2,133 thoughts on “Minute-by-Minute Timeline of Trayvon Martin’s Death”

1. Truth is Zimmerman stayed on the phone 2 minutes after he says ok…….so he would have had to be on the phone when attacked…it would not have taken 2 minutes to retturn to his truck from the.point he says ok

   Reply ↓

   • As best as anyone call tell, it was at 2 minutes and 14 seconds into George Zimmerman’s 4 minute, 5 second call directly to the police (and not 911) that he exited his vehicle.

     By 2 minutes, 30 seconds, or 16 seconds later, the person who answered the call had asked if Zimmerman was following the other person and had told Zimmerman “We don’t need you to do that”.

     So if Zimmerman had turned around and headed back right away, even if a little more slowly, he could have easily been back in his vehicle behind the Skittles-proof glass at the 3 minute mark in the phone call, which at that point still had another 1 minute and 5 seconds to go.

     The call began at 7:00:34 PM, so it ended at 7:13:39 PM.

     The 911 calls about the struggle started around 7:16 PM and the first officer on the scene, Timothy Smith, arrived about 7:17 PM.

     unitron

     Reply ↓

   • @onlyiamunitron

     “So if Zimmerman had turned around and headed back right away, even if a little more slowly”

     The affidavit of probable cause tries to make the case that Zimmerman followed and then followed and followed some more until he hunted Martin down. They need that sort of activity to support the murder charge.

     But they base this on things like the dispatcher telling Zimmerman the police are on the way, and “Just me know if he does anything else”. The police were not on the way at that instant, and the last can’t be extrapolated to “wait” given the dispatcher did not know where Zimmerman was or even who he was.

     When Zimmerman observed Martin running, the dispatched urgently requested “which way?”, and Zimmerman then got out of his truck. If the dispatcher knew Zimmerman was in his truck, he might have told him to stay in the truck. But he didn’t know, and Zimmerman probably got out of the truck simply to get a better view to fulfill the dispatcher’s request.

     It is only after Zimmerman started to follow in the wake of Martin that the dispatcher realized what happened. Martin had a 11-second head start, plus whatever distance he was from Zimmerman when he started to run (50 feet?)

     By the time Zimmerman stopped, Martin could have been home.

     The dispatcher was then so concerned about Zimmerman’s safety that he asked his name and phone number. He then asked if Zimmerman wanted to meet with the police when they got “there”. But the dispatcher did not know where “there” was – or had a different understanding than Zimmerman. The dispatcher probably thought “there” meant the clubhouse, the only address he had, while Zimmerman could reasonable mean where he was at.

     Reply ↓

   • time because/time, a minutes are rounded off when phone companies bill.

     Re Skittles/tea comment which I couldn’t find again: These items were brought up BECAUSE they were found at the scene! And the idea that Trayvon would have dumped a weapon to go back to confront someone who “might” very well have been armed is patently absurd .

     There is a lot more info out there than when I last posted here: I will give my revised scenario accordingly, commenting on some other issues as well:

     Re George Zimmerman: info has surfaced now that his maternal great-grandfather was a black Peruvian; GZ was reared partially by his daughter, GZ’s grandmother. Plenty out there to see he is no racist.
     He seems to be a pretty good person, in spite of the problems he had maybe from 2001-2005. He initiated a movement for justice for a homeless black man back in 2010, when the thug son of a Sanford police officer beat him badly.

     No one has ever come forth to suggest that Trayvon Martin was aggressive; to the contrary, teachers other adults and schoolmates have said otherwise, in spite of the suspensions for some issues.

     People are looking for “villains” here, when there is good reason to suggest there weren’t any- or at least GZ and TM weren’t. As far as a police dept that ended an investigation almost before it started,
     unscrupulous attorneys, and irresponsible talk show hosts and media are concerned, that is a different story.

     OK- my take:

     GZ spots Trayvon either around when he has emerged from a doorway in the cwhere he had taken refuge from a sudden downpour; TM is looking around;

     We now have more knowledge as to what had been going on in the complex for many months: break-ins, burglaries, and an instance where a mother and baby were home at the time, and the mother calls 911, terrified. When the police arrive, a black teen is seen fleeing through someone’s backyard. This is told to a CNN investigator by a black lady who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. CNN also obviously by this time would have verified this with police records.

     There had been a number of sightings of culprits, most of whom had gotten away; the witnesses stated they were young black men. This had been going on because of the recession; the condos lost around 2/3 of their value, as well, because of this and transients moving in and out, some of whom were unsavory; some drug-dealing had also occurred.

     But even with this, when GZ called 911 dispatch, at first he couldn’t see that Tray was black; it was only as Tray approached the SUV that he saw this and then answered the dispatcher when he asked him which race the suspicious person was. So we see no “profiling” at this time.

     Now Tray, in the meantime sees this shaven-headed Hispanic’s intense interest in him
     and he is not happy about this; he walks towards the SUV for a closer look, which GZ is reporting to 911; he then suddenly turns and runs. GZ states that Trayvon had had put his hand in his waistband as he had approached the vehicle.

     Tray disappears into the complex and GZ has to get out of the SUV to follow as a vehicle can’t access it. The dispatcher asks him if he’s following and he says yes, then is told better not to and he says OK.

     GZ’ father tells us that GZ didn’t immediately stop- that he wanted to see where he was going and get to the outside where the addresses were, so he could tell the police;

     Because there seems to have been plenty of time for Tray to have gotten back to the condo, there are theories abounding as to what Tray might have been doing, but to me it seems that Tray saw GZ’s getting out to follow him, and decided to hide and then surprise him; he almost definitely had to have felt that a Hispanic gang member was after a black “rival”. I have thought this for quite awhile and when you put this together with the scenario GZ’s father gives us, it makes sense.

     We know that suddenly the two meet; now GZ’s father says that Tray asks “What’s your ——- problem, “homes”? (homes=homie= gang member).
     Now Tray had no weapon and had to exercise care. Nevertheless he did NOT spring out and attack GZ according to the father.

     Was Tray actually trying to give GZ a chance to explain why he was following? It would seem so.
     GZ, however, had to have been certain that Tray had been up to no good- it obviously had not occurred to him that Tray had run away, not because he had been doing anything wrong, but to get away from this imagined “gang member”.

     So, GZ missed the signal, and instead of identifying himself (understandable perhaps, because of the suddenness of the confrontation, nerves, fear) he merely says “I don’t have a problem”. Now Tray had to sound “fearless”- had to be intimidating- hence the expletive; after all he wasn’t armed and had to put on sheer confidence.

     Now here’s where everything falls apart: after GZ answers him, he makes a terrible mistake (at least I call it that); according to GZ’s father, GZ reaches into his jacket trying to get his cell phone out of his pocket. THIS IS WHEN TRAYVON PUNCHES HIM. What else could Tray have thought other than GZ was reaching for a weapon? This “pre-emptive strike” would have been a “Stand Your Ground” defense right here, which would warrant immunity. Of course it would have been believable that he had feared for his life.

     But he had to go further- knocking him down didn’t make him safe- and the father has said that GZ told him that Tray had seen the gun at that time (I have heard 2 versions but it still works out to the same theory). SO- Tray jumps on top of him, going “at it” with all his might, as he (by now actually) is fighting for his life.

     Now let’s get to George Zimmerman; of course he is petrified- and desperate- he is being pounded- maybe even choked- and doesn’t have control of the gun. He, too, is fighting for his life at this point. And yes, it is he who is crying for help- I have felt this for a long time- he was the one underneath getting injured.

     And so we have two people who have each totally misjudged the other, each fighting desperately to survive- and George Zimmerman is the victor.

     This was a tragedy, with neither of these two out to commit mayhem. It is even possible that Tray had doubled back not merely to confront GZ, but because he felt that he could have been followed back to the condo and anything could have happened. And the young boy who was there waiting for him- the step-brother-to-be- would have been there alone, until he had gotten there.

     Each one of them had a perfectly understandable
     opinion of what the other was about- based on the history of the break-ins at the condo, as far as GZ were concerned, and Tray’s seeing a very likely gang member out to get him.

     Again, where are the villains, here?

     Reply ↓

     • Well, it is clear that you have thought this through and although I usually try to keep my personal opinions out of the time line, I have studied them and your conclusion closely parallels my observations.

       Zimmerman has committed no crime of any kind whatsoever in the state of Florida. If you look at the Greyston Garcia case in this article, then this is almost a no brainer

       http://www.southfloridacriminallawyersblog.com/2012/04/why-trayvon-martins-case-may-not-go-to-a-jury.html

       My focus has been on the money, politics, and media bias in this case and what I see is truly alarming but Susan will not permit me post evidence of that

       Reply ↓

2. The greatest irony of this situation is that the largest victims of stacked arrest warrants are minorities and Angela Cory is known as one of the worst prosecutors for pursuing cases with no merit.

   If Susan is right, then the classic case of an innocent person, where overwhelming exculpatory evidence exists such as witnesses, receipts, DNA etc., that the prosecutor knows of, can be arrested by the state by simply withholding all of that information in a “probable” cause affidavit and hearing — at which the bare bones disclosure of even some of that exculpatory evidence contradicts “probable cause.” Of course, this is not only makes no sense, it isn’t the law as every criminal defense lawyer would tell you … and many have, in fact, done so in recent days to the press.

   Bare bones disclosure of exculpatory evidence is not a “hidden” ace to be concealed from the court. The statute of limitations gave Cory a long time to get her ducks in a row for the arrest and prosecution and to actually look at the evidence for self defense. Yet the investigator, at the hearing, stated he never even checked Zimmerman’s medical records to evaluate Zimmerman’s true physical state and extent of his injuries.

   I also found it very interesting that at the probable cause hearing, the lead investigator, despite the purported affidavit of DeeDee so widely cited in the media as proving that at the time of the confrontation it was Zimmerman who was the aggressor, said he had no evidence to reach the conclusion at to who was the aggressor. This whole “DeeDee” (media) testimony is going to blow up in Cory’s face since, by now, it should be clear that “DeeDee” has an entirely different story to tell and, under her own lawyer’s advice, did not want to commit perjury despite the pressure on her to do so (or to even foment a race riot when, as Dershowitz accurately predicts, the case is later thrown out).

   The problem is that it is hard to find any criminal lawyer who can say the affidavit even approaches the requirement for 2nd degree murder. And Zimmerman’s quite able attorney will act accordingly.

   One last observation, if you look at the hearing testimony, the State’s position is that Trayvon was always headed on a direct path home. We know enough of the time lag from when Trayvon started running, the distance from that point to where Trayvon was staying and the location and time of the confrontation, that this makes no sense. The time lag until the confrontation is too long and its location too near the intersection paths. Trayvon was far ahead of Zimmerman along this ‘direct’ path home and would have been home before the time of the confrontation. There is no “ace in the hole” here, only an assertion that, on its face, appears false.

   Reply ↓

   • If Susan is right, then the classic case of an innocent person, where overwhelming exculpatory evidence exists such as witnesses, receipts, DNA etc., that the prosecutor knows of, can be arrested by the state by simply withholding all of that information in a “probable” cause affidavit and hearing — at which the bare bones disclosure of even some of that exculpatory evidence contradicts “probable cause.”

     This isn’t true. Deliberate omission of evidence eliminating probable cause is not permitted. But what evidence that eliminates probable cause can Zimmerman point to? There isn’t any. You’ve got a bunch of circumstantial and ambiguous evidence, some of which can be interpreted in Zimmerman’s favor — that’s not the state withholding exculpatory evidence, that’s the prosecutors doing what prosecutors do in pretrial detention hearings every single day.

     That one out of six 911 callers saw Trayvon on top does not eliminate probable cause, because (1) it’s only one of six different testimonies, and (2) Trayvon being physically on top of Zimmerman at some point during the fight — or even during all points — would not remove probable cause.

     The exact path Trayvon took is unknown by either side. Even if it accepted for the sake of argument it can be proven Trayvon deliberately looped back, again, that does not disprove the state’s case or give Zimmerman a right to kill Trayvon.

     The lack of the entire testimony from DeeDee being released beyond what the media has already made public does not prove anything. The state did not have to release any more than it has — so why would it voluntarily choose to do so, at this stage of the game?

     You are demanding way too much out of a pretrial, initial appearance, probable cause hearing. This ain’t the real rodeo, it’s a procedural step of minimal evidentiary significance.

     Reply ↓

     • Susan: Just wondering if you think we will EVER hear from DeeDee.

       Reply ↓

3. You say “Deliberate omission of evidence eliminating probable cause is not permitted.”

   In that statement, you apparently presume that only the case where the excluded evidence, by itself, conclusively proves innocence is disclosure required. The real test is if the excluded evidence is “material” to innocence, which does not necessarily say it, alone, proves innocence.

   The affidavit makes no mention of ANY physical damage to Zimmerman, information available from police reports, paramedic reports or Zimmerman’s medical records (which no attempt was made to procure). The photos are dramatic proof, while not by themselves absolutely proving self-defense, that is material to the issue of probable cause. All reference to injuries sustained by Zimmerman was omitted from the affidavit, that is certainly a material omission.

   Reply ↓

   • You can keep arguing the same points over and over, but the law doesn’t agree with you.

     I’m not apparently presuming anything, I’m stating what the law is. Which is that if the inclusion of the evidence would not defeat probable cause, then the omission is a non-issue. Look again at the case cited by the crim law blog. The Supreme Court of Florida plainly held that for a warrant to be invalid due to the omission of material facts,

     (1) the reviewing court must determine whether the omitted material, if added to the affidavit, would have defeated probable cause, and (2) the reviewing court must find that the omission resulted from intentional or reckless police conduct that amounts to deception.

     Neither factor is present. The evidence you keep citing does not defeat probable cause, and the fact that the affidavit does not include publicly available facts favorable to Zimmerman is not “conduct that amounts to deception.”

     Reply ↓

   • Wayne, in my previous post Ieave DeeDee entirely out of the equation as there are issues that have been raised as to her credibility; issues are that the phone call could have been much shorter since the 4 minutes are rounded off to the next minute; it has been suggested that she might have gotten off before GZ and Trayvon had confronted each other,

     Supposedly she has been identified and the argument is that through tweets that have been found after the incident and the “fact” that twitter id’s as well as facebook had disappeared, she had just been a friend who had wound up being coached by Crump. They show tweets and present other factors suggesting that she had never said a thing after the incident; that after what she had heard she had never made an effort to find out what might have happened. There is also a claim that she had never gone to the hospital- that all of this had been Crump
     ‘s fabrication. I chose to go with what GZ’s father had said, because I also could give my take using GZ’s explanation.

     There has to be something very wrong with the DeeDee story- tremendous difficulty getting her to cooperate, etc. Too long to get into here.

     f

     Reply ↓

     • For whatever reasons, DeeDee is off limits here. Although I view this as her form of censorship, it is Susan’s blog so I will try to stay out of discussions about this girl even though the state used her in their justification for a probable cause affidavit. I fail to see how protecting her allows for intelligent discussion. It was Crump who brought her into this mess.

       It is my view, however, after all I have read that this girl has been “used” and what has happened to her is far more shameful than what anyone could post here.

       Reply ↓

4. One other thought about the statement “The lack of the entire testimony from DeeDee being released beyond what the media has already made public does not prove anything.”

   That statement implies that what the media has reported about DeeDee’s statements (she has given no interview in which she, herself, answers questions) is what DeeDee’s “testimony” (presumably a signed affidavit and/or police or FBI statement) really is. We don’t know that unless you have information no one else, besides the police, has.

   DeeDee’s real testimony, is a central issue … and it is now very much in doubt. Is what the media has been representing as her “testimony” accurate? So far, the only sources attesting to her “testimony” has been dubious second-hand, self-serving hearsay.

   The lead investigator’s uncertainty as to who the aggressor was, if he has real DeeDee testimony (which we now know he avoided reading) and even where he freely related hearsay on the subject, speaks volumes about what the content of her affidavit most likely does NOT contain, i.e., proof Zimmerman was the aggressor (and not Trayvon). Otherwise Gilbreath would have asserted Zimmerman was the aggressor.

   Reply ↓

5. The case you cited, Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 648 – Fla: Supreme Court 1995, as virtually all such cases are, is a POST CONVICTION case, based on the Fourth Amendment, where the convicted defendant is trying to overturn his/her conviction based on a faulty warrant. Procedurally, as you must know, Mara would never even attempt to challenge the affidavit or hearing at this stage. He may later do so, if even necessary, but after he obtains all of the information the prosecutor has not yet disclosed (the purported “aces in the hole” which, most like, are extremely damaging to the State). That information must be disclosed under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). This will include evidence of injuries sustained by Zimmerman.

   What Deshowitz was saying was that based on what we now know (including the photos), he believes that in the future (obviously at the appropriate time) Cory will need her own lawyer (remember the Duke lacrosse player prosecutor was much later disbarred). There is more than enough from the affidavit and hearing for experienced criminal lawyers to predict major problems for the State, and have already done so.

   Here is a link to the Duke case which is very instructive about prosecutor overreaching and its consequences: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case

   Reply ↓

   • How the heck is a prosecutor going to be criminally, or even civilly, liable for bringing a probable cause affidavit that is more than sufficient to later withstand the court’s scrutiny on review? That’s absurd. You’re now basically arguing that, because you personally believe that the state has some super secret exculpatory evidence in its possession that no one else is aware of, the prosecutor is therefore committing perjury. It doesn’t work that way.

     I’m going to retire from this argument, we’re just going in circles. Pretrial procedural filings of this sort simply aren’t subject to the restrictions and standards that you seem to think they ought to be.

     Also, criminal lawyers are always predicting problems for the State. That’s kind of their job.

     Reply ↓

6. “that is more than sufficient to LATER withstand the court’s scrutiny on review?”

   “LATER” is the point. The sufficiency that you imply now exists, in reality, will be tested and determined LATER in the future … and only if necessary (I doubt it will ever be necessary since a conviction is so unlikely).

   I too, will retire the subject.

   Reply ↓

7. Pingback: Unarmed black teenager was shot by neighbourhood watch volunteer - Page 44 - TeakDoor.com - The Thailand Forum

8. A comment on the Dershowitz matter. There are two separte issues: 1) whether Zimmerman has a Fourth Amendment claim, an issue that may never arise if his case is dismissed or he is acquitted; and 2) whether prosecutor Cory (or others) may have problems with their conduct in this case. These are separate issues having different standards and the later may arise even if the former never comes to pass, as happened in the Duke case.

   I do note that Susan has, on occasion, conflated the law with her opinion of facts as applied to the law, leading to the appearance that she is citing the “law” as opposed to her interpretation of how the issue will be resolved. This appears to be the case with the prosecutor Cory (or other) culpability issue and implying that the “law” absolves Cory (and others) when Susan is really applying her interpretation of the facts to the law to reach that conclusion of no culpability. Susan may, ultimately be right, but the distinction should be noted. It would be helpful in further posts to distinguish the law (a “rule”) from a conclusion (applying asserted “facts” to the “rule” to reach a legal conclusion).

   This post is for what is is worth.

   Reply ↓

9. Dershowitz is grandstanding no doubt, he knows that Corey is holding back her case but instead of providing objective insight on the case, he invokes his exaggerated opinions based on “His” view only. Bottom line is Corey has a plan and she believes that her best bet is to present her case at trial vs at a bond hearing. I believe the cruxt of her case centers around the following, confrontation and the actual killing by Zimmerman. Who threw the first punch is not a highlight but given the fact that TM was defending himself against an aggressor, the first push/swing is not critical (relevant, yes not make or break). I believe Corey has the scientific evidence which will show Zimmerman was not in fear of his life when he shot TM.

   Reply ↓

10. This is a brilliant and well-researched analysis. Very, very well done!

    I do not know how one could argue that self-defense is plausible here. IF the screams were really Trayvon’s and not Zimmerman’s, then Zimmerman’s case of self-defense is thrown out (it already holds little water). There is a great deal of evidence pointing to the fact that the screams were, in fact, Trayvon’s. As you mentioned, the screams for help are cut off simultaneously with the gun shot. Also, two forensic voice experts analyzed the audio and they both reached the same conclusion: the screams were NOT Zimmerman’s. One forensic expert listened to the audio, as he is trained to do, and concluded that the screaming voice is definitely that of a teenager’s (Trayvon). The other used high quality voice identification and tested the screams for help compared to Zimmerman’s voice. The match was 48%; the audio expert says for it to have been Zimmerman’s voice, he expects higher than a 90% match. The forensic expert stated, “you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman.” This is crucial to determine who was screaming. The key factor in the case, obviously, is whether or not Zimmerman has grounds to claim self-defense. Given all this info, a self-defense claim is very, very hard to believe.

    Reply ↓

    • Agree that the research is well done. Thank you Susan. As to your conclusions, I think you will see how one can argue self-defense at the trial. As for the voice analysis work — it appears to be shoddy at best. It has now been shown that the one “forensic expert” is no expert at all (He apparently has no training, no degree, and is hawking software that he wrote to do voice matching.) See this link for a detailed analysis of this “expert” http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/04/this-is-the-expert-witness-the-orlando-sentinel-is-touting.html.

      Reply ↓

    • I’ve never doubted that Zimmerman (/his attorney) is going to be able to make the prosecution fight for every inch of ground, at trial. Self-defense, particularly in states with liberal use of force laws, is a difficult affirmative defense to defeat when the only other witness is dead. The biggest point in the prosecution’s advantage is that Zimmerman’s going to have a hard time getting his self-defense claim before the jury, through the hearsay exceptions available to him, without taking the stand himself. And once he opens himself to that kind of impeachment and rebuttal evidence, the state may have a chance.

      And I agree. Although the voice identification issue is critical to the case, trying to get scientifically and legally sound evidence on that point won’t be easy. I don’t have enough (any) experience with it to know what the likelihood of success there is, but they’re going to need a better expert than what’s come forward so far.

      My best guess is that the prosecution will ultimately only be able to prove manslaughter, though I won’t be too surprised if Zimmerman’s acquitted of everything. It’s not an easy case. But an investigation should have been done, and it’s unconscionable the way the case was initially handled. I’m satisfied that the state is now giving the case the scrutiny it deserves, even if ultimately Zimmerman is able to defeat probable cause.

      Reply ↓

11. Susan,

    Dershowitz’s point is that the affidavit was under oath and therefore had to be “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” For a prosecutor to allow (if not direct) an investigator to submit an affidavit that omits significant exculpatory evidence is to perpetrate a fraud on the court.

    Whether or not the affidavit, if corrected with the exculpatory evidence, could survive a constitutional challenge is an entirely separate question.

    Samantha,

    According to the investigator, the audio was sent to the FBI and the results were “inconclusive.”
    -MM

    Reply ↓

    • Wrong. It absolutely does not have to be the “whole truth,” and Florida case law is absolutely clear on this point. Probable cause affidavits, whether for warrants or preliminary hearings, almost never include the full case, so if Dershowitz is right, every prosecutor in the U.S. ought to be looking for a lawyer right now.

      This is not a trial, it is not held to the same standards, and is not even a required procedure of a criminal prosecution: “A preliminary hearing is for the purpose of determining if probable cause exists to hold one accused of a crime for trial. Such a hearing is not a critical stage in the proceedings… It is not a prerequisite to a criminal prosecution or the filing of an indictment or information.”Anderson v. State, 241 So. 2d 390, 392-93 (Fla. 1970).

      “On these proceedings there are no issues, as such expression is technically understood. If there is an issue, certainly it is not ‘substantially the same’ as required by the statute. There is no jury present at a preliminary hearing, the strict rules of evidence are not enforced at the time and no formal charges are existing or filed against the defendant. The whole proceedings partake of the nature of an inquiry and, outside of being conducted by a magistrate (perhaps in a court house), bears little or no resemblance to a trial.” Davis v. State, 65 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 1953)

      As discussed above, it is expected, normal, and proper for everything but the bare bones case for probable cause to be left out of a probable cause affidavit, whether for a warrant or a pretrial preliminary hearing. See Perry v. State, 842 So. 2d 301, 303 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.133(a)(3) states that this is a non-adversary determination, and the court should apply the same standard as is required for issuing an arrest warrant.”).

      Omissions are only a potential issue where the state has withheld information that can absolutely defeat probable cause, and evidence that merely introduces evidence that is inconclusive but may be in the accused’s favor is not required to be included. It is not a 4th Amendment violation, or any kind of violation, to leave them out: “The omitted facts are only material if there is a substantial possibility that had the magistrate been aware of the omission he would not have found sufficient probable cause for issuance of a warrant.” State v. Van Pieterson, 550 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). In this case, with all the media attention, there is no chance the judge was not also aware of the “omitted” evidence. Obviously he found probable cause anyway.

      So. Please point to the specific statute, constitutional provision, or applicable case law that states that any specific action taken by the prosecutor in the case so far is either improper, illegal, or otherwise impermissible.

      You can’t.

      Reply ↓

    • onlyiamunitron states, “As for the stalking part, obviously Zimmerman didn’t heed the person with whom he was on the phone and return to his vehicle immediately…”
      Zimmerman was never instructed to return to his vehicle. He was told that he didn’t need to follow. He answered “ok” and presumably heeded that suggestion. It’s quite possible that he simply stopped and continued to observe (i.e., looking down the path between the buildings), which would have been a very logical action. From what we know (admittedly, we don’t know everything about the evidence), there really does not appear to be any “stalking” here.

      Reply ↓

12. For those people who claim that GZ “stalked” TM, I’d like to know for how long he followed him. A chronology of this alleged stalking would be helpful too.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

    • Regardless of any claims I may or may not make about Zimmerman’s actions that night, he placed a phone call to a non-emoergency number at the Sanford police department.

      It started at 7:09:34 PM. Zimmerman apparently hung up 4 minutes and 5 seconds later and the recording of the call ended 5 seconds after that.

      So that puts him on the phone and being recorded between 7:09:34 PM and 7:13:39 PM.

      The first thing that really sounds like him exiting his vehicle occurs 2 minutes and 14 seconds into the call.

      By 16 seconds later, 2 minutes and 30 seconds into the call, the person at the police station has asked Zimmerman if he was following the person about whom Zimmerman had called, and receiving an answer in the affirmative, said “We don’t need you to do that” (or “Okay, we don’t need you to do that).

      At that point if Zimmerman had immediately turned around and headed back to his vehicle he could have been there by 2 minutes and 46 seconds into the call.

      If he’d headed back slightly more slowly, he could still have been back to his vehicle by 3 minutes into the call, which would have been 7:12:34 PM

      Martin’s cell phone records show an incoming call (from the young lady many have called his girlfriend) at 7:12 PM, but apparently that’s rounded to the nearest minute and I haven’t been able to find any documentation of how long the call lasted.

      The 911 calls reporting the struggle began around 7:16 PM and the first policeman on the scene, Officer Timothy Smith, arrived around 7:17 PM.

      That’s chronology, i.e., WHEN.

      As for geography, i.e., WHERE, we have much less information, especially about who took what path when.

      As for the stalking part, obviously Zimmerman didn’t heed the person with whom he was on the phone and return to his vehicle immediately, and later in the conversation when he wants to avoid giving out his full street address, it seems to be because he thinks the person about whom he called might be nearby enough to overhear it. Also, instead of agreeing on where to meet up with the police and going there, he changes it to having them call him when they arrive, which might be because he doesn’t want to be overheard announcing his future location, but many suspect it was because he hoped to be able to have the police meet him at wherever he managed to locate the person about whom he called, which means he would be continuing to hunt for him.

      If, as Zimmerman supposedly claims, Martin attacked him after he gave up the search and was heading back to his vehicle, he had continued the search at least 3 minutes after being informed that it was preferred that he not do so.

      Reply ↓

      • I just noticed that you said; he placed a phone call to a non-emoergency number at the Sanford police department.

        Are you saying that all of the media reports are incorrect in reporting that the calls went to a 911 dispatcher ?

        Do you know the number he actually called?

        Reply ↓

    • “I just noticed that you said; he placed a phone call to a non-emoergency number at the Sanford police department.

      Are you saying that all of the media reports are incorrect in reporting that the calls went to a 911 dispatcher ?

      Do you know the number he actually called?”

      Media reports are sloppy. I’m pretty sure the dispatcher for Zimmerman’s call was also a dispatcher for some of the 911 calls. And many of the Zimmerman calls over the years weren’t in Sanford, so I suspect that Seminole County may have centralized dispatching. I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of 911 calls are actually for EMT, rather than fire or police, and people won’t have a clue which city they are in Sanford isn’t that large, and trying to to have enough people to man the phone 24×7, plus vacations, breaks, and being able to handle multiple calls at once, while other times there may be some time between calls, would be inefficient.

      The 911 calls start out with “policefireormedical” One of the callers, responded, “er … this is 911 right?”, and the dispatcher responded, “Yes … do you need … police … fire … or … medical?, clearly enunciating each word.

      The Sanford Police Department website lists 3 numbers, “Phone”, “Fax” and “Dispatcher”. Neighborhood watch participants are likely given instruction on which number to call. Other people probably call 911, and then the dispatcher has to sort them out, either switching them to a non-emergency number or having them call one.

      Reply ↓

    • @OIAU

      “If he’d headed back slightly more slowly, he could still have been back to his vehicle by 3 minutes into the call, which would have been 7:12:34 PM”

      Perhaps Zimmerman can’t turn around and talk on the phone at the same time. Or maybe he did not perceive “don’t follow” to mean “remaining in the same location, while you answered questions about your name and phone number”.

      Remember the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman’s actions demonstrated utter disregard for human life.

      “obviously Zimmerman didn’t heed the person with whom he was on the phone and return to his vehicle immediately, and later in the conversation when he wants to avoid giving out his full street address, it seems to be because he thinks the person about whom he called might be nearby enough to overhear it. Also, instead of agreeing on where to meet up with the police and going there, he changes it to having them call him when they arrive”

      Let’s suppose the dispatcher is called as a witness.

      Q “Why do you tell callers not to follow?”
      A “For their safety. The person they follow may turn around and attack them or take them hostage. The police may confuse them with the person who was fleeing, etc.”
      Q “Were you concerned for George Zimmerman’s safety?”
      A “Yes, blah blah”
      Q “Did you convey your concern to Zimmerman?”
      A “I said ‘Alright’ and asked for his name so I could contact his next of kin in case anything happened to him.”

      It is your fantasy that Zimmerman was told to return to his truck immediately, and that he failed to heed,

      The dispatcher then asked if he wanted the police to meet with him when they got “there”. Where is “there”? The dispatcher knew the address of the clubhouse – which is not close. Zimmerman would reasonably interpret “there” to mean where he was at.

      The dispatcher then asked where do you want to meet at. Zimmerman could reasonably interpret “you” to mean Zimmerman, and “want” to indicate that Zimmerman could choose the location. If he wanted to meet with the police when they got “there” then it would be reasonable to suggest that the meeting be “there:where he was”.

      Zimmerman tried to explain where he was at, and the dispatcher got confused as to whether Zimmerman even lived in the area, and finally ended up suggesting the mailboxes. It appears that this was logged before Zimmerman agreed. Everything else was logged some seconds behind the conversation – giving the dispatcher time to process the information and type it in. It was then that Zimmerman decided to go back to his original plan, but instruct the police officer rather than through the dispatcher.

      Reply ↓

13. “WayneM on April 27, 2012 at 1:24 pm said:

    I just noticed that you said; he placed a phone call to a non-emoergency number at the Sanford police department.

    Are you saying that all of the media reports are incorrect in reporting that the calls went to a 911 dispatcher ?

    Do you know the number he actually called?”

    The actual media reports haven’t been as sloppy as the numerous blogs, but most have taken shortcuts, like referring to the young lady as Trayvon’s girlfriend, because attorney Crump called her that, without any corroboration from the young lady herself as to the nature of her relationship with Trayvon.

    Broadcast media are pressed for time, and print media are pressed for space, and so a lot of the supposedlys, and allegedlys, and it appears thats get ommitted, and stuff that might be true gets presented as proven fact.

    I saw the actual number, or at least what someone reported it as being, somewhere, but didn’t make a note of it, and would most likely have to spend a couple of hours or more googling to come up with it again, but if you listen to the recordings made that night which have been released, all of the other ones are answered “911, do you need police, fire, or medical” and the call which Zimmerman made was answered “Sanford Police Department” and the answerer did not say “what is your emergency?”.

    unitron

    Reply ↓

    • Well to be fair, trying to precisely define the nature of a relationship between any two romantically entangled high schoolers is likely an exercise in futility. “Girlfriend” gets the point across well enough — i.e., she was a girl he was interested in and was probably flirting with over the phone, not someone that was his platonic bff — and any details beyond that are quite literally irrelevant high school gossip.

      Reply ↓

      • I think I asked this before. Do YOU believe that we will ever hear from this girl again?

        Reply ↓

    • I am a 65 year old retired newspaper and media consultant. . got out of the business when hard news and professional journalism died. I have seen how the media has changed so much that truth is hard to find., even when you search diligently. I NEVER trust mainstream media.

      How could anyone EVER trust a media outlet that would intentionally splice an audio tape and then lie about doing that? I could quickly give you numerous examples but it’s why I turn to alternative media for the truth. I haves studied this case and have several long time friends who are attorneys including my own son in law. I feel like I KNOW what has happened here insofar as the money, power and political aspects of what has happened but I also have an “inside” legal perspective with limited access to some PW protected sites.

      At the end of the day, I see this now as purely about money and the perpetuation of the profitable racial division business in America. If you have ever read any of Fred Reed’s columns, you will know what I mean. Some say he was born as wise as Mark Twain. He is certainly practical and has good common sense. You will never see him in MSM because he would be considered “racist” whatever that is today. I cannot keep up with politically correct terms . Even hate crimes. What is that? Who commits crimes out of love? Anyone who says he doesn’t racially profile is either blind or lying. Good grief. What has become of us?

      I shopped and found that this site has more truth than any of them and I trust Susan will allow me to post the link as it also a world press site.
      [redacted]

      I am getting too windy.

      My point is that I originally questioned who George called, found no conclusive answer, and then stupidly accepted that all of the references to a 911 dispatcher were correct.

      Boy would I love to have that number but I cannot find it so please let me know if you come across it and thanks for waking me up.

      One last question: Does the person he called have any legal authority as in police authority?

      Glad to have met you.

      [SMS note: Wayne, I have no problem with posting links in the comments, but I’m not linking to that particular site. It’s got some pretty irresponsible content up (i.e., posting photos of minors and make unsupported suggestions about their identities) and I’m not going to help drive any additional traffic there.]

      Reply ↓

    • I think I asked this before. Do YOU believe that we will ever hear from this girl again?

      Yes, the prosecution (and, theoretically, the defense, although I doubt they’ll want her as a witness) can and probably will subpoena her for trial.

      But I think her parents are absolutely making the right call here — and ought to be commended for that. They are doing everything in their power to protect their 16 year old daughter from being exposed to the intense public scrutiny of her personal life that could be expected if her identity was public, and they are also doing what they can to see that she isn’t infamously linked to this one incident for the rest of her life.

      Reply ↓

      • Susan, You said:
        Yes, the prosecution (and, theoretically, the defense, although I doubt they’ll want her as a witness) can and probably will subpoena her for trial.

        Wow!!1 Why would not the defense want to put this girl on the stand? Better yet, why would the prosecution even call her ? Maybe everything I have read about what she did after the incident is wrong.

        Reply ↓

    • There is no chance the defense calls her to the stand, that would be insane. How on earth does she help their case? She contradicts Zimmerman’s (second hand) testimony, and is a relative unknown. Nothing she says can help them, and there’s a lot she can say to hurt.

      She can probably lend some degree of support to the prosecution, but her testimony, in any event, is going to be pretty limited in scope. Probably most of what she would have to testify to is hearsay, and without knowing the content, hard to know what of that they could even get in.

      In any event, I’m not sure what exactly you’ve heard, but I haven’t seen anything that would remotely suggest that the defense would want her on the stand during their case. That’s just not gonna happen.

      Reply ↓

    • Replying to myself because Susan’s reply has no reply button.

      (WordPress really isn’t very good software with which to post comments, even compared to HuffPo)

      I mention the “is she is or is she ain’t” the girlfriend question because the site you redacted from another poster’s comment, admittedly one with no pretense at impartiality (except perhaps in their own fevered imaginations), has quite a lot of detail they supposedly found about her and her online “twittering” and such, that indicates that she may very well be involved with someone else and just platonic friends with Trayvon, which would make “girlfriend” a misnomer.

      I don’t know for sure that they’re correct in their assertions (or even that they’ve got the right girl–remember the pictures that turned out to be a different, still breathing Trayvon Martin?), but even a blind pig gets an acorn now and then, as the old saying goes, so I’d say that the young lady’s romantic status remains unconfirmed, which illustrates my point about media sloppiness and shortcuts.

      Reply ↓

    • Unitron — I’m leaving your post up, but I wanted to add a quick note here asking that, from now on, commenters leave the topic of DeeDee’s identity alone.

      The subject of her personal life truly could not be more irrelevant to the case at hand. And I’m not at all comfortable with encouraging the e-stalking of a girl that has only become the subject of nationwide attention because she had the misfortune of being on the phone with a friend when he was shot and killed.

      Reply ↓

      • “The subject of her personal life truly could not be more irrelevant to the case at hand. And I’m not at all comfortable with encouraging the e-stalking of a girl that has only become the subject of nationwide attention because she had the misfortune of being on the phone with a friend when he was shot and killed.”

        You will note that at no time did I use her name or psuedonym, or name the website which is so fixated on her, but her being labeled by someone as the girlfriend when that was not confirmed and all of the media blindly calling her that ever since was a perfect example of the lack of good journalism I was decrying.

        unitron.

        Reply ↓

    • Replying to myself again because of the shortcomings of WordPress:

      “Susan Simpson on April 27, 2012 at 2:17 pm said:

      Well to be fair, trying to precisely define the nature of a relationship between any two romantically entangled high schoolers is likely an exercise in futility. “Girlfriend” gets the point across well enough — i.e., she was a girl he was interested in and was probably flirting with over the phone, not someone that was his platonic bff — and any details beyond that are quite literally irrelevant high school gossip.”

      If there is no corroboration from the young lady herself, then calling her Trayvon’s girlfriend assumes a fact not in evidence, as Perry Mason used to like to say.

      If she is someone else’s girlfriend (and at this point it’s only an allegation made elsewhere), then calling her Trayvon’s girlfriend is, at best, misleading.

      If I hadn’t happened upon that site, it might never have occured to me to wonder if she really is Trayvon’s girlfriend or not.

      And it matters for we armchair crime scene analysists in that it puts a different light on her not calling him back every 5 minutes for the next several hours until someone answered Trayvon’s cell phone, and why no one knew about her until Trayvon’s father saw the cell phone bill.

      And again, it illustrates how sometimes sloppy journalism occurs right in front of us and we don’t even notice because we don’t know any better.

      Kind of like that “Bridge to Nowhere” up in Alaska.

      if not for happening to have stumbled upon a single article in one of the Sunday Supplements, either Parade or the other one, I’d never have known that completion of the bridge to that island had the potential to greatly increase the value of property owned by Alaskan Senator Murkowski and her father the former governor of the state.

      I sure heard a lot of talk about the project at the time that made no mention of the land ownership.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

14. I disagree with the statement:

    “But an investigation should have been done, and it’s unconscionable the way the case was initially handled. I’m satisfied that the state is now giving the case the scrutiny it deserves, even if ultimately Zimmerman is able to defeat probable cause.”

    From what I have seen, the Sanford police, from the beginning, did a routine and exemplary job of conducting an investigation into a shooting. The issue in dispute — about whether or not an immediate arrest of Zimmerman was justified — came up much later and it has little to do with the actual evidentiary investigation itself.

    Moreover, a quick arrest was not essential because there is a long statute of limitations involved. The state could have taken several months to “get their ducks in a row” but instead, for political reasons, rushed an arrest … and the atrocious performance at the bond hearing was the result. Many murder/manslaughter cases do not immediately result in an arrest but instead come after a sizable delay during which time a strong case is first built up.

    I will note that the Sanford police’s normal routine appeared to include quick interviews with as many potential witnesses as possible in order to “lock in” their stories. From reports investigation included:

    1. Zimmerman was interviewed 5 times in order to try to “break” his story.

    2. All potential witnesses were quickly interviewed.

    3. The Martins were interviewed, including about the 911 voices. I understand (and please correct if inaccurate) that initially Trayvon’s father said the 911 yells were not Trayvon’s and that I see, based on the bond hearing transcript that initially Trayvon’s mother did not recognize her son’s voice (but later did as reported in her statements to the press).

    4. I assume normal forensics and photographs of the scene were taken, including paramedic and on-the-scene police reports etc. I understand (please correct if inaccurate) that powder residue was later found on Trayvon’s hands and clothing. By the time of trial each “expert” will have his own view of events.

    5. The FBI was called in later. But their analysis of the phone tapes was inconclusive as indicated at the bond hearing.

    6. Presumably, the authority of the FBI may (or may not) have been instrumental in assuring witnesses told the truth.

    What more could the Sanford police have done? The only disputed issue is the judgment to quickly arrest Zimmerman, which is not an evidentiary issue but instead, a prosecutorial judgment issue.

    Reply ↓

15. I understand that the reports of Zimmerman calling the police about 50 times over the past year or so have turned out to be inaccurate and that the Miami Herald has issued a retraction of that statement. The correct time frame is since 2004 not January 2010 as originally reported.

    Also, the number of police reports in the complex were about 400 over the last year, including one shooting (this probably includes the 8 or so burglary attempts reported).

    If anyone has links, please post

    Reply ↓

16. Zimmerman called the Sanford police Non-emergency dispatch. I could provide several links, but these two should suffice. This is from Gilbreath’s sworn testimony in the bond hearing:

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html

    O’MARA: And they informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer, correct?

    GILBREATH: I believe so.

    O’MARA: And you would have gotten that from the 911 tape that has been heard?

    GILBREATH: The non-emergency tape, yes.

    O’MARA: Non-emergency, sorry. Now, I’m curious, you then say Zimmerman made reference to people that he felt had committed and gotten away with things in the neighborhood. What was that that gave you that indication?

    This from the City of Sanford website:

    Click to access Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

    Why weren’t the 911 tapes initially released?
    There are exemptions to the public records laws for active criminal intelligence and
    for ongoing investigations. In this instance, the 911 calls made by neighbors in the
    subdivision, and the non-emergency call made by Mr. Zimmerman are all key to the
    investigation by Sanford Police Department.

    Reply ↓

    • OK thanks. I am seeing things a bit differently. I am guessing that the non emergency male had no legal authority. Is that correct ? And why did the Martin attorneys want all of the tapes suppressed ?

      Reply ↓

    • The police wouldn’t have released the recordings at all.

      It was decision by the mayor. Sanford has a city manager form of government, where the city manager has day-to-day administrative control, but the mayor and city council retain ultimate control – and the mayor decided it would enhance transparency.

      About a week before Zimmerman was charged, the state prosecutor requested or ordered everything to be removed.

      It is possible that the release corrupted their investigation since it permitted DeeDee (or Benjamin Crump) to tailor her testimony to fit other evidence.

      The ABC interview says that Crump (or another of Martin’s family’s lawyers) was “prodding” her. The only actual live voice by DeeDee is about Trayvon saying a suspicious man was following him so that he put his hoodie on (it is a strange inflection on the word “hoodie”). She has the parts about the first part of an argument. The ABC story says this was after Zimmerman trapped Martin, but no audio was released.

      There is printed version of the ABC “interview” that does include a part about DeeDee urging Martin to run, but he assured her he would “walk fast”.

      Reply ↓

17. Ih great! Another gumshoe detective !! Please STOP trying to do the police work .. Report the facts as they come out in trial ! U people are the reason people either get off or are innocently convicted. Jeeesh!! Stick to writing the facts and truth and stop the bs reporting . No one trust media u guys are a joke!!!

    Reply ↓

    • “Report the facts as they come out in trial !”

      Half of us will be dead of old age by the time this comes to trial.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

      • “Report the facts as they come out in trial !

        Half of us will be dead of old age by the time this comes to trial.

        Ain’t that the truth. LOL>

        Reply ↓

18. DeeDee, as witness for anyone, is very unlikely.

    She only first gave a statement 3 weeks after the fact and memories of events like that, particularly over the phone, can be notoriously unreliable. Also, she had extensive contact with Crump and her testimony could have easily been contaminated. She also, under careful guidance by Crump, made statements to ABC news that ABC news later edited and played on the air.

    Defense attorneys will want to know about all of her and her parents communications with Crump and will want ALL of the ABC tapes.

    The ABC tapes I have heard (there are two separate tapes) do not seem to square completely with the dispatcher tape and other aspects now known, supporting the conclusion that she is not a very reliable witness. I do note that in what she actually says on the tapes, she gives no concrete indication of “fear” by Trayvon but more like an annoyance with being observed by a stranger. While she uses the word “follow” that doesn’t match up with the dispatcher tape where Zimmerman is sitting in his car and relates how the suspect is walking towards him then starts running and disappears — that word could have been fed to her by Crump and then overemphasized by her.

    Her tape statement, that she said to ‘run’ after Trayvon said he was being followed twice (when did this occur?) and (so ABC says) the sound of Trayvon running, would take Trayvon even further from the intersecting paths where the attack occurred. So there appear to be serious inconsistencies in her rendition of a phone call given a month later, from memory alone.

    It looks like the investigators, after interviewing DeeDee, found too many contradictions (due to time lapse, possible contamination, and inconsistencies) to use her statement reliably and did not do so.

    Links to tapes:
    ABC 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nfh1vHxD6JU
    ABC 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIuQ3VeSkTs&feature=related

    The ABC edited tapes played completely omit, but and the police statements should have covered, exactly what Trayvon was doing during the time after he first ran and 3 minutes later when the fight occurred.

    During the bond hearing the apparent definition the lead investigator was using for “confront” was broad enough that both Trayvon and Zimmerman could be viewed to have “confronted” the other.

    There will be evidentiary fights, including over the exculpatory value of her statements and Zimmerman’s lawyer may have to fight to get her statements.

    Reply ↓

19. I would like to see some links if it’s allowed here. Tbanks

    Reply ↓

20. GZ gets out of his truck and starts following TM.

    After the dispatcher tells GZ “we don’t need you to do that” GZ says “OK.” Within several seconds it sounds like he comes to a stop.

    From the time he gets out of the truck until it sounds like he has stopped is 27 seconds. And GZ was only following him for part of that time.

    Then he’s on the phone with the dispatcher for another 1:22. Whether he is looking around for TM or not can’t be determined with certainty, but there is no reason to think he has spotted TM, much less is following him.

    Then we have another 2:20 until the first 911 call, by which time the fight is in progress. Assuming that the confrontation and fight was going on for 1:20, there may have been only one minute until the confrontation. What happened during that minute or so is anyone’s guess.

    The prosecution will be able to show only that he followed him for a brief period of time (maybe 20 seconds at most).

    -MM

    Reply ↓

21. According to Crump, DeeDee says that she heard only the beginning of the confrontation. TM’s phone hanged up as a result of, apparently, a push by GZ.

    Of course GZ could push TM in just the right place to cause his phone to hang up, but I find all this more consistent with TM ending the call because he anticipates a confrontation (most likely one he intends on initiating).

    Do cell phone company records indicate who ends a call?

    If this is an accurate report of her affidavit, I find it very hard to fit in with the known chronology and info from GZ’s call:

    ________

    The lawyer, who took an affidavit from the girl, quotes the girl on the cellphone as saying that Trayvon was walking home from the store and had temporarily taken refuge from the rain. He then began walking again, when he tells her, according to Crump, “I think this dude is following me.”

    “She tells him, ‘baby, be careful, just run home,’ ” Crump said.

    According to the girl, Trayvon says, “I think I lost him” then moments later says, “He is right behind me again. I’m not going to run, I’m going to walk fast.”

    Crump said “she hears another voice, ‘What are you doing around here?’ Trayvon says, ‘Why are you following me?’ ” At that point, according to the girl, Travyon is pushed and his voice changes

    ________

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-20/trayvon-martin-teen-shot-florida/53669448/1

    -MM

    Reply ↓

    • The ABC report is kind of odd. First the rules were that only the Martin family lawyer (Crump & company) could ask questions. And then there were limited actual voice clips.

      The first voice clip says that Martin told “DeeDee” that someone was following him, so he put his hoodie on.

      Note that there was another phone call from 6:54 to 7:12 which Crump claims had Martin taking shelter from the rain.

      The only other audio that ABC broadcast was after the narration claims Martin was cornered, in which she said that Martin asked why Zimmerman was following him, and Zimmerman asked what he was doing there.

      So did the Crump lawyer have such a leading question, eg “so after the strange man had cornered Trayvon, what did you hear?”, that ABC had to edit that out. Or was ABC permitted to listen in on the questions at all?

      Reply ↓

22. Very pleased to have google-stumbled upon this site. Looks very interesting, thoughtful, and even-handed. I’ve been wondering, under the laws of Florida and the U.S. Supreme court:

    If the defense *proves* that there came a point during the confrontation that the shooter *would* reasonably have been in fear for his life, would such fact- in and of itself alone- be sufficient to warrant acquittal on all charges pertaining to the shooting death of the decedent?

    If so, does this hold true even if the prosecution proves that the shooter provoked the confrontation?

    Reply ↓

23. Tried to post a comment. But don’t see that it has appeared.

    Reply ↓

    • Now I see it.

      Reply ↓

    • Now I see it. Just above. Also, had tried to log in under my twitter account @perugiamurderfi. But that didn’t seem to have worked. Well, no matter.

      Reply ↓

24. Is there any evidence that GZ was following TM prior to the time he got into his car or was following him while driving his car?

    -MM

    Reply ↓

    • “Mark Martinson on April 28, 2012 at 12:50 pm said:

      Is there any evidence that GZ was following TM prior to the time he got into his car or was following him while driving his car?

      -MM”

      Only that which might could be inferred from Zimmerman’s conversation with whoever answered the phone at the police station.

      Supposedly Zimmerman got into his vehicle at his house and drove toward the main exit to go to a nearby-ish Target strore and spotted Martin before he, Zimmerman, got out of the main gates.

      It’s not known (to the general public, at least) which route he took from his house toward the main gates, which would affect where he was when he first saw Martin and whether he did any following with his vehicle before following on foot, and may also affect whether he had to turn the vehicle around and where he actually parked it.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • There is probably something in Zimmerman’s statements to the police. Only the gullible believe that Zimmerman spotted a black teenager and immediately called police.

      So if Zimmerman saw Martin and he wasn’t directly walking down the street, he may have watched some while, before calling the police. Maybe he turned down on to Twin Trees to call police.

      There is a CNN transcript where Ben Crump indicates that “DeeDee” first called at 6:54, and reported that Martin was seeking cover from the rain at some apartments (there are apartments to the west of the Retreat View Circle neighborhood, and the burglars who were caught were in between the apartments and the townhouses. The wall is only on the north and east sides – Google streetview suggests that a hedge is being propagated.

      This is at the NW corner of the area. It is possible Martin entered here, and then walked along Retreat View Circle, or conceivably went behind the townhouses and club house, north of the detention pond.

      Reply ↓

    • Tracy Martin said that the police told him that Zimmerman went back to his truck and then got out of it, then the confrontation started. There was also a question from the prosecutor about Z saying something about M circling his truck.

      I think the prosecutors are going to argue that Z followed M in his truck and/or Z got out of his truck a second time.

      -MM

      Reply ↓

    • On the other hand, if Z did get back to his truck then got out of it, that would contradict the so-called probable cause affidavit which says that Z was following M around the complex preventing him from getting home.

      -MM

      Reply ↓

25. The affidavit of so-called probable cause says that “Martin attempted to run home but was followed by Zimmerman . . . . Zimmerman got out of his vehicle . . . . ”

    Either this is poorly written or the prosecution is putting forward a theory of Z following M in his car.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/interactive/2012/04/12/state-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-affidavit-probable-cause/

    -MM

    Reply ↓

26. The prosecution, by its own admission, has no direct evidence bearing on the question of who threw the first punch and also, by its own admission, has no evidence to contradict Z’s claim that it was M.

    Based on De La Rionda’s questioning of Z, it looks like they are trying to build a circumstantial case showing that Z’s conduct before, during and after the confrontation was so malicious that a jury could find that he was most likely the aggressor. DLR asked Z about contradictory and implausible claims made in police interviews. There was also a question about a text to a “reverend,” perhaps showing that Z didn’t have any remorse.

    If that’s the best they can do it looks like it’s a weak case.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

27. Remove “DeeDee” from the equation and most of the prosecutor’s case (and the public perception of the case) disappears. Susan herself, explicitly and implicitly, relies heavily in her time line on what has come out in the press about DeeDee’s rendition of Trayvon’s actions and mindset.

    DeeDee, and implications and inferences coming from her purported statements, including ABC edited and Crump coached ‘snippets’, are the main foundation coloring the public picture presented worldwide.

    Without DeeDee, gone is much of the argument for: ongoing and repeated acts of “stalking” and “following” of Trayvon by Zimmerman, innocent conduct by Trayvon of simply walking to a store and returning directly home, a confrontation initiated by Zimmerman, fear by Trayvon (a 6’3″ 160-170 fit teenager), a “crazy” look to Zimmerman, etc.

    DeeDee has, voluntarily through Crump, answered carefully screened questions and edited snippets by ABC News. Here are links to 2 different ABC reports:

    
    

    Her (edited) recitation of events does not square with the 4 minute dispatcher tape (recorded before the shooting) and a map layout of the area.

    DeeDee refers to MULTIPLE instances of Zimmerman’s “following” and the timing of Trayvon’s reported running from Zimmerman after the repeated “following.” Just the fact that she says Trayvon was ahead of Zimmerman (who, she says again was following Trayvon) who then ran, when compared to the dispatcher tape, its timing and the location of the confrontation does not add up.

    DeeDee “came forward” 3 weeks AFTER the phone calls, at a time when memories could easily have become clouded (note: this could later be critical part of Crump’s later lawsuit against Sanford for “not investigating”) . She was apparently (so critics claim) “coached” by Crump to fit in with what was released on some 911 tapes (released based on Crump’s pressure) but even so, her testimony does not completely fit in with the tapes.

    Reply ↓

    • If “DeeDee” had actually said suddenly Martin was cornered, wouldn’t that have been a juicier snippet than Martin asking “why are you following me” and Zimmerman asking “what are you doing here?” If it were an accidental encounter (both thinking that both were long gone), wouldn’t they ask the same thing? And if Martin doubled back to confront Zimmerman, wouldn’t they also say the same thing?

      So did the lawyer ask such a leading question, “So after the white monster trapped Trayvon who was just trying to bring Skittles back to his baby brother, what did you hear?”, that ABC had to edit it?, and go with the sound of the headseat falling because of a push?

      BTW, ABC conflated two 911 calls. One caller had seen the wrestling and had run up stairs to call 911 when he heard the shot before he got to the phone, and then looked out his window to see Martin’s body. The ABC version has the shot on his call.

      Reply ↓

28. I’ve heard it mentioned somewhere that the prosecution will not be able to present at trial anything the shooter said at his bail hearing. Is this correct?

    Specifically, will the prosecution be prohibited from submitting at trial that- at the bond hearing- he said he thought the decedent was: “a little bit younger than I am”?

    Reply ↓

29. Stan,

    DD’s account in these stories implies that the final encounter was one continuous chase with Z following him toward his house. That contradicts what we know with certainty from the dispatch tape: Z’s following M came to an end. It seems unlikely that if Z did spot M again that it would have resulted in a chase toward the house.

    Also, DD says the head piece fell to the ground as a result of the push and then the call went dead. So Z pushes T and then Z hangs up the phone ends his call in this version? Ending the phone call would be the last thing M would think about.

    I read that in Florida you can take a deposition in a criminal case. The deposition of DD should be interesting.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

    • Also, Trayvon’s microphone would have still picked up the fight itself, even if on the ground, from a far closer position than the 911 tapes. The 911 tapes, from much greater distances picked up sounds of the fight’s yells. Very little of the DeeDee story makes sense.

      I must note that, whether in a civil or criminal case, DeeDee’s interaction with Crump is fair game. This is because of the obvious suspicion of coaching (and the hint of obstruction of justice for such important testimony).

      Even at the bond hearing, the prosecution took pains to implicitly remove DeeDee from the equation … but her presence and her purported statements still overshadows much of the prosecutor’s case.

      Reply ↓

      • From the very first time I heard about DD’s account of the phone conversation, it seemed that:
        1. DD was on the phone with Trayvon as he was walking back from 7/11 and he stopped near the club house to take cover when it started raining. At that time, there was no reference to GZ.
        2. After the rain calmed down a little, Trayvon went on his way, passed closed to GZ’s SUV (since he was parked on the direct path Trayvon was taking toward the home he was staying at). Trayvon noticed a man (rather a shadow, since it was dark) sitting in the dark SUV. . . and took notice of it (Zimmerman by then was panicking, telling the dispatcher that the kid was “coming straight at him and staring at him. . .which sounds a little paranoid already), but continue to walk toward his home. The phone call with DD ended, and Trayvon started running (maybe he was anxious to get home by then, nothing “evil” about it!). Then, Trayvon’s phone rang again, and, to take the call, he stopped running and maybe stopped for a minute, or continued walking. He told DD about the strange guy who might have been following him, DD told him to run, HE SAID HE DIDN”T WANT TO RUN BUT WOULD WALK FASTER (in no time did he tell DD he would run!. ..in fact, how easy is it to keep a phone conversation going when one is running?). Then he told her he thought he had lost the guy. . .and soon after that he was back behind him.
        That’s when DD heard Trayvon say “Why are you following me?” and heard Zimmerman answer: “what are you doing here?” Then, she heard what sounded like a push and the the wire fell. Then the phone went dead (the record show that the phone call ended. . .it would be interesting to know WHERE the phone was found, and whether it might have fallen on concrete and broke, ending the phone call).

        It seems to me that GZ spotted Martin as he came through the gate (based on GZ’s house location, and since he was going to Target, he would not have been in the location where he ended up leaving his truck), and decided not to exit the Retreat to go go Target, but to observe Martin instead. He then saw Martin stop to take cover near the club house, and he drove around the club house, probably slowly, to see what Martin was doing. When Martin started walking again, GZ probably followed him IN HIS SUV and parked the car somewhere around the path of Martin to see which direction he would go. That would be when Martin noticed the SUV was now parked, with a guy sitting in it. GZ may have continued to follow Martin in his SUV, until Martin, instead of turning right on the road, went through the cut through (still the most direct way to his home) to take the alley between the townhomes, where GZ couldn’t follow him with his SUV. He would then have stopped the SUV, and followed Martin by foot.

        I think that if we knew WHERE the SUV was parked, it would help. I also think it would help to know when exactly GZ spotted Martin, but if he was going to Target, he would not have been in the street where the SUV was parked during his struggle with Martin, so he probably noticed Martin as GZ was ready to exit the Retreat, and Martin was entering the Retreat.

        Reply ↓

        • Maybe I missed it but I have seen no legitimate discussion of Martin’s cell phone . Where did they find it? Was it checked out? Wouldn’t there be details about all of his calls including those to DD? Anyone have links to this?

          Reply ↓

    • Wayne,

      Check out the article “Trayvon, Dee-Dee, and D.J” on the American Thinker site.

      ________

      The Crump team places the onus of responsibility on the police for failing to contact the girl. It’s true they had Martin’s cell. Incoming calls are stored on most phones, but not always. On February 27 it would not have mattered much to the police who Martin was talking to before he took a swing at Zimmerman. If they could do it again, no doubt they would call the number. By March 2, they had returned the phone to Tracy Martin; a mysterious call to 911 was made on that date.

      So it was only when Tracy Martin was looking over his son’s phone bill about three weeks after Trayvon’s death that he noticed the call. He didn’t dial the number, according to Julison, the Crump spokesman, but turned the phone over to the lawyer, who contacted the girl. Crump, needless to say, did not inform the police. Instead he went to Matt Gutman of ABC. According to Julison, Gutman was chosen because he’d done some good — i.e., sympathetic — reporting, but the spokesman insisted there was no special reason to select him.
      ________

      -MM

      Reply ↓

    • @Sadanie

      What if Martin was at the 7-11 before 6:30, and “DeeDee” was on the phone from 6:54, and the calls were back to back? If Ben Crump can be believed, Martin first took shelter from the rain in the apartments to the west. Did Martin put his hoodie up because it was raining hard enough to seek shelter, or because of the strange man following him?

      Reply ↓

30. PMF,

    Unless there was some sort of agreement between the defense and the prosecutor I don’t see why not. It was under oath. I think Z must have meant that when M was on top of him and shot him he didn’t realize his age. I don’t think Z could have forgotten what he said on the dispatch tape. O’Mara and he must have gone over it.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

    • Well, I’m not sure whether it was under oath or not is the issue. Elsewhere I’ve seen it asserted that the shooter’s testimony (except as a means to show perjury) is precluded from the trial under Florida statute.

      But I’m a bit skeptical of that, so looking to confirm it.

      Reply ↓

31. This is from the USA Today article:
    ______

    The lawyer, who took an affidavit from the girl, quotes the girl on the cellphone as saying that Trayvon was walking home from the store and had temporarily taken refuge from the rain. He then began walking again, when he tells her, according to Crump, “I think this dude is following me.”

    “She tells him, ‘baby, be careful, just run home,’ ” Crump said.

    According to the girl, Trayvon says, “I think I lost him” then moments later says, “He is right behind me again. I’m not going to run, I’m going to walk fast.”

    Crump said “she hears another voice, ‘What are you doing around here?’ Trayvon says, ‘Why are you following me?’ ” At that point, according to the girl, Travyon is pushed and his voice changes.

    “She hears the altercation, suddenly, someone just hit the phone, because that’s the last she hears,” Crump said. She did not hear the shooting.

    ______

    Again note that GZ loses TM for “moments.” That’s not consistent with the dispatch tape. (Of course being dark and windy, TM could have thought he was being followed when he wasn’t.)

    DD has heard the claim that GZ was following TM through the complex as he was trying to get home. She has also heard that there was a break in the following. She has given an account that combines the two.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

32. Does anyone know if Crump is DeeDee’s attorney?

    Reply ↓

    • I don’t know if Crump would qualify as DD’s attorney.

      But the guy has a lot of explaining to do. Instead of encouraging DD to give an open-ended interview with the police, he gets a statement or affidavit from her even though he represents the family. Then he allows a carefully controlled interview with ABC.

      She even hears a shove or a push! How do you hear that on a rainy night, or any night?

      -MM

      Reply ↓

33. DD’s account in USA Today is odd to say the least.

    She says TM is “walking” and says GZ is “following” him, the most natural implication being that GZ’s on foot. But GZ is in his car and TM takes off running (“sh** he’s running”). Also, it would have been more natural for TM to say, “He’s looking at me.”

    If there’s any truth to what DD recounts, it might have taken place after GZ lost sight of TM. TM might have thought that GZ was just trying to scare him away. Once TM realizes that he is out of GZ’s sight, TM begins walking. Then he hears something or sees someone and says “I think he’s following me.” Then he runs.

    But note that DD ties the beginning of the following to the time that TM stopped seeking protection from the rain. That he was in a building or under an awning is something she could have gotten only from TM, it seems to me.

    DD’s account almost sounds like she thinks that during the first two minutes of dispatch call GZ is out of the car.

    Reply ↓

34. This is a good story about DD’s claims:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/dee-dee_trayvon_and_dj.html

    This is a transcript from 3/20 by Crump. DD’s instruction “run” is now correlated with the time after GZ lost sight of him.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html

    Crump tells us the DD heard the confrontation, the push, and the beginning of the fight. Then during the fight the off button on the phone must have been hit.

    But she doesn’t call the police that night.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

35. I understand the phone log records were encoded and Tracy then guessed (or knew the code) and was thereby able to find out a call was received. I am unsure how they got the calling number. Possibly by Crump or Tracy contacting the cell provider.

    The police would probably need a court order to get any of that information, particularly if the phone was in the parents name. I believe the account had 4 phones connected to it (a family plan).

    Reply ↓

36. Another thought on Trayvon’s cell phone:

    If the earpeace fell off that would not stop the call and something would still have been heard even if the earpeace was on the grass where it fell.

    Did the police find the earpeace in Trayvon’s pocket or on the ground nearby? If in his pocket, then Trayvon must have deliberately turned off the phone and placed the earpiece in his pocket so DeeDee could not have heard what she says she heard. The same is true if the earpiece remained in place — there was no accidental hang up, it had to be on purpose.

    Assuming a confrontation and an immediate ‘push,’ how would that physically end the call (cellfphones can take a lot of punishment)? It is much more likely Trayvon ended the call, which would have been before the verbal exchange because the ‘push’ was then immediate.

    Without a credible method for the call’s ending, DeeDee’s (Crump’s) second hand statement does not seem possible.

    Reply ↓

37. Stan,

    In his 3/20 new conference, Crump tells us the DD heard the confrontation, the push (sort of), and the beginning of the fight. He says that during the fight the off button on the phone must have been hit.
    ________

    And so she says “run.” He says, I’m not going to run. I’m going to walk fast. At that point, she says Trayvon — she hears Trayvon say, why are you following me. She hears the other boy say, what are you doing around here. And again, Trayvon says, why are you following me. And that’s when she says again he said, what are you doing around here. Trayvon is pushed. The reason she concludes, because his voice changes like something interrupted his speech. Then the other thing, she believes the earplug fell out of his ear. She can hear faint noises but no longer has the contact. She hears an altercation going and she says, then suddenly, somebody must have hit the phone and it went out because that’s the last she hears.
    ________

    Crump also calls Chad, Brandi’s son, Trayvon’s “step-brother”!

    Were Sybrina and Tracy ever married?

    -MM

    Reply ↓

38. According to these phone records, the last incoming call on T’s phone was from DD.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-arrest-now-abc-reveals-crucial-phone/story?id=15959017#.T5yo9sU0V8E

    Then there is Tracy Martin’s unusual call to 911 from the phone on 3/2.

    Did DD try to call him again? Did anyone else try to call him? I assume calls would show up as an incoming call, particularly if T had voice mail.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

39. I also question how much the prosecution believes in DD’s statements, as relayed by Crump. The investigator didn’t reference them on the stand, nor did DLR in his examination of the investigator, with the exception of the following aspect best I can tell.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

40. MM,

    At this point I have stopped trying to explain completely contradictory statements by DeeDee, Crump, Tracy and the second hand press statements. None of it adds up.

    That is why the police and FBI have taken (I hope professional) time-line statements from DeeDee to find out EXACTLY what she says happened. A trained questioner, including attorney Mara, will find and poke holes in any statements, wherever those holes are. I posted two links to different ABC snippets of statements DeeDee made and have placed them again below.

    If DeeDee, after she said ‘run’ heard Trayvon running and out of breath that only could have happened when he first bolted while Zimmerman was parked. Yet, she implies the verbal exchange and fight occurred immediately after the running. Yet we know Zimmerman, after running/jogging about 15 seconds was then talking to the dispatcher for almost 2 more minutes.

    If she is referring to a 2nd bout of running just before the fight, how could it end up right near the intersecting paths? They had to not only be running back towards the intersecting path but Zimmerman had to be faster than Trayvon to run him down. Also, there were witnesses out who would have seen two people running and one catching up with the other. None of that makes any sense.

    Also, If Trayvon was followed earlier why wasn’t he relating that to DeeDee earlier?

    It looks to me that a ‘story’ was quickly concocted and DeeDee was coached or otherwise tainted through suggestion. The stories were not carefully thought out and Crump has been winging it in an attempt to correct errors and the press itself distorts what was said to create the ‘story’ and pro-Trayvon picture and fill in obvious gaps and inconsistencies.

    At this point, I have little doubt that State investigators and the FBI have already (and ultimately so will Mara) pieced together a picture of an entirely unreliable witness who most likely was coached and is (after 4 weeks of not going to the police and indeed resisting police interviews) saying things inconsistent with the physical evidence (including the dispatcher tape), self-contradictory and not credible.

    Reply ↓

41. Nice analysis! And thanks for the diagram of the area.

    I’m wondering about Zimmerman’s brother saying that Trayvon saw Zimmerman’s gun when Zimmerman reached for his phone. Could Trayvon have thought (correctly or incorrectly) that Zimmerman was reaching for his gun (not his phone)? WAS Zimmerman actually reaching for his gun and not his phone?

    Possible scenario(?):
    Trayvon thought Zimmerman was reaching for his gun, so Trayvon punches Zimmerman in self-defens. Zimmerman falls down and hits his head on the sidewalk, attempts to get up and Trayvon tackles him (which moves the conflict onto the grass). Trayvon then tries to restrain Zimmerman while also crying for help, because Trayvon believes Zimmerman is trying to shoot him. Maybe Zimmerman actually has his gun in his hand while Trayvon is trying to restrain him, which could explain why the calls for help sound so desperate.

    I’m also wondering how the struggle ended up where it did. Wouldn’t both of them have seen the other one approaching? Could Zimmerman have come up behind Trayvon (after going around the building) while Trayvon was talking on the phone, facing the other direction because he was looking to see if Zimmerman was still coming after him?

    I don’t see how Trayvon could have surprised Zimmerman from behind while Trayvon was talking to his DD on the phone. It seems like Zimmerman would have heard Trayvon talking, and it also seems like Trayvon would have stopped talking to DD if he was trying to surprise Zimmerman from behind.

    Reply ↓

    • Well Susan, now that I’ve read more of this, I see that you came to the same conclusion about the possible scenario with the gun.

      I apologize that I can’t figure out why I’m called “anonymous” here from my Tweet account, but I don’t really know how to use it.

      Reply ↓

42. Susan, thanks for the link to the transcript. I wonder what this means:

    “DE LA RIONDA: Isn’t it true, sir, that at least one witness described first chasing another person in the back of that —

    GILBREATH: Yes.”

    I don’t understand this. Could it mean there was a witness who saw someone being chased?

    Reply ↓

    • @Anonymous asks:

      “I don’t understand this. Could it mean there was a witness who saw someone being chased?”

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2012/apr/20/george-zimmerman-bond-hearing-live

      Find 10:43 in the story (The Guardian article is more a live blog, than a transcript.

      “Gilbreath: “We have a witness statement who observed shadows or figures running by her residence.” He says he can’t identify who they were.””

      And then in the CNN transcript find:

      “GILBREATH: They — I cannot identify who they were, but it was at the same time frame this occurred. ”

      You will notice in the CNN “transcript” they were just coming out of the commercial break. Then if you look in the CNN transcript it matches what is in the Guardian blog.

      Reply ↓

43. Anonymous,

    You don’t need to log in using Twitter.

    As far as TM surprising GZ from behind while talking on the phone, that begs the question of whether he was talking.

    Why didn’t DD call the police that night? Why didn’t she call the police when she learned TM was dead? I suspect TM said something like, “I’m going to take care of this MF.” He may have even instructed her not to contact the police because he didn’t want her to be a witness to what happened. I suspect that he hung up the phone before the confrontation.

    I wonder if T-Mobile or DD’s cell phone company can provide more information on the time of the call.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

44. The TM phone logs have exceptional information that has been overlooked: (link: http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/call+log.pdf ). They show:

    1. The 7:04 DeeDee call to TM only registered as 1 minute long (meaning it could have been anywhere from 1-60 seconds since call time is rounded up to next minute).

    So, for about 5 minutes before GZ called the dispatcher, GZ’s claim of suspicious actions by a suspect ducking among buildings is supported by the length of time Trayvon was NOT on the phone with DeeDee. Also, we don’t know what was said in the 1-60 second length of the 7:04 call so no presumption should be make it was innocent (as opposed to bragging about casing out the area or simply saying ‘call me back in a few minutes’).

    A relevant note: If, instead of GZ, a police officer was sitting in his car, would he be suspicious of a 6’3″ hooded stranger in his late teens wandering among buildings in a gated community at night in a high crime area which has frequent police calls … at least to observe what the person is doing? We know the answer to that.

    2. The 7:12 call shows a 4 minute length (meaning it could have lasted anywhere from 3 minutes 1 second to 4 minutes). It is quite likely T-Mobile has exact times to the second. Susan (likely correctly but still unknown) assumes T-Mobile rounds call start times to the nearest minute. Syncing the “run” commentary by DeeDee with the dispatcher tape times

    means, if up rounding for start time is assumed, that the call started at about 711:30 (based on DeeDee saying she told TM to run about 10 seconds before GZ tells the dispatcher TM is running). And (using the call window length range of 3:01 – 4:00 minutes) the call ended anywhere from 714:31 – 715:30). Assuming the upward rounding of start time the call could have ended before the confrontation happened, thereby evidencing TM hung up because he intended to fight with GZ … and DeeDee was prompted or coached to say otherwise. On the other hand, it doesn’t disprove that DeeDee said ‘run’ at the beginning of the call or that she, at the end of the call, heard the exchange she reported.

    However, ASSUMING THE CALL START WAS ROUNDED UPWARDS TO 7:12, then the ABC’s report was DELIBERATELY FALSE because it joined the DeeDee snippets where she says ‘run’ at the beginning of the call and between 3-4 minutes later she reports the confrontation. Between those 2 snippets, ABC inserted its edit statement that “suddenly Martin was cornered” right after DeeDee’s ‘run’ snippet. The dispatcher tape shows that after TM first ran, all GZ was doing for several minutes was calmly reporting his location to the dispatcher and had lost sight of TM. Here is the ABC distorted report (for convenience, as I had posted it also above):

    If it turns out the call start was NOT rounded upwards to 7:12, then DeeDee’s recollection has serious problems because of the short interval from when GZ hangs up to when the fight began at about 715:30. Her ‘run’ advice, if given after TM had already ran, means it purportedly was given JUST BEFORE the confrontation (as alluded to by ABC above). But short interval from the GZ hangup to the fight, the physical layout of the area, GZ’s close proximity to the fight area and that GZ was behind TM in the route to TM’s apt, make her version that she heard TM running and out of breath, virtually impossible. That would mean GZ outran TM to catch up with him a far distance from the fight location … which makes no sense. So resolution of the 7:12 call start time is important.

    Another issue is exactly what TM was saying to DeeDee from after she said ‘run.” That is a 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 minute interval. where was TM? What was he telling her?

    Another issue is the ‘hoodie’ being on. While GZ is sitting in his truck there is NO SOUND of a windshield wiper running (even on slow) so it is unlikely it was raining since GZ wanted visibility to observe. So a hooded tall stranger in a high crime area with a rash of police calls is, quite properly, part of legitimate “profiling” at least for reason to have a police officer check the situation out.

    A further issue is that Crump told the press that DeeDee was so traumatized that the next day she was hospitalized for tests. By now, many observers believe this was a lie. DeeDee’s alleged tweets were immediately purged, under claim of ‘privacy.’ But, that explanation makes no sense where she voluntarily spoke to ABC news. The way to privacy was to go quietly to the police (immediately after the purported ‘hospital’ tests taken due to the trauma of hearing the confrontation). Notably, the identity of ‘John’ (and other witnesses), who cooperated with the police, has never been disclosed. Instead, DeeDee evaded being questioned by authorities for 5 weeks(!) according to Gilbreath at the bond hearing. This strongly indicates Crump was fearful of the house of cards he had built up in the press crumbling immediately when an objective profession interrogator began questioning DeeDee and even implies that she may have (rightly or wrongly) believed she could be in trouble for not reporting that TM was ‘casing’ the area and bragging to her on the phone about how he intended to teach the man watching him a lesson.

    Whether or not the possible alternative presumptions of what TM was really doing are correct or not, the point is that they should be heard. And evidence of Crump lying and manipulating the press is not only all fair game, but supported by a lot of evidence.

    Reply ↓

    • Stan — thanks for the link of the call records, I hadn’t seen the full document before and it’s useful to have.

      But I now think it’s clear that the 7:04pm call wasn’t DeeDee. Note the 6:54pm phone call that Trayvon made, which went on for 18 minutes. I believe that thiis his call to DeeDee.

      The 7:04pm call was someone else calling Trayvon — and he apparently put DeeDee on hold, answered, probably spoke for a couple seconds but in any event no longer than a minute, and then went back on the phone with DeeDee until just before 7:12pm. At that point his call ends, and DeeDee calls him back < 59 seconds later.

      However: I now believe that the T-Mobile cellphone records are completely unreliable for giving call times with any reliable accuracy. I have T-Mobile for my cell provider, so I did an unscientific experiment today to track the accuracy of its call times. End result: they are not very accurate, and the time stamps on the call records are only a time that is within + 59 seconds of the actual time — and possibly more than that.

      More often as not, the call records from my little “experiment” did match the actual times I made the calls. However, about a third of the time, the call times recorded in my statement are either a minute fast or a minute slow from my actual call time (with my actual phone time being tracked according to the time at http://www.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Eastern/d/-5/java).

      In one case, I made a call at 15:24:58 which was then answered at 15:25:02 — but my call records are mysteriously claiming my phone call was made at 15:23. That was the largest deviation. The rest of the time, the incorrect call records were around 20-40 seconds off.

      Reply ↓

    • Based on the billing reports from the NBC station website, Martin was on the phone continuously from at least 2:30. If Crump is honest about 400 minutes between Martin and “DeeDee” that day, they must have almost all been “DeeDee”.

      It appears they are a printout of billing records (notice how you can select the page at the bottom of one of them). And the phone numbers have been whited out, probably electronically. In a few cases, it looks like the white-out has barely clipped the left edge of the text to the right, and in others the extreme right edge of the last digit in the phone number is still visible.

      Also since the text on the first pages is at an angle, we are looking at a photocopy. The later pages are a tiny bit skewed as well.

      The display appears to be last to first, but whoever assembled the pages could have reversed them.

      So we have:

      2:38-4:21 (Incoming)
      2:45-2:47 (I)
      3:02-3:04 (I)
      3:04-3:07 (I)
      These 3 short calls must have been from someone else.

      There is now a 7-minute gap, the longest of the afternoon..

      4:28-5:09(Outgoing)
      5:09-6:30(O)
      6:30-6:43(O)
      6:41-6:45(I)***
      6:45-6:50(O)
      6:46-6:48(O) This is odd since it is inside another outgoing call.
      6:49-6:53(I)***
      6:53:6:54(O)
      6:54-6:55(O)
      6:54-7:12(I)
      7:04-7:05(I)
      7:12-7:16(I)

      *** The timing on these would be consistent with someone calling Martin, Martin disconnecting the other call, a short conversation with whomever is on the incoming call; and then reconnecting with the original call.

      Crump has at various times claimed that the 7:04 call lasted until 7:09 when Martin said he was taking cover from the rain (Crump could have confused 7:04-7:05 as meaning 5 minutes from 7:04.

      He has also claimed that the dots start at 6:54, when Martin took cover from the rain in the apartments (next door to the west).

      But now he is saying that they were on the phone the entire trip to the 7-11 and back. Google says 33 minutes walking to the 7-11 and back. Add some time at the store, plus time taking shelter from the rain, and 6:30 is pretty plausible start time. Which matches a break between calls.

      Tracy Martin and Brandy Green were reportedly out to dinner from 6:30 to 10:30. So Trayvon disconnects a second to wave bye to Dad and his girlfriend, and calls back as he leaves to store along path between backs of townhouses, as his father and girlfriend drives down the street.

      A problem with this is the surveillance recording at 7-11 is reportedly from 6:00-6:30, but that is in a report where someone from the store said that the video showed a black male – and specifically would not commit to the age, nor to the brand name of the tea. And it is not clear who the original reporter who talked to 7-11 was. Something like “around 6 or 6:30” in a question, could have been affirmed in a question from a public relations director relaying what a manager of security had told her could easily get converted to 6:00 to 6:30 in a news story.

      Reply ↓

45. Susan,
    Good research on the T-mobile info. I was going to ask about how T-mobile does its rounding suggesting something similar to what you did, but you already did the work! There is still the open issue of if T-mobile (for investigatory reasons) has internally more accurate records (which we will not know about).

    Lets assume the calls are contiguous. Then that means DeeDee’s purported ‘run’ advice was given near the start of the dispatcher call … and that ABC’s explanation is deliberately misleading because it conflates the two snippets of time: the initial ‘run’ snippet, where GZ then exits the truck, and the confrontation snippet 3 or so minutes later, when the dispatcher tape shows those two events were separated by several minute during which time GZ was simply reporting to the dispatcher.

    Also, there is still the open issue of when the TM hangup occurred, which could be before or after the fight began … thereby inviting questions about DeeDee’s statements about the confrontation. Presumably, trained interrogators at the police and FBI (whew! Crump really stirred up a hornet’s nest there!) questioned (a reluctant) DeeDee extensively about her ENTIRE conversations with TM … and with Crump (assuming he isn’t representing himself as her attorney).

    And the open issue remains about how reliable DeeDee’s 5 week later over-the-phone witness testimony really is. Already, at the bond hearing, the State backed away from any assumption GZ was the aggressor, despite DeeDee’s oh-so-public statements — made directly and as reported by Crump and the press. After all, didn’t ABC make it perfectly clear what happened!

    I do believe any reluctance to discuss DeeDee’s alleged tweets is misplaced. In reality, there are two “trials” going on: 1) in the press; and 2) the real court trial. The “press” trial, has had extensive evidence presented by Crump and the media. So it opens up the credibility issue disputing Crump’s credibility, which includes innocuous purported tweets by DeeDee that only show a different picture of her frame of mind then Crump has “testified” otherwise to in the press. I cannot see any “privacy” issue … once DeeDee spoke to ABC worldwide instead of only to the police without Crump.

    Reply ↓

46. Leaving aside entirely as a separate issue the credibility or veracity of the young lady, I don’t know that we can place any credence in the PDF on the website of the San Francisco area NBC affiliate which purports to be details of Trayvon Martin’s cell phone usage.

    It’s apparently from a statement of activity on the account of Trayvon’s father, Tracy Martin, which includes 4 different cell phones, and we don’t know if what we are shown is for the one used by Trayvon or not. Also, on the picture of a small portion of what is supposedly the same document on the ABC website, you see the number of the phone making the incoming calls pixilated out. On the NBC pdf, that column is missing entirely, and the pages seem to be out of chronological order.

    Also, on the NBC document it says that “The date and times for all calls corresponds to Pacific time…”

    If that is true, then the 1 minute call shown as coming in at 7:04 PM and the 4 minute call shown as coming in at 7:12 PM would actually have occured after 10 PM Florida time, when, I think we can safely presume, Trayvon’s cell phone was in the custody of the police.

    Would they have answered it at 10:12 PM Florida time and talked to someone for 4 minutes?

    Of course the picture on ABC’s site is so small we have no way to judge it’s authenticity either.

    In years to come, police academies and criminal science curricula everywhere will be teaching this case as an excellent example of how not to conduct an investigation.

    I mean, other than George Zimmerman saying so, is there any other proof that he was the one who fired his weapon that night? Did his saying that he shot him but it was self-defense lead the police to assume that they could believe everything he said without independently verifying any of it?

    unitron

    Reply ↓

    • “I mean, other than George Zimmerman saying so, is there any other proof that he was the one who fired his weapon that night? Did his saying that he shot him but it was self-defense lead the police to assume that they could believe everything he said without independently verifying any of it?”

      After the bond hearing, there were a slew of documents released under Florida’s freedom of information laws. They reissued the affidavit of probable cause, but redacted the claim “Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest” and that “When police arrived Zimmerman admitted shooting Martin”.

      They did secure a gun from Zimmerman’s waist, a shell casing, and an autopsy that Martin died from a gunshot wound.

      Reply ↓

47. To complete what I began above, to show how ABC distorted the facts (worse than NBC did in splicing the GZ – dispatcher tape) here is the original story ABC/Crump concocted in connection with the ABC video I had posted above

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-death-friend-phone-teen-death-recounts/story?id=15959017#.T53HANm8q_9

    Next is the key text from the above ABC article, along with explanatory comments in brackets. To understand the ABC/Crump distortion of facts, three consecutive time periods must be identified: Period 1) from when TM entered the complex until he ran and disappeared after walking by GZ’s truck; Period 2) after TM disappeared and GZ had followed for about 15 seconds and then spent about 2 minutes arranging where to meet the police (during which time TM was not in sight); and Period 3) the confrontation just before the fight and the fight.

    Here is the ABC article text with bracketed commentary interspersed:

    “”He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on.

    [occurred during TIME PERIOD 1, before TM ran. This is a neutral statement, GZ was sitting in his truck observing from a distance, TM at 6’3″ and 160-170lbs was probably annoyed at someone observing him]

    He said he lost the man,”

    [occurred during TIME PERIOD 2, DeeDee’s second sentence had to occur during time period 2 AFTER TM had run after passing GZ in his truck. Before TM ran, GZ was in his truck (not on foot) and only observing. TM was doing something (still unknown) while talking to DeeDee for several minutes after first entering the complex. There was no point at which TM had “lost the man” during time period 1 because there was no running and GZ was in his truck observing from a distance.]

    Martin’s friend said. “I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run.”

    [occurred at the end of TIME PERIOD 1 AGAIN. This is the ABC/Crump ‘magic’. ABC/Crump simply prodded DeeDee to juxtapose two reversed different points in time, thereby creating the false impression of TWO chases by GZ when only one 15 seconds of “following” occurred on the dispatcher tape after GZ exited his truck once TM ran and had disappeared.]

    Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he’d managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

    [occurred at the end of TIME PERIOD 1 AGAIN, in transition into time period 2, when TM ‘lost the man’. This was the single TM run on the dispatcher tape. ABC did this to reinforce and emphasize the previous deception of reversing two time periods in order to create the false impression of a continual repetitive chasing … from a single 15 second jog by GZ from his truck after TM first ran and diappeared]

    “Trayvon said, ‘What are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’

    [occurred during TIME PERIOD 3. ABC, in the edited DeeDee snippets I showed in a previous post, again completely removes Time Period 2, during which GZ, for 2 minutes, calmly talks to the dispatcher and says the suspect is not in sight. ABC has created out of thin air a direct, uninterrupted “stalking”/chase of TM by GZ.]

    Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn’t answer the phone.” The line went dead.

    [No mention is made by DeeDee that she hears any scuffling, only a ‘pushing’. Crump later tried to repair this issue of how the phone call ended. It is likely TM himself ended the call because he intended to confront and attack GZ.]

    Besides screams heard on 911 calls that night as Martin and Zimmerman scuffled, those were the last words he said.

    [No mention of DeeDee hearing scuffling, only the single ‘push’. Sounds of scuffling are attributed to later 911 calls and yells.]

    Crump, in other interviews, went on to embellish DeeDee’s brief statements in bizarre ways. He claimed DeeDee was hospitalized the next day and underwent a battery of tests among other incredible statements that he had to have known could ultimately be disproved. That is when the purported DeeDee tweets were purged.

    After Crump’s interview statement about DeeDee’s reaction to the shooting, DeeDee’s family fought having her give police interviews. DeeDee’s first statement to the police did not occur until 5 weeks after TM was shot, which was weeks after Crump’s DeeDee disclosures.

    I have no doubt that DeeDee and her family, after reading Crump’s bizarre statements about DeeDee’s post shooting actions, became afraid the Crump deception would be exposed and they would take the blame.

    Reply ↓

    • “…TM at 6’3″ and 160-170lbs was probably annoyed at someone observing him] ”

      I fail to see what bearing Trayvon’s height and weight have on whether he was annoyed or not.

      The call from Zimmerman to the police began at 7:09:34 PM, with Zimmerman first saying that Martin is running at 7:11:42 PM, what appears to be the sound of him exiting his vehicle at 7:11:48 PM, and the admonition “We don’t need you to do that” concluding by 7:12:04 PM, and the conversation ending at 7:13:39 PM.

      The 2 incoming calls ABC shows are both post 7 PM, the first lasting 1 minute and occuring at 7:04 PM and the second, lasting 4 minutes, occuring at 7:12 PM.

      Of course, the phone records aren’t as precise about fractions of minutes as the record of Zimmerman’s call to the police, but it would seem that the first of those 2 calls was over several minutes before Zimmerman’s call started, and that the second didn’t start until after Zimmerman announced that Martin was running and got out of his vehicle, and was in the middle of bieng told that the police didn’t need for him to follow Martin, so perhaps by the time Trayvon told her that Zimmerman was watching him and that he put his hoodie up, it was him recounting events from just prior to the call rather than a real time play by play, and the way the young lady recounted it was unintentionally misleading .

      If Trayvon said “there WAS a guy staring at me and I put my hoodie on”, or he says “There Is a guy staring at me and I’m putting my hoodie on”, by the time she recounts it, it’s all past tense “Trayvon said there was a guy staring at him and he put his hoodie on”.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • “Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he’d managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.”

      Don’t you think that if ABC actually had something as juicy as a witness saying this, they would have included the snippet of audio? Or was the lawyer “prodding” DeeDee (eg “after the strange man was back, cornering Travyon what did you hear?”)

      Martin’s football coach said that if anyone knew Martin, that he would have his hoodie on, even in the Miami summer, listening to his music. And it was raining.

      BTW, there is a Fox video of Craig Rivera (Gerardo’s brother) interviewing Brandy and Chad Green.

      In the exclusive interview it is revealed that:

      Chad thought of Trayvon as a ______.

      Chad like to _________ with Trayvon.

      Chad asked Trayvon to get him ________ at the store.

      This experience has taught Chad _________.

      Fill in the blanks before you find the video.

      Reply ↓

    • ““…TM at 6’3″ and 160-170lbs was probably annoyed at someone observing him] ”

      I fail to see what bearing Trayvon’s height and weight have on whether he was annoyed or not.”

      It eliminates the alternative explanation that Trayvon was in ‘fear’ of the ‘stalker’ but instead just annoyed with Zimmerman — a motive for the attack.

      Early on, on the dispatcher tape, Trayvon has no fear (as a 6’3″ 160-170 lb ‘tough guy’ teenager) of walking directly up to, and right by, Zimmerman’s truck and staring Zimmerman down … a clearly challenging action. So the running can be explained as simply that Trayvon didn’t like being observed (and not fear of Zimmerman), so he ran. It could further be inferred Trayvon ran because he was casing the area out.

      Trayvon was no stranger to the complex layout. In the past, he regularly visited Brandy and Chad (and bonded with his ‘step brother’ chad over a period of time). It is unbelievable to say he didn’t know of the simple layout of the two intersecting paths as a shortcut to the same store he must have visited many times in the past.

      Trayvon’s size bears heavily on any argument that he was ‘running for his life’ as opposed to trying to evade observation.

      Reply ↓

      • I think you’re kind of funny! You are so intent in showing Zimmerman’s innocence and placing all the blame on the victim that you no longer make much sense!
        Trayvon was ONLY a 17 year old. . .he wasn’t a jaded thug (unlike the picture many of the Zimmerman’s absolvers want to paint!) and, YES, he was concerned about an “older guy” following him! Sure, he went by “close” to Zimmerman’s SUV! How could he have not? Zimmerman’s SUV was parked directly on the most direct path to Martin’s home! And, sure he may have looked into the SUV while passing by. ..I too would have been intrigued by a man, sitting alone in a parked SUV on a rainy night! Obviously he looked at it! That doesn’t mean he met to attack it!. . .Once again. . .GZ’s paranoia made him believe he was coming “straight at him!”
        Face it. . .no one knows how this case will end. . .but one thing is sure and cannot be denied: An innocent teenager would be alive today without Zimmerman’s “suspicions” and his carrying a loaded gun and following the kid!

        Reply ↓

    • Do people in Florida (or other parts of the country) call SUV’s “trucks”?

      Reply ↓

      • I have always owned Grand Cherokee Jeeps but often use the term truck.

        Reply ↓

        • “jimrtex on May 1, 2012 at 12:13 am said:

          Do people in Florida (or other parts of the country) call SUV’s “trucks”?
          ”

          “WayneM on May 1, 2012 at 1:55 am said:

          I have always owned Grand Cherokee Jeeps but often use the term truck.”

          It sort of depends on whose doing the referring, and will be influenced by the person’s overall familiarity with the different brands and types of motor vehicles. If it doesn’t actually have a pickup bed some are likely to call it a car and others a truck, and maybe the same person will use both terms at different times. My brother’s got a 4-wheel drive land yacht and my mom is likely to call it either his car or his truck at any given time.

          Since I haven’t been able to find what I consider an authoritative source for what Zimmerman was driving, I’ve been referring to it as his vehicle.

          I would like to know what brand, model and color it is, and would also like to be able to again find online the photos I saw showing a smallish, silvery-colored SUV both that night and the next day, and I’d like it even more if I could find longer shots of the same thing that would better let me figure out exactly where it was parked and in which direction it was pointed.

          unitron

          Reply ↓

    • http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation

      On the local Fox video the next night on the news, a lot of the shots from the previous night are from east (east loop of Retreat View Circle). A patrol car has pulled up over the sidewalk as far north as you can go before you are blocked by the building to the north of the cut-through. He is at an angle so he can shine his headlights and searchlight towards the southwest, and can just barely get light into north-south sidewalk area.

      A police car would not naturally pull up in that position, but someone might later go move their patrol car to try to get better light. There are a couple of cars parked north and south along the curb, but those are not too likely.

      And there is one shot clear across the top of the T, showing a truck right in the corner of Twin Trees. And then on the next afternoon footage, there is a northward shot on the long-stretch of Twin Trees showing a truck.

      If the video show the truck, that is it. The night time shot almost looks like an extended cab, but they’re probably shooting with a telephoto, since there is police tape right along Retreat View Circle, and what looks like the second section of the side window, is the back window,

      The afternoon picture looks like the front wheels are turned slightly to the left.

      The Google satellite view has a truck in the same place.

      Reply ↓

48. unitron,

    I think we are both in agreement that the hoodie went up before TM ran down the path. My point only was that the act of putting on the hoodie is not very relevant one way or the other. To GZ, it is another (legitimate) minor ‘profiling’ element (a stranger hiding his face) and he doesn’t even take the time to mention it on the dispatcher tape. From MT’s point of view, any implication that MT put on the hoodie because of a ‘fear’ of GZ doesn’t also have much impact because at the time, before MT ran, he was even walking towards GZ in his truck which is not an act of fear. The ‘hoodie’ issue just doesn’t bring much to the table, one way or the other.

    As for the two calls timing, look at posts above where I and susan hashed through the phone records and I tried to examine both possibilities (the hoodie was not relevant).

    Reply ↓

    • When Zimmerman is first asked the race, he says “he looks black” with a bit of uncertainty. As Martin approaches, he confirms “yeah he’s a black male”, and when asks says he is “late teens”, again drawn out a bit as if making an assessment.

      This indicates the possibility that maybe the hood was up. The other persons Zimmerman reported were wearing tank tops and shorts and sandals, and a black leather jacket, black hat, and printed PJ pants.

      So obviously he his profiling on the dress.

      Reply ↓

    • People are trying to synchronize the young lady’s incoming call to Trayvon with Zimmerman’s outgoing call to the police department, and I’m making the point that Trayvon may have actually put up the hood of the hoodie at some point before he told her that he had done so, but that her describing, in the past tense, what she had heard could obscure whether Trayvon was relating his actions to her in the past or present tense.

      We really need to hear her under examination and cross-examination to be able to know if we can do any chronological correlation between her conversation with Trayvon, Zimmerman’s call to the police, and the various 911 calls.

      Also we need someone competent from Trayvon’s and the young lady’s respective cell phone companies to take us step by step through their respective full unredacted call records.

      And I still want to know about that 911 call on the day of Trayvon’s funeral and why the police didn’t buckle the seatbelt on Zimmerman when they put him in the back of the police car and drove him to the station (unless we’re supposed to believe that he unbuckled it himself with his teeth).

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • I assume the police, having handcuffed Zimmerman, didn’t feel it necessary to buckle him. I don’t find it particularly significant.

      -MM

      Reply ↓

      • “Mark Martinson on April 30, 2012 at 7:25 am said:

        I assume the police, having handcuffed Zimmerman, didn’t feel it necessary to buckle him. I don’t find it particularly significant.

        -MM”

        If the police car in which he was riding had to stop suddenly, or was hit by another vehicle, and an unrestrained Zimmerman was tossed around like a rag doll, sustaining who knows what kind of injuries, the city of Sanford could be looking at a major lawsuit.

        Not to mention that would be an excellent way to give Zimmerman some injuries he could claim were caused by Martin, or add injuries to those already inflicted by Martin, thus destroying or tampering, even if unintentionally, with evidence or potential evidence, although apparently that was not done, given how intact he looks getting out of the back of the police car with no help at all.

        In the old days cops sometimes did that deliberately so they could bounce people in the back off of the divider between the front and back seats to “tune them up” a little, either to encourage co-operation or just for sadistic sport or “street justice”.

        Not buckling him in for his own safety was grossly negligent.

        I’m beginning to wonder how well Sanford’s police are trained. I’m almost to the point of wondering if they are trained.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

49. Since DD was in fact on the phone with TM during part of this, I think we can conclude that what she heard contradicts the claim that GZ was the aggressor.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

    • “Mark Martinson on April 30, 2012 at 8:07 am said:

      Since DD was in fact on the phone with TM during part of this, I think we can conclude that what she heard contradicts the claim that GZ was the aggressor.

      -MM”

      I’m having a lot of trouble following the logic of that, or even finding any logic in it.

      If the young lady was on the phone with Trayvon at the right time she may have heard the beginning of the struggle, but unless either Zimmerman or Martin or both were careful to narrate for her benefit, she may not know whether Zimmerman tried to grab Martin and restrain him or whether Martin took a swing at Zimmerman out of fear or anger, or whether Zimmerman made a quick grab for his cell phone and Martin thought he was pulling a weapon and decided the best defense was a good offense, or what.

      Nothing that’s been reported so far of what she supposedly said she supposedly heard reveals who was the first to get physical or why.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

50. unitron,

    “We really need to hear her under examination and cross-examination to be able to know if we can do any chronological correlation between her conversation with Trayvon, Zimmerman’s call to the police, and the various 911 calls.”

    Correct.

    After 5 weeks, the State, and presumably the FBI, did exactly that.

    The result was displayed at the bond hearing when the lead investigator, under oath, said the State could not ascertain who the aggressor was (a devastating admission that had no strategic value and immeasurably harmed the State’s case).

    Compare that bond hearing admission to the silly ABC ‘interview’ with DeeDee that resulted in “case closed.” The interview with the carefully spliced audio of hand picked DeeDee snippets with interspersed ‘editorial’ summaries — of course, without hearing the ‘prodding’ (aka leading) questions — extensively analyzed in previous posts.

    Reply ↓

    • @Insp Gadget

      Zimmerman did a walk-through the next day with police, which his father observed from “a distance”. There is no reason to believe that Zimmerman had concocted an entire sequence the previous night when he had been interviewed for hours at the police station, and then had to walk through it the next day and hope it would match up.

      Zimmerman walked to the east end of the T to get the address and was then walking back to the west. He may well have come down the N-S sidewalk a few feet when Martin walked up. If he turned to call 911, the attack would have come from his left.

      If Zimmerman were going to try to catch Martin at the back gate, he would try to run down Twin Trees. He would use his truck. Martin had a 10 second head start. He said he was following, so why not believe him. 20 seconds gets him to the top of the T, where he couldn’t see Martin who had either run all the away across to the street or had gone south and either went between buildings or hid.

      Zimmerman tried to explain where he was at. He said to take the jog on Twin Trees and that “you’d see my truck”. The next part was likely to explain where he was. The dispatcher wanted to type an address into his computer. He then gets confused as to whether Zimmerman even lived in the area, and finally suggested the mailboxes. But it appears he had already typed that in before he asked Zimmerman.

      From where Zimmerman was at, he might have as well suggested the police officer meet him at Target. Zimmerman hopes he can talk a police officer to where he is at. It is pretty simple if you can get them to go straight through.

      Then while he is waiting, he realized what the dispatcher’s problem is. He needed a street address.

      Reply ↓

    • Thanks, I did not know anyone had observed the walk through, that helps. If the white truck were his then it doesn’t make sense to me with the timeline. It would seem to place his truck much further back somewhere closer to the first bldg after the turn to make sense with him loosing sight of Travon. Granted Zimmerman isn’t a Football Player but he isn’t in a walker either.

      Reply ↓

    • @Insp Gadget

      If Martin had come past, then he might be around where the sidewalk turns from SW-NE to east-west. The sidewalk is not actually parallel to the north ends of the buildings, but parallel to the back of the east-west houses. The north loop of Retreat View Circle has a tiny (5 degree) bend before it turns south. This is to accommodate the intersection where Oregon turns (the city probably wanted a set back from the corner so you had better visibility).

      So as a consequence the sidewalk is slightly angling in toward the north ends of the building. Zimmerman would be looking through his passenger window, and then Martin started running through the back window. If that is the truck, the rear view mirror is useless.

      It’s not clear how well lit the sidewalks are. Since there are not sidewalks on many of the streets, it is intended that people use the sidewalks which is how you get to the clubhouse in particular, It would a horrible liability issue, especially around the detention pond which is fairly deep (10 feet?). So there may be some lighting, perhaps on low lights that illuminate the sidewalks, and it looks like there are some lights on the back of buildings. But not real bright either.

      BTW try the Bing map, since it gives you aerial photos that are at an angle – and most of them are when the neighborhood was under construction.

      If you look at the Fox video when they are looking west through the cut-through and show the truck. If you look at the cluster of police officers, and then just to there west is someone walking toward them who is barely visible. Of course you have the spotlight, so the lighting conditions aren’t any way similar.

      Zimmerman reports Martin running. The dispatcher asks which way? The door opens. As Zimmerman gets out of the truck and says other entrance, it is about 5 seconds before the door shuts, and possibly another 3 before Zimmerman starts moving.

      Martin could easily be to the T and heading south, or continuing on across to Retreat View. 20 seconds at a fast walk, trot as he talks on the phone, and perhaps slowing at the end – the most likely reason he didn’t instantly stop was to get to the T and look south.

      At 30 seconds, Martin could be close to home, or cut between buildings. Zimmerman stands there, wondering where Martin went as he talks on the phone. He eventually decides to walk to the east to get a street address and probably take a look down Retreat View.

      Reply ↓

    • That makes some sense but there is still the Google Earth question, it appears to be a similar or the same White Truck on Google Earth, the date stamp at the bottom in pretty much useless anyway but it says 1/31/2012. Google could have deliberately picked satellite imagery from the day after but if it is the same truck then it could be someone that just likes parking there and the media has fixed on it as Zimmerman’s Truck.

      Reply ↓

    • Google Earth has the same image as Google Maps and has a date of 1/3/2012.

      BTW, Google Earth has some historical satellite images, so you can see the area when it was a bunch of trees.

      Reply ↓

51. Here is an analysis I have done on my own before finding your page. I would likw to compare notes about the locations and approaches to see what I may have missed. I initially took a video made that night and the next morning to place the shooting taking place about 5 yards south of the East West walkway. From that way it sounds Zimmerman initially went south out of his truck, if he headed on the walkway I believe he would have said so, also if he were running East along the E-W walkway and turned south he would have been well past the point where he was shot Martin if he kept following Martin. Going east first does not really make sense to either cut off or follow Martin, going south makes far better sense for both of them. Martin cutting through between the second and third building, seeing Zimmerman in the middle portion between the first and second bldg and doubling back seems to be more likely, if Martin had gone into the open on the N-S walkway Zimmerman would have seen Martin. This seems to place Zimmerman walking North at this point along the N-S walkway. If Martin ran North along Twin Trees to cut off Zimmerman before he got to his truck that would put them meeting behind the 1st apt on the 1st bldg on the other side of the bldg from his truck. This would also explain Zimmerman being attacked from the left side at that point because of the buildings you are approaching the point the police were looking at in the video from directly West or South. Zimmerman heading north on the walkway being approached/attacked from the left (direction of his truck) at the end of the bldg.

    Here is a Google Map I put together to try and determine the chain of events:
    http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000820538040#!/photo.php?fbid=375987882438560&set=a.375987752438573.75828.10000082

    Here is my original post at http://www.ijreview.com/2012/04/4384-details-of-the-real-george-zimmerman-may-change-case/

    Go to google Earth or Google Maps and look up this address:
    1111 Retreat View Cir, Sanford, FL 32771, USA

    This is the North Primary entrance to the gated Community. If you zoom out to where you can see the entire community you will see what he called the Back Entrance on the South East corner facing East.

    As you look at the row of buildings on the East Side of the Community with a North-South walkway between the backyards of 6 buildings (3 facing east, 3 facing west) this is the primary area you are concerned with. Martin was apparently staying at the southern most apt. on the east side of this set facing the back entrance.

    Here is a video taken that night and the next morning
    http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in…-neighborhood-altercation

    At 32s was taken on the east end of the north facing bldg (the bldgs back is the East-West walkway that T’s the North-South walkway we are concerned with)

    At 40s you are looking at the crime scene across the police car you saw at time 32 at the T where the North-South walkway ends on the East West walkway.

    At 50s you can see Zimmermans White truck parked at the other end of the east-west walkway on twin trees drive. This is also confirmed when Zimmerman gives directions:

    Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the
    club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they
    go past the mailboxes, that’s my truck…[unintelligible]

    at 58s you see Tracy Martin standing at the North End of the North-South walkway looking at where his son was killed.

    At 1:37 you can still see Zimmerman’s truck in the background at the end of the walkway the next day filming north on Twin Trees Dr while Zimmerman was still being questioned.

    This places the entire confrontation 50 yards walking from Zimmerman’s truck down the East-West path and turning 5 yards down the North South path to where Martin was killed at the back of the first Apt. 130 yards north of the back door of the house he was staying at. 130 yards east of the Shack he was standing at to get out of the rain.

    Here is the transcript of the call GZ made to the Police. For sake of characters I have replaced Zimmerman: with GZ: and Dispatcher: with PD:, My comments are in (). I also recommend you listen to the full audio.

    PD: Sanford Police Department. …
    GZ: Hey we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
    PD:OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?
    GZ: He looks black.
    PD: Did you see what he was wearing?
    GZ: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpan…ts and whit…e tennis shoes. He’s [unintelligible], he was just staring…
    PD: OK, he’s just walking around the area…
    GZ: …looking at all the houses.
    PD: OK…
    GZ: Now he’s just staring at me.
    PD: OK—you said it’s 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?
    GZ: That’s the clubhouse…
    PD: That’s the clubhouse, do you know what the—he’s near the clubhouse right now?
    GZ: Yeah, now he’s coming towards me.
    (This places Martin on the East-West leg of Twin Trees Dr. heading East, Zimmerman is looking out the front of his parked truck at looking West at Martin.)
    PD:OK.
    GZ: He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.
    PD: How old would you say he looks?
    GZ: He’s got button on his shirt, late teens.
    PD: Late teens ok.
    GZ: Something’s wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out, he’s got something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is.
    PD: Just let me know if he does anything ok
    GZ: How long until you get an officer over here?
    PD: Yeah we’ve got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
    GZ: Okay. These assholes they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.
    PD: So it’s on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
    GZ: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left…uh you go straight in, don’t turn, and make a left. Shit he’s running.
    (This is where you hear Zimmerman open his door.)
    PD: He’s running? Which way is he running?
    (this places Travon on the south leg of Twin Trees heading south toward where he is staying.)
    GZ: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
    PD: Which entrance is that that he’s heading towards?
    GZ: The back entrance…fucking [unintelligible]
    PD: Are you following him?
    GZ: Yeah
    PD: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.
    GZ: Ok
    PD: Alright sir what is your name?
    GZ: George…He ran.
    PD: Alright George what’s your last name?
    (This is where all the wind across the mic stops. The Lead Investigator admits under Oath that he has no Evidence that Zimmerman did not stop following Martin.)
    GZ: Zimmerman
    PD: And George what’s the phone number you’re calling from?
    GZ: [redacted by Mother Jones]
    PD: Alright George we do have them on the way, do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
    GZ: Alright, where you going to meet with them at?
    GZ: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that’s my truck…[unintelligible]
    (The truck is at the end of the East-West Walkway)
    PD: What address are you parked in front of?
    GZ: I don’t know, it’s a cut through so I don’t know the address.
    (He would have had to cut through between the first and second bldg heading south on Twin Trees, now he has to work around to the north to the front of the Bldg to get the address where he is parked so he appears to start heading North on the North-South walkway)
    PD: Okay do you live in the area?
    GZ: Yeah, I…[unintelligible](Cut off by PD)
    PD: What’s your apartment number?
    GZ: It’s a home it’s 1950, oh crap I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t know where this kid is.
    (At this point he does not know where Martin is, in order for there to be a confrontation, either he has to find Martin, or Martin has to find him. The Lead Detective has admitted under oath that he does not know who found who, but has no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s story.)
    PD: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
    GZ: Yeah that’s fine.
    PD: Alright George, I’ll let them know to meet you around there okay?
    GZ: Actually could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?
    PD: Okay, yeah that’s no problem.
    GZ: Should I give you my number or you got it?
    PD: Yeah I got it [redacted by Mother Jones]
    GZ: Yeah you got it.
    PD: Okay no problem, I’ll let them know to call you when you’re in the area.
    GZ: Thanks.
    (Given that it was a minute and a half from the end of the call to the shots and Martin was already South of him, Martin would have had to double back in order for the confrontation to happen at all especially at the North End of the walkway, Zimmerman was heading along the walkway heading north in order to turn West at the East-West walkway and proceed another 50yds to his truck and to the front of the Bldg to find the address. Zimmerman’s family said he was attacked from the left side, this would mean the Martin turned around and ran north on Twin Trees and turned east at the corner of the Northern most Apt in order to beat Zimmerman to the corner of the Apt and attack him from the left side where the shooting occurred.)

    Reply ↓

    • Here is an updated link, I am confident about my location for Travons body, as far as the truck goes numerous News outlets have identified that as his truck, My analysis is based on that being his truck, but if he is in fact parked further up the street or on the other side of the road in a different vehicle, that may change my analysis in an of itself.

      http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation

      Reply ↓

      • Sorry, Susan, arrests with no convictions mean squeaky clean to a lot of people including me .

        Reply ↓

52. ” StanS on April 30, 2012 at 6:19 pm said:

    ““…TM at 6’3″ and 160-170lbs was probably annoyed at someone observing him] ”

    I fail to see what bearing Trayvon’s height and weight have on whether he was annoyed or not.”

    It eliminates the alternative explanation that Trayvon was in ‘fear’ of the ‘stalker’ but instead just annoyed with Zimmerman — a motive for the attack. ”

    Okay, so Zimmerman’s sitting in his ride staring daggers at Trayvon, but Trayvon’s sure that he himself is big and bad and can take this Bozo.

    Then Bozo gets out to follow him on foot, apparently, though having just seen how big Trayvon is, unafraid of him, and also letting Trayvon see that Zimmerman ain’t no small boy, either.

    At that point perhaps Trayvon’s asking himself why this guy, who certainly isn’t wearing a “welcome to the neighborhood smile”, isn’t afraid of him, and maybe wondering if he’s packing something more than just muscle.

    I’m sure Trayvon would have been annoyed, regardless of his size, but annoyance might not have been all that he was feeling.

    If he had no fear of Zimmerman, and was spoiling for a fight, why wouldn’t he just turn around and walk right up to Zimmerman when Zimmerman got out, and launch into a verbal, soon to be physical, confrontation right there?

    “Early on…Trayvon has no fear… of walking directly up to, and right by, Zimmerman’s truck and staring Zimmerman down … a clearly challenging action.”

    No more so than Zimmerman sitting there giving him the evil eye.

    “So the running can be explained as simply that Trayvon didn’t like being observed (and not fear of Zimmerman), so he ran. It could further be inferred Trayvon ran because he was casing the area out.

    Trayvon was no stranger to the complex layout. In the past, he regularly visited Brandy and Chad (and bonded with his ‘step brother’ chad over a period of time). It is unbelievable to say he didn’t know of the simple layout of the two intersecting paths as a shortcut to the same store he must have visited many times in the past.”

    So he knows his way around the place (is even said on previous visits to have played football with some of the local kids in that same behind the houses area where he died), but still needs to be out in the dark and the rain casing the clubhouse which he previously could have closely observed in the daytime?

    “Trayvon’s size bears heavily on any argument that he was ‘running for his life’ as opposed to trying to evade observation.”

    If some creep is staring at me, even if I’m not in physical fear of him, I might very well choose to deal with the situation by just removing myself from his line of sight if I was already on the way to somewhere else anyway. And if I thought there was a little bit of a possibility of a threat as well, I might decide to remove myself from his line of sight a little more quickly, and check to be sure he was staying put.

    unitron

    Reply ↓

53. Sadanie,

    Didn’t you get the memo about Trayvon being a ninja warrior criminal mastermind who hates all Hispanics on the off chance that they’re Cuban?

    unitron

    Reply ↓

54. Are you serious? Where is the memo?

    Reply ↓

    • If only Tim Berners-Lee had forseen the need for a sarcasm tag as part of html.

      I reproduce here Sadanie’s post to which WordPress is too primative and flaky to allow me to respond directly.

      “Sadanie on April 30, 2012 at 7:34 pm said:

      I think you’re kind of funny! You are so intent in showing Zimmerman’s innocence and placing all the blame on the victim that you no longer make much sense!
      Trayvon was ONLY a 17 year old. . .he wasn’t a jaded thug (unlike the picture many of the Zimmerman’s absolvers want to paint!) and, YES, he was concerned about an “older guy” following him! Sure, he went by “close” to Zimmerman’s SUV! How could he have not? Zimmerman’s SUV was parked directly on the most direct path to Martin’s home! And, sure he may have looked into the SUV while passing by. ..I too would have been intrigued by a man, sitting alone in a parked SUV on a rainy night! Obviously he looked at it! That doesn’t mean he met to attack it!. . .Once again. . .GZ’s paranoia made him believe he was coming “straight at him!”
      Face it. . .no one knows how this case will end. . .but one thing is sure and cannot be denied: An innocent teenager would be alive today without Zimmerman’s “suspicions” and his carrying a loaded gun and following the kid!”

      unitron

      Reply ↓

      • This string has become so long , it is not easy to keep up. Thanks for the laugh.

        Reply ↓

    • “If only Tim Berners-Lee had forseen the need for a sarcasm tag as part of html.”

      He is British, I believe they only use irony.

      Reply ↓

55. If DD heard that someone was following TM, had words with him, and had an altercation with him, then why didn’t she call 911 or try to contact TM’s parents?

    And by Monday she heard that TM was dead. She didn’t think that she should go to the police and tell them that she heard? Some guy killed TM but she didn’t go to the cops?

    DD’s story is a lie, flat and simple.

    Most likely [Martin] told her not to call the cops or him because he was going to solve things.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

56. And another thing, I thought Trayvon’s father Tracy Martin only showed the cell phone bill to that guy from ABC. How did a West Coast NBC affiliate (whose web site refuses to load for me for some reason) get hold of a version of it with a missing column (numbers dialed or dialing in) and a proviso that the times are all Pacific Time Zone, which shows a 4 minute incoming call at what would be 10:12 PM Florida time, at which point the police should have custody of the phone?

    How can we have any faith that it’s authentic and obtained legally?

    Reply ↓

    • It looks like it is from an online display, and probably a photocopy of a hard printout, because the lines of text aren’t always square with the PDF. This is perfectly obvious on the first few pages. If you go directly from screen to printer, you won’t have a tilt like that.

      And on the page with the PDT/PST comment, they might have combined two pages. The text for the phone calls is more closely aligned with the page, than the text at the bottom.

      It is unlikely Tracy Martin showed the cell phone bill to anyone. Crump publicity flacks would have. They might have shopped the story. Maybe the quotes weren’t good enough, or maybe NBC wouldn’t agree to the conditions of exclusivity.

      Reply ↓

57. Susan,

    I read your updated timeline and I have a question/observation:

    Here below is another version of the ABC News DeeDee interview. It has a different snippet of DeeDee’s interview (The actual text is transcribed on the video).

    A summary of what she says is: Trayvon told her a man had been following him and was doing so while they were talking. So she told him to run. She hears Trayvon immediately running away from Zimmerman so hard that he became out of breath. The video, at the time DeeDee is talking, shows looking down the long intersecting path between the two rows of buildings and implies the running was immediately before the fight.

    I can find no place in your time line that corresponds to DeeDee’s statements in the different ABC video above.

    So my question is: Where does the above DeeDee statement to ABC News occur in your time line?

    Your timeline says that at “7:09:34 pm: Zimmerman, in his truck, spots Trayvon.” That is the start of the dispatcher tape and from then on Trayvon is moving towards Zimmerman and, according to your time line, Zimmerman did not see Trayvon before the call started. At that time, Zimmerman is not following Trayvon because he is in his truck and Trayvon is moving towards him. Also, Trayvon is seeing Zimmerman at that time but is not trying to get away from Zimmerman, only walk past him. At 7:11:42 on the tape, Trayvon runs. So DeeDee’s rendition in the above ABC video, can not be referring to the 7:11:42 running by Trayvon on your timeline.

    The only other time DeeDee’s rendition above could have occurred is leading up to the fight, at about 7:15:30, which is during the 1-1 1/2 minute interval after Zimmerman hung up with the dispatcher. But if Zimmerman was following Trayvon (as DeeDee says) at that time, and Trayvon starts running far enough to get out of breath (20-30 seconds of hard running?), that is a long distance for a fit 6’3″ high schooler to go (at least 100-120 yards, which is longer than the back intersecting path to Trayvon’s apt).

    If they both ended up within 20 feet of the intersecting paths for the fight and they ran over 100 yards (based on DeeDee’s rendition), where did (or could) that chase have begun from so far away? Her story makes no sense since the running would have had to start well over 100 yards away. A real chase had to have occurred (under her version) because Trayvon was running AWAY from Zimmerman, who was following behind him according to DeeDee.

    Any purported chase just before the fight also, necessarily, assumes that Zimmerman was fast enough to catch up with Trayvon a doubtful assumption given their ages and physiques.

    ABC, removed the above snippet version and, instead, used the one on the ABC News website linked to in your timeline.

    Your time line, using the ABC article you link to (with its other DeeDee video) concludes the running was at 7:11:42. However, the above DeeDee statement doesn’t fit your timeline at that time and doesn’t fit the only other possible time at just before 715:30. So when did the running occur using the above tape?

    DeeDee is lying somewhere or giving inconsistent interviews.

    It look like ABC News, after seeing that the above video version did not fit the facts, went back to the “drawing” board and re-edited and rearranged her snippets and inserted their editorial comments to come up with the version you used that is on the ABC News website.

    Reply ↓

    • Maybe ABC noticed that Gutman said that Martin was 70 feet from home, and that Zimmerman arrived at the police station 4 hours later. Rather than reshooting his narration, they completely edited a different version.

      Reply ↓

    • That part about 70 feet (it was really 70+ yards) could have been re-dubbed by Gutman. The key is the DeeDee interview snippet and when that different version (from the ABC website video) could have possibly occurred.

      Reply ↓

58. Stan,

    Maybe you are giving too much credit to ABC in coming up with a consistent narrative. The media has been completely wrong on this story and perhaps it is just sloppy reporting.

    On the other hand, note the claim that DD “heard it all until this moment” and then ABC plays a 911 call with a gun shot. So the claim apparently is either that she heard the entire altercation up to and including the shot or, perhaps, just before the shot. Crump said at his 3/20 press conference that she heard the beginning of the altercation and the phone got disconnected.

    The video showing a house and saying that TM died “just 70 feet from home” implies that this was his home, TM was almost home, and but for GZ he would have made it there. The affidavit doesn’t say this and says that he was trying to get home and GZ prevented him. I think we are going to get a TM was lost narrative at trial.

    But the investigator was asked if there was any evidence bearing on who started the altercation and he said no. DD claims (as related by Crump) that she, in effect, heard GZ push TM, and that TM’s ear piece fell off.

    The more DD heard the less plausible her post 7:16 PM behavior (failing to call 911, the parents, etc.) becomes, so I think the prosecution will have to dial back her narrative by the time of trial. It looks like they are already doing it.

    Crump says DD and TM were on the phone for hours that day. It was only 7:16 PM. Did she try to call him later that night? If so, what did she do when she got no answer of voice mail? If not, why not?

    Reply ↓

    • MM,

      My point is simple. It is easy to show how ABC News cooperates in fabricating a false image of what happened in order to “convict” Zimmerman in the public eye. However, in a court of law, where a defense is being raised, nonsensical arguments and false ‘facts’ will be valueless. This applies to DeeDee as a witness for the State.

      There are so many holes in DeeDee’s public statements (as few as they are) and the Crump/ABC hearsay statements for DeeDee, that I would be amazed if the State even dares to call her as a witness — though I must admit, I have seen many stupid things done in court proceedings, so anything is possible.

      Reply ↓

    • Stan,

      I will say that ABC did show an enhanced video of Z at the police station more clearly showing his injuries and also first presented the photo of his head taken at the scene. But the DD stories were jokes.

      I think the prosecution will have to call DD to have a chance of conviction on Murder 2.

      -MM

      Reply ↓

      • “Stan,

        I will say that ABC did show an enhanced video of Z at the police station more clearly showing his injuries …”

        Well, they showed what they called “enhanced” “re-digitized” video, with their graphics covering the best view of the top of his head, and then showed a “still”, a single field or frame allegedly from that video, which has a couple of dark marks on the top, not the back, of his head, but for all we know they were shadows or artifacts of the re-digitizing. They never show a moving picture where those marks are visible for longer than an eyeblink.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • ABC’s first video was edited to place the ABC logo (with a greyed out area) squarely covering the view of the back of Zimmerman’s head when he exited the car. They also used a grainy photo. The theme of the article was that Zimmerman had no injuries. The subtext was Zimmerman was a liar and probable murderer. Given the thrust of the article — evidence concerning Zimmerman’s guilt — the tape should have immediately been enhanced and the ABC logo should never have been placed where it was. It was deliberate.

      ABC’s initial story, as presented, was a type of ‘frame-up’ of Zimmerman … not an objective news article..

      Reply ↓

59. For anyone interested, the Miami Herald retracted its claim Zimmerman had called the police 46 times since January 2011. The correct count was 46 times since 2004 not 2011:

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/17/2700249/trayvon-martin-shooter-a-habitual.html

    At the bottom of the article is says:

    “This article was amended to reflect the following correction: Due to incorrect information provided by the Sanford Police, the Herald misstated the course of time in which George Zimmerman called police 46 times. The calls began in 2004, not Jan. 2011.”

    Also, the article reports:

    “police records, which show that 50 suspicious-person reports were called in to police in the past year at Twin Lakes. There were eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting in the year prior to Trayvon’s death.

    In all, police had been called to the 260-unit complex 402 times from Jan. 1, 2011 to Feb. 26, 2012.

    “He once caught a thief and an arrest was made,” said Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowners association. “He helped solve a lot of crimes.””

    So Zimmerman was hardly the ‘hyperactive” vigilante so widely, and inaccurately, portrayed in the press.

    Reply ↓

    • ” “He once caught a thief and an arrest was made,” said Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowners association. “He helped solve a lot of crimes.”” ”

      Which would probably not have discouraged him from being “pro-active” that night when he should have been getting back in his vehicle to await the police.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • unitron,

      You said:
      “Which would probably not have discouraged him from being “pro-active” that night when he should have been getting back in his vehicle to await the police.”

      I have no idea what the nebulous term “pro-active” means … but, unfortunately, you will probably take a while to explain it to us.

      Also, I am now certainly sure that Zimmerman would have been just fine if you were at the scene to advise him … and not the police dispatcher.

      Reply ↓

      • “pro-active” is a “retro-nym” derived from reactive. It means doing something first instead of waiting to react to events. It fills a void that exists due to the lack of a real word that means exactly the same thing.

        If he previously “caught” a thief who was subsequently arrested and “helped solve a lot of crimes” and received public thanks and recognition, that could well have been incentive to continue to try to ascertain Martin’s whereabouts so as to direct the police right to him when they arrived. It might even have been incentive to, upon encountering Martin, actually grab him to hold him for the police.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

60. I wonder if the defense will call DD. If she didn’t call 911, the Martins or even TM after 7:16 then I think that it’s strong evidence that TM was planning on confronting GZ. And we haven’t heard Crump claim that TM informed DD that he was lost.

    It would probably be too big of a risk.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

    • Whatever DD did about calling 911 is definitely not any evidence at all that Trayvon was planning on confronting Zimmerman.

      Reply ↓

    • Everything DeeDee did and said is evidence (including her ABC News statements).

      This includes: what happened before, during and after the calls; all that was said by TM and her during the calls; her actions (or inaction) during the weeks after the shooting; who she spoke to about the calls after the shooting and what she said to them; her tweets etc. showing her frame of mind.

      All of the above is evidence reflecting on her testimony’s credibility at trial. The only issue is the degree of significance of that cumulative evidence to jurors in their forming of alternative inferences about her testimony and its credibility or accuracy … if she ever testifies.

      Reply ↓

61. It think it’s assuming way to much to conclude that someone would run away from someone else (which we already know for a fact from Zimmerman’s tape) and then turn around and run after them.

    Reply ↓

62. I think it’s very possible that Trayvon may have run down behind the second row of buildings and then backtracked when he found himself in an unfamiliar area.

    Reply ↓

63. Does anyone know if the guy “John” who claimed to witness the struggle ever called 911 that night?

    Reply ↓

    • This is “John’s” 911 call:
      [audio src="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trayvon_Martin_Shooting_Call2.ogg" /]

      Reply ↓

64. Hello It’sMe. Thanks for the link! Unfortunately my computer tells me I don’t have the softward to access it.

    Questions to It’sMe (or anyone)
    -Would you happen to know of a different link?
    -I’ve heard all the recordings that were originally released by the Sanford City police. I think there was only one adult male caller in those original releases. Was this the 911 call from “John”? Or was another call from “John” released later?

    If “John’s” call was the one from the male caller originally released with the others by Sanford City police, he didn’t offer the same details to the police that he offered to Fox.

    Reply ↓

    • He wouldn’t in a 911 call.

      His full statement would be in the interview he gave with the police on the night of the incident. That has not been released (nor should it be).

      Reply ↓

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

      Search for “Zimmerman cell phone call to police”

      Go here and click on the links. My browser (Firefox) plays it. If I download one of the ogg files, Windows doesn’t know how to play it. There is a note just below that tells how to get the software.to play it. One or the other should work.

      John uses odd sentence structures, almost as if if he is narrating a scene in which he is a participant. On his 911 call he says, “I am thinking that there must be other people calling.” You can here some of the same in the interview.

      The 911 dispatchers weren’t doing interviews. They were trying to handle the calls as quick as possible, and trying to see if there were any people fleeing, etc. In the middle of John’s 911 call, there is a 10-second gap where you can hear background phone noises like another call was being picked up (its not like the sound where they blanked out the names and addresses).

      The police did interviews that night (the original police reports have 6 or 7 witnesses, in addition to listing Zimmerman and Martin’s body.

      Reply ↓

    • John’s interview is on the video here:
      http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1phFMGCu4

      His 911 call is the second call found on this page, below Zimmerman’s call. (Hit page down 3 times to find the 911 calls). Yes, John is the only male caller:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_1354909.html?ref=mostpopular

      Reply ↓

65. Here is a statement by Sanford City Comissioner Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr. on the Sanford PD’s actions and restrictions in the Zimmerman case. Their legal reasoning matches my understanding of FL Law as well. This can be found on the Sanford PD’s website.

    ———————

    Fellow Citizens:

    There has been a lot of media attention to the recent incident where George
    Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. This is indeed a tragic situation and has
    caused a flood of questions and strong emotions from within our community, the region
    and nation. On behalf of the employees of the City of Sanford, Our deepest sympathy
    and prayers go out to the family and friends of Trayvon Martin. As a father, I can only
    image the pain Trayvon’s family must be going through. The City of Sanford is
    committed to insuring that justice is served and, therefore, the City of Sanford has
    contacted the United States Attorney General’s Office for assistance in this matter.
    In an effort to continue to be as responsive as possible to the public seeking information on
    the incident, I have asked Chief Lee to provide answers to some of the most frequently
    asked questions regarding this matter. Below are his responses. Please understand that
    since this is still an ongoing investigation, the Police Department is limited in what
    information it can publicly release.

    The men and women of the Sanford Police Department extend our heartfelt
    sympathies to the Martin family. This is indeed a tragic situation. The death of
    anyone due to violence, especially a 17 year old young man, is morally appalling. As
    this incident has generated a lot of media attention, we wanted to provide answers to
    some of the most frequently asked questions.

    Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?

    When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr.
    Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time
    was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law
    enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and
    circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an
    arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the
    arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in
    bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.

    According to Florida Statute 776.032 :
    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use
    of force.—

    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is
    justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action
    for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law
    enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance
    of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance
    with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have
    known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the
    term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or
    prosecuting the defendant.

    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the
    use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the
    person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the
    force that was used was unlawful.

    Why weren’t the 911 tapes initially released?

    There are exemptions to the public records laws for active criminal intelligence and
    for ongoing investigations. In this instance, the 911 calls made by neighbors in the
    subdivision, and the non-emergency call made by Mr. Zimmerman are all key to the
    investigation by Sanford Police Department. In consultation with the Office of the
    State Attorney, the Sanford police department had decided not to release the audio
    recordings of the 911 calls due to the ongoing investigation. Many times, specific
    information is contained in those recordings which is vital to the integrity of the
    investigation. At the time, it was determined that if revealed, the information may
    compromise the integrity of the investigation prior to its completion. The 911 tapes
    have since been released.

    Why did Mr. Zimmerman have a firearm in his possession while acting in the
    role of a neighborhood watch member?

    Mr. Zimmerman holds a concealed weapon permit issued from the State of Florida.
    He is authorized to carry the weapon in a concealed manner wherever Florida
    Statute dictates. Neighborhood Watch programs are designed for members of a
    neighborhood to be “eyes and ears” for police and to watch out for their neighbors.
    They are not members of the Police Department nor are they vigilantes. Training
    provided by law enforcement agencies to Neighborhood Watch organizations
    stresses non-contact surveillance of suspicious situations and notifying police of
    those situations so that law enforcement can respond and take control of the
    situation.

    Mr. Zimmerman was not acting outside the legal boundaries of Florida Statute by
    carrying his weapon when this incident occurred. He was in fact on a personal
    errand in his vehicle when he observed Mr. Martin in the community and called the
    Sanford Police Department.

    If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be
    considered in this investigation?

    Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you
    following him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do
    that”. The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be
    required to follow. Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and
    was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by
    Trayvon.

    Why was George Zimmerman labeled as “squeaky clean” when in fact he has
    a prior arrest history?

    In one of the initial meetings with the father of the victim the investigator related to
    him the account that Mr. Zimmerman provided of the incident. At that time the
    investigator said that Mr. Zimmerman portrayed himself to be “squeaky clean”. We
    are aware of the background information regarding both individuals involved in this
    event. We believe Mr. Martin may have misconstrued this information.
    What about media reenactments of the shooting incident?

    Any media reenactments of the shooting incident are purely speculation. To date the
    Sanford Police Department has not released any rendition of the events of the
    evening to anyone other than the Office of the State Attorney. The renditions we
    have seen are not consistent with the evidence in this case.

    The Sanford Police Department has conducted a complete and fair investigation of
    this incident. We have provided the results of our investigation to the Office of the
    State Attorney for their review and consideration for possible criminal prosecution.
    Although the Police Department is the target of the troubling questions, let me
    assure you we too feel the pain of this senseless tragedy that has dramatically
    affected our community. Therefore, as we move forward and strive to answer the
    questions that are a point of controversy in the community, we ask for your patience,
    understanding and assistance in getting the correct information to the community
    We trust that this information is helpful to you.

    Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., ICMA-CM
    City Manager
    March 23, 2012

    Reply ↓

    • Thank you Insp Gadget! A good touch of sanity.

      Reply ↓

    • From the beginning, the most interesting part of that letter has been, to me, the almost blatant admission that Zimmerman lied to investigators about his arrest record.

      Mr. Martin “misconstrued” the fact that the investigator was relaying what Zimmerman had said, not what the police department was saying.

      Zimmerman’s minimization of the charges against him is nothing new, though, judging by his MySpace page.

      Reply ↓

      • I was once arrested for a serious crime. Those cops are lucky to be alive today but if someone asked me about my criminal record, I don’t have one.

        Reply ↓

    • Except that by your own admission, you do, and stating otherwise in the course of a police investigation is a lie that would rightfully cast doubt upon your credibility.

      As would lying, while under oath, about your access to funds.

      Reply ↓

    • Two points about the Zimmerman “misconstrued” issue:

      1.Zimmerman, as a layman, could easily have believed that given a) what he was actually asked, and b) the resolution and circumstances of a 5 year old ‘record’, he was giving a reasonable answer.

      2. Most importantly, the issue of “perjury” in answering a police officer question (we don’t know what the question was), depends on the statement made and its significance (its “materiality”). A non material purported ‘lie’ never results in a perjury charge. Indeed, they can be quite common in both criminal and civil court cases.

      A minor 5 year old incident has very little materiality on the issue at that particular moment of taking statements in a self-defense case. Notably, even the probable cause affidavit didn’t make an issue of the 5-year old incident. If that is what the prosecution is hanging their hat on at trial, Zimmerman should be immediately released since the trial will be an exercise in futility.

      3. Also notably, Zimmerman’s ‘record’ was known about within days, yet he was not immediately arrested for ‘lying’, thereby making it clear any possible misstatement on that matter was not material to the investigation at the time.

      Reply ↓

      • Doesn’t anyone know of his past relationship with the Sanford PD? Is there a reason why that has not been discussed or did I miss it? Remember that he also protested against two of the officers who were there that night in the Ware case. Don’t you think they knew who he was?

        Reply ↓

    • He was charged with two felonies. One for assault and battery of an officer and resisting arrest. One for domestic violence. This qualifies as “a minor incident” to you?

      Saying your record is “squeaky clean” when you have this background is not an answer that tends to show a willingness to be forthright and honest, even when the truth may be inconvenient for you.

      You can’t justify Zimmerman’s lack of veracity by saying “welp, that alone isn’t enough to arrest him for, therefore who cares if he sometimes halfway lies!” I never said that his known indiscretions with the truth are remotely sufficient grounds to base an arrest on — but that doesn’t make them irrelevant, either.

      I’m not talking about perjury. I’m talking about credibility. This is impeachment material, not evidence for the case in chief.

      Reply ↓

    • The way that is written up seems deliberately vague to me, the officer was talking to Tracy Martin (Father) about what Zimmerman had described himself as. That is kind of answering without answering, since no action was apparently taken about it I would ignore it. In questioning it is perjury to lie to the police, it is perfectly lawful for the police to lie to you. They may have been fishing to find out if Travon would be the type of person that would attack Zimmerman, or would break into houses.

      Reply ↓

      • Where is a current link to the statement?

        Reply ↓

    • This is the Statement itself from the Sanford PD website.

      Click to access Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

      This is where you can get the Neighborhood Watch information and handbook as well. Most of the Zimmerman specific stuff was removed at the direction of the prosecutor.
      http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html

      Click to access NWProgramHandbook.pdf

      —–

      Just for the heck of it here are some other links I have gathered.

      Here in the initial Police Report from the night of the incident.

      Click to access martinpolicreport.pdf

      This is the 911 Call from Zimmerman, ignore the comments section it does not help either way.
      

      Here is the PDF Transcript of the call

      Click to access full-transcript-zimmerman.pdf

      Here is the witness interviewed by a reporter the night of the incident long before this situation exploded.
      http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-altercation#ixzz1phFMGCu4

      Here is the Probable Cause Affidavit they are talking about.
      http://www.foxnews.com/us/interactive/2012/04/12/state-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-affidavit-probable-cause/

      Zimmermans Bloody Head
      

      Bond Hearing (Full Video)
      http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815

      CNN Transcript of Bond Hearing.
      http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html

      Official Document release website for Eighteenth Judicial Circuit.
      http://www.flcourts18.org/presspublic.html

      Florida Statutes – 776 Justifiable use of force
      http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799%2F0776%2F0776ContentsIndex.html

      776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—
      http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

      776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
      Subsection (3) is specifically Stand your Ground
      http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

      776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
      Subsection (2) is the specific section with Probable Cause.
      http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

      776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—
      http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

      Florida Statutes – 790 Weapons and Firearms
      http://leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799%2F0790%2F0790ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2011&Title=-%3E2011-%3EChapter+790

      This is 790.06 License to carry concealed weapon or firearm.—
      This established the rules for CWL holders in FL Specifically where you can carry:
      (12)(a) A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into:
      http://leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.06.html

      790.33 Field of regulation of firearms and ammunition preempted.—
      This is what prevents the HOA, City, or County from making any rules or Laws concerning when Zimmerman could or could-not carry.
      http://leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.33.html

      790.335 Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records.—
      http://leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.335.html

      Reply ↓

66. Here is what Tracy Martin actually said to the press about his conversation with the investigator: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403

    “Sanford police have stopped talking to reporters about the case, and Serino has never spoken publicly about his role in it, but here is how Martin recalls what Serino said: “He told me Zimmerman’s story was that Zimmerman was of course following him and that Trayvon approached his vehicle, walked up to the car and asked Zimmerman, ‘Why are your following me?’ Zimmerman then rolls his car windows down, tells Trayvon ‘I’m not following you.’ He rolls his car windows up.

    “Trayvon walks off. Zimmerman said he started running between the buildings. Zimmerman gets out of his car. He comes around the building. Trayvon is hiding behind the building, waiting on him. Trayvon approaches him and says, ‘What’s your problem, homes?’ Zimmerman says ‘I don’t have a problem.'”

    That version does not fit the dispatcher tape or Susan’s time line since, before Trayvon ran, there was no rolling down of the window and talking.

    It is reading too much into using what is called “multiple hearsay,” during the time of extreme stress Tracy Martin was under, to assume he accurately relayed what he heard from the investigator.

    The police have Zimmerman’s actual statement to compare against the dispatcher tape. We don’t have any of the 5 statements Zimmerman is reported to have made.

    Reply ↓

67. Susan, I agree with you. It is ‘impeachment’ material … if Zimmerman testifies. It is just my opinion that it is so far removed, in time and substance, from the self-defense and 2nd degree issues that to over-blow it or rely on it to convict Zimmerman at trial, is wishful thinking.

    As for “domestic violence,” unfortunately that charge (along with molestation) has become endemically routine in husband-wife and boyfriend-girlfriend disputes that hit the legal system. I remember the famous and bitter Woody Allen divorce. An attorney I know was accused by his wife during a divorce of 3 (you read that right) claims of ‘assault’ that the judge simply ignored.

    As for the other ‘defense’ by Zimmerman, it may well be that his version of the “assault and battery” incident was correct. That is what ‘plea bargaining’ is all about. We all know that sometimes police (as in any other profession) abuse their powers.

    Reply ↓

68. Susan, I want ot thank you for this blog, it is exactly what I have been looking for. Reasonable Discourse with people trying to gather legitimate information. While I may not agree with everyone on here, I am curious to see what can be discrened by the information we can gather. There is one piece of information I would like to get, the exact location of the truck/SUV. I keep seeing Media identifying the White Truck that is becoming famous as Zimmermans Truck, if anyone can get an exact location that would help a lot. The other thing that could have answered most everything is if both had GPS location turned on – on their phones. If it was avaliable then it would be in the hands of police and this would have answered a lot of questions, but then again they may already have it.

    Reply ↓

    • Thanks — I’ve tried my best to scare off the trolls and crazies whenever they’ve popped up, so that the rest of us have a shot at keeping a respectful tone of discussion going, even if occasionally it gets a bit, um, “spirited.”

      And yeah, I’ve seen nothing to conclusively confirm where Zimmerman’s vehicle was located. I feel like somewhere in the vicinity of the blue circle is the general consensus, but it’s possible that’s a complete misassumption. Nothing conclusive one way or another, that I’ve seen, anyway.

      I hadn’t thought about the GPS possibility before — I wonder though if phone GPS tracking is accurate over distances < 100m, though?

      Reply ↓

    • Cell tower tracking would tell you he is on perhaps that side of Twin Lakes. When you first bring up Google Nav on your phone, the navigation accuracy would start at that level, then would incrementally narrow the accuracy circle down to within a parking space or two of your location as it starts tracking more satellites. I keep my Cell set to update my location to Norton-Antitheft at least once an hour. The E911 service can not be deactivated on a lot of phones, if you call E911 it automatically uploads you GPS location usually within 10ft if you are outdoors to the Dispatcher’s map on his screen, the Dispatcher would not have needed Zimmerman to tell him his location if Sanford were using E911, and Zimmerman had a phone capable of E911, most phones do now. This would have allowed Dispatch to track him the entire time he was on the phone. Most bigger cities use E911 now, but Sanford may not have it yet. As far as internally storing the GPS data that all depends on the phone, the carrier, and the users settings/applications, also is it set to only keep history data over a certain amount of days.

      On a side note I recommend the Norton Anti Theft service this has helped me retrieve my phone a few times, I can go to the Norton site to get an update on the GPS location, use the camera on the phone to take a picture and upload it to Norton’s site without any indication on the phone that this is happening, lock the phone, send a txt message to the screen, activate an audible alarm at full volume, or wipe the entire phone. Usually it is get a GPS location, take a picture to see if it helps to locate the counter or table and if that doesn’t help then hit the audible alarm to take me directly to it.

      Reply ↓

69. Susan Simpson,

    As part of the document releases after the bail hearing the arrest record and the application for the restraining order were both released. The arrest was somewhere near the University of Central Florida, and was related to an investigation of underage drinking. You’re not going to catch anyone serving to persons under 21 with someone in uniform, or even in something that looks to dressed up. Very few students wear suits when they go out to a restaurant or bar.

    The arrest report says plainclothes ABC agent was interviewing someone, when Zimmerman came up and started talking to his friend. ABC agent claims he identified himself. As he was leading Zimmerman shrugged his shoulders and pushed away with his arms.

    Judge Lester said, that even though it was in a different jurisdiction (he is Seminole County, within a circuit that also includes Brevard; while UCF is in Orlando in Orange County), that he had a pretty good idea how things went in what he referred to as the UCF Corridor. This either meant he understood how the ABC operated; or that nobody was all that interested in putting people in prison for underage drinking, they just want to put enough pressure on the businesses to make sure they ID everyone. No restaurant or bar wants to lose their liquor license. The pretrial diversion is essentially a plea bargain.

    The restraining order was when Zimmerman had gone to where his fiancee was at, and was wanting some papers or something, and they were arguing over who owned a cell phone and
    her dog bit him. It sounds like they were already splitting at this time. In her request, she recalled an incident 2-1/2 years earlier when she popped her gum in his face and he slapped her.

    Reply ↓

70. If the silver-ish 2 door pickup seen behind Fox35 reporter Keith Landry at about the 1:37 mark in the next day video is Zimmerman’s, and that curve behind Landry is the curve to the west Twin Trees makes as one comes up it from the south, then the truck is pointed the wrong way if a Target-bound Zimmerman was taking what would seem the most direct route from his house to the main entrance/exit.

    10 seconds earlier in that video is a scene from the night before, with the smallish 4 door SUV about which I’ve been wondering.

    unitron

    Reply ↓

    • That is facing south on Retreat View at the east end of the sidewalk. The police car looks like it has turned off its floodlights. I think the SUV may be some sort of unmarked police car. It has its lights on. There has been some rain, since you can see reflections off the pavement. In other pictures that night, you can see an umbrella around where the shooting was,

      There is someone standing to the front right of the car in a red hoodie or jacket with a hood. Maybe it is just someone who stopped to look around (the police tape was across the whole east end of the cut through).

      BTW, on the news report, there is a tab that says “Photo” and then “Large Photo”. It is the shot of the truck that night, and is sharper than the video.

      Reply ↓

      • The photo tab, at least for me, just shows some guys standing around behind the houses and a couple of dark blobs off to the right which appear to be unlighted vehicles.

        In the next day video, at around the 1:37 mark, which way is Landry facing? I was under the impression that he was standing on Twin Trees facing south into a north facing camera.

        Although I can’t find it now, I’ve seen a still photo of that SUV at night, and another of it in what appears to be the same spot the next day, which made me wonder if it might not have been Zimmerman’s.

        Can’t somebody please hack the Florida DMV and find out for sure what he was driving that night? : – )

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • “then the truck is pointed the wrong way if a Target-bound Zimmerman was taking what would seem the most direct route from his house to the main entrance/exit.”

      It is almost a trivial difference in distance, because Retreat View Circle swings pretty far west. This is especially true if you take Oakwood across to Twin Trees.

      If someone lives in a neighborhood, they could well vary their route each day – while other people are pretty much in a fixed routine. If you were a neighborhood watch volunteer you might do it deliberately.

      We don’t know when or where Zimmerman first spotted Martin. It had to be before he called the police. He says Retreat View Circle and then “the best address he could give is one-eleven” After the dispatcher has typed the address into his computer he asks whether he meant “one-one-one-one” or “one-eleven”. Zimmerman explains that is the club house. The dispatcher ask if he is “near the clubhouse”, Zimmerman says “yeah, now he’s coming towards me”. If Martin had been walking home, he would have covered 250 feet or so during the first minute of the call, and would have been way out of sight when the call began. And if he been had standing right at the clubhouse, waiting for one minute until the dispatcher asks “is he near the clubhouse?” as a cue for Zimmerman to say he is coming towards him, he would just have given the address of the clubhouse.

      So it is possible that Zimmerman had seen him along Retreat View Circle or possibly south of the clubhouse, and had driven around the block, or down Twin Trees and turned around in a driveway. And then when he had shown up again, Zimmerman called police.

      Reply ↓

    • When you click on the photo tab, click on the “large photo” button. And then do a right-click and select “view image” and then Ctrl+ two or three times (maybe something else depending on your browser).

      Because of the angle it is parked and the light from the patrol car, you get a lot of reflection off the right door column where it curves around from the side of the cab and the back of the cab. The shot is a telephoto shot from 250 away on the next street over, so you are actually more behind the car, which is why the back of the bed shows up more.

      The daylight shot is looking north, so your are seeing the left side of the truck. The night time shot is looking left.

      The houses to the north of the sidewalk are on a small rise (5 feet). On the north-south sidewalk the elevation is just a small amount, so that rain drains away from the buildings. I think the low spot is a bit west of the sidewalk.

      Reply ↓

    • There is a 5/1/2010 Google Earth image that looks like the truck in the driveway of the north-most driveway just to the north. They’re single car garages, so the few curb spots without driveways are also used a lot for parking.

      Reply ↓

71. Thank you Susan Simpson for allowing us all to comment here on your site, and for the great analysis!

    And thank you to ItsMe and Jimrtex for helping me out earlier with “John’s” 911 call and interview with Fox.

    The information from the 911 call and the Fox interview DOES seem to match up after all, in my opinion. One thing I noticed though was that it appears that John never actually went outside. He was apparently looking out from his patio. In the 911 call, John says he’s “not going outside”. I’m wondering if John may not have actually seen clearly who exactly was calling for help. Many people would assume that the guy on the bottom would be the one calling for help. However, this may not have been the case, if Trayvon knew Zimmerman had a gun, and if Trayvon was calling for help while trying to hold Zimmerman down.

    On why Trayvon wasn’t closer to his father’s girlfriend’ house when the struggle took place: Please correct me anyone on the following: According to Dee Dee,“Trayvon got nervous and he said he gonna run around from the back, so he ran from the back and said he had lost him.”

    Maybe what happened was that each of the buildings has a back patio entrance (like “John’s”). Trayvon may have gone to the store without a key. He may have locked the front entrance, but left the back patio entrance unlocked for his return from the store. Upon his return from the store, if Trayvon knew that Zimmerman was following him (and Zimmerman WAS following Trayvon at least initially), Trayvon may have chosen to avoid going in through the patio, because he didn’t want Zimmerman to see which building he (Trayvon) entered.

    According to Dee Dee, “Trayvon got nervous and he said he gonna run around from the back, so he ran from the back and said he had lost him.” Trayvon may have bypassed the back patio entrance and run around the south end of the 2nd row of buildings. He then may have run north up Retreat View Circle toward the entrance of his father’s girlfriend’s building (among the third, and last, group of buildings in the second row). But maybe Trayvon knows the front door is locked. Maybe he also knows that his future stepbrother is wearing headphones, listening to music, and won’t hear Trayvon if he knocks.

    If so, Trayvon still has to get to the unlocked back patio entrance. IF there are some sort of barricades/fencing/whatever between each group of buildings in the rows, Travon may have had only 2 possible routes:
    1) Go back around the south end of the second row and then head north to the back patio, or
    2) Go up around the north end and come south again to the back patio.

    If the last time Trayvon saw Zimmerman, Zimmerman was running south between the two rows of buildings, Trayvon is not going to want to go around the south end. So Trayvon may have decided to go up around the north end of the 2nd row of buildings and check to see if Zimmerman is still in between the two rows, before heading back south between the buildings to the back patio. He may have been hoping that Zimmerman turned right at the south end of the buildings and headed back up Twin Trees to his SUV. Or that Zimmerman retraced his steps and would be back at his SUV by the time Trayvon got up to the north end of the 2nd row. After all, Trayvon didn’t see Zimmerman coming around the south end of the 2nd row onto Retreat View Circle, where Trayvon now was. Trayvon’s best bet would have been to head north.

    Meanwhile, Zimmerman may have headed back to his SUV, thinking he’d lost Trayvon. After all, if Zimmerman did see Trayvon go left at the south end of the rows, Trayvon would have been headed directly to the south exit, and he’d be very close to it. And in fact, this is where Zimmerman said Trayvon was headed. So maybe Zimmerman gets back to his SUV and is standing outside, waiting for the police to arrive, when he happens to see Trayvon going around the north end of the second row. Trayvon maybe didn’t see Zimmerman because Zimmerman could have been behind the first row of buildings when Trayvon started around the north end. But then maybe Zimmerman moved a little northward and caught a glimpse of Trayvon just as Trayvon started back south between the two rows.

    Trayvon may be walking by now, so it’s easy for Zimmerman to catch up with him at point 5, where the struggle ensues.

    All this of course assumes a lot.

    But there has to be some scenario to explain how they both ended up where they did. It doesn’t make sense to me that they both headed south initially between the 2 rows, and then as Zimmerman headed back north toward his truck, Trayvon ran all the way back up behind Zimmerman without Zimmerman hearing him – especially if Trayvon was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time. And it doesn’t make sense that Trayvon was already there hiding and waiting for Zimmerman, because what route would he have taken to get there before Zimmerman and know that Zimmerman wouldn’t see him?

    If they both initially ran down Retreat View Circle, what would Zimmerman be doing at that spot if he was really headed back to his truck?

    It just doesn’t make sense to me that Trayvon could have confronted Zimmerman from behind Zimmerman at that spot.

    Reply ↓

    • It doesn’t appear that there is a barrier between buildings. I think a fire department would have problems with that long of a block of buildings, and there is also drainage issues. A barrier is a dam for water.

      The fronts of the buildings are almost solid garage doors with a front door alongside. I’d bet there is an entry from the garage as well. The end units have a bit of front porch. All the units have a covered patio, with part the 2nd floor extending out over the patio. They look like they are designed so that the main living area is at the back of the units.

      Reply ↓

    • “All this of course assumes a lot.”

      *** Correct. And that is the problem for the State if it is their “theory.” Zimmerman has given his statement about his movements. As long as it is consistent and there is a plausable explanation of Trayvon’s movements that fits his statement, there is no easy way to disprove that version beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

      “But there has to be some scenario to explain how they both ended up where they did.”

      *** Zimmerman stopped, after leaving his truck, in the area of the intersecting paths and he remained in that area (while possibly looking for a sign at the back of the two rows for an address to relay to the police when they arrived) during his continued 2 minutes on the phone with the dispatcher. Trayvon was hidden in the shadows (after possibly reaching his apt and doubling back after working up his anger and feeling embarrassed in front of the girl he was talking to). Zimmerman was a few feet further away from his truck along the back path when he decided to go back to his truck so he turned in that direction and started walking. After getting a few feet, Trayvon (in the rain) walked up behind him (on the grass) and confronted Zimmerman and the fight began.

      Of course, we have to see Zimmerman’s statement.

      As for DeeDee’s contradictory statements, there are many holes in it, particularly the great chase she describes in the ABC video (ABC then changed that video to use other snippets of her voice). She is not a reliable witness. A defense attorney (if she ever testifies) will easily show inconsistencies in her story and get to the bottom of what was really being exchanged between her and Trayvon and the State has taken great pains to distance itself from claiming Zimmerman was the aggressor (while fully aware of the ABC News tapes and while now also having a detailed statement from her that has not been released).

      Reply ↓

72. According to Crump, Martin and DeeDee were on the phone for 6-1/2 hours that day. If you follow the phone bill, there was an almost continuous sequence of calls from 2:30 onward, with the longest break 9 minutes. If all these were with DeeDee (other than some interruptions for other calls), then you still have to have another 1-3/4 hours earlier in the day.

    Crump has also said that Martin and DeeDee were on the phone to the 7-11 and back. 15 minutes (6:54-7:09) is not enough time for 1.6 miles (Green’s house to 7-11 and back to clubhouse), find the skittles, choose a beverage, and pay for them, at a pace that you can comfortably talk on a phone.

    So the only significance of 6:54 is that it is the first incoming call from DeeDee – but it comes right after a call from Martin. And it is too way off the deep end speculation to try to guess the significance of the reversal.

    There was a 4:28-5:09 call, and a 5:09-6:30 call. Then a 6:30 to 6:43 call. But there was a 6:41-6:45 incoming call, followed by a 6:45-6:50 outgoing call. There was also a 6:46-6:48 outgoing call. And a 6:49-6:53 incoming call, followed by 6:53-6:54 and 6:54-6:55 outgoing calls.

    So it looks like the two incoming calls interrupted a outgoing call, with Martin hanging up, and then calling back once he had dealt with the incoming call. The two short calls at 6:53 and 6:54 could just have been to DeeDee asking her to call him, and would provide a simple explanation of why the reversal.

    Crump originally said that 6:54 call was when Martin was taking cover in the apartments (to the west). So with Martin and DeeDee on the phone for 4-1/2 hours, events probably run together. And Martin may have taken cover some time on his trip to the 7-11 and back.

    Reply ↓

73. There’s several good reasons no one has “Leaked” George Zimmerman’s medical records. It’s against the law to do so.-, called HIPPA
    Disclosure of patient’s medical history to an unauthorized individual is a violation oh HIPPA laws which are punishable by:
    Wrongful disclosure is defined as either knowingly or unknowingly sharing or disclosing information without patient permission. There are legal consequences such as civil and criminal penalties, with fines plus possible imprisonment. Civil penalties are $100 per violation, up to $25,000 per year for each requirement or prohibition that is violated. Criminal penalties are up to $50,000 and 1 year for certain offenses. Penalties can escalate to $100,000 in fines and up to 5 years in prison if the offenses are committed under false pretenses, and up to $250,000 in fines and up to 10 years in prison if the information obtained is found to be used for commercial advantage, personal gain or malicious harm.
    Plus, their license to practice as an EMT, Paremedic,xray technician, nurse,etc. would be revoked.

    Reply ↓

74. Hi jimrtex, and thanks for your response! I think you actually understood the point I was trying to make, and it’s nice to know that someone did. In my opinion, access between the buildings within each row could possibly be a crucial point.

    You may be correct about the fire department, but I don’t think we really know at this time. It would be nice to find out!

    I’ve often seen gates between houses in the suburbs that block off access from the street to the backyard. I would assume that if there is some sort of barricade between the groups of buildings in each row, it would be a gate. In that case, there would not be a drainage issue.

    It kind of makes sense to me that Trayvon might not have a key, especially if he was supposed to stay at the house while his father and fiance were out to dinner (we don’t know, of course). In that case, he would probably choose to leave the back patio door open for his return, rather than leave the front door open.

    OK, WARNING, MAJOR run-on sentence, and lots of “ifs”:

    Just to rehash my earlier point, If the momentary chase scene led down south between the two rows of buildings, and if Trayvon bipassed the unlocked back patio door because he was afraid that Zimmerman might try to crash through the door (Dee Dee said Trayvon thought this guy was “crazy”), and if Trayvon ran around the south end of the 2nd row of buildings and then north on Retreat View Circle toward the front entrance of his father’s girlfriend’s house (Dee Dee also said Trayvon “got nervous” and ran around “from the back”), and if Trayvon didn’t have a key to the front door (or to a locked gate between the buildings), and if Trayvon also knew his stepbrother was wearing headphones and wouldn’t hear a knock at the front door (or if the stepbrother was taught not to answer the front door while home alone), and if Trayvon didn’t want to yell to his stepbrother because Trayvon didn’t want to give away his whereabouts to Zimmerman,….. if, if, if, but all clearly possible,… then Trayvon would have had to either go north up Retreat View Circle and around the north end of the 2nd row or back south down Retreat View Circle and around the south end of the 2nd row to get to back to the unlocked patio door.

    Trayvon might have waited on Retreat View Circle for a few minutes at the mid point of the 2nd row of buildings to see if Zimmerman came around the buildings at either end (I might have done that). When Zimmerman didn’t show up, Trayvon figured Zimmerman must have returned to his truck via either Twin Trees (by turning right at the south end of the rows), or by going back north along the sidewalk between the 2 rows of buildings (which, after a few minutes, Zimmerman would have had plenty of time to do). However, Zimmerman might ALSO be somewhere around the south end, if that’s where Zimmerman was headed while chasing Trayvon.

    If I were Trayvon, I’d try for the north end. If the SUV is parked south of the cut-through sidewalk, the north end of the 2nd row is not visible from Zimmerman’s SUV. Unfortunately (for both Trayvon and Zimmerman), Zimmerman may have been standing near his SUV waiting for police and possibly pacing around in such a way that he was behind the first row of buildings when Trayvon started around the north end, so Trayvon didn’t see him. Zimmerman may have spotted Trayvon just as Trayvon was headed south again between the two rows of buildings.

    The timing works out perfectly for Zimmerman to go after Trayvon right then. Trayvon thought he’d lost Zimmerman, and was probably only walking. Also, Trayvon was talking to Dee Dee on the phone. By the time Trayvon heard/saw Zimmerman come around the north end of the 1st row, Zimmerman would have been very close to Trayvon. The two would end up at point 5 on Susan’s diagram where the scuffle took place. It also works out for Trayvon to say, “Why are you following me”, because Zimmerman would have come up behind Trayvon.

    I haven’t figured out any scenario where Zimmerman could have been headed back to his truck (walking north between the 2 rows), and Trayvon could have come up from behind all that distance (from the south end of the rows all the way to point 5) and then surprised Zimmerman. It seems like a person would have to be deaf to not hear someone appoaching all that way – especially if the person approaching from the rear is also talking on the phone. Of course, if there’s access between the buildings along the rows, then a surprise encounter/attack becomes much more possible. Still though, to deliberately stage a surprise attack, Trayvon would have had to anticipate Zimmerman’s direction north along the sidewalk (rather than Zimmerman turning right onto Twin Trees after reaching the south end, or cutting through somewhere between the 1st row of buildings, if indeed such access exists). And even then, we’d have to assume that Trayvon decided to attack the “crazy” person after running away from him.
    .

    Reply ↓

    • On Google street views you can see between buildings on the outside of the neighborhood and there are no barriers. And on the satellite view, none are visible between buildings aligned east-west. On north-south buildings are in shadow on a 1-3-2012, low sun angle around noon.

      But on a 5-1-2010 view, closer to the summer solstice and later in the afternoon there are no obscuring shadows and no visible barriers. There are some hedges right along the edges of the buildings (a foot or so deep, and low), and there is a a couple of trees in between buildings – but it is 20 feet between buildings. There is a slight V for drainage, and the grass is a bit greener towards the center.

      Incidentally, the last 5 buildings were completed after 5-1-2010. These are the three buildings north of Retreat View Circle, east of the north entrance; and the two units south of the clubhouse on Twin Trees (the unit facing north on the jog, and the unit on the west side of Twin Trees, just to its south). Maybe Martin was confused by the changes.

      Reply ↓

75. Hi StanS,

    Sorry, I didn’t see your response earlier.

    Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Trayvon was headed towards the back gate. To be headed towards the back gate, a person has to turn left (east) at the end of the rows (or east through access between the rows if access exists).

    Also, it doesn’t sound plausible to me that while Zimmerman was in pursuit, Trayvon would have chosen to attempt to stop and hide in the shadows somewhere. Trayvon’s big advantage was his speed. If Trayvon later suddenly popped out of the shadows and accosted Zimmerman near point 5, Trayvon would have had to hide very near point 5, and this means he would have hidden early in the chase and taken the highest risk of being found by Zimmerman. Why try to hide from a person who is only a few feet away from you, when you would be more successful hiding from a person who is many feet behind you because they are slower than you are?

    Again, Zimmerman told the dispatcher he saw Trayvon running toward the back entrance. That’s a left turn, east from the south point of the rows.

    Reply ↓

    • “Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Trayvon was headed towards the back gate.”

      *** Zimmerman was in his car at night and saw a suspect flee down the path that directly leads to an exit. Along that path, down the middle of two rows of buildings, is a longer path intersecting to the right that also leads to Trayvon apt. All Zimmerman said is that the suspect ran down that first path … at night he cannot see where else the suspect went which is why he exited his truck … to reestablish sight of the subject in order to keep reporting the suspect’s location.

      “Also, it doesn’t sound plausible to me that while Zimmerman was in pursuit, Trayvon would have chosen to attempt to stop and hide in the shadows somewhere.”

      *** We don’t know what Trayvon did. All that is necessary is to establish he was out of sight of Zimmerman (which is what Zimmerman was continually saying to the dispatcher). He could have hid in the shadows or went to his apt — only 30 seconds away jogging before doubling back. Who really knows (maybe, in the police statement, DeeDee came clean?)? It doesn’t make much difference how … as long as it was physically feasible given the time and area layout. Zimmerman’s defense is projecting a reasonable theory (to survive reasonable doubt) as to Trayvon frame of mind, e.g., Trayvon wanted to teach the man a lesson (he towered over Zimmerman at 6’3″ vs. 5’8″) for embarrassing him — a possible motivation. We can never, now, read Trayvon’s mind … only try to get insight based on his history, statements, conversations with DeeDee and whatever other evidence is available.

      “Trayvon’s big advantage was his speed.”

      *** Correct. Which begs the question as to why he wasn’t home within 30 seconds of running (the theory of locked doors, i am sorry to say, is just too farfetched)?

      “this means he would have hidden early in the chase and taken the highest risk of being found by Zimmerman.”

      *** Why?

      My point is that all Zimmerman’s defense has to show is that his version of events (which, importantly, was given within hours of the events — not after weeks seeing many of the 911 tapes and having time to conjure up his version … as Crump has been doing and I believe DeeDee) can survive the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard.

      From what I have read (subject to eventually seeing is actual statements) his version of events (and the police agreed) fit the known facts and was reasonable.

      Reply ↓

76. George Zimmerman is no more “White” than President Obama.

    Reply ↓

    • After that comment, I’m personally not going to read anything you have to say.

      Reply ↓

    • Why not? It’s a true statement. Zimmerman has a hispanic parent and a white parent, and Obama has a black parent and a white parent. Yet, so many wanted this to be about a “White” who shot a “Black”, hence all of the civil rights leaders who invaded the small town of Sanford, demanding that their angry mobs boycott the town businesses.

      Reply ↓

    • You do realize that being Hispanic has nothing to do with whether or not one is also white, don’t you?

      And it’s not about a person of one racing shooting a person of another. It’s about a government agency that failed to properly investigate the killing of a 17 year old, based solely on the killer’s word and, it is not unfair to presume, the apparent races of the involved individuals.

      Or do you also think that if a 28 year old black dude with a past arrest record could shoot a white high school kid that was heading home from the store, he too would have been released from jail that night?

      Reply ↓

    • Just because the police have NOT released their evidence to the public, does not mean that they don’t have any. And it would totally depend on the circumstances, of the black 28 year-old shooting the kid as to if there should or should not be an arrest. Why does everyone want this to be about race?

      Reply ↓

77. The 911 tape from the night of Trayvon Martin’s shooting, as initially aired by NBC, eliminated a question from the 911 dispatcher to George Zimmerman about whether Trayvon was black, white or Hispanic… The rest of the media followed with the same deceptive report, leaving people to believe that Zimmerman profiled a “Black” person.

    NBC launched an internal investigation immediately after the incident, and I’m told several people other than Burnside were questioned, at WTVJ and NBC news, including a WTVJ editor or a news photographer who may have worked on the report. Burnside was suspended while the investigation was ongoing but NBC decided he was the producer and fired him

    Reply ↓

    • Yes, NBC, or that NBC affiliate screwed up big-time, and should have realized the implications of what they were doing (although I think it more likely to be a screw up caused by trying to meet time restrictions than an outright intent to mis-portray Zimmerman), but that audio they edited was from Zimmerman’s call directly to a non-emergency number at the police department, and not from a call to 911.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • “I think it more likely to be a screw up caused by trying to meet time restrictions than an outright intent to mis-portray Zimmerman” ?????

      Impossible. The thrust of the story was that Zimmerman was a racist who ‘profiled’ Trayvon for being black. The quote was to prove that. So leaving out the dispatcher’s question was highly prejudicial (and portrayed a false picture of what was really said).

      If the producer wasn’t fired for the deliberate deception (as any rational person would infer), then he deserved to be fired for incompetence for omitting the relevant dispatcher’s question.

      Reply ↓

      • That’s very true and should be illegal…it should the duty of the “news” to report facts and only facts…opinions shouldn’t be allowed.

        With that said…I’m not sure what any of that has to do with what happened that night.

        Reply ↓

        • “…I’m not sure what any of that has to do with what happened that night.”

          It has to do with what we have been told about what happened that night.

          And whether we can believe a word of it or not.

          unitron

          Reply ↓

78. StanS, I believe you are correct that Zimmerman may still have been in his vehicle when he told the dispatcher that Trayvon was running toward the back entrance.

    However, I still can’t buy the notion that Trayvon hid, when he could have run. If Trayvon hid, why? If Trayvon’s first intention was to get away and he only later came up with the idea of attacking Zimmerman, then why would Trayvon hide so soon after he started running? – and it would have had to be VERY soon after he started to run, because of the location of point 5. Trayvon wasn’t hiding so that he could pounce on Zimmerman from behind, because even according to Zimmerman, Trayvon approached from behind but then hit Zimmerman in the face. So why did Trayvon hide, when he could have run? If Trayvon hid near point 5 because he fairly quickly came up with the idea of attacking Zimmerman, well then why did he hide? Why didn’t he just attack Zimmerman?

    The only reason for saying that Trayvon hid was because that’s the only way that Trayvon could have approached Zimmerman from behind at point 5, without Zimmerman hearing him. It only makes sense as a way of defending Zimmerman’s claim that Zimmerman was walking AWAY from a fight and not INTO one – even though we all know that Zimmerman was the one who chased Trayvon, and we only have Zimmerman’s word for it that it ended up the other way around. This is a man who did shoot an unarmed minor, and now is claiming self defense. OF COURSE Zimmerman is going to try to say that HE was attacked. It’s part of Zimmerman’s self defense plea. Could be true, but so far, it doesn’t come together at all.

    A jury may or may not believe Dee Dee’s claim that Trayvon told her he was “nervous” and ran “around from the back” (thus possibly avoiding the back patio entrance). That of course will be up to them.

    But personally, I think it’s very credible that if Trayvon thought a “crazy” guy was after him (Dee Dee’s word), and if Trayvon didn’t have a front door key, but left the back patio door unlocked, Trayvon might have bypassed that back patio route into the house because he could see Zimmerman behind him and thought Zimmerman might try to crash the door down. I’ve seen crazy people do such things myself (or drunk people). That would have left Trayvon stranded at the front entrance on Retreat View Circle without a way into the house.

    Note that Trayvon’s stepbrother didn’t hear the shot or any of the commotion at the scene of the crime. This is another indication that the stepbrother may have had headphones on and may not have heard Trayvon, if Trayvon knocked at the front door. And Trayvon may not have wanted to knock too loudly, fearing that the “crazy” guy might hear him before the stepbrother opened the door.

    So Trayvon goes north up Retreat View Circle, doesn’t see Zimmerman, who is back at his vehicle by then. Trayvon makes the turn around the north end of the second row of buildings and heads south to the patio entrance AGAIN, thinking that this time, he’s lost Zimmerman. Zimmerman is outside his vehicle wating for the police to arrive and is able to catch a glimpse of Trayvon making the turn back down the sidewalk heading south. Zimmerman easily catches up with Trayvon who doesn’t know Zimmerman saw him, and the confrontation occurs.

    You’re right of course that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. However I do think that the defense will have to come up with some sort of plausible explanation for why the confrontation occurred where it did, and so far I haven’t heard one. It seems kind of cartoonish to me to assume that FIRST Zimmerman is the agressor and Trayvon is running away (which we already know), and then suddenly Trayvon becomes the aggressor and Zimmerman– the guy who chased after this kid WITH A LOADED WEAPON – is suddenly the guy trying to avoid a confrontation. Nope, I don’t believe this guy, not for a second.

    One thing I wonder, and maybe you have an idea about this: What was it about Zimmerman that spooked Trayvon so much that Trayvon started to run? Remember the part where Zimmerman told the dispatcher: “…now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waist band”.

    And then Zimmerman says, “Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is”.

    OK, Zimmerman is an overreactor. Zimmerman just happens to be at the intersection of Trayvon’s pathway home, and Zimmerman thinks Trayvon is “coming to check me out”, has his “hands in his waist band”, and then has “something in his hands”. Pretty scary attitude. So, as an overreactor, could Zimmerman have shown Trayvon the gun at that time? Zimmerman appears to think Trayvon is some kind of threat, and the threat is getting very close, so why not?

    Dee Dee never mentioned Trayvon seeing a gun, but maybe Trayvon just wasn’t sure enough to mention it.

    Or, why do you – or anyone – think Trayvon started to run?

    Reply ↓

    • hapufern – Many of your thoughts are pure speculation, like that maybe he didn’t have a key, maybe he thought a crazy person might crash the door down, Zimmerman was an over-reactor. Others have speculated in the opposite direction. (i.e., Why would Zimmerman say ok when told not to follow Martin, simply stop and observe — that’s what it seemed like when listening to the call — only to attack Martin later on). You may not believe Zimmerman, but MANY of his neighbors apparently trust him and believe him to be a stand up guy (in a racially mixed neighborhood I might add). If you want to know more about Zimmerman, (which helped me to understand that he is not the man the media has made him out to be), check out this article:

      http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/25/11396690-george-zimmerman-prelude-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin

      I don’t presume to know how this trial will turn out, but I am fairly sure a lot more evidence will come out than what we all know at this point.

      Reply ↓

    • Zimmerman did not chase Martin. He followed behind him 10 seconds after he had already started running, and was some distance from him, and partially in response to the dispatcher’s urgent request to determine where Martin was headed.

      Reply ↓

79. As a side note: People may have forgotten the Richard Jewell case and its aftermath: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell

    “Jewel filed suit against his former employer Piedmont College, Piedmont College President Raymond Cleere and college spokesman Scott Rawles.[9] Jewell’s attorneys contended that Cleere called the FBI and spoke to the Atlanta newspapers, providing them with false information on Jewell and his employment there as a security guard. Jewell’s lawsuit accused Cleere of describing Jewell as a “badge-wearing zealot” who “would write epic police reports for minor infractions.”[1]
    Piedmont College settled for an undisclosed amount.[11]”

    The argument of Zimmerman being “hyperactive,” a “zealot” and other such phrases seems to be similar to the themes used to infer guilt in the Jewell case.

    The issues of whether being a member of a neighborhood watch group, making an above average number of suspicious person calls, having a concealed weapon permit, or seeking a career in law enforcement being talismans of a warped personality more prone to violence (and murder) are very shaky premises, at best. I fail to see how the State (except by inference) could ever find any legitimate “experts” to testify to those shaky premises.

    I tend to believe that examining objective statistics of any of the above groups, concerning statistical tendencies towards future acts of criminal violence, would produce, overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In short, I tend to believe the incidence of illegal violent conduct by those groups is far lower than the population in general, an argument that works in Zimmerman favor, not his detriment as portrayed in the press.

    Even though we are at the early stages of this case, from what I have seen of several media stories, in particular articles by NBC and ABC News, they may be later subject to lawsuits for extremely biased coverage if Zimmerman is found innocent. Time will tell.

    Reply ↓

    • My state had a State Prosecutor for the Dade county area a few decades back, although her actions as prosecutor were – umm overzealous, they were legal under the states laws at the time. She eventually went to a new job, and the state realized that her actions and the actions of other prosecutors like her against our citizens needed legal restraints. In her next job she accused an innocent man of being a terrorist and had to apologize publically for the leak when they discovered that Eric Rudolph was actually the Olympic Park Bomber, in another of many incidents she launched an all out commando strike against the International Uber-Terrorist Mastermind Elian Gonzales that was cleverly disguising himself as a 6yo boy, I’m glad she saved America from his Terrorist Elementary School antics. If the name Janet Reno doesn’t tell you why we need all of these restrictions on Prosecutors in Florida, then nothing will.

      Reply ↓

80. I will be the first to admit that much of what I wrote above is pure speculation, as is much of what is written here, and of course that includes believing Zimmerman’s claims that Trayvon turned around and attacked Zimmerman, after we already do know that Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman. Certainly, this is a very speculative assumption.

    However, the FACT is that Trayvon is dead, Zimmerman is claiming self-defense; and unfortunately, the only way that Zimmerman can have support for his self-defense claim is to villify the dead person who cannot defend himself, because he is dead.

    It would not be a difficult thing for the prosecutor to find out for a FACT whether or not Trayvon had a key to the house. If Trayvon did not have a key, then of course it becomes more plausible that he left just one door unlocked for his return, especially considering that his future younger stepbrother was home alone while Trayvon went to the store.

    It would also be fairly simple to determine if there are gates or some other barricade between the buildings. Does anyone know? If so, it would be much more difficult for Trayvon to “hide” or pop out from somewhere, and it would also have much more greatly limited Trayvon’s options for getting to an entrance to his house, if he did indeed pass up an unlocked back patio door because he was “nervous” and came “around from the back” as Dee Dee claims, and if the front door was locked.

    If anyone can find some flaw in the scenario I described in my posts above, go for it. I want to hear it. But to just dismiss the possibility because it’s “speculative”, well of course it is! That doesn’t mean it couldn’t have happened that way. Trayvon is not here to tell us that he didn’t turn around and attack Zimmerman. There are 2 sides to every story, and thank goodness, there’s a prosecution that’s looking for Trayvon’s side!

    We do know that Zimmerman acted inappropriately in following Trayvon at all And in my opinion, Zimmerman’s actions seem at least somewhat paranoid in calling the police for whatever we are aware of at this time regarding Trayvon’s actions as he entered the complex.

    Also, it’s difficult to believe Zimmerman’s supporters who first say that Zimmerman wasn’t following Trayvon, and then sayTrayvon attacked Zimmerman because Trayvon was mad at Zimmerman for following him.

    Zimmerman himself admitted to the dispatcher that he was following Trayvon, until the dispatcher told him this wasn’t necessary. The dispatcher never asked Zimmerman to follow Trayvon to see where Trayvon was going. Zimmerman had received training from the police for proper protocol, and this proper protocol tincluded instructions NOT to follow a suspect. The reason for this training is that following a suspect puts innocent people at risk, and not just the person doing the following. Zimmerman deliberately broke protocol, and knowingly put innocent people at risk. AND, he brought a LOADED WEAPON with him as he was breaking protocol. This was VERY inappropriate and risky behavior, and just coincidentally, a person was killed, who happened to also be a minor.

    Does anyone have an answer to a question I asked earlier? What was it about Zimmerman that made Trayvon run after passing Zimmerman’s SUV?

    Reply ↓

    • hapufern – Sorry, I didn’t mean the “speculative” comment in the wrong way. You are right that much of our discussion here is speculative. I was simply trying to point out that Zimmerman does not appear to be the big, bad, ugly wolf that the media initially made him out to be. Furthermore, emphasizing that Zimmerman broke “protocol” is a bit misleading — from what we know, he was headed to Target, had his legal concealed weapon on him (certainly nothing “risky” about that), saw something suspicious in his neighborhood, called the police, tried to see where the person was going/hiding, started to follow when he lost sight of the individual, AND stopped following when the dispatcher advised him too. If any breach of protocol happened, it was slight at best, and corrected when he listened to the dispatcher and stopped.

      Furthermore, it is interesting to note that regarding speculation — the speculation that bears the most weight at trial will be whether or not a jury believes Zimmerman’s version of the events are reasonable. If so, that speculation will be the basis for reasonable doubt and a possible acquittal (or perhaps a lesser charge). The jury doesn’t have to know EXACTLY how the events transpired. They only have to believe, given the facts, that is COULD have happened that way. Of course other speculative scenarios are possible, but that is not what it at question in a trial…..

      From all that we now know (and admittedly we don’t have all the facts), Zimmerman’s version of events seems as plausible as any other version I have heard up to this point. I’m not saying I know what happened, or defending either side. However, I AM saying that if I was a juror and I only had the facts that we know at this point, there is NO WAY I could vote for 2nd degree murder.

      Reply ↓

81. With the exception of a couple of 911 tapes, that may or may not have been altered before the media decided to release them, and a couple of preliminary police reports, everything is speculation based on what Crump and the civil rights leaders and the media decided everyone would know about this case. I sat here for weeks listening to one side of the story. I could not understand why that big ugly-looking man would just up and shoot that cute little kid, yet that was all that I was being shown. Then, after researching, I find out that that cute little kid wasn’t a 12 year-old middleschooler, but in fact I was being shown a 5 year old picture. And, I found out that the man was that big ugly picture that I was being shown, but in fact was several inches shorter than the kid and about 60 pounds lighter than portrayed. Why? Then the horrible background of GZ came out by way of Crump. He was arrested for a felony assault on a police officer and had an arrest record for domestic violence. Then we find out that the felony charge was dropped after GZ took a class on alcohol. And we find out that the domestic assault was both ways, he also had a protective order against the girlfriend because she attempted to hit him with a bat.
    Yet, when Trayvon’s behavior problems surfaced and started to leak out, the parents and Crump expressed their anger on national TV. They wanted to make sure that everyone believed Trayvon to be an angel. I don’t know if Zimmerman did need to defend his life that night or if he is a cold-blooded killer, but I do know that the media totally lied to the public for weeks. I would see a live interview, and later on the news, see that same interview mis-quoted. I would hear a 911 tape, and later hear it altered on the news. The initial prosecutor stated that “We don’t have evidence to hold GZ yet.” Became, “We aren’t going to charge GZ.” To date, I still don’t understand those who want GZ’s constitutional rights, as an American citizen, taken from him. It is legal in the state of Florida to shoot someone in self defense. Now, it should be up to the state of Florida to prove beyond a shadow of doubt, that GZ is lying. That requires physical forensic evidence. Evidence that they could not have had the night of the shooting, since they had to have an autopsy report, a balistic report, a toxicology report, a DNA report, a voice analysis report of the 911 tape, a blood splatter report from the clothing, etc.. Crump demanded an arrest right there and then, not wanting to wait for evidence. Why? As a Florida attorney, he should know that a person can only be held 72 hours without charging with a crime. It sure takes a hell of a lot longer than 72 hours to get the test results back. What were they suppose to charge him with? He wasn’t trespassing, and he had a license to carry a gun, so couldn’t hold him for that. He was not under any legal obligation to NOT follow Trayvon.What were they to charge him with, prior to all of their tests and investigation? In the USA, one is suppose to be innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law, yet so many don’t want GZ to have his judcial rights. As to date, the evidence has yet to be released to the public, so yes, it is all speculation.

    Reply ↓

82. The view of someone that does have a CWL and carries in the state of FL. Why this case matters to me.

    Contrary to the Media Stereotypes the vast majority of Floridians that have concealed weapons licenses actively keep up with the laws involving weapons. Most of us are not Lawyers we a retired military(Myself), homemakers, work at Gas Stations, fix cars, work at Wally World, in short we are average citizens that want to be able to defend ourselves and our families from harm. We carry Firearms for the same reason I have a Fire Extinguisher in my Jeep, I keep a weather Radio especially during Hurricane Season, I have a spare tire, I check the fire-alarms in my house, it is really that simple. When you go to the CWL classes at the local gun show you see average people signing up (BTW always filled to capacity). For me this is not about Zimmerman himself, if found guilty of any form of murder for all I care you can let him go meet Ol’ Sparky, if you are an environmentalist you can use solar panels and fry him at noon, but you BETTER do it in accordance with the laws of the Sunshine State. This matters because if I have to defend myself from a mugger (everything by the book, perfectly legal), I have laws in place to protect me from Janet Reno Jr. trying to make a name for herself with one community or another to secure her re-election. If they have no evidence that it is not justified I want to be protected from Prosecutor Reno throwing me in jail because she doesn’t like the way I look, my name, or any number of irrelevant reasons to the facts of the case.

    We have a high bar for a reason, for just a minute assume that Zimmerman’s Story is completely true from the get go, that he is an innocent man that was protecting himself from a High School athlete pounding his head into a piece of cement, and the police have no evidence that his story isn’t true, but the prosecutor arrests him not based on evidence but on public outcry spawned by a few networks manipulating the story for their own reasons. He has had to quit his job, quickly move his family to an unknown location, spend his days looking over his shoulder, and worry about going to jail for defending myself. What about his family, what about yours if you have to defend yourself.

    Look at what the Police Chief said about arresting Zimmerman including the laws he directly cited:
    —–
    Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?

    When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.

    According to Florida Statute 776.032 :

    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

    —–
    When the State Prosecutor first arrested Zimmerman I thought she had some information that the Sanford police didn’t have, that her people have done and investigation with FBI Crime Labs verifying the “HELP!” on 911 tapes etc.. after all that is what the media were saying happened. But my mind completely changed of the afternoon of April 20th when I watched the Bond Hearing. The testimony of Det. Gilbreath, under questioning by Mark O’Mara and a key question from Judge Lester Himself about burn marks on Martin that mean they were in direct contact when the shot was fired.

    Listen to Det. Gilbreath’s testimony, he is called to the stand at time 1hour 5minutes.
    Bond Hearing (Full Video)
    http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815

    Here is the Probable Cause Affidavit they are talking about.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/interactive/2012/04/12/state-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-affidavit-probable-cause/

    This is the 911 Call from Zimmerman, ignore the comments section it does not help either way.

    Here is the PDF Transcript of the call

    Click to access full-transcript-zimmerman.pdf

    TIME: 1:17:07 Girlfriend interviewed by Det. Osteen about Conversation that night 5 weeks after shooting.

    TIME: 1:22:10 Officer Gilbreath admits that he has no evidence as to who started the face to face confrontation contrary to his Probable Cause Affidavit.

    TIME: 1:23:32 admits no official voice analysis completed on 911 call that had a person calling for “Help!”.

    TIME: 1:27:13 Admits that no one has officially identified the voice on the 911 call.

    TIME: 1:28:00 Det. Gilbreath questioned by Prosecution.

    TIME: 1:36:40 to 1:38:10 Det. Gilbreath admits that there is no evidence that Zimmerman continues to follow Zimmerman. Only a person that saw shadows outside her window.

    TIME: 1:38:42 to 1:44:48 Det. Gilbreath admits point blank under direct questioning that to this day 20 Apr 2012 , that there is no evidence of who started the flight and there is no evidence that he continued to follow after being told not to.

    TIME: 1:44:48 to 1:49:00 Prosecution questions Det. Gilbreath about who started fight.

    TIME: 1:48:35 Judge Lester asks Det. Gilbreath about Burn marks on Trevon Martin.

    TIME: 1:49:00 Det. Gilbreath asked Is evidence inconsistent with trauma to back of head followed by description of injuries to Zimmerman.

    TIME: 1:51:20 Det. Gilbreath says he has seen no medical reports of injuries to Zimmerman. O’Mara offers them to him.

    This testimony scares me for the simple reason that if I honestly have to defend myself will I have to go to jail and defend myself from the prosecutor as well after all, isn’t the law supposed to protect me. The way I understand the Law, and Susan please correct me if I am wrong but if the evidence shows this arrest was made without Probable Cause disrupting Zimmerman’s life even further than it already was, under F.S. 776.032 the 2 detectives that signed the Probable Cause Document Det. Gilbreath and Det. O’Steen as well as Prosecutor Corey can be held liable, just as the Sheriff stated he was worried about in the memo from City Manager Bonaparte.

    Reply ↓

    • This is more my train of thought about the question of Probable Cause.

      Civil Rights Laws and Police Misconduct
      http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/police-misconduct-and-civil-rights.html

      A statute known as Section 1983 is the primary civil rights law victims of police misconduct rely upon. This law was originally passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which was intended to curb oppressive conduct by government and private individuals participating in vigilante groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan. It is now called Section 1983 because that is where the law has been published, 2within Title 42, of the United States Code. Section 1983 makes it unlawful for anyone acting under the authority of state law to deprive another person of his or her rights under the Constitution or federal law. The most common claims brought against police officers are false arrest (or false imprisonment), malicious prosecution, and use of excessive or unreasonable force.

      Malicious Prosecution
      A malicious prosecution claim asserts that the officer wrongly deprived the victim of the Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty. To win this type of claim, the victim must show four things:

      1) the defendant police officer commenced a criminal proceeding;

      2) the proceeding ended in the victim’s favor (that is, no conviction);

      3) there was no probable cause;

      4) the proceeding was brought with malice toward the victim;

      As with false arrest, this claim will fail if the officer had probable cause to initiate criminal proceedings.

      —–

      For Malicious Prosecution
      1) We have had the bond hearing,

      2) either Judge Lester throws it out, or Zimmerman is Cleared

      3) Det. Gilbreath’s testimony seems to support that he had no Probable Cause, just as the Local Sheriff had clearly said when he explained why they were not arresting.

      4) The Prosecutor said in a Press Conference she was “in a search for Justice for Travon” instead of Justice for the people of Florida and determining if a crime was committed and by who i.e. A Forcible Felony (Assault) by Martin leading to Self Defense shooting, or Manslaughter by Zimmerman.

      Angela Corey Press Conference.
      http://www.11alive.com/video/1557620393001/1/Angela-Corey-Press-Conference-Decision-on-George-Zimmerman

      Reply ↓

83. Against the law in the state of Florida, Stalking:
    A person who intentionally and REPEATEDLY follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either express or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking. The crime of stalking is a Class C felony.”

    NOT against the law
    Following To come or go after; proceed behind. To keep under surveillance

    GZ was not charged with Stalking, yet some continue to incorrectly use that word instead of “following” Wonder why??

    Reply ↓

    • It’s even worse … the myths. The only ‘following’ was for a few seconds after Zimmerman exited his truck when the suspect disappeared. And about 30 seconds before that exit, the dispatcher had asked Zimmerman to report on the suspect’s movements. Zimmerman immediately stopped when the dispatcher advised him to do so (for the safety of Zimmerman, not the fleeing suspect) and Zimmerman still did not see the suspect at that time.

      The myth of ‘stalking’ and ‘chasing’ — portrayed in the press as a ‘Terminator’ type chase of a monster stalking a child — was a creation of the press, Crump and it cunningly used the 16 year old ‘DeeDee’.

      DeeDee’s first contrived interview with ABC news presented a constant continual ‘Terminator’ chase that was impossible when compared to the 4 minute Zimmerman-dispatcher tape, the physical layout of the area including its distance and time constraints. That fictitious, impossible chase was portrayed as immediately lead to the confrontation and shooting. It was also suitably embellished with the purported words “crazy man”. How does a person sitting in a truck and who is simply looking at another person transform into a ‘crazy man’?

      The first ABC manipulated video interview of DeeDee had such a gaping hole in its logic that it was replaced on the ABC website with another version that used snippets, overlayed with damming ‘editorial’ testimony.

      A media campaign was the entire source of the ‘Terminator’ myth and proves that if a lie is repeated enough times, it becomes the reality … at least until trial.

      Reply ↓

    • “To keep under surveillance GZ was not charged with Stalking, yet some continue to incorrectly use that word instead of “following” Wonder why??”

      Perhaps they feel that to Trayvon that night, it did, indeed, feel like “stalking”.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • Perhaps they wanted to manipulate public opinion and the jury pool with falsified “facts,” for political or ideological ends … or to inflame racial conflicts, to sell ads?

      Reply ↓

84. BBRAB, no problema, and I appreciate you opinions. Thanks for your post.

    One thing we might disagree about, and not sure you meant this exactly, but I don’t think we “know” that Zimmerman was on his way to Target. We only know what he and his family have said. I also don’t think we know that Zimmerman’s breach of protocol was “slight at best”, either.

    But I don’t mind if we disagree.

    Do you happen to have an opinion on why Trayvon started running when he passed Zimmerman’s SUV?

    I’m thinking it may be possible that Dee Dee knows something there and has spoken to the prosecutor about it, but the media haven’t heard it yet. And again, that’s speculation only, of course.

    One thing I keep wondering is, why didn’t Trayvon call his parents or call the police? I came up with a possible answer today that fits my previous scenario.

    Trayvon may not have wanted to call either his parents or the police, because he may have been told to stay at the house with his brother while his father and future stepmom went out to dinner. If Trayvon had called his parents and police, then of course his parents would have known that Trayvon left the house against their orders. Who can honestly say that this is not a plausible scenario? Although of course it is speculative.

    It does also fit in with the possibility that Trayvon didn’t have a key. Why WOULD Trayvon have a ke anyway, since he didn’t usually live at the complex? If Trayvon didn’t have a key, then it would make sense that he would leave a door open (most likely the back patio door), but lock the other door (most likely the front door) for his brother’s safety. On Trayvon’s return from the store, Trayvon would be headed south down that sidewalk between the 2 rows of buildings; but if he saw Zimmerman coming after him (which he did, according to Dee Dee), he might easily have deliberately passed up an unlocked back patio door because he thought this guy was “crazy”. That was Dee Dee’s word: “crazy”.

    On the “crazy” question, we don’t know why Trayvon started running right after passing Zimmerman’s SUV. Did Zimmerman show his gun at that point? We don’t know. But whatever the case, Dee Dee said Trayvon thought this guy was “crazy”. I’ve seen crazy people knock down doors before. It happens, in a less than perfect world – which is what we live in.

    So Trayvon is running (as Zimmerman said), and a guy is following him who Trayvon thinks is “crazy”. Then, according to Dee Dee, Trayvon is “nervous” about Zimmerman and passes up the back patio door and runs “around from the back” (just as Dee Dee said). This is what someone might do if they thought a “crazy” person was after them, because a “crazy” person might indeed break down a door. So if Trayvon ran “around from the back”, as Dee Dee claimed, Trayvon would now be at the front of the house, which would be on Retreat View Circle. However, if the front door is locked, Trayvon won’t be able to get in, the stepbrother may be wearing headphones and can’t hear him knock, etc., which is why, after at least a couple of minutes probably, Trayvon attempts to go around the north end of the row of buildings, makes it back onto the sidewalk going south toward his back patio again, but unfortunately, Zimmerman may have spotted him coming around the building. It was too much of a temptation for Zimmerman to ignore, especially if Trayvon now thinks he’s “lost” Zimmerman and is just walking. Zimmerman easily catches up with Trayvon and the confrontation Zimmerman occurs. Speculation, I know.

    But back to my question: any ideas on why Trayvon may have started running right after passing Zimmerman’s SUV?

    Reply ↓

    • “But back to my question: any ideas on why Trayvon may have started running right after passing Zimmerman’s SUV?”

      Because that crazy guy that’s been staring daggers at him the whole time is still creeping him out?

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • Your points all have some validity. The truth is, we will never know exactly what happened. As such, a jury will get to hear what both sides say/think happened. Then, they have to determine if Zimmerman’s side/explanation is “reasonable.” That’s the standard we live under. I’m not saying your thoughts and explanations are not plausible — heck, they might even be reality. It’s just that (so far), it does not feel like there is enough evidence to remove reasonable doubt (that it happened the way Zimmerman claims).

      Reply ↓

85. One other thing: It sounds to me like Zimmerman said “Shit, he’s running” just BEFORE Zimmerman opened the SUV door and went after Trayvon. So, why would Trayvon start “running” before Zimmerman got out of the SUV? It sounds to me like Trayvon may have seen something scary when he looked into the SUV as he passed by.

    That, or Trayvon was just running to get out of the rain.

    Reply ↓

    • “It sounds to me like Trayvon may have seen something scary when he looked into the SUV as he passed by.”

      He did, he got a good look at Zimmerman’s facial expression.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • Actually, the dispatcher asks, “which way is he running?” BEFORE the door opens.

      There are not a lot of white people or Hispanics in the neighborhood where Martin lived. He could have imagined all kinds of things about Zimmerman. A gang member. Someone from the Miami schools. He might not think, “It is a gated community. The gates are locked at this time. Any car probably belongs in the neighborhood.” He had a 16 YO girl who could have spurred his imagination. She might have said, “maybe it is just someone parked in front of their residence, what is the address it is parked in front of?” And Trayvon responded, “I don’t know, it is a cut through”. In some of the 3rd hand of what DeeDee heard, Zimmerman is referred to as a “boy”.

      Whatever she said, it is not likely that she said, “It is probably someone from a neighborhood watch, why don’t go up and introduce yourself, and invite him to watch the All Star Game.”

      If Martin starts running before he gets to Zimmerman, Zimmerman might jump out of his car and stop him. So he gets past acting “normal” or perhaps with a glare that he is not intimidated. Once he has some distance, he takes off running. If he were 50 feet away, and had a 10 second lead, he could easily have been 200 feet away by the time Zimmerman leaves his truck. Martin might not think Zimmerman belongs in the gated community, and he will lose him once he is off the streets.

      Or maybe he was trying to lure Zimmerman from the relative safety of his truck.

      Reply ↓

86. Yup, you might have a very good point there unitron.

    Reply ↓

87. Good Imaginations make for good “TV movies” and nothing more. I’ll put my trust in the scientific forensic evidence at trial.

    Reply ↓

    • There is likely no evidence of why Martin decided to run. “DeeDee” recollections are hearsay, at best what he told her, even if he told her. And they might not be why he decided to run.

      What is actually relevant is Zimmerman’s perception of Martin’s actions, and whether his response was reasonable.

      Reply ↓

    • That is exactly the problem I have with this, the police had no contradictory evidence so they could not arrest under F.S.776.032, I had assumed that Corey’s team Gilbreath and O’Steen had found some, but under oath Gilbreath also said he had no contradictory evidence from the FBI or anyone else, the only “Voice Analysis” he admitted to that indicated it was possibly Martin yelling for help was done by the Orlando Sentinel, the FBI’s was inconclusive. That only leaves witness statements that according to the police were not contradicting Zimmerman’s statement the night of the shooting, the blond that said she saw Zimmerman on top was questioned and apparently whatever she had said under oath was different from the TV interviews. Gilbreath admitted that the only evidence he had to give Probable Cause were contained in Zimmerman’s statements to Police, yet Sanford PD did not consider those same statements to be enough probable cause to arrest.

      Reply ↓

88. More fodder for the cannons:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-zimmerman-says-martin-circled-car-20120504,0,6456654.story?track=rss

    The above article is still only rumor and speculation but the following is interesting:

    “The Sentinel’s source also points out what may be an inconsistency in Zimmerman’s statements: Zimmerman reportedly told police that Martin put his hand over Zimmerman’s mouth during the fight. But investigators apparently don’t believe him, because on one 911 call, someone is screaming for help.

    Zimmerman has said the screaming voice is his. But the cries are not muffled.

    “It’s either one or the other, it can’t be both,” Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Martin’s family, told the paper.

    Yet how much weight this detail may carry in court remains to be seen. After all, it could be possible that Martin covered Zimmerman’s mouth for part of the fight, leaving him free to issue unmuffled screams during another part.”

    At least the press is beginning to insert some sensibility (and Zimmerman’s possible arguments). I go with the: “After all, it could be possible that Martin covered Zimmerman’s mouth for part of the fight, leaving him free to issue unmuffled screams during another part.”

    Does anyone seriously believe Zimmerman could not, at least for a yell or two, have twisted away from someone — who knows witnesses are in the area — is trying to keep Zimmerman’s mouth shut while beating him to a pulp? Obviously, it is only when his mouth is temporarily clear that he will yell and his yell be heard.

    Reply ↓

    • On the 911 with the the longest sequences of calls for help (about 45 seconds) there are about 8 seconds missing where the dispatcher is asking for the address of the caller. And the volume of the yells varies quite a bit. This may be partially how we hear, where we adjust for different volumes. When someone is speaking, the yells sound less intense. And there may be some sort of equalization in the phone and recording equipment.

      Reply ↓

89. BBRAB, thanks for your comments. Definitely I agree that this will all be up to a jury (unless there is a plea deal). I think the main thing I’d like to get out there at this time is that there are many possible scenarios here, and the one about Trayvon attacking Zimmerman is not the only one, and not even necessarily the most plausible one.

    I agree, we may never know what happened that night. This is certainly an interesting case though. We will know the outcome of the trial.

    Reply ↓

90. I haven’t seen this reported, but to counter Crump, O’Mara has been going on TV sometimes with Crump to counter Crump’s Claims. On 26 Apr Prosecutor Angela Corey asked for a Gag order citing O’Mara responding to Crump. On 30 Apr Judge Lester Denied the motion.

    18th Circuit Court
    http://www.flcourts18.org/presspublic.html

    The Arraignment Hearing will be May 8th at 1:30PM Eastern. As with all of the rest I want to actually see the full hearing not just Media Snippets.

    Reply ↓

91. Since there is so much speculation as to why Trayvon ran — which must meet the beyond reasonable doubt standard, if asserted against Zimmerman — so here is another theory which seems so natural that I would be amazed if Mara doesn’t use it:

    If the full Zimmerman statements (we still haven’t seen them) say the suspect circled his truck, then an obvious reason for Trayvon to run is that he can see the guy in the truck is on the phone, i.e., he thinks he may be calling the POLICE, so Trayvon decides to quickly get out of there — and not go to his apt but instead hang around out of sight to see if the police were really coming. This explains why he didn’t go home to see the NBA game.

    A few minutes later — after believing the police were not called — Zimmerman again sees Zimmerman (or was always keeping an eye on him while Zimmerman was on the phone) and that he is NO LONGER ON THE PHONE and that is when he confronts Zimmerman. The attack was quickly done AFTER Trayvon saw Zimmerman reach for his phone (to again call for police) and the smothering of Zimmerman during the attack was to keep him from yelling for help to other possible witnesses who, by then, Trayvon knew were in the area (it was early evening).

    I really find it hard to believe that Zimmerman, in five different statements, all without significant contradiction, could have immediately thought up elements — the circling of the truck, the fact the he was on the phone in plain view while in the truck, the attack occurring when he had got off the phone and while trying to call the police again, and the smothering to keep him from yelling — that all fit a pattern of aggression by Trayvon so well.

    Reply ↓

    • Are you serious ? There are so many fallacies with your premise. Zimmerman was inside the car when Trayvon passed by. It is very unlikely that he ‘heard’ him talk to the police. Now assuming Trayvon did ‘check’ him out and assume that Zimmerman was talking to the police and ran. Why would he then come back ? After all…if he had done something wrong and was afraid of the Police, then his home would be best place to hide.
      And what is this about Zimmerman not contradicting himself. All Zimmerman has done is contradict himself. On the call with the dispatch he says Trayvon stares at him, checks him out and starts running. On his statment to the police he said that he actually has an exchange with Trayvon as he passed by. Now here is the story about Trayvon circling the truck and frightening him.

      Reply ↓

    • Truthbetold,

      I never said Trayvon heard Zimmerman’s phone conversation. I only said it is quite possible that when Trayvon saw Zimmerman was on the phone he didn’t want to take a chance the authorities were being alerted, so he ran out of sight. Remember, Zimmerman says Trayvon was going out of his way to circle the car — an act that can be perceived as aggressive. So it is consistent to infer that Trayvon would temporarily hide to see if police or security were coming.

      I have not seen Zimmerman’s statement, but in the reports I have read, Zimmerman does NOT say “he actually has an exchange with Trayvon as he passed by.” Please provide a link if that is incorrect. It was in the ABC/Crump/DeeDee contrived videos — used to “prove” Zimmerman was the “Terminator” type stalker of an innocent child — that that statement was made.

      Reply ↓

    • http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-03/news/os-trayvon-martin-circles-george-zimmerman-20120503_1_special-prosecutor-angela-corey-source-police-department

      The Orlando Sentinel’s “source familiar with the investigation” says that Zimmerman statement was that Martin “came toward his vehicle and began to circle it.”

      The article says that investigator Gilbreath “testified that Zimmerman told authorities he was frightened because Trayvon circled him while he sat in his SUV.”

      I can’t find anything like that in the CNN transcript – but that is actually a transcript of their show that included commercial breaks. But if the investigator actually testified in open court that Zimmerman had told police that Martin had circled his truck, wouldn’t someone have reported this?

      If Zimmerman’s statement was that Martin “began to circle”, and Gilbreath said that Zimmerman said that Martin circled the truck, didn’t Gilbreath perjure himself – or a least engage in gross embellishment.

      But the article also says: “Gilbreath did not testify that Zimmerman claimed the circling happened while he was on the phone with the dispatcher.” So why put such an awkward expression in the article?

      The article also says “And they may reveal the inconsistencies alluded to by prosecutors in the case.” But if Gilbreath actually did give the example of Zimmerman having told police that Martin had circled his truck, which is not consistent with the phone call, that is not an “allusion”.

      Since Corey and Gilbreath were so badly embarassed at the bond hearing, maybe they are the “source”. See the name of the file chosen by the Orlando Sentinel.

      Reply ↓

    • Sorry I have never really reviewed the written transcript from CNN I posted. Instead of CNN stopping the live feed and delaying it for 2min for commercials they actually also missed Judge Lester asking if there were burn marks on Martin, and I also believe Gilbreath meant Zimmerman as well. That would put the gun wedged in between Martin and Zimmerman. At the very least the barrel was contacting or really near (within inches) of Martin when it was fired.

      I just reviewed the tape again and wrote down what was said about circling the truck, it was mostly the Prosecutor trying to recover in Cross Examination after all of the testimony that hurt his case.

      1:46:40 Prosecutor: Did he, Mr. ahmm Zimmerman the defendant at one point claim to the police that he was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car?
      Gilbreath: Yes.
      Prosecutor: But despite according to Mr. Zimmerman he was so scared he still got out of the car and chased Mr. Martin Correct?
      Gilbreath: He went after him yes.
      Prosecutor: And isn’t it true based on the evidence that Mr. Zimmerman also had two flashlights with him
      Gilbreath: Yes.

      The Prosecutor definitely said “Started Circling” not circling around, or went around his car a few times. That could mean he was coming down the road and arced out into the road to pass his car and continues around until he was back at the edge of the road again to continue East watching Zimmerman on the phone the whole time, which seems to correspond to:

      GZ: Something’s wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out, he’s got something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is.
      PD: Just let me know if he does anything ok
      GZ: How long until you get an officer over here?
      PD: Yeah we’ve got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
      GZ: Okay. These assholes they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.
      PD: So it’s on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
      GZ: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left…uh you go straight in, don’t turn, and make a left. Shit he’s running.
      (This is where you hear Zimmerman open his door.)
      PD: He’s running? Which way is he running?

      Which actually makes sense to not start running till you are behind the car if you want to loose the guy in the car.

      Also Corey just got her Gag order denied, so She probably wants to get information out there to try to limit the PR damage Gilbreath did to her on the stand.

      Reply ↓

    • Except for the Sentinel article’s ambiguous information on the extent of Trayvon’s circling Zimmerman’s truck, there is not much new. The article confirms the State will have a difficult, if not impossible time to disprove Zimmerman’s version beyond reasonable doubt:

      “Zimmerman also told police, the source told the Sentinel, that while the two were on the ground, Trayvon reached for Zimmerman’s gun, and the two struggled over it.
      Those portions of Zimmerman’s account are not corroborated by other evidence, the source said.”

      Translation: “not corroborated” means there is no evidence (including witnesses) to prove OR DISPROVE Zimmerman’s version. Note that the source never said there was evidence to disprove Zimmerman’s version.

      I think the article’s statement: “Gilbreath did not testify that Zimmerman claimed the circling happened while he was on the phone with the dispatcher.” was a not so subtle smear of Zimmerman. It is obvious from the dispatcher tape that Zimmerman was on the phone at the time, so the article’s statement infers Zimmerman is a liar because he didn’t say he was on the phone when we know he was.

      The very selection of the “circling” incident, in order to show “inconsistent statements” for purposes of proving guilt, is a sign of how weak the State’s case actually is. The exact recollections of an innocent person, who is under the stress circumstances Zimmerman was under, would normally be subject to expected variation and such variation does not prove guilt.

      Reply ↓

    • Now that I know to listen for a window rolling up, the strange noises I have identified before make sense.

      PD: OK…
      GZ: Now he’s just staring at me.
      PD: OK—you said it’s 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?
      GZ: That’s the clubhouse…
      PD: That’s the clubhouse, do you know what the—he’s near the clubhouse right now?
      GZ: Yeah, now he’s coming towards me.
      PD:OK.
      (Time 1:01 you can hear what sounds like a manual window being rolled up)
      GZ: He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.
      (Time 1:10 you can hear what sounds like him stop rolling you the window to lock his door)
      PD: How old would you say he looks?
      GZ: He’s got button on his shirt, late teens.
      PD: Late teens ok.
      GZ: Something’s wrong with him. (Time 1:20 The sound of rolling up the window seems to stop here) Yup, he’s coming to check me out, he’s got something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is.
      PD: Just let me know if he does anything ok
      GZ: How long until you get an officer over here?
      PD: Yeah we’ve got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
      GZ: Okay. These assholes they always get away. (Time 1:40 Sound like he is rolling up the passenger window) When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse.
      PD: So it’s on the lefthand side from the clubhouse?
      GZ: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left…uh you go straight in, don’t turn, and make a left. Shit he’s running.
      (This is where you hear Zimmerman open his door.)
      PD: He’s running? Which way is he running?
      GZ: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

      Reply ↓

    • @insp gadget

      Do you know where there is a recording of the hearing?

      So the Orlando Sentinel misstated what Gilbreath actually testified, and use the erroneous version for their headline.

      Orlando Sentinel version:

      “At an April 20 bond hearing in Sanford, Dale Gilbreath, an investigator for Special Prosecutor Angela Corey, testified that Zimmerman told authorities he was frightened because Trayvon circled him while he sat in his SUV.”

      The Orlando Sentinel also managed to put both versions within 3 paragraphs.

      “He does not say that Trayvon was circling his vehicle, but that’s what he told police later that night and has consistently told authorities in subsequent interviews, according to the Sentinel’s source.

      Here, according to that source, is the sequence that Zimmerman provided:

      Zimmerman spotted Trayvon, called a nonemergency police number and began describing the teenager. While he was doing that, Trayvon came toward his vehicle and began to circle it.”

      Did the “source” use both versions? Or did the Orlando Sentinel creatively edit what the source had told them, and juxtaposed them?

      The Orlando Sentinel also wrote this:

      “Gilbreath did not testify that Zimmerman claimed the circling happened while he was on the phone with the dispatcher.”

      What else did Gilbreath “not testify” to? Did the Sentinel review what Gilbreath actually had testified to, and put that clarification, or did their source offer that clarification.

      Gilbreath did not testify that Zimmerman claimed that any circling happened.

      Reply ↓

    • I recommend everyone listen to Det. Gilbreath’s testimony, he is called to the stand at time 1hour 5minutes. I believed Martin was a totally innocent victim and the local police were ignoring evidence until I saw this video. This testimony caused a “There but for the Grace of God, Go I.” moment. The most important lesson I have learned since starting to help people get their CWL’s in FL, is find a good local lawyer that knows gun laws, keep his card in you wallet, and in your cell phone on speed-dial in case you have to defend yourself from a mugger. No matter how innocent you are, YOU WANT YOUR LAWYER!!!!!!!! It may mean you have to wait until tomorrow to answer Police questions but it could have saved Zimmerman a massive amount of this trouble to have competent legal counsel (Mark O’Mara) from the get go. They have already admitted the only evidence they have is within Zimmerman’s statements that were made without benefit of counsel. Gilbreath admitted they have no other evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s story.

      Bond Hearing (Full Video)
      http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815
      TIME: 8:20 to 18:30 Zimmerman’s Wife questioned by Zimmerman’s Lawyer Mark O’Mara.

      TIME: 18:30 to 28:25 Zimmerman’s wife questioned by the Prosecution.

      TIME: 28:25 to 34:00 Zimmerman’s wife questioned by O’Mara.

      TIME: 34:50 to 40:50 Zimmerman’s father questioned by O’Mara.

      TIME: 40:50 to 48:09 Zimmerman’s father questioned by Prosecution.

      TIME: 48:09 to 50:40 Zimmerman’s father questioned by O’Mara.

      TIME: 51:02 to 1:01:38 Zimmerman’s mother questioned by O’Mara.

      TIME: 1:01:38 to 1:03:21 Zimmerman’s mother questioned by Prosecution.

      TIME: 1:04:00 Phone Interviews Concluded

      TIME: 1:05:38 Officer Dale Gilbreath (Prosecution Lead Investigator) Called. Prosecution not prepared for questioning.

      Here is the Probable Cause Affidavit they are talking about.
      http://www.foxnews.com/us/interactive/2012/04/12/state-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-affidavit-probable-cause/

      This is the 911 Call from Zimmerman, ignore the comments section it does not help either way.

      Here is the PDF Transcript of the call

      Click to access full-transcript-zimmerman.pdf

      TIME: 1:17:07 Girlfriend interviewed by Det. Osteen about Conversation that night 5 weeks after shooting.

      TIME: 1:22:10 Officer Gilbreath admits that he has no evidence as to who started the face to face confrontation contrary to his Probable Cause Affidavit.

      TIME: 1:23:32 admits no official voice analysis completed on 911 call that had a person calling for “Help!”.

      TIME: 1:27:13 Admits that no one has officially identified the voice on the 911 call.

      TIME: 1:28:00 Det. Gilbreath questioned by Prosecution.

      TIME: 1:36:40 to 1:38:10 Det. Gilbreath admits that there is no evidence that Zimmerman continues to follow Zimmerman. Only a person that saw shadows outside her window.

      TIME: 1:38:42 to 1:44:48 Det. Gilbreath admits point blank under direct questioning that to this day 20 Apr 2012 , that there is no evidence of who started the flight and there is no evidence that he continued to follow after being told not to.

      TIME: 1:44:48 to 1:49:00 Prosecution questions Det. Gilbreath about who started fight.

      TIME: 1:46:40 Prosecutor: Did he, Mr. ahmm Zimmerman the defendant at one point claim to the police that he was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car?

      TIME: 1:48:35 Judge Lester asks Det. Gilbreath about Burn marks on Trevon Martin.

      TIME: 1:49:00 Det. Gilbreath asked Is evidence inconsistent with trauma to back of head followed by description of injuries to Zimmerman.

      TIME: 1:51:20 Det. Gilbreath says he has seen no medical reports of injuries to Zimmerman. O’Mara offers them to him.

      Reply ↓

    • I believe susan has a filter the kicks either certain words or length of posts to moderation, I have a few longer ones waiting. Here is the link directly to the video, I will repost both of the posts awaiting moderation in my facebook page if you would like to review them today, Insp Gadget (Look for the Ham Radio pic)

      Bond Hearing (Full Video)
      http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815

      Reply ↓

92. jimrtex,

    The conversation with the dispatcher verifies that Zimmerman followed Trayvon AFTER informing the dispatcher of Trayvon’s direction.

    Zimmerman told the dispatcher “Shit, he’s running” at 7:11:41. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman “Which way is he running?” from 7:11:42 – 43. It sounds like Zimmermans’ door clicked shut at 7:11:44. Zimmerman answered the dispatcher from 7:11:45 – 48: “Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood”. In other words, Zimmerman answered the dispatcher immediately, so it wasn’t necessary for Zimmerman to leave his vehicle to know which direction Trayvon was heading.

    From 7:11:49 – 50, the dispatcher asked, “Which entrance is that, that he’s headed towards” (needing clarification for which entrance is “the other entrance”). At 7:11:51, Zimmerman answers, “The back entrance”.

    That’s all the information Zimmerman gave to the dispatcher about the direction Trayvon was heading. BUT Zimmerman CONTINUED to follow Trayvon AFTER giving that information to the dispatcher. We know this, because AFTER the dispatcher had that information, at 7:11 57, the dispatcher asked Zimmerman, “Are you following him?” At 7:11:59, Zimmerman said “yeah”.

    So Zimmerman continued following Trayvon AFTER telling the dispatcher which direction Trayvon was headed.

    Also, although Zimmerman said “OK” (at 7:12:02) in response to the dispatcher telling him “We don’t need you to do that”, it sounds to me like Zimmerman may have continued to run for a few more seconds. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman his name, and when Zimmerman responds, “George”, it sounds to me from his voice that Zimmerman may still be running at that time (yes, speculation). Zimmerman’s breathing doesn’t change at all until after Zimmerman said, “He ran” at 7:12:13.

    (At about this time, Trayvon might have been turning east at the south end of the 2 rows of buildings.

    Reply ↓

    • hapufern:

      If you listen to the entire dispatcher tape, at about 30 seconds before Zimmerman leaves his truck the dispatcher asks Zimmerman to report on the suspect’s movements. You left that out.

      What you also leave out is that the suspect had disappeared before Zimmerman exited his truck. So all Zimmerman was doing was following for a few seconds in the direction the suspect had disappeared in — after the suspect was out of sight. That action is consistent with following the earlier dispatcher request to report the suspect’s movements, no more.

      Reply ↓

    • That’s the door coming open. You can hear the door chimes as there is muffling sound Zimmerman is getting out of his truck and making his initial assessment of where Martin is heading (the other entrance). The door closes as the dispatcher ask which entrance, and Zimmerman explains the back entrance.

      At that point, Zimmerman would be guessing that Martin was heading toward the back entrance If Martin is heading east through the cut through – then he might be heading toward the back entrance, but Zimmerman might have realized that might not be true. He then begins to follow in the direction that Martin is running (had run).

      Martin had a lead of 50? feet and 11 seconds before Zimmerman began moving. That’s a 200 foot lead. After Zimmerman moves for about 20 seconds, the last few slowing down he might have just been reaching the T, and lost sight of Martin who could have been running 30 seconds and been home by then sitting on the back patio.

      There is another 3 minutes of so before the altercation begins.

      Reply ↓

93. StanS, If Zimmerman told police later that Trayvon was circling Zimmerman’s truck, that statement would be a little difficult to believe, since Zimmerman never mentioned it in during his 911 call. For that reason, a statement like that would probably hurt Zimmerman’s credibility more than help him.

    Reply ↓

    • Why difficult to believe?

      The ABC/Crump/DeeDee described a “Terminator” type chase of Trayvon by Zimmerman in its two different contradictory videos (see posts above). That contrived “chase” refers to the rolling of Zimmerman’s truck window, in partial agreement with Zimmerman’s statement, but embellishes it to include Zimmerman also confronting Trayvon after rolling down his window — an exchange that is not on the dispatcher tape.

      The circling could easily have been when Trayvon, while moving towards the back path, circles the long way around Zimmerman’s truck to get to path. And while circling, Zimmerman rolls the window up and Trayvon, seeing Zimmerman is on the phone and thinking the police could be alerted, bolts down the back path and waits out of sight to see if the police (or a security firm) was called.

      Reply ↓

94. There is a perception in these comments here that the ‘following’ started after Zimmerman got off the truck. That does’nt have to be true. What was Zimmerman doing sitting in a parked car watching Trayvon come all the way down the road ? The explanation is that he was not. If he is on his way from his home ( I saw somewhere that his home is on the southwest corner of the complex) to Target, then the shortest or most logical way to get out of the complex would be go via the Retreat View Circle to the exit….which he probably did and saw Trayvon enter the complex and then ‘Followed’ Trayvon in his truck all the way past the clubhouse, mailboxes to the spot he was parked on.

    Reply ↓

    • The distance via Long Oaks is not much further (1420 feet vs 1230 feet), The difference is 7 seconds at 20 mph. And his unit is enough into the corner, it would be easier to back out of the driveway and then head east on Retreat View Circle, rather than north on Retreat View Circle. If you are part of a neighborhood watch, it is actually illogical to always take the shortest most expedient route out of the neighborhood.

      Zimmerman must have seen Martin before he made the call. It could have even been a few minutes, where he was trying to figure out what he was up to. Crump at one time claimed that Martin had taken cover from the rain at the apartments to the west. If Martin had come across from the apartments and then headed behind the units on Retreat View Circle, north of the detention pond it would have been particularly suspicious, since that is where the previous burglars were caught (on the short-cut to the apartments). In that case, Zimmerman might have driven down to Twin Trees to see whether Martin came all the way through.

      Reply ↓

95. 1) Zimmerman called the police before Trayvon ever passed Zimmerman’s truck; so obviously, Zimmerman already had it in his head that Trayvon was some kind of bad character. If that’s what Zimmerman thought, then Zimmerman would probably roll up his windows as Trayvon was walking past.

    2) People do tend to roll up their windows before they leave their vehicle – especially when it’s raining.

    Reply ↓

96. It may be difficult to know what Trayvon Martin was feeling other than by third party clarification, but putting myself in his shoes, I would certainly blame George Zimmerman for instigation this whole thing. If I walking on the north side of the sidewalk, saw someone driving very slowly and suspiciously behind me and then parks and watching me while on the phone, I’ll be thinking this is strange and would be scared I would be jumped, robbed or beaten. Many times I go walks and I’ll pass by some suspicious car parking but I certainly wouldn’t run. It would draw their attention. The only way in hell I’m going to bolt is if I saw something that is not right. What could that be? Perhaps, after “circling” GZ’s vehicle and I saw that he was holstering his firearm, that would make me not only scared, it would make me feel pissed as well. I would high tail it out of there. Call me chicken. But then again, some people get scared, then will show a sense of bravery later.
    Anyways, the second Trayvon bolted, GZ left his car to pursue him and that is an aggression. Just like in the movies, the bad guys starts the initial confrontation when they spot their target. Target may move to elude and hide and in some case defend themselves whether or not they throw the first swing. It reminds me once of a local news case when a suspicious man was following a girl home and when she ran, the man gave chase. She tried to hide and where she hide, she saw a huge rock. When the man appeared closer, she sprung out and hit the man in the head which made the man drop to the ground bleeding. The predator got up and punched the girl. A male passerby hearing her screams came to help, tackled and subdued the suspect until police arrived. The predator was charged and arrested for assault and battery. The girl was not arrested even though she struck the first blow. Everyone lauded her as brave. That’s what made me think of this case when it comes to Trayvon and George.
    Half the public blames George, the other half Trayvon. But couldn’t it be possible that Trayvon was standing his own ground because of the provocative actions of George? Sure Trayvon could have just went home, but if I was in his shoes, and I know someone got out of his car and was following me after I started running, there is no way in the world I would want that person to know where I live. He might break in the door and then I’ll end up bringing harm to my little brother as well.
    If anything, George started this whole thing whether or not Trayvon threw the first punch. The moment someone starts to chase me on foot, that’s a threat, a provocation. Some of us will be scared shitless we’re not going to want to meet face to face. Then there are some of us who won’t take this crap and will confront the troublemaker. Either ways, on this evening, both Trayvon AND George were fearless. Both probably suspected one another of having a weapon. At some time, George must have holstered up during the 9-1-1 call because he would not have been wearing it while driving to go shopping. By some reports, the holster was “inside” his waistband. Like most people carrying a firearm, it would either be in the trunk or the glove box. And if someone carries a firearm while shopping in Target, that person is an idiot.

    Reply ↓

    • But in your scenario, with a cell phone already in hand, wouldn’t you be calling 911 instead of confronting the person. I do carry a gun (Yes on my person with a license anytime it is legally allowed) and my first move would be to grab my cell phone and call 911, not my gun unless the confrontation were already physical. Confronting someone can go south both physically and Legally real quick because you go from being the victim to being the aggressor under the law. The person that started the physical confrontation committed a Forcible Felony that led to the Death of Martin, if Zimmerman initiated then he did commit murder, but if Martin initiated a Forcible Felony and beating Zimmerman’s head into cement then it is a self defense shooting

      In FL you do not need a license to carry in you car, it is considered part of your castle and is part of the Castle Doctrine.

      776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
      http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

      As far as carrying while driving it where I carry depends on the area, if I am in a relatively safe area (Around my neighborhood) I will leave my weapon in the holster in the back of my pants. If I am driving in a area that is known for trouble I will pull it out of that holster and put it in a holster mounted in my center console (I usually avoid those areas when possible). If I am in a place that it is legal to carry under Florida and Federal law I Carry for the same reason I have a fire extinguisher in my jeep, just in case. As far as shopping in Target, Wal Mart, Winn Dixie, or any other store after dark especially, I want that weapon available in that parking lot while I am walking from my jeep to the store, and after when I am returning to my jeep. Just Google Target Robbery, Wal Mart Robbery or any other store you want, most of the robberies happen in the parking lot. Unless I can find a way to Teleport myself from my Drivers seat to inside the store, I plan on continuing to carry when I go shopping as do a quickly growing number of Licensed Floridians. I also carry my Cell on my left side in case I have to draw my weapon I can call the police then my lawyer as soon as possible.

      Reply ↓

    • 1. As far as we know, and according to the Zimmerman’s statements, the timeline, the police recording, Zimmerman left his car in order to see where Martin went — not to “pursue” or confront Martin. As others have noted, this was at least partly in response to the dispatcher’s questions about where Martin was and/or was going. His actions hardly make him a “predator.”

      2. Plenty of speculation has been made about Martin not wanting someone to know where he lived, or where his little brother was, etc. However, it’s purse speculation, as there is no such evidence. As I have said before, the “speculation” that will matter the most at trial is the jury “speculating” as to whether Zimmerman’s version of the story (while considering the evidence) is reasonable. It seems to me that two or three (or more) “speculative” versions all seem reasonable so far, including the one told by Zimmerman. Unless evidence we have not heard yet changes that, I don’t see how the prosecution will be able to overcome reasonable doubt.

      3. As a CHL holder, yes, we do carry our firearms when shopping, eating out, and anywhere it is legal to do so. What is the point of having a CHL and not carrying your weapon? Most likely Zimmerman had his weapon holstered and concealed before he ever left home. Calling him an idiot for doing that serves no purpose in this discussion, except perhaps to show that you have already judged him (as many have).

      Reply ↓

    • @BBRAB:
      I don’t know about other people but if I was to report a suspicious person whom I may think have a weapon, if the 9-1-1 operator asked me which way he was heading, I would give them the general direction they are going and not physically leave the car, put myself at risk or innocent bystanders. I would have stayed put in my car and wait for the police as pre-arranged. Any actions I take should I leave the car and go in the direction where the suspect has fled may put myself in dire consequences. Knowing the fact that police are on their way, I would leave it to them to do their jobs and rightfully so. I believe the 9-1-1 was trying to convey this to them though what they told GZ was ambigous. The dispatcher did say GZ did not need to follow him.

      I too have a permit to carry a gun but I only use it as a sport – target practice. I do not carry it with me everywhere whether it is to go shopping, church or family outings. I feel the best preventive measure is to avoid any conflict. There are many ways to do this while you are out in public. I used to live in an area riddled with crime but though I am aware of my surroundings, I did my best to ensure
      that I don’t antagonize anyone and in that area. Little things such as staring at someone can get you shot. GZ got out of his car and tried to look for TM. Even Robert Zimmerman has admitted so much. That’s an aggression and I believe this is what the prosecutors will point out.

      Some people are saying Trayvon was at a place where he shouldn’t be but I say the same about GZ as well. I believe he misread what the dispatcher asked because no dispatcher would want to put the caller in harm’s way. This is why all dispatcher will advise any caller not to pursue a possible suspect. What if TM was in fact someone who was armed? What if TM did shoot towards GZ? GZ would have certainly shot back. He had a gun which I presume would be for self defense. This acts endanger lives. Regardless of who started the fight and how the fight ended up, GZ was a fool to get out of his car in the first place. I know I
      would have waited in the car. There are consequences for ones person action, including TM himself. And I do believe that if GZ had not foolishly left his car in the first place, GZ’s life would not have been ruined and TM will be alive. I am neither judge or jury for either parties, but I will maintain what transpired, GZ may have regrets and probably wishes he would have done things differently. No matter what the outcome s, if I believe George to be an outstanding citizens, he would not repeat the same actions the next time.

      er in harm’s way, especially if he fee

      Reply ↓

    • @Anonymous — No argument from me regarding Zimmerman’s likely regrets. Would things have been different had he stayed in his vehicle? Probably so. The evidence so far seems to show that Zimmerman was simply trying to see where Martin went in order to tell the police, which were on the way. When told to stop following, he clearly says, “OK,” and the noise on the call changes as if he has stopped. If you want to understand why Zimmerman was concerned about his neighborhood and concerned that Martin didn’t “get away,” here is quote from a recent interview with a neighbor of his:

      …one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.
      “Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. I’m black, OK?” the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. “There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood,” she said. “That’s why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin.”

      On the surface, it looks like both parties made false assumptions about the other one (both Zimmerman and Martin). Whether the tragic final outcome was justified or criminal is yet to be determined.

      Reply ↓

    • “Some people are saying Trayvon was at a place where he shouldn’t be but I say the same about GZ as well. I believe he misread what the dispatcher asked because no dispatcher would want to put the caller in harm’s way.”

      What people are saying is that Martin wouldn’t have been where the altercation took place, if he had continued in the way it is claimed that he did.

      And I’m sure the dispatcher wishes that he had handled Zimmerman’s call better.

      Reply ↓

97. Anon,

    I agree that GZ should have stayed in his car.

    While it would have been perfectly reasonable for TM to worry about GZ finding out where he lived, I think it’s worth noting that both the prosecutor and DD claim that GZ was in fact trying to get home.

    I was dark and TM have a big lead on GZ and probably knew he had lost him.

    Reply ↓

98. Susan
    Great job. I just want to comment on the 911 call from Zimmerman. I believe that the clicking noise from the car is his seat belt. If you listen to the tape when the dispatcher asks for his last name, is when your hear clearly hear the gun being chambered. Then he answers Zimmerman. I then hear after that he says “shit gun” while the operator is talking. I believe after he exits the car he readies the gun. If he already had gun in hand, how is it possible he got sucker punched if he had gun in hand. I know you answers most posts, but if you could just listen to that portion and let me know if you hear it also. thanks loree

    Reply ↓

    • “how is it possible he got sucker punched if he had gun in hand”

      That is the point. If Zimmerman had his gun out, he never would have been punched since he would have shot first.

      So the only reasonable explanation is that he didn’t have the gun out and Trayvon hit him.

      Reply ↓

99. jimrtex, your scenario about Trayvon definitely making it to his back porch makes sense, if……:

    IF Trayvon was RUNNING the ENTIRE TIME, and if Zimmerman was running really slow, Trayvon MAYBE could have made it to his patio before Zimmerman made the south turn between the 2 rows of buildings. If that’s the case, Zimmerman would not have been able to see Trayvon enter his house, and Trayvon would not have to worry about this “crazy” guy (Dee Dee’s word) seeing where he entered and smashing his sliding glass door down.

    However, if Trayvon had NOT made it to his back patio entrance by the time Zimmerman made the turn south between the 2 rows of buildings, then Zimmerman and Trayvon would have seen each other , and Trayvon would have had motivation to bypass the back patio entrance, continue running south until the end of the rows, and then turn east toward the back entrance (and also toward his own front entrance).

    Someone above suggested that Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon before Zimmerman left his vehicle (and that THIS is the reason Zimmerman left his vehicle). If so, then Trayvon would also NOT have seen Zimmerman leave his vehicle, and Trayvon would then NOT KNOW that Zimmerman was following him. Hence, Trayvon could easily have slowed down after turning south down between the 2 rows of buildings, which would have given Zimmerman ample opportunity to make the same turn south before Trayvon made it to the back patio. They would have seen each other, and Trayvon would have had motivation to bypass his back patio entrance.

    So, under which scenario did Trayvon hide? If Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon before Zimmerman left his vehicle, then Trayvon didn’t see Zimmerman leave his vehicle and therefore didn’t know Zimmerman was following; so why WOULD Trayvon hide?

    Trayvon would have no motivation to hide unless he knew Zimmerman was following him.

    If Trayvon hid, then we might have to assume that Trayvon saw Zimmerman leave the vehicle, and therefore, Zimmerman must have left the vehicle before losing sight of Trayvon. It would be difficult to hide after Zimmerman made the south turn and could see Trayvon. In any case, at whatever point Trayvon discovered that Zimmerman was following, Trayvon had every right to feel threatened by this “crazy” guy who was following him.

    But unless Trayvon intended to harm Zimmerman from the beginning (addressed further down), it doesn’t seem logical that Trayvon would have hidden instead of continuing to run. When you hide, you’re taking the chance that your pursuer may find you. Why would Trayvon take that chance when he could easily outrun Zimmerman? (hence a defense argument that Trayvon circled the vehicle?)

    But let’s say that Trayvon hid. THEN HOW DO WE KNOW THAT ZIMMERMAN DIDN’T FIND TRAYVON ON ZIMMERMAN’S WAY BACK TO HIS VEHICLE, AND THAT THE CONFRONTAION OCCURRED WHEN ZIMMERMAN FOUND TRAYVON? Certainly, if Trayvon had reason to hide, he had reason to defend himself when being discovered by Zimmerman.

    And especially if, in the process of defending himself, Trayvon SAW ZIMMERMAN’S GUN, Trayvon had every reason to try to restrain Zimmerman by whatever means necessary and call desperately for help.

    Which is why Zimmerman HAS to say that Trayvon was trying to muffle Zimmerman’s calls, because if Trayvon was defending himself, he would WANT Zimmerman to call for help. Otherwise, if Zimmerman was calling for help, we would have to EXPECT Trayvon to try to muffle Zimmeman’s calls. Unfortunately for Zimmerman, we don’t hear any muffled sounds on the tape.

    On the other hand, if Trayvon was calling for help, and Zimmerman suddenly realized he had instigated a fight with some minor who actually had a right to be there, and therefore Zimmerman could kiss his future law ambitions good-bye, Zimmerman could have easily muffled Trayvon’s cries by shooting him. (speculation, but possible motive)

    Basically, all I’m saying here is that IF Trayvon hid, we still don’t know who attacked whom.

    But let’s now say that Trayvon intended to harm Zimmerman from the very start, and Trayvon circled Zimmerman’s SUV in a threatening manner, and Zimmerman neglected to mention this to the dispatcher, despite the dispatcher saying, “Just let me know if this guy does anything else.”

    Let’s assume that Trayvon suddenly started running (because he saw Zimmerman on the phone, possibly reporting Trayvon’s threatening action of circling of the SUV?). In order for Trayvon to make the decision to hide, Trayvon would have had to know that Zimmerman was following. Therefore Trayvon would have had to see Zimmerman either leave the SUV, or turn south down between the rows, or both. But it would be too late for Trayvon to hide once Zimmerman made the south turn, because Zimmerman could see Trayvon at that point.

    So, in my OPINION, Trayvon would have had to see Zimmerman leave the vehicle to know that Zimmerman is following, which is the only way that Trayvon would be motivated to hide, and still be able to hide without Zimmerman seeing where Trayvon went to hide. Trayvon then finds a hiding place between the 2 rows of buildings so that he can attack Zimmerman when Zimmerman goes past (and gets off the phone?).

    But still, why would Trayvon hide? He already knows that Zimmerman has seen him, and if he thought Zimmerman was on the phone with the police, then Zimmerman would have already given the police Trayvon’s description. If Trayvon isn’t worried about Zimmerman having already given a description to police, and if Trayvon is intent on attacking Zimmerman, why would Trayvon HIDE first? Hiding gives Trayvon absolutely no advantage, since even Zimmerman says that Trayvon’s first punch was to Zimmerman’s nose. That’s a frontal blow, and can’t come from behind.

    CONCLUSION: we only know for sure that Zimmerman was following Trayvon, and not the other way around; AND that Trayvon had committed no crime from the time Zimmerman spotted Trayvon to the time the conflict occurrred, AND that Zimmerman was armed with a loaded weapon when he followed Trayvon, AND that Trayvon was unarmed.

    Everything else we think we know, is either speculation or comes from Zimmerman’s story(ies).

    Reply ↓

    • Whew!

      Reply ↓

    • Martin would have to run about 150 yards in 30 seconds. I was not very fast, had shorter legs and could have done in it 20 seconds.

      Zimmerman could have got to the T in 20 seconds, at about 9 ft/sec a shuffling walk run.

      It is possible that Martin was simply intending to get off the road, away from the man in the truck. Or he could have cut through between buildings.

      Or there are small privacy fences extending out from the buildings. On the ground floor, you have garages on the front, and a front entrance door – I’d guess another entrance through the garage, maybe into a small entry hall. If there is any sort of window, it is a small one for light. There are no windows on the sides of units since they are attached. So all the ground floor activity is focused on the back of the house and the patios. So these small fences mean that people can sit on their patio, and not have a neighbor staring at them from 15 feet away. Pick one that is dark, because the residents are away, or the unit is empty (lots of foreclosures).

      Reply ↓

100. I have followed this blog and other updates on the case from the start but I just read this article. It contains information from a “law-enforcement source familiar with Zimmerman’s account.” Credible or not, it does have details I have not heard, most notably,

     According to the source, Zimmerman told police that Martin’s last words after the shooting were, “Okay, you got it.” He said the phrase twice, then turned and fell face-down on the ground. This is different from “Okay, you got ME.”

     Zimmerman told police he didn’t realize that Martin was seriously injured, and that he lunged to get on top of him after the teenager fell to the ground.

     I had never heard he got on top of Martin. There is also a reference to Martin having reached for George’s gun BEFORE the struggle actually began.

     If everyone is familiar, with these details, then sorry but this blog is getting quite lengthy and it’s hard to find what has been posted in the past.

     http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/19/new-account-zimmerman-told-cops-trayvon-s-last-words-were-okay-you-got-it.html

     Reply ↓