti-gravitational properties that would cause its very existence on Zimmerman’s jacket sleeve to imply that he was on top (against all other known evidence)?
Also: how, pray tell, is blood on Zimmerman’s jacket sleeve indicative in any way whatsoever regarding which person was on top and which was on bottom?
Juggler beat me to this one. Here’s the link that demonstrates that you are again talking out of your anal orifice.
juggler you have your two doctors and they have theirs and theirs say he died instantly so now we have to see which doctor is believed.
Idilla – NOTHING I write is based on guesswork.
Two medical experts,whose names are KNOWN (Dr. William Anderson, a forensic specialist and former deputy medical examiner for Orange and Osceola counties, and Dr. William L. Manion, a board-certified anatomical, clinical and forensic pathologist and lawyer in Mount Holly, N.J.) have been interviewed and both state that Trayvon Martin was almost CERTAINLY NOT killed instantly. They have different opinions about how long he may have remained conscious, but they agree he was still alive for perhaps several minutes. You have provided the names of NO EXPERTS. Like so many Trayvonites, you simply say there are experts who claim otherwise. No source, nothing.
You keep being so NON-specific, while I point you to the exact source. You ahve said Officer Smith said he picked the weapon up off the ground, or that a witness SAW it on the ground, but you fail to provide the source. The first witness on the scene said Officer Smith took the weapon from Zimmerman, not off the ground. I ask you for your source and you don’t provide it.
Zimmerman’s car was parked on the Twin Trees Lane – he did not recall the name of that street, so to provide the NEN with a house number on a street he didn’t know the name of would have been silly. He DID know the name of the street one street over (Retreat View Circle), so he walked to that street to get a house number. He didn’t provide it to the NEN operator because he intended to provide it to the police when THEY arrived. It was no certainty he would even BE at that address when they got there, so he gave the operator his number so he would be able to tell them wherever he was. He explains much of this in his re-enactment – and despite SlingTrebuchet’s inability to comprehend this simple reasonable concept, it is VERY reasonable.
I provide sources…you do not….you simply say that a report says this, or the prosecution’s experts say that…you are really not very well equipped for this debate.
idilla:
Do you believe on the basis of what has been made public so far, that the Murder 2 charge on GZ is warranted?
their was more than one white shirt witness ok chip try and explain that one away- futher more they saw a whole white shirt not a partial white shirt as your trying to get me to believe just like the police were trying to get the witness to believe they didn’t see what they saw.Telling them the one that commited the crime is dead. Its ok to debate and try and figure this thing out but don’t be acting as though you know GZ or trayvon like you birth them. Everyone is capable of lieing when their put in a situtation like this one were you took a life – and their a possiblty yours can be taken too. Unless you get your story right. AS far murder 2 charges go I am still open to that one until I hear more evidence – Murder warrants yes cause so far I see no reason he should have gotten out of his car and went in the same direction trayvon did after he knew trayvon skipped (a joke) or ran from him. (Call me back I will tell you were I am at ) gives him away that he going to find trayvon- why would you go looking for a person that just ran away from you. I just can’t understand his self defense if I make up a lame excuse that I am looking for address. If you go back like he did before this every happen he gave nen the extact place to come in twin tree now when he wants to be a hero and catch a youngman because he sick of them getting away. ( He said”Call me back and I will tell you were I am at. after I catch this asshole.,,,Yes murder I feel is right – prematated Murder Second degree not yet need a little more convicing.
To get there, you must:
1. First, disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.
2. Second, prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman killed Martin, by an act imminently dangerous to another, and evincing a depraved disregard for human life
(If you fail to clear this hurdle, beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge will instruct the jury to acquit Zimmerman.)
To get past the self-defense hurdle, you must, beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Prove that Zimmerman was doing something otherwise unlawful at the time of the incident, or
2. Prove that Zimmerman did not act to prevent a forcible felony, or did not have reasonable fear of imminent risk of great bodily harm or death, or
3. Prove that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, that Martin did not escalate the physical aggression, and that Zimmerman did not cease aggression and clearly indicate a desire to end the altercation
Once you’ve cleared the self-defense hurdle, you must, beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Prove that Zimmerman killed Martin (done: Zimmerman admits the act)
2. Prove that Zimmerman committed an act imminently dangerous to another (done: gun shot)
3. Prove that Zimmerman acted with a depraved disregard for human life
Can you, the State, or anyone else clear even one of these stated hurdles?
@Idillia
1917:20 – Shot fired
1917:40 – Officer T. Smith arrives on scene.
ftsk420 T.smith arrived on scene but had to look for GZ he said he looked between building then he spotted GZ in between building and asked him ….. read his statement.
Idilla,
I hope you realize that every time you imply that GZ had help, or that somehow he or someone inflicted his wounds, all you are really saying is that there is reasonable doubt.
yes i do still have reasonable doubt -BORICUAFUD
I think that is important, a young man is dead, that is tragic anyway you look at, now we have another young man, who the State wants to send to prison for 25 to live, when there is reasonable doubt that he might be right. Which is exactly what happens if the emotional aspect is removed.
now that more evidence keep coming in that reasonable doubt is flying out the window and guilty is coming in…
Idilla
Just out of curiosity what new evidence are you referring too? So far what has come out has been mostly exculpatory.
@idilla:
What new evidence would that be?
The evidence that Witness 8 is a lying liar?
The evidence that the State knew in April 2012 that Witness 8 was of legal age at the time of the incident, and yet continued to blanket her in protections afforded to minors?
The evidence that Witness 8 has given no less than three different accounts of what she allegedly heard that night?
The evidence that the State has been withholding (and as far as we know, continues to withhold) Martin’s cell phone data for the day and evening in question?
The evidence that not one, not two, but three SPD officers all heard Tracy Martin admit that the screaming voice on the 911 call was not that of Trayvon Martin?
What other new evidence has come out in the last few months, that you believe overcomes reasonable doubt?
I stumbled on you site Mike. Really enjoying it and the comments. Thanks so much.
I have to disagree with one part. This sort of perjury normally isn’t prosecuted, and probably shouldn’t be.
The problem this raises is that they HAVE charged zimmerman’s wife on a much thinner claim of mistruth. It screams of bias and racism.
goodnite talk again soon
How do I leave this particular comments section. I am sick of listening by e-mail to the same people make the same comments for more than a year. I have other email to read not this everlasting argument between the same people with the same comments. I don’t remember how to unfollow a particular blog page from here.
There should be an Unsubcribe link at the bottom of every notification email that you receive.
A problem might be that it would apply to comments on all postings and not just e.g. this thread.
I don’t think that it unfollows you from the blog as a whole, so you would still be notified of new postings by Mike.
To check this, just open up https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com and check if you’ve got Following or Unfollow top right beside the blog name
Duh! Top left. Sorry
OK, try this. Trey’s father was visiting his girl friend. He handed Trey a bit of cash and said, “disappear for a couple of hours while intake care of “business”.
Trey is pissed and then discovers that he is being followed! Lets play with this dude and if he keeps following I will make him sorry. I am with GZ, he is a citizen who joined with others to protect his community and is doing that. He sees something suspicious and calls the cops to report a problem. Trey sees that he is again being followed and fakes disappearing up a walk way to lure GZ out and then assaults him. The problem is stupidity by Trey, he got what he deserved.
Wow not provren very bad story..
Not proven of course. But there isn’t a single piece of evidence to contradict “Another Thought’s” story as very possible/likely. And there is SOME evidence to suggest very strongly that it is true.
Here’s one piece: Trey disappeared 1/2 way thru a 4:05 (+/-) phone call. At that point, he was approximately 450ft from home. Walking slowly for someone his height, it would have taken him about 90 seconds (5ft per second) to get home. Had he gone home, he would have been sitting in front of the pre-game of the NBA All-Star game for a full 30 seconds when Zimmerman hung up with the dispatcher.
He did NOT walk home. Instead, he was no more than 30-40 feet from the very spot he had last been seen a full 3 1/2 to 4 minutes AFTER he had been last seen. Why was he still there?
A very reasonable explanation is because what “Another Though” said may very well have happened. You have a more plausible reason why Trey was still in the same general area so long after he had apparently disappeared from there?
If we are to wonder about why people were still there……………………
Why was Zimmerman still there?
There isn’t a single piece of evidence to show that he went to RVC. In fact it is entirely plausibe that he did not go there because of the counter-indications. He claims to have been at his goal (RVC for a house number at which he could meet the incoming patrol) before he ended the NEN call. He could have given the house number to the dispatcher at the time.
Having got there, why did he leave? He says he went there as he could not otherwise give an address.
If he was at RVC as he says, why did he agree to meet at the mailboxes? He had gone to RVC for an address that was more helpful as to Martin’s whereabouts.
Why did he suddenly change from that to ask that the incoming patrol call him to find out where he was. He had been unable to describe where he was and had gone to RVC purely so that he would be able to do so.
If he did actually go to RVC, why did he not remain there to meet the patrol?
If he did actually go to RVC and set off for his truck on ending the NEN, why was he at the T 2 minutes later, when it would have taken him 20 seconds to get there?
Had he simply walked to RVC for a house number and returned, he would have been back at his truck as the NEN was ending.
Why was Zimmerman still there?
Considering “they always get away …f*cking poonks”, Frank Taffe’s very helpful insights in the perfect storm and other indications, is perfectly plausible that he wanted to ensure that this one wasn’t going to get away.
You ask a bunch of questions that have very easy answers.
Zimmerman walked from his car to the “T”, and then beyond – to find an address that he could give to the police when they called – IF they came when he was in that vicinity. He did NOT give the address to the dispatcher because there was no telling when the police would arrive, and there was no guarantee he would wait there in the rain just getting wet until they arrived at some unknown point in the future.
There is NO telling how long exactly Zimmerman took from the end of his call to his return to the “T”. You attach some surgical limits to it, but you have NO idea. Maybe he looked for the house number, then spent a short time smacking his inoperable flashlight to try and get it to work. Maybe he stood there on RVC for a few moments and then decided to turn around and walk back to his car to wait for the police – and thank goodness he confirmed that the dispatcher had his number, so that when the police called, he would be able to give it to them, wherever he was when they called.
Zimmerman had given up on Trayvon Martin. Once the dispatcher said, “OK, we don’t need you to do that.”, his response was a very matter-of-fact “OK”, and then there was no suggestion whatsoever on his part that it might be better to see if he could find Trayvon Martin. What is pretty obvious is that Martin was no loner in Zimmerman’s view, and in his mind, that meant Martin was long gone – validating for the moment what Zimmerman had said when he uttered in a quite resigned sort of way, “These assholes…they always get away.”
Why did he agree to meet at the mailboxes? Well only HE knows, but he quickly changed his mind (probably because he didn’t know WHEN the police would how – and if they came soon, he would be roughly a block away – so it was better to just have them call him – which is what he suggested to the dispatcher.
Why did he not remain at RVC to meet the patrol car? DUH!!!! RAIN!!!!!
In short, Zimmerman wasn’t recording his every move. Nor was he in a particular hurry to return to his vehicle. By that time, Trayvon Martin was gone, the police had his number and all he NEEDED to do was pretty much whatever he wanted. It’s entirely likely he was making his way back to the vehicle even MORE casually than he had walked FROM it – now having lost sight of Martin and resigning himself to the fact that when the police DID arrive, he would merely provide a statement and that would be it.
Again – you mention Frank Taaffe as if he has ANY bearing on the case. He was NOT there!! True, you can say it “is perfectly plausible that he wanted to ensure that this one wasn’t going to get away”, but you have no evidence of the following:
– that after exiting his vehicle, he followed behind Trayvon at anything other than walking speed;
– that he had EVER attempted to make contact with ANY suspicious person he had called NEN or 911 about – and thus no reason to believe that pursuing Trayvon Martin was EVER on his mind.
If Zimmerman was trying to make sure “this one didn’t get away”, why did he merely WALK after Martin? Why did he wait to exit his vehicle until Martin disappeared some 125-150ft away? Why didn’t he confront Martin earlier? You come to a plausible (only plausible) conclusion, but you have NOTHING that eliminates several other plausible (MORE plausible) conclusions, like the one I mentioned above. And THAT just ain’t gonna cut it in a court where BEYOND a reasonable doubt is the standard.
You have some “easy answers” there all right, but there are issues.
Zimmerman has never offered such answers. He has in fact asserted that there was absolutely no hanging about.
One might think that his walk-through description would be very close to what happened. He’s had plenty of time to think it through. He’s had time with Osterman to talk it through. Then he’s walking over the actual ground th next day. He’s got something solid on which to hang memories.
He says that he ended the call and started straight back for his truck.
The high point in this was on the Hannity show, over 4 months after the events. He and MOM had more than enough time to consider the stories v timelines. We get “the missing minute from “OK” to the moment of the shot” and “less than 30 seconds”.
That ‘no hanging about’ was one plank of Hannity.
His actions in no way being a cause of alarm for Martin was another plank. Martin is now not running – but skipping. Martin is “not in fear” – You could tell that?
Zimmerman was “not particularly” alarmed by a suspicious guy who was on drugs or something and had circled his truck with his hand in his waistband and with “confrontational body language”. Really.
“Hand in his waistband” in the particular very threatening circumstances did not remind Zimmerman that he had a gun. Even when faced with a thug who had just threatened him, he doesn’t remember a gun.
You hear resignation. I listen to him saying “These a**holes, they always get away” and hear resentment. He was still sitting in his truck then.
He gets out. “F*ucking poonks” doesn’t sound like resignation.
Listen to his voice as he heads away from the truck. That’s not ‘casual’. He sounds pumped up. Breathlessness is not the preserve of exertion. Stress and tensions does it too. “F*ucking poonks” doesn’t sound like resignation.
It’s bad enough being circled by a suspicious guy who was on drugs or something and had circled his truck with his hand in his waistband and with “confrontational body language” – and who passed out of sight “not in fear”.
Even worse ……. it’s raining.
He’s in his truck.
He loses sight of ‘the suspect’ as Martin apparently turns down the central pathway.
He assumes that Martin is running to the back entrance. Bye bye. An a**hole got away again.
He’s in his truck. It’s raining.
An address would be good.
Consider the geography.
The mailboxes and the clubhouse are about 200 feet away – right opposite the main entrance. He can drive there. Put on a CD of something soothing. Sit in the warm and wait for the cops.
The clubhouse has already been discused. The dispatcher even knows that Zimmerman had omitted a “1” from its address. It’s clear on his mapping system. That’s how he knew the correct number while Zimmerman got it wrong. It’s an ideal meeting spot.
How about the back entrance? The suspect is apparently headed that way. Just drive down there inside the dry warm safe soothing-music truck. That would be a very rational helpful and safe way to assist the incoming cops. Just like the nice Wendy Dorval NW lady emphasised. “Observe from a safe distance” “Call from the safety of you home or vehicle”.
The address of the back entrance is …..”The Back Entrance”. It’s all clear on the mapping systems.
No!
Let’s get out of the truck and walk 260 feet in the rain to somewhere on RVC. Round trip will be 520 feet of walking in the rain.
We will get wet. We will also be walking right at a dark corner around which a suspicious guy who was on drugs or something and had circled the truck with his hand in his waistband and with “confrontational body language” – had passed out of sight “not in fear”.
If we really fancy a walk in the rain as opposed to sitting in a warm truck listening to soothing music, there might be other walks we could do.
We know we’re at the back of RVC houses. Maybe perhaps these houses have numbers at the front. We’re parked just near a gap. Walk 100 feet North and we are on RVC – with house numbers.
.
On the other hand, “there’s been a lot of break-ins in our area”. They always get away. Up until now, they ran away.
But now for something completely different …..
………this punk doesn’t run away. He walks right up at us. He circles our truck, threatening us with his hand in his waistband and with his body language. ZOMG! J****s H Freaking C*****!!!!
If only we had some means of protecting ourselves in dangerous situations – like for example a weapon of some sort. The threatening guy has “his hand in his waistband” for freaks sakes! That means weapon in this sort of clearly dangerous situation. Why don’t we have a weapon too? Maybe we should get one sometime?
And then…..
…. he just strolls away – leaving us crapping ourselves and wondering if we know anyone who might be able to advise us about arming ourselves.
WTF? He just sort of skips around a corner after doing that to us.
Lookit! We freaking live here! We’re even the NW for freak’s sake. Freaking poonk just walked right up at us and threatened us!
Right! That’s it!! Enough!
We’ve had enough and we’re not going to take any more of it.
So what if it’s raining……
“Are you following him?”
Yeah – d*mm right we’re following him.
“We don’t need you to do that.”
Ok – whaateverrrrrrr!
(Freaking poonk just walked right up at us and threatened us! Enough!!)
another thought thats not funny..and theirs nothing to debate because its not true.
Sure, it’s not true…but it’s no more true than Zimmerman being a murderer. In other words, your argument that Zimmerman is guilty is about as supportable as the story you are protesting.
sling what you said i can believe..
juggler -why didn’t GZ give NEN the house number by his truck and on the first roll of the townhome were the witness lived. then he would have a shorter walk back to his truck and he wouldn’t be following where trayvon supposely went.
Getting back to DeeDee ….
If Crump scripted her, then the big question is…..
….. what movie did he base the script on?
The script that Zimmerman based his …..
…..has recently been discovered.
youtube.com/watch?v=IFm_OyeNYaQ
(Left out the http:// to spare Mike’s derver space, so copy/paste)
So………..
Which is Crump’s movie?
Slingtrebuchet -I thought that was out of a movie..but that is a good question about Crump where did he get his lines…
at the end of the day two lives were being destroy-and this crime should have never happen.but it did so now its left up to a jury to figure out what really happen. the end
@idilla and @SlingTrebuchet,
You both seem to be missing the forest for the trees.
Zimmerman has claimed the affirmative self-defense defense against the second-degree murder charge the state has brought against him. That means that, before the state can even try to prove their second-degree murder charge, they must first prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense.
In that effort, unless the state can show that any of the actions you keep harping on are somehow unlawful, they’re completely irrelevant. Where Zimmerman parked his vehicle; where he moved it; when he got out of it; where he walked after he got out of it; and where he walked between the end of the NEN call and the commencement of the physical altercation are all completely irrelevant.
The two relevant questions:
1) Was Zimmerman doing anything otherwise unlawful
2) Was Zimmerman the initial physical aggressor
None of the above questions answers either of those two questions.
To prevail on an affirmative self-defense claim, the defense needs only submit an absolute minimum of evidence to support that claim, and from that point, the State bears the burden to disprove the claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
Zimmerman need not ever take the stand in order to provide that evidence. The defense can present:
1) Witness statements
2) SPD officer statements/reports
3) Photographic evidence
4) Medical record
There’s plenty there to meet the evidentiary threshold of a self-defense claim, and to ensure that the jury receives the self-defense instructions.
Now: you’re the State. Disprove that claim, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Realize that disproving self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt must be overcome, before the State tries to prove second-degree murder, or any lesser charge, such as manslaughter.
So, fire away. Disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thank you Chip for reminding us of the only matters that are actually relevant in this case.
No Zimmerman on the stand.
What have we got?
Martin dead. Evidenced.
Zimmerman the shooter. Evidence of his gun, his prints, swabs and some hearsay.
Witnesses who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman for some seconds.
Zimmerman had some injuries. Evidenced. They are minor injuries, but they are still injuries.
Martin had an abrasion on one finger below the knuckle, and a gunshot wound. Evidenced.
No witness to the start of any struggle.
No witness to the end of it.
All we have is the above. Basically, for some seconds at any rate, the shooter on his back with the shot one on top.
Prove beyond reasonable doubt based solely on the above that it was not self-defence?
Not my problem. Not my job. And this is not the court.
Also the case presented might well range beyond simply the above.
In any event, I don’t have all of the evidence that will be presented together with the expert interpretation of it. I have a feeling that forensics and expert analysis will have a very large part to play.
The way you present the matter, it’s not even an open and shut case. It’s more like shut and shut.
The defence spending hundreds of thousands might seem like overkill in that circumstance, but still, one can’t be too careful. Let’s be diligent.
It’s that word “reasonable” that might turn out to be a problem.
Sling,
For all the hundreds of words you have spent on this, that last post has been the most underwhelming, yet.
What can I say? :)
It was a reflection of the comment that I was responding to.
I understand that other matters are relevant to you personally, because, in your opinion, they support your belief that Zimmerman is unintelligent, lying, and reckless. But unless any of those characteristics prove that he committed a crime, they’re non sequitur.
The State presents its case first. It is reasonable to assume that they won’t be calling the defendant to the stand. That’s generally viewed as a prima facie violation of the defendant’s fifth amendment rights.
Yes.
That Martin is dead, and that Zimmerman fatally shot him are not matters that are under contention. Zimmerman has admitted to the shooting.
A fair enough summation for the purpose of this particular exercise.
Sorry, but I’m not letting you off this hook. This is the whole point. Frankly, I’m bored with the back-and-forth with the things you bring up after using this avoidance tactic.
We’re here because the State of Florida has charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder in the death of Martin. I frankly don’t care to discuss anything other than the merits of that charge versus Zimmerman’s self-defense claim.
Given the rules of discovery and sunshine laws in the State of Florida, is is highly likely that you do, in fact, have access to any and all significant evidence that will be used by the State in their attempt to prove their charge.
I keep presenting an open-ended scenario – here’s the evidence the defense will present to support a self-defense claim; how will the state disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt – and you keep avoiding it.
This is a non sequitur, and a rather boring and absurd one. It is Zimmerman’s constitutional right for his defense counsel to explore every potential avenue that the prosecution might attempt to use.
Indeed, it is. How is the State going to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman acted in self-defense?
That’s ok.
Frankly, my eyes glaze over when I see you come in with statutes and a quickie list of why you think the state can’t prove a case.
.
That’s ok.
I frankly don’t care to limit my discussion to your narrow agenda.
You might think of this as avoidance, but i see it as a discussion of the entiriety of the matter.
You might have noticed that others – with varying and opposing views on both ‘sides’ – also seem to share an interest in discussing matters beyond your limited agenda.
.
I know for a fact that I don’t have access to everything.
Where all the forensics reports that the state will present, together with the expert joining of dots throughout the whole set?
Where are all the phone logs? Who was Zimmerman talking to that night? Where’s their pings, etc? Where are all their texts, emails and postings?
I have listened to a 911 call that I downloaded and listened to on cheap crap speakers and cheapo headset. Ditto for a NEN call. Both of those were in discovery. Has the state set well-equipped experts loose on those calls to see what can be milked from the backgrounds? I tried running those calls through a coffee filter, but it didn’t help. Maybe some other types of filters might be better?
I might have access to some evidence, but I don’t have access to how the state will present it in a joined up fashion.
I’ll have to wait for the trial for that
.
In the meantime, if you really want to know how the state intends to prove a case, I suggest that you ask them.
I find it instructive that those who wish to assert that Zimmerman is guilty of murder (or of a lesser charge, even) avoid any mention or discussion of the relevant statutes.
And I don’t post “quickie list[s] of why [I] think the state can’t prove a case”; rather, I post a list of questions that the State must answer, in order to prove their case. I then ask what evidence exists to answer those questions.
To date, you (and most other people who assert that Zimmerman is guilty of murder or some lesser charge) have refused to answer or to provide any evidence regarding those questions.
From my perspective, you want to expand the scope from the statutory elements of the charge, because you want to be able to pin something – anything on Zimmerman. You believe he was reckless, that he is unintelligent, that he is lying about his recollection of the night’s events, and that he should be held accountable for what happened that night.
Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for Zimmerman, we are a nation of laws. Those laws define that for which he can be held accountable, and that for which he may not be held accountable, due to the right of self-defense.
And I am equally consistent in staying within the scope of the statutory matters, whether discussing the matter with those who believe Zimmerman is innocent, or with those who believe Zimmerman is guilty.
I don’t care what Martin was doing that night any more than I care about what Zimmerman was doing that night. I only care about who started the fight, and whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force in self-defense.
I don’t care if Martin was trespassing, casing houses, smoking pot, trying to make lean, or anything else. What I do care about, however, is that he started a physical altercation by punching Zimmerman in the nose – and that he likely circled back from a position of would-be safety in order to start that fight.
(And even then, if he’d merely started a verbal argument with Zimmerman – no harm, no foul. Both would possibly still be arguing when the police arrived. Undoubtedly, had Martin not punched Zimmerman, both would still have been alive when the police arrived.)
You’ll know soon enough. Witness lists are due next Wednesday.
I’m curious, though, what you think the State is going to try to prove with any mysterious background noises in said audio recordings? I’ve asked, repeatedly, about what evidence exists (or even that you suspect to exist). So: what do you think might be there?
More blatant avoidance.
Why do you keep talking about the timeline, and the way that the physical altercation unfolded, if you don’t think that the State might use that at trial?
What do you think the State will attempt to prove, by presenting a particular timeline, or by calling into question some other timeline?
I leave it to the state to deal with whatever it intends to present.
I don’t intend to pretend to be the state.
If you want to debate the merits of a case under your terms then I suggest you find someone who is willing to do that.
Why not set up a website/blog “Judge Chip” and run it stricly according to rules of evidence and statutes?
Maybe run multiple instances as you might have multiple pretennabe prosecutors who want to play.
.
Well, since you seem to be willing to venture into speculation…….
You seem to state as fact that Martin started a physical altercation by punching Zimmerman in the nose.
Can you prove that Martin started the altercation by punching Zimmerman on the nose? Or is this actually just an opinion?
Supplementaries:
Can you prove that it was Martin’s fist and not something else that damaged Zimmerman’s nose?
Can you prove the position at which they encountered each other?
Can you prove that people indoors can accurately locate the source position of outdoor sounds in that particular environment?
Can you prove that there was no exchange or movement that was not audible to people indoors and watching TV?
.
You might well try to avoid such discussion by asserting that that nobody has to prove such a thing.
The thing is…. you made the assertion.
I would be interested ( but only very very mildly) in seeing you try to prove it.
.
As to what, for example, might be discoverable in the backgounds of calls, I don’t know. It would be pure speculation on my part.
I have seen people claim all sorts of things. I’m not going to. I’d rather wait and see what the state might have.
What I can say is that given the great lack of direct witness evidence, I would expect those calls to be closely examined for anything that might throw light on what happened.
.
In the meantime, as exampled somewhere up above on this page, I see someone ask something like “Why was Martin still there?”, I’ll respond with something like “Why was Zimmerman still there?”
If we can speculate about Martin, why not speculate about Zimmerman?
If someone can suggest that Martin started a physical altercation by punching Zimmerman in the nose, why should someone not suggest that Zimmerman tried to ensure that they didn’t get away?
Then if you don’t mind me asking: why are you here? What is your purpose, if not to discuss the merits of the State’s case against Zimmerman?
It is an assertion based on logic and the preponderance of evidence.
Something else… like, what?
And why would I need to prove that?
Irrelevant. There no position that is inherently unlawful for either to have been located.
Likewise irrelevant; see above.
Likewise irrelevant. A verbal exchange is not inherently unlawful, nor does a verbal exchange constitute initial physical aggression, nor does a verbal exchange constitute “imminent use of unlawful force”.
The disconnect we seem to have – at least, one of them – is that the critical moment in that night’s event was the initial physical aggression. Until that moment, neither person engaged in any inherently unlawful act. Until that moment, neither person had done anything that justified the use of force in self-defense.
If, where, and for how long Martin and Zimmerman may have argued are all irrelevant to the matter of whether or not Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force in self-defense.
Two uninjured people go into a proverbial “black box”. Inside that black box, a physical altercation takes place. When the two people come out of that black box, one has obvious signs of having sustained use of force against him, and the other is uninjured, except for a fatal gunshot wound.
There is simply no evidence that Zimmerman ever even touched Martin; thus, if a physical altercation took place, it must have been started by the one who evidence indicates actually used force against the other.
This is actually a point upon which we probably mostly agree. Both men had a right to be where they were, and neither man was doing anything inherently unlawful by being where he was.
Where it is potentially relevant, however, is in refuting the State’s assertion that Martin was “scared”, or trying to escape a confrontation. That Martin was anywhere near the sidewalk “T” absolutely refutes such a claim. He had four minutes, minimum, to get safely inside Brandi Green’s home; he chose to do otherwise.
Again: there is nothing inherently unlawful in that decision – just as there was nothing inherently unlawful in him approaching or verbally accosting Zimmerman. The first unlawful act happened with the initial physical aggression.
Why? Because the former suggestion is supported by actual evidence, and the latter suggestion is utterly specious. Further, the latter suggestion is rather soundly refuted by the recorded 40+ seconds of Zimmerman screaming for help immediately before the gunshot.
Chip – Kudos…
What Sling fails to detail in her diatribe soliloquies is the FACT that the defense need not prove ANYTHING, other than by preponderance of the evidence George Zimmerman was acting in self-defense, and was in reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death when he shot Trayvon Martin.
Sling very impotently has made an attempt to suggest that the injuries sustained by George Zimmerman do not paint a picture of a man who would have had that fear. She claims to have some sort of set of parameters that somehow illustrates how much injury a man sustains in a 1-2 minute fight. Perhaps she has some insider knowledge of how many blows are thrown by a 17-year old and how many are landed solidly, or glancing. In all this irrelevant discussion, she totally seems to forget that injury is not even a pre-requisite for the use of deadly force in the act of self-defense. NOwhere in the law can it be found that even physical contact need be made.
YET – despite that, on one hand, we have a man with multiple scrapes, bruises, and bumps on his face and head. He has a “likely” broken nose – as diagnosed by a medical practitioner, and as opined by several EMTs and police officers who saw it within minutes of the injury. He has lacerations to the back of his head that the EMTs believed at the time they observed him might require stitches. They even recommended he be taken to the hospital. According to the first police officer on the scene, his clothing appeared to be wet and grass-covered as if he had been on his back on the ground. Additionally we have a witness (#6) who SAW Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman.
This alone paints a picture of a man whom ANY reasonable person would deduce could EASILY have been in fear of serious bodily injury or death. Sling cannot deny anything about the above injuries sustained by Zimmerman, and cannot deny that the ONLY reasonable conclusion is that they were inflicted in some way by Trayvon Martin.
She can continue to harp about the things she harps about ad nauseum – almost all of which are literally irrelevant to Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence with regard to the crime for which he was arrested and with which he is charged.
Any REASONABLE person would defer to the several preeminent legal professionals (to include Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, as well as a former president of the American Bar Association, etc.) who ALL believe and have stated publicly that Angela Corey has charged Zimmerman with a crime for which they have not even shown occurred (as per the required elements) in their own charging document.
Sling can go ahead and harp and harp – but when it is all said and done, she is on the sidelines intellectually. If she tried to write a college research paper using the logic and conclusions she has attempted here in an effort to show guilt by Zimmerman – it would not get a high grade at all, unless she first announced it as fiction.
Your black box is what I called a bubble in my response to LittleLaughter below.
It’s all very well while that black box/ bubble is the entire universe.
The moment you any queston is raised that can not be entirely and satisfactorily answered by reference to the contents of the box, you introduce doubt. THe reasonable response to doubt is to increase the dimesions of the box.
This is not logical or reasonable.
I follow you in the dark. I push you or pull you, but leave no mark on you. You punch me. You started it.
.
You can prove this?
.
My box is bigger than your box :)
In my “reasonable” I look at the entirety of Zimmerman’s actions as far as they can be determined. I look at his accounts and look for reasonability.
If I had any doubts about him, I look at his performance on Hannity and wonder why he feels it necessary to put such an outrageously dishonest spin on it.
No, the “black box” is not a bubble. It is the universe considered by the relevant statutes with respect to the commission of a second-degree murder versus the justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense.
The preponderance of the evidence indicates that Martin was the sole aggressor, and therefore by definition was also the initial aggressor.
The constitutional principle of presumption of innocence dictates that, absent any evidence to prove otherwise, Zimmerman is presumed not to have been the initial physical aggressor.
Zimmerman claimed to have screamed for help before he ever knew about the existence of a recording.
Tracy Martin admitted that the voice was not Trayvon Martin’s.
Robert Zimmerman claimed that the voice was Zimmerman’s.
(After acquiring legal counsel for the purposes of potentially bringing suit against Zimmerman – therefore, presenting an obvious conflict-of-interest, Sybrina Fulton claimed the voice was Martin’s, and Tracy Martin lied, and claimed that he never said the voice wasn’t Trayvon Martin’s.)
The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the person screaming for help was the person on the ground, mounted, restrained, and being assaulted by the aggressor, rather than the person on top, mounting, restraining, and assaulting to person on the ground.
Why does it matter whether or not Zimmerman acted “reasonably” during events that are outside of the actual physical altercation itself?
It is a given that your definition of “reasonable” differs from mine, and there is little point in arguing that definition. My question is: why do you think Zimmerman was required to act as per your, my, or any other definition of “reasonable”, prior to the physical altercation?
The only time that “reasonable” enters the picture is in determining whether Zimmerman reasonably feared imminent risk of life or great bodily harm, during the physical altercation.
He didn’t suspect that someone in the area other than himself might have heard the screams? Any knowledege of a recording would not be a factor.
.
Yeah. There is apparently a video of that, but not released yet.
Somebody sent me a transcript.
===================================
A: Ok Mr Martin. I have brought you into this room away from the general office because there is something that I want you to listen to carefully.
We also need to play it on a hi-fi rather than crap laptop – as it’s important.
M: OK
>room is filled with sound 44 seconds of screaming ending in a shotroom is filled with sound 44 seconds of screaming ending in a shotroom is filled with sound of the first 15 screamsroom is filled with sound 44 seconds of screaming ending in a shotThe sound 44 seconds of screaming ending in a shot crackles out of a small unit on a desk in a general office<
A: Is that your son screaming in terror just before he was shot dead?
M: Oh noooooo, no, no
=========================================
I think that's pretty conclusive.
Sure he semed upset, but that was probably just feelings of guilt that his son had beaten someone so viciously that the person screamed like that.
Say what you like, there was a definte negatory in his response to a perfectly simple question.
.
It was probably a preponderance of “”UUUUUUUUH” sounds that clinched it.
Bummer. I’ll try that again – without stuff that WordPress interpeted as HTML
He didn’t suspect that someone in the area other than himself might have heard the screams? Any knowledege of a recording would not be a factor.
.
Yeah. There is apparently a video of that, but not released yet.
Somebody sent me a transcript.
===================================
A: Ok Mr Martin. I have brought you into this room away from the general office because there is something that I want you to listen to carefully.
We also need to play it on a hi-fi rather than crap laptop – as it’s important.
M: OK
== room is filled with sound of 44 seconds of screaming ending in a shot ==
A: Was that your son screaming there?
M: Wut? Let me hear it again
== room is filled with sound of 44 seconds of screaming ending in a shot ==
M: Hmmmm. Not quite sure. Can you replay those screams about 10 in? There was something about them.
== room is filled with sound of the first 15 screams ==
M: Yeah. You see? That 10th one and I think the 2 after have a sort of a “UUUUUUUUH” sound. I’ve heard Travon screaming in mortal terror many’s the time, and he generally goes “UUUUUUNGHH” rather than “UUUUUUUUH”.
A: Yeah OK, but I seem to remember a few of those screams that I think had “UUUUUUNGHH”s in them.
M: OK, let’s hear it again.
== room is filled with sound 44 seconds of screaming ending in a shot ==
M: Yeah. I see what you mean. There are few “UUUUUUNGHH”s in there but mostly it’s “UUUUUUUUH”‘s and “UUUUUUUWWWAH”‘s. Now Trayvon does go “UUUUUUUWWWAH” when he’s badly frightened but I’ve never heard it when he was in mortal terror.
A: You’re sure?
M: Yeah – and strangely enough I’ve only heard him in mortal terror when it’s been in the background of a phone call, just like that, so I would definitely expect quite a few of a particular kind of “UUUUUUNGHH”s in that recording if it was him.
A: So it’s not your son then.
M: No. It must be the guy that he was beating the crap out of. Jeeese. That’s a lot of beating.
A: Yeah. It’s like 44 seconds from the time that call connected up to the shot. Add like maybe 30 seconds between the caller noticing noises and the connection, so we’re taking about at least 1 minute 15 seconds of beating the crap and head-pounding.
M: Jeese! Poor guy. He’s still alive? In an Intensive Care Unit I suppose?
A: No. He’s fine
M: Didn’t he go to the hospital or somewhere?
A: No he didn’t go to the hospital. He went to the or somewhere – which would be home or a friend’s place.
M: Not even a doctor?
A: Well, he is going to see his family doctor today, but that’s just to get a form saying that he’s completely fit for work.
M: Jeese yeah! Insurance companies forcing employers to cover their asses bigtime. That’s what’s ruining this country.
A: Tell me about it!
M: Anyway – Wow. That guy must be built like a well-armored naval tugboat. Either that or Travon was a complete pussy. One minute 15 seconds of trying to beat the crap! Whoa! Maybe the guy fought back like hell?
A: Nope. He just lay there apparently.
A: Anyway – that’s not your son there.
M: Nope. Definitely not.
A: OK. Thanks for your time. Have a nice day.
========================================
There is some doubt about the provenance of that transcript though.
There is another one:
========================================
A: Hello Mr. Martin. How was your day so far?
M: Well, my son was shot dead last night, but apart from that it’s all been pretty cool.
A: OK. Just listen to this
== The sound of 44 seconds of screaming ending in a shot comes out of a small unit on a desk in a general office ==
A: Is that your son screaming in terror just before he was shot dead?
M: Oh noooooo, no, no
=========================================
I think that’s pretty conclusive.
Sure he seemed upset, but that was probably just feelings of guilt that his son had beaten someone so viciously that the person screamed like that.
Say what you like, there was a definte negatory in his response to a perfectly straightforward and simple question.
.
It was probably a preponderance of “”UUUUUUUUH” sounds that clinched it.
.
Hey! I just got a transcript of the session where Zimmerman Senior listened to the screams
============================================
A: OK Mr Zimmerman, before I play you this tape, can I have your assurance that you will answer my question honestly? We need to be assured that there is no conflict-of-interest.
Z: I am offended that you even ask the question. I am an honorable man. I fully realise that if I say that it is not George then it means that he murdered that boy.
However, you may rest assured that I will be absolutely honest in my answer – even if that does mean life with Bubba for George.
etc.
===========================================
Sling – what’s with the transcript crap? Are you intent on winning a stupid contest? I mean, is that what you resort to when you have been intellectually beat down? Make crap up as if this is some kind of sick joke? You have serious problems. A 17-yr old was KILLED. Another man is going to be tried for murder!! This is no joke, Idiot!
Good man Juggler :)
Your respose is classic pavlovian.
It’s nice that you got in a reference to matters intelletual there to.
Let’s have a look at my “transcript” comment and what it was responding to.
Chip was asserting proofs that the voice heard screaming in the background of the 911 call was that of Zimmerman
A)
To an intellectually inferior person, this might seem like a valid argument.
But …. It is not logical. It’s a fail.
It has been suggested in various places that the voice was Martin’s, and that Zimmerman covered for this by claiming on the night that it was himself.
Chip’s counter to this is that Zimmerman could not have known about the shouts being captured in the background of a 911 recording. His logic therefore is that Zimmerman would only have claimed that they were his shouts if he had beeen aware of such a recording.
Anyone of even moderate intellect would realise that whether or not the shouts had been recorded, anyone within earshot would have heard them. A possibility of a recording would not come into consideration.
So …
In presenting this argument, Chip was exhibiting either intellectual inferiority or intellectual dishonesty.
The dishonesty would arise if he was actually aware of the illogicality of his argument but had such contempt for the intellectual ability of his target audience that he presented it anyway.
.
B)
Where did that come from?
Serino played the raw recording of a 911 call to Tracy Martin.
Erwin happened to be in the office and overheard part or all of the proceedings.
What he actually overheard appears to be open to question. A system of Chinese Whispers had him overhearing the word “No”. This is then taken as a definitive denial that the voice was his son.
Apparently Martin says that what happened was that he said he couldn’t be sure.
Erwin has since been deposed by MOM regarding this. I haven’t see a transcript of this deposition.
Given that it was Serino who conducted the playing and questioning, presumably he too has been deposed by MOM on this specific matter as it would have been Serio’s assigned task to consider any responses given. Erwin was after all just a bystander.
You write “A 17-yr old was KILLED”
Yes, and not just any old random 17-yr old. It was Tracy Martin’s own son – and after that son is shot dead and he is struggling with that, he gets faced with the background of a 911 call played back via craptop speakers. Someone not directly involved in the conductiong the session (possibly – still to be confirmed) hears a ‘no’ in his reaction.
This unconfirmed information about a response given in technically poor and particularly difficult emotional circumstances is then presented as proof of something.
Yet again, this is intellectual inferiority and/or dishonesty.
It also speaks of a soul devoid of any understanding of or empathy for the human condition.
.
C)
That’s a very interesting pairing.
Robert Zimmerman’s assertion is reported as proof and without comment.
Sybrina Fulton’s assertion is presented with an insinuation that she is simply doing it for money.
This is yet again intellectual inferiority and/or dishonestty.
Zimmerman actually has a clear potential conflict-of-interest that is far stronger than that of Fulton.
If he leaves open any doubt that the voice is that of his son, then that might well contribute to him losing his own son to Bubba for life. If he says that is definitely not his son, then life with Bubba is beyond question.
Presenting that pairing like that as proof of Zimmerman screaming is actually beyond intellectual inferiority/dishonesty. It’s an absolute outrage. Many might say that it’s depraved.
.
You profess to be outraged by the “transcripts”.
Anyone of intelligence should be able see the holes in Chip’s “proofs” if they stopped to examine them.
But… ‘You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.’
The “transcripts” were not intended as a joke. They were written as a means of encouraging some horses to think.
I’ve seen people regurgitating “Tracy Martin ( or person X ) admitted ….”. They clearly have given no thought to – or choose to ignore – the conditions under which such purported admission took place.
The “transcripts” call attention to what *didn’t* happen and to the living breathing humans involved. They also call attention to the nature of the question.
That sort of consideration is necessary if one is interested in truth.
That sort of consideration is toxic if one is simply interested in a fixed agenda played out within the confines of an articficially created box/bubble of limited scope.
If someone wants “preponderance of evidence” then what needs to be looked at is all of the evidence, and whether or not what is being promoted is actually evidence.
Speaking of failures: immediately resorting to ad hominem, itself a logical fallacy, is a first-rate fail.
Why, hello there, Straw Man. Nice to meet you!
In fact, I made no such argument. I intended no such argument. But you ran with it anyway, as you found it demonstrably easier to demolish than any actual point I may have been making.
To wit: if Zimmerman knew that Martin was the one screaming for help, and if he further knew that said screams for help were recorded, then he would know that, by claiming that the screams for help were his own, he would be making an easily disprovable claim.
But more than that, the statement, “I called for help, but nobody helped me” (paraphrased) is a classic example of an excited utterance, given the circumstances during which Zimmerman made that statement. As an excited utterance, it is strong evidence that he believed what he was saying was true.
And with this false dichotomy, SlingTrebuchet completes the logical-fallacy trifecta FTW!
You do realize, don’t you, that the State opted for a second-degree murder charge, and not a first-degree murder charge? That means that not even the State believes that they can prove that Zimmerman acted with the premeditation required to support the implication that Zimmerman had a clear enough mind and the intent to mislead by claiming that Martin’s screams for help were his own.
I am often amazed by those who think that Zimmerman is guilty actually argue that much of his actions were premeditated. That’s the case here, and the argument is patently absurd.
In all, not one, not two, but three SPD officers all heard Tracy Martin claim that the voice screaming for help was not that of his son. All three have been deposed, and their shared belief regarding the intent of Tracy Martin’s statement has been referenced in defense motions.
But keep on making up silly “transcripts”, if it makes you feel better.
when all else fails: back to ad hominem.
Ridiculous.
Robert Zimmerman is living in fear for his life while Sybrina Fulton lives the high life on the Trash Can Tour.
Robert Zimmerman has been forced to secure security measures to protect himself and his wife, while Sybrina Fulton has secured legal counsel to represent her when she sues George Zimmerman for wrongful death.
Ah yes, another mainstay of those who believe that Zimmerman is guilty: references to prison rape.
Depraved? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
If only you’d made an attempt to do so; alas, you limited yourself to logical fallacy.
So, you make up some set of arbitrary circumstances, then based on those arbitrary circumstances make up some fake “transcript” of what transpired – and then make up an utterly specious conclusion regarding the sworn testimony of three SPD officers who all claimed that Tracy Martin indicated that the voice screaming for help was not that of his son.
Perhaps a cockatoo was squawking in the room, too?
What you refer to as “an artificially created box/bubble of limited scope” I refer to as the relevant statutes regarding second-degree murder and the justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense.
Indeed, your fantasy transcript is not actually evidence. Well-played.
Thank you for sharing.
In this blog thread alone………speaking of failures
You wrote to Rule of Order:
.
You wrote to me:
.
.
You offered as one of the proofs that Zimmerman was the voice on the 911 background:
“Zimmerman claimed to have screamed for help before he ever knew about the existence of a recording.”
I pointed out that a knowledge of a recording was completely irrelevant as the shouts would have been heard by anyone within earshot.
You then, after an admonishment on the evils of ad hominen (presumably only evil if engaged in by other than yourself) came back with
This is an evasion of the valid point that I made. It is simply a further illogicality.
.
sling i agree with you you took the words right out of my mouth.
chip- only thing, i am missing is the truth from GZ = the whole truth which We haven’t heard yet- I am in the rain and dark looking for and address – that i never get or give to anyone, also I am looking for the address in the same direction of the person i just saw second earlier or minutes earlier with their hand in their waistband. who all I know might have a gun, yet i get out of my car and go in same direction to look for an address. Makes
nosense. Nobody in their right mine would do this dangerous deed.
Zimmerman did not need to know the screams were recorded – to say he was screaming – when he knew firsthand trayvon was screaming for help – so he had to put forth his story first that was him screaming for help so if it did get recorded or comeout he would be first to have told it.
Holy Moses, Chip Bennett. You can lay it out there like no one else. However, when doing so for “Sling”, it is like arguing with a 5th grader. My son would do this when he was young- deflect, project, and totally ignore the guts of the matter in an effort to at least sound right.
A man with a bloodied head. That same man was said to have been mounted by another by witnesses. That same man was said to have been yelling “help”. That same man shot the other. The dead man had no other injuries, other than a gunshot and a bruised/cut knuckle.
Now, did the dead man hit the other man? A REASONABLE person would conclude-based just on the evidence above- that indeed, yes he likely did hit him. Did the man who fired the shot hit the dead man first? NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT, therefore, a REASONABLE person would have to say “No”.
REASONABLE, not supposing, not conjecturing, no “what if’s”, only using what is there and applying REASONABLE judgement.
Seems to me that should be pretty “shut and shut”.
LittleLaughter,
I think Chip probably has the most sensible approach for Zimmerman.
Seriously. I mean that sincerely.
Passive-aggressive.
No Zimmerman to be cross-examined.
Sit there and let the state try to prove what it has to prove.
You got proof? Bring it baby! Put up or shut up.
It’s a nice neat little bubble. It is a universe unto itself.
Two people. Injuries. Prove it was not self-defence.
I’m not sure that it would be wise to strart making assertions about what happened. Just let the state prove it was not self-defence.
Stay inside the bubble.
Your post is starting to expand the bubble.
A reasonable person might look at the contents of the bubble and say that the dead one most probably hit the live one at some stage.
Then you start into dangerous territory.
You raise the question of who initiated the violence. You express this as “Did the man who fired the shot hit the dead man first?” NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT.
A reasonable person might ask “Did the dead man initiate the violence?” and get the same NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT.
A reasonable person would not assume that in order to initiate violence, one must leave an injury.
I could walk up to you and start pushing you. I could pull at you. All without leaving an injury. You leave a mark on me and *you* are the one who initiated violence.
Would that be reasonable?
By raising the question of “who started it”, you make holes in the nice safe bubble.
You introduce doubt.
Reaonable inquiring minds begin to think – we can’t address that doubt without expanding the bubble. We have to expand the bubble to see if there are factors that would help us to come to a reasonable opinion about who started it.
The genie is out of the bubble. It’s out of control.
That bubble expands to the entire events of the night and even beyond. A reasonable person might consider that an assertion that the events in the minutes leading up to the altercation were not in any way relevant as they were “not contemperaneous” as just a little bit too rich.
So Chip has what might be the safest plan
…Prove it was not self-defence. Bring it baby!
Stay inside that bubble. Do not – repeat – do not expand the bubble.
When there is “no evidence to support” the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused.
no shut-shut here until all facts are in …
the defense dont have everything yet- so we surly dont have everything yet
Chip brought up an interesting topic in the course of our musings over voices on 911 recordings.
Officer Smith reported that while Zimmerman was being attended to by SFD , he overheard Zimmerman say “I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me.”
This was at 7:40, 23 minutes after the shot and about 20 minutes after he had been handcuffed and placed in the squad car.
This is certainly no “present sense impression”.
It might be pushing the “excited utterance” envelope. This is not to do with the actual time-lapse. It has to do whether Zimmerman had opportunity “to reflect upon the startling event, fabricate a purposefully false statement, and then say it.”
Witness.13 is the one who called Zimmerman’s wife as he was being cuffed.
He reports that Zimmerman seemed very matter of fact, and not deeply shocked.
Zimmerman then had 20 minutes of relative peace and quiet to think about things.
Something he says after 20 minutes of peace and quiet – particularly after having being observed as matter of-fact by Witness.13 before those 20 minutes began – might be a stretch as an excited utterance.
If you want something more like an iron-clad excited utterance, “Shit. He’s running” would be better. This is actually a present sense impression, as it is said right at the time. When he later says “He ran”, that’s more an excited utterance.
Now…. If “excited utterances” and “present sense impressions” are good indications of truth, then that Martin was running when Zimmerman lost sight of him during the NEN call.
However …. On the Hannity Show, Zimmerman goes to some pains to assert that Martin was not running. This is not a ‘mis-speak’. It is questioned and confirmed. He was not running and also “not in fear”.
Could it be that Zimmerman was consciously lying to Hannity? – given that his “present sense impressions” and “excited utterance” was that Martin was running.
Why would he do that?
The answer seems to be that the Hannity interview was pure spin. Martin sort-of-skipping as opposed to running might indicate that Zimmerman’s actions had given him no cause for alarm.
Now add to that (1) the ridiculous spin that the shot happened within a minute of “We don’t need you to do that” – “OK” and (2) that Zimmerman next saw Martin “within 30 seconds” of (at the latest) the end of the NEN.
What you have there is conscious lies, with Zimmerman looking people in the eye and looking very sincere. Look at any video of Zimmerman giving his story. He looks sincere. He seems convincing. And yet, it is clear that his accounts do not stand up when analysed against available evidence.
Yup! He was observed to be on his back with Martin on top for a number of seconds. He did have injuries at the end of it. Apart form that, there is nothing to confirm his accounts. Nada.
His “present sense impressions” and “excited utterance” was that Martin was running.
On the Hannity show, he very sincerely says that Martin was not running – and “not in fear”.
OK. $64,000,000 question:
Would you buy a used car from that guy?
There were different paced “ambulations” of Martin observed at different times reported by Zimmerman, described with more specific detail in reports made later than was occurring in real time on the telephone, which is a different medium of communication. There is nothing odd about being more descriptive in reflection about events recalled than the corresponding descriptions in real time of events being described in more summary fashion as they are occurring. Listening to a radio announcer describing a ball game as it is occurring is not the same as an involved post game discussion and analysis of a particular “play” as was being described in real time as a “first impression”.
The present tense aspect of an excited utterance is definitely more immediate as the “ouch” said by someone who has burned their finger touching something hot, but the time frame would extend by legal definition to followup conversation in the near time frame with anyone rendering first aid. Statements of an injured person to paramedics certainly qualify.
@SlingTrebuchet:
Note: due to Florida’s sunshine laws, precious little evidence remains undisclosed to the public. Such evidence includes:
– Photos of deceased Martin (with rumors that photos of his hands are relevant)
– Phone records
– Possibly, ping logs?
– Martin’s school & criminal history records
That’s about it, I think?
You have to start with the self-defense claim. Under Florida law, Zimmerman claimed self-defense, which forces the State to provide evidence to disprove that claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
In fact, even to arrest Zimmemran, the State needed probable cause that he did not act in self-defense.
But, yes: the preponderance of that evidence – absent any contradictory evidence – implies that Martin was the sole, and therefore initial, physical aggressor.
Yes, those conditions easily meet the “reasonable fear” threshold.
At this point, none of Zimmerman’s account has even been included in the discussion. The evidence listed above includes none of Zimmerman’s account, other than his assertion of self-defense.
No, not particularly, unless he can be shown to have lied.
But, there have been no proven conflicts, much less lies, in Zimmerman’s statements. Various people have proposed various timelines of events, and attempted to claim that Zimmerman’s account conflicts with those theoretical timelines of events. But the exact timeline of events and locations is not known. If any plausible timeline can fit Zimmerman’s statements, then he is afforded the presumption of truth, and is not proven to be a liar.
In essence? No. Zimmerman may or may not take the stand in his own defense; but he certainly doesn’t have to. The defense need merely present the most minimal of evidence to sustain a self-defense claim, and force the State to disprove that claim beyond a reasonable doubt. The above evidence is more than enough to meet that threshold.
The altercation could have started even sooner. We don’t know.
Regardless: unless there is evidence that Zimmerman was doing anything otherwise unlawful during that period of time, then what he was doing is, in fact, irrelevant – because the first unlawful act was the unlawful use of force that initiated the physical altercation.
Indeed they are. Florida statute does not include a duty to retreat, and in fact states quite the opposite. Even so, at the time of the use of deadly force in self-defense, retreat was no longer an option, due to the disparity of force Martin had gained over Zimmerman.
Also: where did “50 feet” come from? Martin’s body was, by my calculation, about 35 feet from the sidewalk “T”.
It also remains to be seen if you will ever present any evidence that refutes Zimmerman’s self-defense claim, or if you will ever discuss anything that actually pertains to the homocide and/or self-defense statutes that factor into the case.
I understand that he attended school
I do not think that he has a criminal record.
I do not think that even, unlike Zimmermanm, he has an arrest record for assault or entered diversion program to avoid a prosecution.
.
I’m not aware of “various” timelines.
There is a timeline that is undeniable.
The NEN starts at 19:09:34
The call lasts 4 minutes. Every background sound and every event reported by Zimmerman can be timed within that.
After the call ends, there is a gap of 2.5 minutes until the first 911 connects.
The shot is heard 44 seconds into that.
The timings are exact withing a second or two, given a delay in Zimmerman reporting events.
The geography is exact. it is fixed.
Zimmerman’s accounts do conflict with that timeline.
Some of the conflicts could be put down to very bad memory and being intellectually challenged.
One conflict in patricular stands out. By his account of his movements, he would have arrived at the T-Junction and been attacked more than 2 minutes before the first 911 connected. The altercation would then in total have lasted 2 minutes 44 seconds. With no residents hearing any alarming sounds for something greater than the first 1 minute 30 seconds of it.
Indeed. That would have been a strange altercation.
Isn’t it odd?
We can assume from a disparity of injury that the silent dead one was the initial agressor, even if there is no witness evidence of this.
We can’t make any assumptions from the fact that the account of the live one boggles the mind when put against an undeniable timeline and geography
Another strange conflict arises from his assertion that he began the NEN at the front of the clubhouse and that Martin passed him there while he was on the NEN. Indications that this account is false come from geography v time, and from the clubhouse pool CCTV showing a certain vehicle movement into Twin Trees.
.
Martin’s phone was found in the grass, right beside the path, 50 feet south of the T.
Just to be clear, this is from the centerline of the EastWest path. We assume that Zimmerman did not play games by walking on the edge. We assume for this purpose too that Zimmerman’s account of the punch is incorrect, as that would have knocked him backwards to the North West, and increased the distance that he would then have to travel South.
Short of Martin throwing his phone Southwards, it must have been knocked out of his hand or fallen out of his pocket there. Perhaps it fell out of his pocket. It must be difficult to grab someone’s head and pound it if one is holding a phone. That and it might be distressing to find one’s phone covered in someone else’s DNA.
.
By all means continue to expect me to present the evidence and legal arguments that the prosecution will be making.
I say again. It’s not my job and this is not the court.
The lists of evidence and witnesses will be submitted to the court tomorrow I understand. That should be interesting reading whenever we get to see it.
I have enough to be doing in pointing to Zimmerman’s complete lack of credibility, and to the major holes in his accounts.
If you consider that such matters are not relevant, that’s not my problem.
Yes, Martin does have juvenile criminal records, from M-DSPD. The defense has them, but they (rightly) are not subject to public disclosure.
I find your reaction to the mere suggestion of their existence to be… interesting. I wasn’t making a point about the relevance of those records; rather, I was listing the evidence that exists, but has not been disclosed publicly.
I doubt greatly that Martin’s school and/or criminal history would benefit the prosecution; as such, their existence is irrelevant to your ability to analyze existing evidence that the State might use to refute a self-defense claim.
Nice diversion attempt, though!
Riiiiiight.
That is, in essence, the sum total of what is known about the timeline of events.
Sure, the timeline of locations is fixed. However, it is not known.
There may be minor inconsistencies; but minor inconsistencies do not rise to the level of “conflicts”.
Or, minor inconsistencies could be due to the known impact of a traumatic event on memory and time perception.
(But you sure couldn’t miss an opportunity to get a dig in at Zimmerman, could you?)
Nope; that is merely an esitmation done by one person. It is not a timeline that is proven to be true.
Except that Witness 6 estimated that the altercation lasted five minutes.
Have you ever stopped to consider that time perception isn’t an exact science, regardless of undergoing a traumatic event?
The injuries the “silent dead” left on Zimmerman speak volumes.
And again: in the US legal system, the accused is afforded the constitutional right of the presumption of innocence. If you allege that Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor, you bear the burden to provide evidence to prove that allegation.
Zimmerman’s account isn’t mind-boggling. The hoops you force it through, however, are quite impressive.
How is this relevant? How does it matter one iota where Zimmreman was when he began his NEN call?
Assuming that it is untrue also assumes a lot of things about Zimmerman’s intent with that statement.
For example (and only for the sake of argument): what if Zimmerman, while his vehicle was moving, dialed the NEN number while in front of the clubhouse, but didn’t connect until his vehicle was some distance past the clubhouse?
Why is that important? What does it prove?
To me, it fits perfectly into the theory that Martin doubled back, with the intent to confront Zimmemran. He dropped his (dead-battery) phone on his way back up to the sidewalk “T”.
Wait: you’re suggesting that the location of Martin’s phone is the place where the altercation started?
You’re suggesting that Zimmerman walked 50 feet south, not knowing where Martin was, and just happened to stumble upon him at that point?
That suggestion ignores the rest of the evidence, including the fight debris field, and accounts of other eye-witnesses.
The encounter started at the sidewalk “T”, and ended where Martin’s body was found.
Why would you assume that?
Why must a punch cause a person to move in any specific direction? How do you know the relative positions of each person when Martin punched Zimmerman?
Or that’s where Martin dropped it, en route to his intended assault of Zimmerman.
This is nothing more than a continual diversion, from someone who has no evidence, and doesn’t want to discuss evidence, that would potentially disprove a self-defense claim, or prove a second-degree murder charge.
So, you’re sticking with: Zimmerman parked his car in the wrong direction and location; therefore, he’s guilty of murder!
The only real relevance of ‘nasty’ in their respective histories would be as an indication as to how each might be disposed to being violent.
Much noise has been made about Martin’s background.
Zimmerman sympathsiers portray him as a criminal drug dealer.
The point of this seems to be to indicate a predisposition to violence, without having any evidence of such a predisposition.
Mention Zimmerman’s run in with an ATF officer and get “The ATF officer never identified himself” ….. implying that it was therefore in order for Zimmerman to engage in violence. Y’know – sort out differences in some other way than discussing things.
.
NIce try at evading the point.
Zimmerman says that he ended the NEN at Retreat View Circle and started back for his truck.
It doesn’t matter how long he might estimate that it took him to get to to the T-junction. His perception of time passing does not matter.
The fact is that after the NEN ends, 2.5 minutes pass before the first 911 connects. That’s not anybody’s estimation or perception.
For all I care, 20 witnesses or Zimmerman think something took two hours.
The fact is that 2.5 minute gap is reality.
.
It speaks to Zimmerman’s lack of credibility.
Forgetting some details and inventing others (e.g. his description of the conversation in the NEN) might be put down to trauma.
Not remembering significant milestones like where he stopped and parked or where he was when the NEN started is in a different league.
He’s very clear. He says that he pulled into the front of the clubhouse and parked there when the NEN connected. He describes a conversation with the dispatcher while parked there. He says that Martin walked past him while he was on the NEN and parked there.
He says that Martin walked down Twin Trees and out of sight. He says that the dispatcher then asked him to get to a place where he could regain visual.
Hint: He never mentioned this passing in the NEN and the dispatcher never asked him to do such a thing at any point in the NEN.
He says he then reversed out of the clubhouse front and drove into Twin Trees.
He then saw Martin up near the T-junction, passing out of sight and then reappearing to walk back to the truck and circle it.
These are not matters of minor detail or estimations of time duration. These are milestones.
There are problems.
A) Martin walks past him at the clubhouse front. Zimmerman drives into Twin Trees – with no hint of reversing, turning, driving background sounds in the NEN.
42 seconds into the NEN, Zimmerman in Twin Trees sees Martin reappear up at teh T and start towards the truck “He’s here now” etc..
The NEN began before Martin passed the truck. Zimmerman says drove there, leaving Martin behind – left the real suspicious guy behind and possibly breaking into houses without being bothered by Zimmerman looking on.
Let’s say (for the sake of argument) that Zimmerman drove the 400 feet very slowly and Martin walked very fast ( ran really ) after him and arrived say 10 seconds after Zimmerman. Martin would need to have been within 40 feet or so of the truck when Zimmermna parked as the NEN started.
This means that Martin would have covered the 480 feet most direct route from the clubhouse to the T in 32 seconds. That’s 15 feet per second. Over 10 miles per hour average speed. He was walking when Zimmerman says he lost sight of him at the clubhouse. He was walking when Zimmerman says he regained sight of him at the far end of Twin Trees. Martin was an Olympic sprinter but only and coincidentally during the interval that Zimmerman could not see him.
B) Clubhouse CCTV picks up the lights of a vehicle that drives into Twin Trees, pauses at the mailboxes, continues into the East-West run of Twin Trees, does a U-turn and parks facing the clubhouse. It parks just at the time of the NEN connectiing.
C) We don’t talk about Taaffe no more. He bad hearsay man. He says that Zimmerman told him that he was parked facing the clubhouse, started the NEN and Martin approached from the direction of the clubhouse.
.
Silly boy!
Zimmerman is making up wild stories.
His problem is that he makes up the stories without realising that they won’t work when analysed.
Why would he say that he parked at the Clubhouse ?
Look at him in the walk-through. He’s parked outside the clubhouse. He’s on the NEN. Martin walks past – and then he loses visual. The dispatcher freaks out. You lost visual? Where did he go? Can you get to somewhere you can regain visual?
This never happened, but if it had, it would be Zimmerman being badgered to go after Martin and keeps a constant visual on him.
Zimmerman had invented all of this to talk up a reason for following (going in the same direction). No witnesses that he was aware of. He hasnt considered that some pointy-head would do the math with the NEN timings and map. He hasn’t considered that the CCTV might pick up his truck.
So anyhoo
Zimmerman is in his truck in Twin Trees and Martin is approaching. He describes this to the dispatcher.
The dispatcher says “Let me know if he does anything.”
Martin apparently does nothing much. All he does really is to circle the truck with confrontational body language.
“HE’S CIRCLING MY FREAKING TRUCK LOOKING CONFRONTATIONAL!!! ” would have been an excellent “present sense impression” or “excited utterance”.
Zimmerman never mentions this to the person who had seconds before said “Let me know if he does anything”.
Maybe he forgot it as it was happening – a sort of prescient forgetfulness?
Anyway, he remembered it the following day.
You don’t suppose he made this up in order to build Martin up as a threating thug who would be inclined to attack people?
You don’t suppose he made up the clubhouse front thing as a way of building up an imaginary narrative of the dispatcher demanding that he get to places to regain visual?
He makes up the same story again in Twin Trees.
Then he’s looking for an address before he’s asked for one.
He goes in the same direction and get to where he can see a house number on Retreat View Circle because he knows the name of that street. Then even though he is standing on RVC looking at house numbers and still on the NEN, he doesn’t give the address. He wants the incoming patrol to ring him to find out where he is at. So he’s going to remain standing there as this is the only way he will be able to give an address to meet at. This is why he “went in the same direction” after all.
Nope! He says he started walking for the truck. If anyone rings him now, he won’t be able to give them an address. Why…he’ll have to ….. walk back to Retreat VIew Circle to find a house number.
You don’t think he made up this “looking for an address that just happened to be in the same direction” because it has occured to him that following …. eh …. wasn’t needed….. and with a dead guy ‘n all….?
.
It’s enough to make anyone forget they were carrying a gun and have then hang about in the rain for 2 minutes or so doing nothing much but imaging that they are walking directly to their truck.
.
And hey! Holy Sh*t! What a wierd cosmic coincidence!
That
– You got a problem?
– No I don’t have a problem
– Now you do. POW!
Amazing. That was in a movie! – as well as on that pathway. It must be part of God’s mysterious plan.
.
Dropped his phone but did not notice that he dropped it. Anyone he was talking to at the time might have noticed – and he might have noticed that they had gone strangely silent.
Or.. he noticed but decided he would go looking in the dark for it after he beat up and killed the follower. Priorities!
O’Mara just filed his motion for recuperation of fees related to the Witness 8 deposition.
It seems that BDLR held up the taking of the deposition for five hours, by objecting to the deposition being video-recorded – something that is plainly allowable under Florida discovery rules.
What’s BDLR playing at? Is he just being an obstructionist? Does he have something to hide? Is there some benign reason for such opposition?
A few thoughts… Roughly 2 minutes needs to be accounted for. Figuring the 911 calls started roughly 30 seconds after the start of the fight. The walk back from the T at a moderate pace would take around 45 seconds. (People who claim it should only take 20 seconds are like those who claim Martin ended up 50 or more feet south of the T.) Also figure that when Martin and George spotted each other they were probably around 30 feet from each other. So it would have taken roughly 15 seconds to close the distance. This leaves a minute for the interview between Martin and George. Which does sound like a long time. But isn’t.
In any case DD corroborates George’s story. She said Martin said: “He got problems…like he crazy.” Which is exactly what George said Martin said to him: “You got a problem?” (No) “Well you do now.” Right before Martin punched George.
Also the 30 feet of travel down the path is simple enough to account for. Once Martin punched George then George would have been disoriented for a good 5 seconds or so. Add in some shoves and some fear and George could have easily travelled the 20 feet or so down the path prior to getting mounted MMA style by Martin.
Also all this talk about how Martin’s phone ended so far south of his body is another red herring. Thrown in to confuse. Fact is the map that shows it further south is out of scale. Reality is it was only a few feet away and likely fell out of Martin’s pocket while he was in his death convulsions. Meanwhile George’s keychain w flashlight just south of the T confirm that is where the fight started and begs the question of how George managed to corner Martin in the middle of a big open space both Martin and George were at three minutes before.
remember the ding ding noise from truck keys and key chain are suppose to be in truck right?
phone fell out of his pocket if thats the case(why didn’t other things fall out of his pocket-where did this thought even come from….
The map is out of scale, but the actual measurements from two known points makes it very easy to determine exactly how far it was from Trayvon Martin’s remains. If one does the math (and I did), one determines that the cell phone was approximately 6 3/4 feet from Trayvon Martin’s beltline, assuming he was positioned in a straight line. Now, keep in mind that when he died, he was face-down. One can only guess in which direction his body was rolled in order for police and EMTs to attempt to resuscitate him. If he was rolled AWAY from the phone, then that means he was even CLOSER to it when he died. Yes, relatively speaking, the cell phone was located somewhat south of Trayvon Martin’s remains, but it is the ignorant soul who attempts to make ANYthing of it absent an attempt to calculate the distance by using the given distances and associated angles. It is an even greater fool who DOES the measurements and attempts to make anything of it.
Idilla – Trayvon Martin’s hoodie had a loose pocket on the front – like most hoodies. Other than the large watermelon cocktail drink, there was likely nothing else IN that pocket. It isn’t unreasonable to conclude that Trayvon Martin’s phone fell out of his hoodie pocket. What is your problem with sch a conclusion??
Yes their was skittles in the pocket too its in the report..Also in the report is Cheif Lee – statement about GZ nose, and what condition he saw it in, and what condition he saw the back of Gz head in. And his statement does not go in GZ favor.
Idilla – YOU said that when Officer Smith arrived, he had two people at gunpoint. When it became obvious that the second person was NOT involved, he then only had Zimmerman at gunpoint, until Zimmerman was handcuffed. The OTHER person was Witness #13, the man who came out of his apartment after the gunshot. He is the one who took the photo of Zimmerman’s bleeding head. HE is the one that called Zimmerman’s wife for him. He is the ONLY other person that was there when Officer Smith arrived, and he had never seen Zimmerman before. There WAS no friend of Zimmerman at the scene…just a witness. I never said he knew Zimmerman. Re-read my post. I said he did NOT know Zimmerman. And he did not. You have serious comprehension problems.
Panorain,
A few points:
The walk in question is a return along the East-West path from Retreat View Circle past the T and towards the truck. The distance from RVC to just past the T to where Zimmerman says he was attacked is 100 feet.
What is a ‘moderate pace’ in feet per second?
You suggest that the walk might have taken about 45 seconds. Your suggested moderate pace is therefore just over 2 feet per second.
A normal walk – such as Zimmerman demonstrates in the walk-through is twice that speed. Try it yourself. You’ll be taking about 2 paces per second – about 4 feet per second.
A normal walking pace should have been the very slowest pace at which he would walk. Bear in mind that the reason for going to RVC was that he was unable to describe his location. The only way he can direct the incoming patrol to him would be to remain at RVC until the cops arrived.
If he leaves RVC, he can’t tell them where he is. They are going to ring any moment. He would therfore need to get as quickly as possible to somewhere else that he can describe. In the NEN his description of his truck location would work. He would be better off heading for the mailboxes. The only rational pace at which to leave RVC is a fast one.
However, even if we run – no pun intended :) – with your very slow walk… and take 45 seconds off the 2 minutes 30 second gap from end NEN to first 911 connecting… what then?
30 seconds from the noises becoming audible to the first 911 connecting? Fine.
That leaves 1 minute 15 seconds from Zimmerman arriving at the attack point to the first 911 connecting.
You suggest that as he arrived at the attack point, Zimmerman became aware of Martin’s presence at some distance. You suggest that he stood there watching as Martin took 15 seconds to get up to him. The person approaching him over 15 seconds as he just stands there (and can’t find his phone – for 15 seconds) had only minutes before circled Zimmerman’s truck with something in his hand and confrontational body language. So Zimmerman just stands and watches him approach over 15 seconds.
If Martin is simply approaching at a normal walking pace, Zimmerman had seen him 60 feet away.
If Martin is walking fast, Zimmerman saw him 90 feet away. Don’t have Martin run!
Nevertheless, your 15 second approach leaves 1 minute to be accounted for.
You suggest that Martin and Zimmerman had a conversation that developed into a fight. After 1 minute of this conversation, the noises became loud enough for the couple in the corner house to hear them and to dial a 911 that connected 30 seconds later.
You do realise that this in no way works with Zimmerman’s stories? He says he turned on hearing Martin’s voice and after a movie script of “You got a problem – No – You do now”, he was punched on the nose.
That in now way sounds like something that would take 1 minute. In fact it would have to be longer than 1 minutes as any half-sane reason for Zimmerman leaving RVC would be to hurry to an alternative location that he could describe to the cops who are going to call him at any moment.
.
Be careful about quoting DeeDee. An a la carte approach does not work. If you give credence to anything there, you have to exlpain why you won’t give credence to something else.
She does apparently say something about Martin asserting that Zimmerman looked crazy. However, because of BDLR’s unique interviewing style, we don’t hav an indcation of when Martin might have observed Zimmerman looking crazzy. My money would be the point at which he passed Zimmerman’s truck in RVC. Listen to Zimmerman’s voice in the NEN at that point.
.
The location at which Martin’s phone is fixed and accurately measured. Forget about the initial sketches with measurements taken off the corners of buildings. The positions were later mapped by technicians using a GPS/Total surveying instrument.
The phone was found just beside the path and 50 feet South of the East-West path centreline.
This is directly opposite Witness.6 back porch window, and where he describes seeing them.
The body ended up about 7 feet North West of that – but apart from movement before the shot, it had been rolled during attempts to revive him.
The significance is that for the phone to get there and to fall out of his pocket, the fight would have to move 50 feet South from the T.
Given the relatively clean state of clothing and head, any punching/falling to the ground can only have happened around that location.
Even by your ‘easy stroll’, we have a minute of quiet conversation, followed by 30 seconds of noise pre-911 plus 45 seconds of 911 background up to the shot.
That’s a fight of 1 minute 15 seconds, after a conversation of 1 minute – that followed a standing as Martin approached for 15 seconds.
.
This is Zimmerman’s problem.
His stories might be acceptable on a purely emotional basis, but they disintegrate as soon as any rational analysis is applied.
One of his major problems is the automatically recorded timestamps on the NEN and the 911.
i still want to know why a first aid kit and twizzer are evidevence in a murder case.
GOOD GOD!! Do you not REALIZE that even if Zimmerman or his defense team cannot account for the amount of time you keep harping about (Sorry, Zimmeman is the last person on earth who would possess a photographic memory), the prosecution will STILL be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman’s actions satisfy the elements of the crime “second degree murder”.
AND, when one takes into account the evidence that CAN be shown, Zimmerman’s story carries:
1 – Martin took off south two minutes before the NEN call ended, but instead of taking a 90-second walk and being INSIDE the apartment before Zimmerman’s call even ended, he was at the “T” several minutes after he took off. Hardly evidence of trying to get away from someone allegedly “chasing” him. Witness #11 and Witness #20 heard the scuffle being to the north of their apartment and progress to the south into Witness #6’s yard – corroborating what Zimmerman said happened.
2 – Zimmerman’s injuries are evidence that he was beaten. Martin’s LACK of injury is evidence that it was pretty much one-sided.
3 – Zimmerman’s keychan flashlight was recovered at the ‘T” in the “ON” position, supporting his argument that Trayvon Martin punched him there. It’s entirely arguable that someone who is sucker-punched, as Zimmerman claims to have been, would drop what they were holding in reaction to such an assault.
4 – Witness #6 saw George Zimmerman on his back, with Trayvon Martin on top of him, shortly before the fatal shot. Witness #6 also saw Zimmerman attempting to move away from the sidewalk (as Zimmerman claimed he tried to do).
You will no doubt continue to harp on about this so-called time gap, but you rely on the words of someone with diagnosed attention deficit disorder describing events that occurred less than 24 hours prior, in which he experienced the extremely psychological trauma of killing another human being. He has omitted minor details, not out of deception (remember, the deception test he passed at the police station?),but out of a natural state of being a scatter-brain, combined with the trauma associated with such an event.
You are ridiculously obsessed with the speed at which Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle. You suggest that Zimmerman’s recollection on this point must be crystal clear AND you assume his gait was uninterrupted and that his progress began immediately after reaching Retreat View Circle. There are too many minor details that could vary, yet you continue to dictate a recipe that allows for no variance. Even without variance, however, reasonable doubt remains. With slight variance, Zimmerman’s arguments become even stronger.
You are wrong, Sling…smarter people than you have here schooled you as to why, but your obsession with your timeline argument paints you grossly overdependent on details that are as fragile as a snowflake.
a) What’s this “Took off”?
Zimmerman’s latest story – on Hannity in July – was that Martin definitely did not run and certainly was “not in fear”. It’s now sort of skipping.
Part of the spin on Hannity is that his actions had given Martin no cause to be afraid in any way.
b) You can’t have it both ways. You want to discount all discussion of what Zimmerman had time to do and what distances he would have covered at the speeds that he decribes. You do want to do that exercise for Martin however.
.
What’s this “Chasing”?
When Martin went down the central path and out of sight, Zimmerman was still in his truck. He would not have known that Zimmerman was going to get out and follow after him.
By Zimmerman’s accounts, Martin would have been aware of the truck tracking him from Taaffe’s house to the clubhouse and again into Twin Trees.
In those circumstances, making for the path and away from the street would be the most sensible option.
In the circumstances, heading all the way South on that path would not have been sensible. If the truck continues to track him as before, then it would not be surprising for it to appear on the street down at the end. Besides, with the truck left behind on the street, he could concentrate on the conversation with the girl.
He would have had no expectation that Zimmerman would get out of the truck. He had just passed right beside it. By Zimmerman’s story, Martin had tried to speak to him. He says that he could see that Martin was speaking, but could not hear as he had rolled up the window. It would be reasonable to assume that the driver was not intending to get out and attack him in some way. Nevertheless, it would be unwise to let the guy in the truck see what house he went into.
.
No. Witness.6 saw them wrestling on the grass. As he closed his door and went to his phone, he says that they appeared to be moving *towards* the path.
.
Let’s get this straight.
It’s not a “so-called” time gap. It’s an actual time gap – of 2.5 minutes from the NEN ending to the first 911 connecting.
I am not relying “on the words of someone with diagnosed attention deficit disorder”, but …… you are.
What I am doing is to take his stories and run them against knowns.
What you are doing is to accept his stories, despite them not standing up against knowns and reasonability — as well as being “the words of someone with diagnosed attention deficit disorder”.
.
No I’m not obsessed with such.
However, you appear to be obsessed with a notion that I am :)
What you evade is that I am focussed on the reasonability of his actions.
The only reason to examine the times and distances is to evaluate the reasonability of his actions. Would his actions as he describes them be the actions of a reasonable person?
He says that he walked to RVC to get a house number, as he did not know the name of the street that he was on. Some might think that the idea of the NW captain not knowing the names of the three streets in the complex would be a bit odd. However, he does apparently suffer from a condition.
Let’s take that walk to RVC as being a reasonable action. It is the only way that he can give the cops an address – given that he does not know the name of Twin Trees. He could have walked North from his truck between the house blocks for a far more convenient house number om RVC, but let’s leave that aside.
Once he gets there, the only reasonable action is to remain there and meet the incoming patrol there. It is after all the only way that he can direct them to him.
Leaving RVC would not be at all a reasonable action.
If he’s getting wet while waiting, there are overhangs on all the houses that he’s looking at. He should actually knock and explain what he is doing there. If anyone in those houses happened to look out an see a figure just standing on the street in the rain and dark, they could reasonably become alarmed and assume that he was “a real suspicious guy” and “up to no good” and maybe “on drugs or something”.
If he should decide to take the unreasonable action of leaving RVC, then the only reasonable alternative action is to get as quickly as possible to somewhere else that he can describe to the incoming cops.
Given his accepted inability to describe his position, and that the cops could ring him any moment, the only reasonable action would be to really hurry there.
.
No. What’s happened is that some people who think they are smarter do not display much sign of being intelligent. They choose to ignore the blindingly obvious – that a truly reasonable person would see Zimmerman’s accounts of his actions as being entirely unreasonable.
Add to that whatever inculpatory evidence that the prosecution are holding, and you could actually be looking at M2.
.
You’ve been reading BDLR’s prose again – haven’t you? :)
Try adding some Shakespeare next time Grasshopper.
Sling – you wrote: “Let’s get this straight.
It’s not a “so-called” time gap. It’s an actual time gap – of 2.5 minutes from the NEN ending to the first 911 connecting.”
I would like you to do a little experiment. Find two or three other people who are wearing wristwatches. Give them a little preparation time, telling them that at YOUR mark, you would like them to write down the EXACT time (hour, minute, seconds) that is showing on their watch. I wonder if they will all have the same time. I’m betting they will not. In fact, I wonder how different the two most extreme time hacks you get will be.
You see, unless they get together quite frequently, it’s not likely they will have the same times, and it is quite likely their times will all be different. And it is very possible there may be a relatively significant difference in two extremes you may find.
Now, with that said, by what analysis have you determined that the NEN dispatcher’s time and the 911 system’s time were operating on the same clock, or even on the same computer system. Have you somehow determined that they DO operate on the same intranet, and are periodically updated as to the clock time?
Is it possible that the 911 system and the NEN dispatcher’s time are not in synch? I’ll answer that for you. It’s a certainty that the two systems do not operate on the same clocks.
The Seminole County, Department of Public Safety Emergency Communications Center provides centralized dispatch services for fire and EMS resources to all fire and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agencies operating as a part of the Seminole County First Response System. These municipalities include Altamonte Springs, Casselberry, Lake Mary, Longwood, Oviedo, Sanford, Winter Springs, and the unincorporated areas of Seminole County. When someone calls 911 in Sanford, they are calling this agency.
On the other hand, when someone calls the the Sanford Police Department non-emergency dispatcher, their call is logged according to THAT systems time.
I just want to know. What has EVER made you think that your “alleged” (and I repeat – ALLEGED) time delay actually exists, when you cannot even validly state that the 911 system and the Sanford PD non-emergency dispatcher were on the same clock?
Go for it….I’m dying to hear you explain this one.
Sling – since you cannot POSSIBLY have determined the the NEN didpatcher’s time clock and the County’s 911 system time clock were synch’ed, then you can also not POSSIBLY conclude what, if ANY, time gap may have existed that “needs to be explained”.
It is entirely possible that the two systems were off by a significant amount of time, and unless you can ascertain that they were not – not an argument I have heard you present as yet, then you are like someone using a compass to travel between Point “A” and Point “B”, traveling a considerable distance. If you are even off a single degree on that compass, you will never reach Point “B”.
To simplify this wandering analogy – you are screwed up…you can’t prove the two clocks were synch’ed. In fact, you can’t prove they were even close! And since you can’t show either of those, your BEST case scenario is that you don’t have a DAMN clue how much time passed between when Zimmerman finished the NEN call and when the 911 call was placed.
Bt as I said, I would love to see you try to wriggle out of this one.
This is really simple.
The name of the dispatcher who handled the NEN is Sean Noffke.
He works for the Seminole County Sheriff’s Department.
When Doris Singleton wanted to check the time and duration of the call, she asked the Seminole County Sheriff’s Department. She didn’t stick her head up over the office partition and ask Sean-the-NEN-call-handler.
Incidentally, she actually came back with the wrong start time initially – 19:11:12 – the time of the first manual entry by Sean.
The actual connect time is recorded automatically by the system – 19:09:34
Both of these timestamps are shown in the Call Event Report 20120571656.
It’s a call centre. Sean also processes 911 calls. He communicates with officers and emergency services on the streets – the same people regardless of a call being non-emergency or 911. You will note in the Call Event Report that Sean is in communication with the same police officers with whom he might also communicate with on a 911. It’s the only sane way to run things.
Whether a call is NEN, 911 or other, the number dialled by the caller triggers an identity for the dispatcher.
It’s a bit like dialling the number of an insurance/travel/consumer customer support department. The call might get answered by someone in India – who will answer as “Harry’s Pizzas” or “Global Health Insurances” – whatever is appropriate.
.
With that question settled, you are still missing something,
I wrote above that the point of analysing all of this was to look at what a reasonable person would think of Zimmerman’s stories.
Even if the times were out by a minute or so, it would still leave the questions
1) of why Zimmerman would leave RVC – as that was the only place that he could direct the incoming patrol to.
2) It also leaves the question of why he did not give a house number to the dispatcher.
He says that he finished the call while at RVC. He says that he walked straight to RVC. That was his reason for getting out. The entirely self-contained timeline within the NEN recording confirms that he had more than adrquate time to do what he says he did.
It would not be unreasonable to suspect that he did not actually walk to RVC. It all speaks to his credibility. These problems do not arise for “the gap” only. They arise throughout his stories.
.
I am, as always, happy to explain stuff to you :)
Sling – YOU are not the barometer of reasonableness. I can give SEVERAL reasonable explanations to your questions, which you erroneously claim are still “left”. They are not “left”.
1) of why Zimmerman would leave RVC – as that was the only place that he could direct the incoming patrol to.
– because he had just made SURE the dispatcher was able to relay his phone number to any arriving police officers, so, no matte WHERE in the housing complex he was when they DID arrive (which was an unknown time in the future).
– because it was RAINING and he had no desire to stand for an undetermined amount of time in the rain waiting for police officers who might arive in 1 minute, or perhaps in 10 minutes – and AGAIN, he knew they would be able to find him by calling him.
– because he had an address, and if while en route to his car, the police called him, he could determine whether it was more efficient to walk back to the known address, or continue to his car, whichever was more geographically convenient. After all, how was he to know WHICH entrance they would use upon arrival? The north entrance? Or the south entrance?
2) It also leaves the question of why he did not give a house number to the dispatcher.
– has it even been established that he had retrieved a house number prior to the end of the NEN call?
– if he gave the address to the dispatcher, he would be forced to wait there in the rain for an undetermined amount of time until police arrived.
– DUH!! because he had already made sure the dispatcher had his phone number to give tot he police!!
There is NOTHING unreasonable about what Zimmerman did in regard to the two question YOU claim are still “left”. They are not “left”. They can be answered with reasonable explanations by a 5-yr old.
I take it that you now agree that there was an actual gap of 2.5 minutes – as shown by the time stamps on event logs produced by the one system that is used to process calls by the Seminole County Sheriff’s Department?
Yes?
Good.
Hell…. I’m even happy to explain stuff to “smarter people than” (me) and who apparently ” have here schooled” (me) “as to why….”
I’m generous like that.
Sorry, but you have not established such a “gap”, even with a best case scenario (for you) argument. You still ignore too many variables. Like human nature. Like the reality that when or IF Bernie de la Rionda was to question that “gap”, he will get no explanation n return (Zimmerman will not testify). So, AT best, there’s a point for de la Rionda. Then Mr. de la Rionda will have to explain Zimmerman’s injuries, Witness #11 and 20’s accounts, Witness #6’s accounts, Officer Smith’s account, the account of the first witness on the scene, etc. If he arms himself with a 2 1/2 minute gap as his silver bullet, he will be shot down where he stands and O’Mara will secure a NOT GUILTY verdict.
You repeatedly seem to be aware of what it takes to convict a person of second degree murder in the United States. It has nothing to do with “reasonableness” in a person’s acions. It has everything to do with satisfying the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Bennett has repeatedly shown you this, and in your ultimate efforts to remain obstinate, you have shown how someone can completely be wrapped up in one’s self to the point of self-imposed ignorance.
That is not merely an opinion….it is a fact.
Question again have anyone wonder why a firstaid kit with twizzer on top our a part of The Crime Scene Evidence. I have an idea but i could be wrong,but i could be right, I would love to hear what my other debater think.
Number ! 1 ..Meet at the mailbox at clubhouse first thought,pause NEN talking 2 thought uhmmm could you have them call me and i will tell them where iam at. Action (knock-knock, knock knock) you have my number action(knock-knock) ….yeah thats it. more talking phone call ends. okay somebody plz tell me whats going on here.
Idilla –
You wrote: “junger-their is a 284 page report in it is officer T. Smith statement He stated he had two people at gun point when he arrived on scene the two people i stated above, he also said he retrive the gun from the ground, read his report and he tells you what he did with gun before and after. He hand were put under him after mary cutcher when back in house. Gz was seen walking around body,talkin , getting pics of his injuries, getting pic of trayvons body. A lot happen before T.Smith arrived.”
The 284 “report” you mention is not a “report”. It is the set of discovery documents released by the prosecution. And IN that set of documents (at page 23) there is a synopsis of the interview that Investigator TC O’Steen conducted with Officer Smith on March 23. There is NO mention that Officer Smith retrieved Zimmerman’s weapon from the ground. In fact, as I have told you, the interview notes mention that Smith observed Zimmerman’s weapon in a holster in his pants waistband.
Once again – concerning Trayvon Martin’s hands. Yes, they were held out to the side by Zimmerman immediately following the shooting. He stated he did so. Mary Cutcher also saw him doing it. After Zimmerman got off of Trayvon Martin, it is almost certain that Trayvon Martin himself reached underneath himself to find out the extent of his injuries, and that is where his hands were when he finally expired. This is NOT rocket science, Idilla….medical experts have stated that Trayvon Martin’s death was not instant. His heart continued to try to pump blood to the rest of his body, but it was too damaged to do so, and as a result, his brain and organs eventually just failed, and he died.
Zimmerman was not “getting pics of his injuries”. Witness #13 took it upon himself to take a photo of Zimmerman’s bleeding head, and later, while Zimmerman was sitting int he police car, one of the police officers took a photo of Zimmerman’s bloody nose. In BOTH instances, Zimmerman was handcuffed already. Zimmerman also did NOT get pics of Trayvon’s body. Zimmerman TOOK no pictures. The pictures you refer to were taken by Witness #13 – and he took them of his own initiative.
You say a lot happened before Officer Smith arrived. In fact. there was VERY little time for ANYthing to happen before Smith arrived.
HONESTLY….this discussion is above your comprehension level. I suggest you sit back and just read for a few days and learn more than you obviously know.
juggler523-their is nothing ignorant about anything sling said except sometime when someone tells their opinion and it sound so right it hurt.its hard for some of us to except.But you also have to remember this is just a debate about the facts as we know them,the jury of his peers always have the last debate and they might believe him and they might not.
idilla – PLEASE spare me the patronizing admonitions. Yes, a jury of Zimmerman’s peers will ultimately decide his fate – UNLESS it is decided in a self-defense immunity hearing first. They will not need to believe or disbelieve Zimmerman. he is VERY unlikely to take the stand in his own defense. pretty much EVERYthing he would say, he has already said in the hours of voluntary interviews he gave without a lawyer present – remember? Those were the interviews that didn’t give the police or the legit prosecutor any evidence that he committed a crime. As far as Sing, she IS ignorant. If the magic time “gap” she keeps trying to market was relevant, the police would have grilled him about it. They did not. The prosecution would be all over it. They are not. This is a witch hunt, plain and simple. The burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt three elements of the crime of second degree murder. They cannot. I’ll bet ANYone $100 (a check to their favorite charity) that Zimmerman will be acquitted, if they pledge to do the same. I have made this challenge on several forums and NO ONE has had the courage to accept. Are YOU that certain Zimmerman will be convicted? Go for it, then.
Juggler-if he takes the stand – god help him because their going to eat him alive unless he put in the missing pieces he left out that night. I really want to believe him but I cant theirs to many holes in his story.And stuff he did that night makes no-sense,the way he is telling it their has to be more to this…
juggler- i am no mind reader but i truely don’t believe GZ is going to walk away from this one free and clear…
juggler – GZ was not handcuffed when he was walking around body hold his head after shot fired, he was not handcuff when he was talking with that man, he was not handcuffed when he was getting his head pic taken. look at photo he has his phone in his hand.
Sling- I just finish listening the 911 call with trayvon screaming and after GZ shoot him and Jermey wife or girlfriend tells him to get up here Jermey said HE TOLD ME HE WAS GOING TO DO THIS EARLIER. i HAD TO PLAY IT AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THAT IS WHAT I heard and it was…
WAS THAT the door he was knocking on during the nen call…
also i went back and viewed the witnesses and police statements about the gun were is was first they recovered it from the ground-statement made by T.Smith -then he put it on the front seat of his car where it was seen by other officer, also when officer T.smith arrived he had two people at gun point GZ and his friend that he was talking with, but one withness said he(trayvon) was on his back ,after the gun shot then when police arrived he was facedown.Also GZ -said to the Guy that was out their with him (I shot the other guy inself defense the gun is on the ground. Yet He told the public in he reinactment that he holster his gun and mounted trayvon and spreaded his arm out and told him to hold still. and when police arrived he put his hands up and told them he had a gun in his holster. None of this is true. Well we know from facts trayvon hands were under him. What other non truth is GZ telling. I have a lot- from his statement I listen too.
IDILLA!!!
Good GOD!!
According to Officer Timothy Smith, the first police officer on the scene, “Located on the inside of Zimmerman’s waistband, I removed a black Kel Tek 9mm PF9 semi automatic handgun and holster.”
Officer Anthony Raymondo arrived on the scene, about the same time as Officer Ayala (both arriving after Officer Smith). According to HIS report, “Ofc. Smith identified the person in his custody as the “shooter” and showed me a handgun.”
When Officer Stacie McCoy (she arrived after Raymondo and Ayala), she saw Zimmerman sitting handcuffed in the back seat of Officer Smith’s car, with his feet outside the car, and she saw Zimmerman’s weapon in the front seat of Officer Smith’s car.
Where do YOU find that Officer Smith recovered the weapon from the ground? He specifically stated he took it from Zimmerman’s waistband!!
And where do you get that the second person Officer Smith encountered was Zimmerman’s friend?? That second person was Witness #13 who was first on the scene after the shooting.
Witness #13 was interviewed (on audio) by Detective Serino about an hour after the shooting – in Serino’s car. He stated that he “came outside and I saw this guy”. A friend referring to Zimmerman as “this guy”? He also states of Zimmerman, “I think he was Puerto Rican.” Again, would a “friend’ think Zimmerman was Puerto Rican?? Now, here’s the kicker! When Serino asked him if he had ever seen Zimmerman before he replied, “I’ve never seen that guy before.” Some friend! During a recorded March 20 interview, FDLE interviewers specifically asked Witness #13 if he had ever seen or spoken to Zimmerman before – he responded “No” to both.
During Witness #13’s recorded interviews with Serino (February 26), the FDLE (March 20), and Bernie de la Rionda (March 26), he never stated that Zimmerman’s weapon was on the ground, or that Zimmerman SAID it was on the ground. During the FDLE interview, he was specifically asked if saw anything on the ground, and all he said that he noticed was what looked like a small tactical flashlight, and he saw a little flashlight…nothing else. NO weapon…
Now, concerning where Trayvon Martin’s hands were and whether he was face down or face up. According to Mary Cutcher, when SHE looked out immediately after the shooting, Zimmerman was on top of Martin, holding his hands out to the side, with Martin face down. And we also know from medical experts that Trayvon Martin’s death was not instantaneous. He almost certainly had enough life left in him to move his hands beneath himself, desperately trying to determine the extent of his own injuries…before he slowly drifted into unconsciousness and then died. Witness #13 also stated that when HE arrived on the scene, Trayvon Martin was face down. The first officers who arrived AFTER Officer Smith reported that they turned Martin over and began CPR. I have stated SOURCES…you have not…if you actually do research, instead of regurgitating what others have said, you would get a better grasp of the facts.
JEEZ!! I really wonder where you get this stuff!!
junger-their is a 284 page report in it is officer T. Smith statement He stated he had two people at gun point when he arrived on scene the two people i stated above, he also said he retrive the gun from the ground, read his report and he tells you what he did with gun before and after. He hand were put under him after mary cutcher when back in house. Gz was seen walking around body,talkin , getting pics of his injuries, getting pic of trayvons body. A lot happen before T.Smith arrived.
i said the gun was in front seat of T.Smith car, ok i left out GZ was in back seat of car but we all knew that…But you must have missed the part about what happen when T.Smith arrived.
juggler-I don’t know who witness 13 is but he’s no friend and sound like a bad so called friend-and a lier sense you said he knew GZ and said he didn’t, now that just wrong.
i stated what another witness said not mary – about were gun was and where T.Smith said he retreived it from.
juggler-jezz i get it from the same plaze you do if you want to think trayvon ws still alive checking his injury by sliding both his hands under him. then if i wanted to go their then i can say Gz rolled him over mounted him to try and finish him off so he couldn’t tell what really happen. but i know just like you what we both said is not true….jezzzzzzz
Well now were here we know Gz got out of his truck and pursued-he’s runing,he ran, we know he profiled, the as hole alway get away-he looks like he’s on drugs,he looks black,he’s looking around,We know he killed him-i shot him dead, admitted he shot trayvon, that pursued,profiled,and killed.
No, Idilla, what we know is that George Zimmerman exited his vehicle to maintain an eye on a suspicious person in the neighborhood. We know by the timing in the NEN call that Zimmerman walked to the point he had last seen Trayvon Martin. We know that there had been several break-ins in the neighborhood and that they always seemed to get away before police arrived. We know that, rather than go home when he had more than plenty of time to do so, Trayvon Martin either doubled back, or hid. We know that shortly after the NEN cal, a scuffle occurred between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. We know that DURING that scuffle, Zimmerman was beaten and bloodied (and Trayvon Martin received on scrapes to his knuckle). We know that someone was screaming for more than 45 seconds before the fatal shot. We know that during the scuffle, Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman. We know that there isn’t ANY compelling evidence to show Zimmerman acted in a racially motivated manner. Finally, we know that you are far too uninformed and biased to be taken seriously in any post you write with regard to this discussion.
juggler i am not biased non am i uninformed, non am i going to take your word for what you think happen that night yet i am going to listen to the shooter and form my opinion from him . and what he stated happen.
Idilla, You have proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you do not know the facts of this case and are blindly accepting of the false narrative and spin from the media presented to them by the sceme team. Your last post was a testimate to that. Following someone is not a crime. Getting out of ones vehicle is not a crime. “He looks black”, was proven to be taken deliberately out of context. George answered the question presented to him by Sean, the non emergency dispatcher, who asked George the question, is he black, white, or hispanic. To which George replied- “he looks black.” NBC has admitted that they edited that part of the tape and fired several NBC employees for that reason. Every person who has followed this case in a reasonable and objective manner knows that, and yet, here you are regurgitating it in its initial presentation that has already been proven to be false. This tells me, and I am certain every other rational reader, that you are without a clue and not deserving of being heard any longer.
i wont even go their with you – because i know what he said -he know what he said so take it anyway you want. and add a littlelaughter to it.
what suspicous person-by who stander-GZ was not the police, He had no authority but to watch and once he was out of his sight and ran – then he should have let police handle it – but he didn’t He profile him , followed him and killed him, by his own admmission. Again what made him (trayvon) suspicous( the clothes he had on,cause he walked pass a house that had a former brake-in, cause he was black, WHAT made him suspicous——-
these question that sling and I and everybody on any jury will be asking are important to come to a decision.
ps- i have never care what media say i care what GZ say cause i want to know – why he did what he did that night…
ps- i have never care what media say i care what GZ say cause i want to know – why he did what he did that night…
That is one huge lie all in one sentence. It demonstrates your true self. George has repeatedly with great specifics explained his every move and reasoning. Every single question you have posed here shows that your agenda is not to find out what happened that night.Your agenda is to get George convicted in the court of public opinion propagated by the media and Crump.
Every single position you have starts with and ends with George guilty of murder. No amount of evidence will sway you. No amount of logic. Not even the concept of Innocent until proven guilty impinges on your consciousness.
I concur with Joel. It is OBVIOUS you care what the media said about Zimmerman. When you are confronted with evidence that totally blows your conclusions out of the water, you go all ignorant on us who are simply pointing out how you are wrong to continue to hold to positions that were debunked MONTHS ago. You don’t care what the evidence says, unless it makes Zimmerman appear guilty…and unfortunately for your ego….it doesn’t.