Minute-by-Minute Timeline of Trayvon Martin’s Death

Posted on by

[Update, 7/5/13: For updated material concerning the ongoing trial of George Zimmerman, please see more recent posts concerning the undisputed facts at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case, the significance of Selene Bahadoor’s testimony, and Zimmerman’s inability to explain how he fell backwards but ended up 40 feet forward.]

[Update, 4/15/12: For an analysis of the criminal laws implicated by this case, please see my follow-up post on the specific criminal charges brought against George Zimmerman, and his available statutory defenses.]

[Update, 4/29/12: Having finally looked at a longer copy of the phone records for Trayvon Martin’s phone, I’ve revised portions of the timeline to reflect the new information contained there. However, I now believe that the T-Mobile call logs are hopelessly unreliable for giving call times with any accuracy more than + 59 seconds. I did some rough experiments with my own phone, since my cell plan is also through T-Mobile, and it appears to me that the recorded times on T-Mobile statements are not at all exact, and can be as much as 59 seconds off from the actual time at which a call was made. Calls were wrongly recorded both as occurring later and sooner than from when they were actually made, so the error isn’t due to T-Mobile’s clock being fast or slow — the times are just off.]

[Update, 5/28/12: Lot of new information has been released while I was out of town. Working now on going through it all and updating the timeline with the information obtained from the new docs.]

[Update, 7/20/12: This timeline of events has been superseded by the release of a great deal of discovery that was unavailable at the time that it was constructed. The time stamps on the various phone calls still stand, obviously, but some of the interpretations of that data have to be changed in light of the additional evidence.]

I wanted to write a more in depth post the death of Trayvon Martin and the possible criminal charges arising from it, but when trying to figure out how strong Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense might be, I got frustrated by the lack of any in-depth, detailed time lines of the events leading up to and immediately following Trayvon’s death. In order to get a better idea of what exactly happened, I’ve laid out here a chronology of the shooting based on (1) call logs of the calls to 911 and the police made that night; (2) recordings of the calls themselves; and (3) the police report and surveillance video that have been made available to the public.

The records show that less than ten minutes passed from Zimmerman’s first sighting of Trayvon, to Zimmerman’s shooting of Trayvon as they wrestled in a neighborhood walkway between houses. Where possible, I’ve included the times of events down to the second, but some events and phone calls were only recorded by the minute, making some guess work necessary.

To start with, I’ve put together a quick diagram of some of the relevant locations that are referenced in the post. (Thanks for the image, Xie!)

Relevant Documents

Timeline of Events

6:22:08pm: Surveillance footage of the 7-Eleven near the Retreat View neighborhood shows Trayvon entering the store.

6:24:33pm: Trayvon buys a canned drink and a bag of candy, and departs the store. The clerk puts it in a brown plastic bag. That bag will later be found strewn near where Trayvon is shot.

6:54pm: Trayvon makes a call to “DeeDee,” a minor female that has been reported as his girlfriend. He is using a headset, walking home on his way back from the store after grabbing a snack and a drink, and he has been on the phone with DeeDee since he left there. According to DeeDee, it begins to rain, and he takes shelter at one of the buildings in the townhouse complex, while the two continue to chat. The referenced building is possibly the awning marked in purple on the above image.

7:04pm: An unknown individual makes a call to Trayvon while Trayvon is still talking to DeeDee. Unlike both Trayvon and DeeDee, this individual is not using a phone on a T-Mobile phone plan. Trayvon apparently puts DeeDee on hold, and then answers the new call in order to speak briefly to the new caller. This conversation lasts anywhere between 1 second and 59 seconds. After, Trayvon switches his call back to DeeDee. This phone call between DeeDee and Trayvon is recorded as having a duration of 18 minutes — which means from connection to termination, it was somewhere between 17 min, 0 seconds and 17 min, 59 seconds. Although the T-Mobile call times are imprecise, it would appear the call is disconnected at around 7:12pm.

7:09:34 pm: Zimmerman, in his truck, spots Trayvon. He calls the non-emergency dispatch number for the police, and the call log records his call as connecting with dispatch at 7:09:34pm. [Note: Relevant log begins on page 46.] He reports a suspicious black male in neighborhood. An recording of Zimmerman’s police call can be found here. Zimmerman states “The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.” Zimmerman meant to say 1111 Retreat View Circle. It appears that Trayvon is around the clubhouse when Zimmerman’s call to police begins, at the intersection of Retreat View and Twin Trees. This is consistent with DeeDee’s claims that Trayvon was hanging out under a complex building to take shelter from the rain.

7:10:16pm: Forty-five seconds after the phone call begins, Zimmerman reports that Trayvon is “here now,” indicating possibly that Trayvon was moving while Zimmerman was not. It’s possible Zimmerman’s car was parked at all times during his phone call to the police.

  • Zimmerman: “He’s here now … he’s just staring.”

7:10:20pm: Zimmerman’s phone call to police indicates that at this time, Trayvon becomes aware of the fact that Zimmerman is watching him. The two stare at one another, and Trayvon keeps walking.

  • Zimmerman: “Now he’s staring at me.”

7:10:22 – 7:10:35 pm:

  • Dispatch: “OK, you said that’s 1111 Retreat View or 111?”
  • Zimmerman: “That’s the clubhouse.”
  • Dispatch: “He’s near the clubhouse now?”
  • Zimmerman: “Yeah, now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waist band.”

It seems almost certain that Zimmerman was on Twin Trees Ln. at this point, since Trayvon’s path started at the clubhouse at the intersection of Retreat View and Twin Trees, and was heading towards the cut-through (circled in blue, above). It seems plausible that Zimmerman has been sitting in his parked truck, somewhere at the area marked in green in the image below, for the entire first half of his call to police. While watching from his truck, he sees Trayvon leaving the awning (marked in purple) and walking towards the cut-through, which means Trayvon’s path would’ve gone right past the car. Trayvon apparently noticed Zimmerman as he approaches, and keeps on walking.

This possible scenario, however, doesn’t completely fit with the timing from the call with DeeDee, which seems to indicate that Trayvon felt that he was being followed by someone at a time that would seem to be before Zimmerman exits the car — implying that Zimmerman may have been slowly following Trayvon while driving. My guess, though, is that the time stamps for T-Mobile’s call records and for the 911 logs are slightly off from one another, which explains any discrepancy between the two time lines.

7:11:14 pm: At this point, Trayvon appears to have walked past Zimmerman truck, possibly heading towards the cut through, where he would shortly be out of sight of Zimmerman.

  • Zimmerman: “These assholes. They always get away. … When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and you go left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.”
  • Dispatcher: “OK, so it’s on the left hand side of the clubhouse?”
  • Zimmerman: “Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.

7:11:42 – 7:11:48pm: There is the sound of a car door opening at this point, immediately after Zimmerman says “he’s running,” and Zimmerman starts huffing; wind noises can be heard, and Zimmerman sounds slightly breathless. Zimmerman is able to see Trayvon plainly enough at this point to determine his direction, and believes he is going for the back entrance:

  • Zimmerman: “Shit, he’s running.”
  • Dispatcher: “He’s running? Which way is he running?”
  • Zimmerman: “Down toward the other [back] entrance of the neighborhood.”

The house where Trayvon is staying is directly between Trayvon’s approximate location at this time and the back entrance to the complex; Trayvon is probably actually running for his house. However, because both the house and the back entrance are to the southeast corner, there are two possible routes that Zimmerman could have seen Trayvon take off towards: (1) Trayvon stays on Twin Trees Ln., bolting south down the road; or (2) Trayvon runs for the cut-through, heading east, so that he can then turn and head south either on Retreat View or through the sidewalk between the rows of houses. Because Zimmerman’s reaction to Trayvon running is to get out of his car, it seems that scenario 2 is more likely — Zimmerman can’t follow in his car, he has to go on foot.

Approx. 7:12pm [+ or – 59 seconds off of 7:12pm, from the time as recorded by Zimmerman’s call to police. Exact time unknown]: The original phone call that Trayvon made to Dee, which lasted 18 minutes, is disconnected. Almost immediately after that phone call ends, DeeDee calls Trayvon  back. He answers, and DeeDee reports that he says to her, “I think this dude is following me.” She says that she tells him “Run!” and that Trayvon responded that he’s not going to run, he’s just going to walk fast.

The timing is close enough to suggest, but not perfect enough to say for sure, that when Zimmerman reports that “[Trayvon’s] running,” it’s at the same time as when DeeDee advised him to do just that. If so, it’s possible Trayvon was not telling the complete truth when he told her was just going to “walk fast,” perhaps to seem braver, but in reality had started running. Alternatively, Trayvon really did only start to “walk fast,” but Zimmerman, clearly worried about yet another asshole getting away, interprets this as “running” in his call to dispatch.

7:12:08 pm: After conversation about Zimmerman’s contact details, Zimmerman states to the dispatcher, “he ran.” From the general context, it seems that Zimmerman has now lost sight of Trayvon. The running/wind noises on the recording also cease abruptly at this point, and Zimmerman’s voice evens out. If this is the case, then Zimmerman has stopped his on-foot, running pursuit of Trayvon approximately 20 seconds after he began.

7:12:44pm:

  • Dispatcher: “Alright, where are you going to meet with [police] at?”
  • Zimmerman: “Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck.”

I’m unclear where the mailboxes Zimmerman refers to are, but it appears from Google street view that they could be in the awning that Trayvon’s girlfriend says he took shelter in from the rain. If so, however, it’s hard to understand why police would “make a left and then go past the mailboxes.” But it makes more sense than anything else I can find, so it’s possible Zimmerman just misspoke again.

7:12:59: Zimmerman states that his truck is parked at “a cut-through” so he doesn’t know the address. The cut-through is the blue-circled area in the image, so Zimmerman’s truck is presumably in the vicinity of the green circled area. It may have been parked here from the very beginning of his call to police.

7:13:14pm: Zimmerman has lost Trayvon. He doesn’t want to say his address out loud because “I don’t know where this kid is.” Nine seconds later, Zimmerman tells dispatcher to have police call him when they arrive rather than meet at specific place, indicating that Zimmerman plans to keep moving, and doesn’t know where exactly he’ll be when police arrive.

7:13:41pm: Zimmerman’s phone call with dispatch ends.

7:14pm: There is approximately a one minute, thirty second period for which we have very little information about what occurred, from around 17:14:00 until 17:15:30. Zimmerman apparently keeps searching for Trayvon during this time period, and phone records show that Trayvon is still on the phone with DeeDee. Also during this period of time, neither party moves particularly far from their estimated locations at 7:13:00pm; it appears that they were either (1) walking extremely slowly, (2) had stopped somewhere before resuming movement, or (3) were taking non-direct paths. It’s possible that Trayvon, like Zimmerman when he refused to give his house number out, was worried about the stalker following him home and figuring out where he lived, so Trayvon did not run straight back, instead feinting one way before looping back around. Another possibility is that Trayvon, thinking he’d lost Zimmerman, was dawdling on his walk back home in order to finish his phone call with DeeDee — possibly because Trayvon, like most 17 year olds, generally prefers to have his phone calls with his significant other out of ear shot of his parents. The other two possibilities are that (1) Trayvon bolted on a pathway in the wrong direction from his house, in order to escape Zimmerman, after Trayvon initially started running/walked fast; he was then making his way back to his correct route when he encountered Zimmerman again; or (2) Trayvon, still on the phone with DeeDee, had in fact managed to start running on a direct path towards home, but decides to loop back to find Zimmerman again, in order to start a fight with the guy who dared to follow him.

Some small, extremely circumstantial evidence to suggest why Zimmerman may have been expecting Trayvon to run out the back entrance, and why Zimmerman may have tried to cut Trayvon off from going in that direction, comes from the police call logs. We know from Zimmerman’s previous calls to police that he had on at least two prior occasions called in to report that suspicious black males were hanging around the “back entrance” of the housing complex. (See pgs. 39-40 of the police dispatch logs.) On both those occasions, as with the call he made about Trayvon, Zimmerman stated that he believed the person he was watching had committed recent break ins in the neighborhood. On the two prior occasions, Zimmerman reported that the suspicious persons were at or headings towards the back entrance, and on one occasion, Zimmerman advised dispatch that the “subjects will run into the subdivision next to this complex,” and advised that law enforcement enter through the back entrance to meet him. It seems possible that if Zimmerman was going to follow Trayvon and lost him, his assumption would be Trayvon would be heading in that direction.

Approx. 7:15:30 – 7:15:45pm: Zimmerman and Trayvon encounter each other for the final time, in the area circled in red in the diagram above. At this point, all evidence from eye witnesses and police reports indicates that a fight between the two began and ended there, and that the parties did not substantially change position during the course of the struggle. Reports on the exact location of Trayvon’s body have varied, but it has been established it was somewhere in the grass in the row between the houses, closer to the north side than the south..

There are a half dozen different versions of how the altercation between Zimmerman and Trayvon occurred and what happened during the course of it.

7:15 – 7:16pm, DeeDee’s version of events: Trayvon tells DeeDee that he thinks he has lost the dude that was following him. DeeDee then hears voices, as if Trayvon and his pursuer have run into each other again. She says something like the following exchanged occurred between the two individuals:

  • Trayvon: “Why are you following me?”
  • Zimmerman: “What are you doing here?”

At that point, it sounds to DeeDee as if one party shoves the other. DeeDee thinks she hears Trayvon’s headset fall off, and the phone call cuts out at approximately 7:16pm, four minutes after it starts. It is my suspicion that the T-Mobile records are about 30 seconds slower than the time kept by the police dispatch’s clock– which would mean that the phone call started at 7:11:30, and ended at 7:15:30, a timeline that would mean that DeeDee’s description of events pretty much precisely matches up with the times as recorded by various 911 and police calls, down to the second. If her phone call with Trayvon instead ended at 7:16 on the police department’s clock, then the first 911 call from a neighbor came in 11 seconds or less after the fight initially started — that doesn’t seems plausible.

7:15 – 7:16pm, Zimmerman’s version of events: Zimmerman has not given an “official” version of his story, and the versions that have been reported by other sources are somewhat inconsistent, with some of the versions being extremely implausible. One initial report alleges that the confrontation began while Zimmerman was still in his truck, and that Trayvon approached the parked truck to ask Zimmerman why he was following him. Zimmerman “rolled down his window” to say he wasn’t, and Trayvon left, only for the fight to later occur on the cut through. This story has not been repeated since, and if Zimmerman really did initially give this version of events, he’s not sticking with it any longer.

The most consistent report that is alleged to be Zimmerman’s version of the encounter provides roughly the following: Zimmerman had gotten out of his car to check on an address, to tell police where to go. [This itself makes little sense — Zimmerman’s car was in front of the houses, where house addresses are visible and displayed, whereas behind the houses there are only porches and no visible addresses.] Zimmerman was then “returning to his truck,” [although still 150 ft. away, if his truck is in fact parked in the green circled area] but Trayvon approached Zimmerman from behind and confronted him. Either Trayvon (somehow) reaches around from behind to sucker punch Zimmerman in the nose, or else the two have a verbal confrontation and turn to face each other before the first punch is thrown. Zimmerman falls to the ground, and Trayvon jumps on him, punching Zimmerman and slamming his head into concrete. Zimmerman eventually is able to pull his handgun free from its holster and fires once at Trayvon, who is pinning him down. Trayvon is hit in the chest and dies.

7:15 – 7:16pm, Trayvon’s father’s recounting of how police described Zimmerman’s initial report to them:

  • Trayvon: appears from behind a building, approaches Zimmerman, and says, “What’s your problem, homie?”
  • Zimmerman: “I don’t have a problem.”
  • Trayvon: “You do now.” He then punches Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground, pinning him down.
  • Trayvon: tells Zimmerman, “Shut the fuck up.”
  • Zimmerman: while being beaten by Trayvon, pulls his gun and fires one shot at close range into Trayvon’s chest.
  • Trayvon: “You got me.” Falls over, dead.

7:15 – 7:16pm, Zimmerman’s father’s version of events: Zimmerman is walking along the sidewalk (area circled in red?) in order to “find an address.”

  • Trayvon: walks up to Zimmerman, says, “Do you have a fucking problem?”
  • Zimmerman: “No, I don’t have a problem.” Zimmerman starts to reach for his cell phone to call police, but Trayvon punches him in the nose. Zimmerman’s nose is broken and he is knocked to the concrete.
  • Trayvon: gets on top of Zimmerman and punches him repeatedly. While punching Zimmerman on the ground below him, Trayvon sees Zimmerman’s gun.
  • Trayvon: “You’re going to die tonight.”
  • Zimmerman: draws his pistol while on the ground, and shoots Trayvon once in the chest.

7:15 – 7:16pm, Zimmerman’s brother’s version of events: Zimmerman’s brother states that Zimmerman was not patrolling the neighborhood; rather, he was driving to Target when he noticed a suspicious looking person in his gated community, and called the police to report it. Zimmerman’s brother alleges that Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon when the police dispatcher told him to. Zimmerman then then lost sight of Trayvon, and about a minute later, the following occurs:

  • Trayvon: sneaks up on Zimmerman.
  • Zimmerman: tries to grab his phone to call 911 and intends to say to police “Well, this person who I lost sight of and was not pursuing has now confronted me.” Zimmerman is unable to complete this call because Trayvon broke his nose with a punch, and began slamming Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk.
  • Trayvon: sees Zimmerman’s gun and tries to grab it.
  • Trayvon: says to Zimmerman either (1) “You die tonight,” or possibly (2) “You have a piece, you die tonight.”
  • Zimmerman: screams for help, but then grabs gun and shoots Trayvon when Trayvon tries to muscle it away.

Zimmerman’s brother adds in that there is a witness that saw what happened, “from the first blow.” The brother does not explain why this witness did not help Zimmerman, who he is, or why he was around to see the fight in the first place.

7:15 – 7:16pm, version of events attributed to “Zimmerman’s parents”: An unidentified female neighbor and friend reports that Zimmerman’s parents are strongly maintaining that the shooting was in self-defense: “What [Zimmerman’s parents] told us is that he was reaching for his cell phone and Trayvon Martin saw his gun and reached for the gun and there was a struggle.” This story is somewhat reminiscent of Zimmerman’s brother’s story, regarding Zimmerman going for a phone, which ignited the physical struggle.

7:15 – 7:16pm, unidentified law enforcement official’s version of events: The Daily Beast quotes an unidentified individual with the Sanford Police Department who is not involved in the case but apparently had some exposure to the investigation. According to him, Zimmerman’s statement to police was that after losing track of Trayvon, Zimmerman “went around a townhouse to see where he was.” This supports two things: first, that Zimmerman was actively hunting for Trayvon at the time of the altercation, and second, that Zimmerman was not following the sidewalk routes, but ducking through gaps in houses. This is possible support for the theory that Zimmerman unexpectedly cut off Trayvon, who was on the sidewalk routes. It also puts the “Trayvon was in hiding waiting to attack Zimmerman” theory in doubt, because it’s not clear how Trayvon’s could have anticipated Zimmerman’s unusual path.

The law enforcement official also reports that Zimmerman’s story is that Martin confronted him, and then knocked him to the ground with a punch. Zimmerman then said that “when he was on the ground, Martin straddled him, striking him, and then tried to smother him.” This ‘smothering’ claim is a new detail that has not been repeated before, and it’s somewhat confusing. If Trayvon was in fact on top of Zimmerman, perhaps Zimmerman interpreted the weight on his chest as an attempt to “smother” him, but the idea that any attacker in Trayvon’s situation would try and use “smothering” as an attack does not make much sense. The law enforcement official’s report goes on to state that:

Zimmerman claimed that he yelled for help, and that various neighbors who peered out to see the fight from their backyards didn’t get involved. Zimmerman…  told officers he was so paralyzed by fear that he initially forgot he had a gun, but he said that after Martin noticed his 9mm pistol, Zimmerman pulled it out of his belt holder and fired one round, a hollow-point—the round that killed Martin.

Zimmerman also told police that, after being shot, Trayvon’s last words were “Okay, you got it, okay, you got it,” and then Trayvon turned and fell face-down on the ground. Although these words sounds similar to what Trayvon’s dad were told his last words were — i.e., “you got me” — even assuming Zimmerman is telling the truth as he knows it, my assumption is that he misheard Trayvon. Someone seconds from death from a hollow point bullet wound to the chest is not going to be enunciating clearly or making dramatic statements. The more likely scenario is that Trayvon said something like “you shot me… you shot me,” in disbelief and shock.

Finally, the last new information from the Daily Beast’s source is that “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.” This would seem to match one of the 911 caller’s statements to the 911 dispatcher which, although confused, reported seeing Zimmerman on top of Trayvon after the shooting. Although it should have been obvious that a point blank shot to the chest with a hollow point bullet is going to be a serious wound all of the time and a fatal wound most of the time, it is believable that, with the adrenaline pumping, Zimmerman wasn’t thinking clearly. However, this is also another indication that Zimmerman’s subjective interpretation of events should be treated with cautious skepticism — Zimmerman was plainly not thinking completely logically or coherently, if he thought the bullet to the chest was not a “serious injury.” The fact Zimmerman thought it necessary to try and restrain Trayvon and “lunge to get on top of him” after shooting the kid in the chest shows Zimmerman’s threat detection systems were on overload,.

7:16:11 pm: The first of six 911 calls is made by a neighbor whose house is immediately adjacent to where the shooting occurred. A high pitched, desperate male voice can be heard yelling “help” repeatedly, from the very beginning of the phone call, and continues on for some time — there are occasional pauses, and occasional nonsensical yells, but for the most part the voice is consistently yelling “help” “help” “help” over and over again.

7:16:56 pm: Forty-five seconds into the first 911 call, a gunshot is heard. The last cry of “hel-” seems to be cut off simultaneously with the shot. Assuming that the first 911 caller took at least 15 seconds to hear sounds of fighting, recognize what it was, and pull out a phone to make a 911 call, this means that the physical struggle between Zimmerman and Trayvon went on for a minimum of one minute. The first 911 caller was still quick on the draw, however, and is unlikely to have taken more than 30 seconds to make the call. This gives a maximum fight duration of perhaps a minute and a half. Estimate time of the fight’s beginning is therefore 7:15:35 – 7:15:55pm.

7:17:55 pm (estimated): By around 17:17:55 – 17:18:07pm, several 911 callers report seeing a “man with a flashlight” outside, followed by a second flash light approximately one minute, fifteen seconds later. These are almost certainly Officers Smith and Ayala, who were first on the scene.

Officer Smith, the first officer to arrive, parks his car at 2821 Retreat View Circle. Officer Smith has been dispatched to respond to police calls made by Zimmerman twice before in recent weeks, once on January 29, 2012, and once again on February 6, 2012. He likely has encountered and spoken to Zimmerman before, although this has not been officially confirmed. Per the police report of the incident, when he arrives on scene on the night of February 26, a few seconds before 7:18pm, he cuts through the houses on the Retreat View side of the walkway, and into the area circled in red. He sees Zimmerman walking around and Trayvon lying “face down in the grass.” Zimmerman states to Smith that he shot the individual on the ground, and that he was still armed. Smith immediately moves to remove the gun, and observes that Zimmerman has a wet back and appears to be covered in grass, “as if he had been laying on his back on the ground.” He observes blood on the back of Zimmerman’s head, and on his nose. He removes from Zimmerman’s “waist band” the handgun and holster — it is not clear if the handgun is in the holster, or if both the holster and handgun are tucked into the waistband. He puts Zimmerman in the back of his squad car.

Officer Ayala arrives about a minute after Officer Smith, and observes Trayvon laying face down. His police report indicates that he observed that Trayvon “had his hands underneath his body.” Ayala begins emergency response treatment, but Trayvon never becomes responsive. He will be pronounced dead 11 minutes later.

The later-released police reports state that when Officers Raimondo and Ayala approached Trayvon’s body to attempt first aid, Trayvon “was lying on his stomach with his head oriented in the general direction of north.” In contrast, Officer Santiago, who arrives later on the scene, reports that Trayvon’s head “to the west.” It’s unclear if Trayvon’s head was actually oriented northwest, and both officers are right, or if Trayvon was rotated during the course of CPR.

Photos of the crime scene seem to show Trayvon’s body laying in the grass approx. 5-6 feet from the sidewalk. Trayvon was rolled over by police when they attempted to give first aid, so it’s possible he was originally laid out approx. 4-5 feet from the sidewalk. Either way, it does bring Zimmerman’s “head being bashed into concrete” story into doubt.

At autopsy, Trayvon’s cause of death is determined to be a single gunshot to the chest, which struck Tayvon’s heart and a lung, “1/2 inch below the nipple.” The direction of the gunshot is reported as “directly from front to back,” and was shot from “an intermediate distance.” The only other injury reported to Trayvon is 1/4″ by 1/8″ inch small abrasion to the left fourth finger.

The ME report also states that “Witnesses observed the two fighting in the yard and then the resident fired a handgun at the male striking him In the chest. The male fell to the ground.” It would appear the ME was given incomplete or inaccurate information regarding how the shooting took place, which was then incorporated into the report.

7:19pm: An unidentified civilian described only as “the photographer” takes a picture of the back of Zimmerman’s head. ABC News reports that file details show it was taken on location “three minutes after the shooting[,]” although the exact time is not specified. The photograph clearly shows the blood that was reported by Officer Smith, and it appears that the blood is coming from a wound on Zimmerman’s head, and did not originate from another source. This photo is useful in that it eliminates all outlier possibilities regarding Zimmerman’s head wound — that is, we can rule out the possibilities that either no wound existed, or that the wound was so great that, as Zimmerman’s brother reported, his head was a bloody pulp — but it is impossible to tell from this picture alone the exact extent of the wound. There isn’t enough blood for there to have been a serious gash, but for head injuries, a gash is going to be a far less serious problem than are non-visible internal injuries. On the other hand, the SFD’s actions,  in treating Zimmerman’s injuries, do not indicate that they any apparent concern for a brain injury of any type.

The wound is also very high up on Zimmerman’s head. I’m not entirely sure what to make of that — I think the wound pretty much has to have originated from Zimmerman’s head contacting the ground, but it’s not where I would expect it if it came from either a fall or from a deliberate attempt to smack someone’s head into the ground.

The ABC News “photographer” also states that gunpowder marks were clearly visible on Martin’s hooded sweatshirt. Using my CSI training, a.k.a., by doing some quick google research, gunpowder residue will be somewhat apparent on a target that was shot from a range of around three feet or less, but heavy concentrations show up at shooting ranges of under 12 inches. If the gunpowder marks were clearly visible on gray fabric, in night time viewing conditions, then I think it is a fair assumption that Zimmerman shot Trayvon from a distance of 12 inches or less.

7:22pm, onwards: Zimmerman is taken into custody and cuffed by Officer Smith shortly before Officer Ayala arrives. As Ayala is giving CPR to Trayvon, Smith puts Zimmerman in the back of the police cruiser. Zimmerman receives first aid from the Sanford Fire Department while sitting in the back of Officer Smith’s car. At some point, Zimmerman announces, unasked, “I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me.” No questioning is performed at this time, and he is transported to the police station.

Police appear to have immediately accepted Zimmerman’s version of events. When one witness/911 caller gave a statement to police about an hour later, she started crying and stated she wished she could have helped. The officer responds, “If it makes you feel any better, the cries for help were not the person that died.” It’s clear that the police poisoned the witness statements by instructing the witnesses as to details they had not witnessed or did not know themselves, which likely contributed to the recent witness reversals and contradictions in testimony.

While performing first aid on Trayvon, Officer Raimondo finds a “large, cold can” of Arizona drink in Trayvon’s hoodie pocket. Officer Santiago reported that a cell phone was found “near the area of Martin”, but does not give precise details. The packet of skittles are also located in the hoodie pocket, and have traces of blood on them.

Investigators at the scene also find a key chain with a Honda remote key on it, which reportedly belongs to Zimmerman, near the “T” junction of the pathway between the houses. The key chain has a small silver flashlight-key chain attached to it, and the flashlight has been reported as still being on when police located it, suggesting Zimmerman was using it at the time of the altercation.

There is also a black flashlight found ~30 feet from the Honda key chain, closer to Trayvon’s body; this black flashlight had blood residue on it. I’ve seen the 6″ black flashlight described as belonging to Zimmerman, but I have seen no confirming reports for this. The black flashlight is also described as a “tactical” flashlight that could be used as a weapon; this may suggest it came from a responding police officer rather than Zimmerman, but the proximity to the keys could suggest it was Zimmerman’s, and dropped along with the keys when the confrontation started.

If the flashlight belongs to the police, the blood evidence found on it is insignificant and easily explainable. If it belongs to Zimmerman, however, it is a somewhat incongruous finding, as the flashlight if several feet away from where the “main” physical altercation is reported to have taken place, and is at least 10 feet away from where Trayvon was shot. If Zimmerman simply dropped the flashlight and keys before the fight started, there would not be blood on the flashlight — this possibly suggests that Zimmerman was still holding the tactical flashlight when he received the injury to his nose. But if so, why did Zimmerman not use it to defend himself against Trayvon? The tactical flashlight was Zimmerman’s, and during Zimmerman’s non-emergency call, you can hear him banging it to try and turn it on. Zimmerman seems to have had it in his hands during the altercation, but Zimmerman’s recounting of the fight is unclear about how he managed to carry it with him throughout the fight.

Although the keychain flashlight/Honda keys were found closer to the sidewalk on the “T” than was the tactical flashlight and the body, the shell casing from the shot that killed Trayvon is found ~40 feet from the “T”, and several feet away from the sidewalk. It appears to be located close to where Trayvon’s body ultimately ended up, but this is difficult to confirm from the released photos. above his head and slightly to the left.

The shell casing is marked by the yellow arrow, just left to the #6 marker. The #7 marker is Trayvon’s phone, while the #5 marker is the black tactical flashlight.

7:52pm: Time stamp on start of surveillance video of Sanford police department showing Zimmerman’s arrival in squad car. Zimmerman’s shirt is neatly tucked in, and he is moving without any apparent impediment beyond the handcuffs. Police allow him to move freely, aside from the cuffs. There is no visible blood, and police officers use no protective equipment; they can be observed inspecting Zimmerman, as well as manually handling him as they look him over. One policeman touches Zimmerman, and then wipes his hand off on his trousers. A small head wound on the upper back portion of Zimmerman’s head may be visible.

Photos taken before the blood was cleaned up from Zimmerman’s scalp show blood draining in small rivulets down his skull, rather than gushing. It may be significant that the rivulets uniformly tend to drain towards Zimmerman’s face, which means whenever Zimmerman was bleeding, his head was facing towards the ground. It is unclear when this bleeding occurred, however.

Back at the station, Zimmerman gave his story to police at least three times before being released. Police say his story remained consistent throughout, although we have not been provided with the precise contours of what that story consisted of. Zimmerman also made at least one of those statements while being video recorded.

Notes and Observations about the Timeline

In no particular order, here are some assorted observations about what implications the above timeline has on Trayvon Martin’s death.

The eye witness reports should not be relied upon. It was dark, there was bad weather, it was a brief and frantic fight, and no one knows what they saw. Eye witnesses get things wrong even under the best of viewing conditions, and the conditions at the time of Trayvon’s death were anything but that, in terms of expected reliability of witness recall. The 911 calls are themselves full of real-time descriptions from witnesses to the immediate aftermath of the shooting — and even when describing what they were seeing at the exact same time as they were seeing it, their descriptions do not match reality. One witness, for instance, describes that “there is a black male standing over” the deceased victim after the shooting had occurred, which is obviously an incorrect description of the scene. Another witness describing the fight states that “the guy on top has a white t-shirt” — an article of clothing which neither Zimmerman nor Trayvon were wearing at the time. (Zimmerman’s t-shirt was gray, but it was under a red (orange) jacket. Trayvon’s hoodie was gray as well, but it was long sleeved and not a t-shirt.)

In short, the witnesses can prove next to nothing about what happened here. The recordings of the 911 calls that they made, on the other hand, are far more useful in piecing together what happened.

[Update, 5/28/12: By now, at least five witnesses have been reported as changing their stories. This is unsurprising, particularly as it has become clear that the police who took the witness statements improperly coached and/or unintentionally tampered with the witness’s recollections, by telling them facts and events they could not know in order to “correct” or “clarify” their testimony. In short, it has become even more clear that no definitive conclusions should be drawn about any of the events in this cases on the basis of eyewitness testimony alone.]

Zimmerman’s testimony is not being publicly disclosed, but will be an important source of impeachment evidence at trial. The State’s 5/24/12 Motion for Protective Order revealed a key element of the State’s case: Zimmerman’s statements to the police have been inconsistent, and are not fully supported by the available physical and eye witness evidence: “Defendant (Zimmerman) has provided law enforcement with numerous statements, some of which are contradictory, and are inconsistent with the physical evidence and statements of witnesses”. At this point we don’t know what Zimmerman’s version of the story is, but it looks like there’s at least more than one version he has been telling police, and it has some holes in it.

The crime scene does not support Zimmerman’s claim that Trayvon was pounding his head into the sidewalk. Trayvon was unarmed. Perhaps to make up for this fact, Zimmerman’s claim for why he was in imminent fear of death or grave bodily harm — and therefore why Zimmerman was allowed to kill Trayvon in self-defense — is that Trayvon was pounding his head into the concrete sidewalk. Although there is a sidewalk running through the middle of where the shooting occurred, the claim that Zimmerman’s head was being bashed into it does not make sense, because: (1) Zimmerman’s back had grass on it. Assuming that Zimmerman and Trayvon encountered each other while on the sidewalk, how could Zimmerman have fallen so that his legs and back were off the sidewalk, while his head was still on it? (2) Zimmerman was a bouncer for illegal house parties; during the course of a 1 minute long fight with a kid thirty pounds lighter than him, there is no possible explanation for how Zimmerman was able to move enough to get his back and legs onto grass, but not his head. In order to pound someone’s head into the ground while they are pinned down, you would literally have to pull their head up with one hand and before shoving it down again — and a one-armed pin is far easier to break. If you are pinning someone down with both arms, there is no way for you to repeatedly slam their head down, short of physically picking them up by the shoulders (while you’re sitting on their waist).  (3) Trayvon’s body was found face down in the grass, with his arms underneath him. According to his father, Trayvon’s legs were on the sidewalk, while his head and torso were perpendicular to the sidewalk, on the grass. If Trayvon was shot in the chest while pinning/punching Zimmerman on the ground, his body would presumably have crumpled down to where it was found — which was in the grass, and not on the sidewalk. If Trayvon had Zimmerman pinned, face to face, how did his head ultimately come to be far away from the sidewalk, if just before he was shot he was pounding Zimmerman’s head into the sidewalk?

How Zimmerman got out from underneath Trayvon after shooting him, without rolling Trayvon onto his back, is another mystery. It also contradicts at least one report of what Zimmerman said happened, which is that Trayvon “fell back” saying “you got me” after the shooting. The best explanation for how Trayvon’s body was found that I can think of is that Trayvon, after being shot, fell on his back, or was pushed off of Zimmerman onto his back/side. Zimmerman, who witnesses have described as “standing over” the victim immediately after the shooting, then turns Trayvon onto his stomach, perhaps to check for an exit wound or in a clumsy attempt to see if he was still alive. This would plausibly cause at least one of Trayvon’s arms to be pinned under his body, and possibly the second. Or perhaps only one arm was pinned under Trayvon’s body, and Officer Ayala did not correctly see the positioning of the second arm.

Voice analysis of the first 911 call will be the single most important factor in this case. Listening to the first 911 call, it is painfully clear that whoever can be heard shouting for help is in imminent fear for their life. This isn’t the scream of someone in a wrestling match — it’s the wild, animal panic of someone who believes that they are about to die. If the voice shouting “help” is in fact Zimmerman’s, then, whether or not such a fear was objectively reasonable, his subjective fear that Trayvon was about to kill him would appear to be entirely genuine.

However, if the voice is in fact Zimmerman’s, then it also shows that Zimmerman was in control enough of the fight to have the breath to scream and plead for help, and that his shouts for “help” were not cut off by Trayvon “slamming” his head into the sidewalk. It is not the scream of someone “nearly unconscious,” as Zimmerman’s brother and father have alleged. And, whether it was Trayvon or Zimmerman screaming, the mere existence of the screams is inconsistent with the verbal exchange between the two as recounted by Zimmerman. No one is yelling “time to die” or “you got me” — they are yelling “help,” and nothing else.

This brings into question Zimmerman’s statement, while being given first aid in the back of the squad car, that “I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me.”  First, this slightly contradicts the claims given by both Zimmerman’s father and brother, which is that a more coherent conversation was going on. Second, Zimmerman would have every motivation to make this claim. If it was Trayvon yelling for help, Zimmerman would have known that neighbors in the nearby houses were likely to have heard it. He would have known he would need to explain the existence of the calls for help, and that, if it were known it was Trayvon screaming, it would look very bad for him.

But Zimmerman probably would not have considered the possibility his fight with Trayvon had been recorded in the background of a 911 call — the odds were against someone being that fast on the draw with their phone. So Zimmerman would not have had any reason to think it likely that his claims that it was him yelling for help, and not Trayvon, could be credibly challenged. It seemed like a completely safe — and completely necessary — claim at the time that he made it, but, if proven to be false, that statement could ultimately damn him by showing he was aware that what he had done was wrong and that he needed to lie to protect himself.

Zimmerman was in handcuffs less than 1.5 minutes after he killed Trayvon. In the police surveillance footage of Zimmerman arriving at the police station a half hour after Trayvon was killed, Zimmerman is shown being frisked and lead to an interview room. There is no sign of blood on him, although a possible wound on the upper back portion of his head may exist. Perhaps the oddest part of the surveillance video, however, is that Zimmerman’s shirt is tucked in, there are no visible scuff marks on his clothes, and nothing appears out of place. Zimmerman received cursory medical treatment while sitting in a squad car, hands cuffed behind him. The SFD likely dabbed up some blood, but they certainly didn’t tuck Zimmerman’s shirt in for him.

So, in the 90 seconds between shooting Trayvon and Officer Smith’s arrival on the scene, at which point Zimmerman was immediately handcuffed, did Zimmerman actually bother to nicely tuck his shirt in again? Or did Zimmerman’s shirt manage to stay perfectly tucked in for a one minute period while Zimmerman was punched to the ground and pinned down by someone who was on top of him in a fight?

Neither option is particularly plausible, especially combined with the absence of any blood or plain wounds. Zimmerman’s story is severely lacking in corroborating physical evidence — and if there were still photos taken of Zimmerman to support his claim that he was beaten up, why hasn’t someone leaked them by now? Or the medical records for the ‘broken nose’? The photo of Zimmerman showing blood on his face is not blood from a broken nose, but rather blood from two tiny cuts on the very point of Zimmerman’s nose — likely a result of kickback from Zimmerman firing the weapon, as no blood (or other DNA from Zimmerman) was found anywhere on Trayvon.

It’s likely that Zimmerman did in fact suffer a bump to his head, and maybe his nose, during the initial struggle with Trayvon. Zimmerman did hit the ground at some point, and Trayvon and Zimmerman were wrestling with one another for at least a minute. It’d be surprising if Zimmerman hadn’t picked up a bump or two from the tussle. But nothing about this indicates the injuries were anything but minor. My guess is that Zimmerman, in trying to explain his actions, took whatever reasons he could to claim he was in danger — and thus the bloody nose becomes a broken one in his re-telling, and a grazing would on his head that he got when he fell down becomes someone bashing his head into the sidewalk.

-Susan

2,135 thoughts on “Minute-by-Minute Timeline of Trayvon Martin’s Death”

  1. The “chase” witness will not need to give much detail in order to have an impact. One can observe a chase without having much peripheral view of left to right. The fact is she saw two men chasing (actually I think she meant two running, whereby there is one chasing). Bottom line is Zimmerman had to be the chaser because the facts will show that he never reported being chased by Martin when he gave his statements to police. This is consistent with Dee Dee’s account that Martin walked fast vs. running hence, Zimmerman caught up and Martin asked “Why are you following me for? The interesting thing though is this same witness says they then fought and she heard the pop. So she seems to have followed the progression of the chase to the end!

    Reply ↓

    • What George says may have greater weight than what the other witnesses say. Serino said that in so many words in his previously released statement about why no arrest could be made.

      The state has a burden to disprove his account. He made all of his statements without an attorney present. Who does that today unless they have nothing to hide? Serino’s second by second time line released today seems to support George’s account.

      It shows Zimmerman fired 1 minute, 57 seconds after he hung up and only 1 minute and 20 seconds elapsed between the time George hung up and the 911 call during which Zimmerman is heard screaming for help.

      That is total of 80 seconds. The shot was fired 37 seconds later. So do you really think Zimmeman had time to chase Martin, catch up to him, engage in the fight and shoot him?

      The dispatcher will be an important witness. If anyone did any “profiling” it was the dispatcher when he gave George 3 different race choices from which to choose, to which George replies, “He looks black.” So who was profiling here?

      His instructions to George clearly show he wanted to know Martin’s whereabouts at several points during the call, so George was only trying to be compliant when he was trying to locate Martin. When he was finally told “we don’t need you to do that” he said “OK” and quit following.

      I am sure a lot of others have constructed their own time line but I am using Serino’s because it is part of the evidence. I can find no accurate time of DeeDee’s calls and I suspect they are irrelevant anyway. She will never get any where near a deposition table, let alone a witness stand and if you saw her 3 different accounts, even while being coached, you will see that.

      Reply ↓

    • Maybe the “glance” witness saw some other person’s chasing? Could she identify either of them? Maybe Chad was chasing Martin.

      She said that she had seen a fistfight. That ought to be fun on cross-examination. How far away were they? Was one person getting in more punches? “Well I really didn’t see the fight, but I watch a lot of TV”

      Reply ↓

    • Ace,

      But she didn’t have her contacts in and only caught a “glance” of what went on. She also didn’t report (at least in the police officer’s description) the exchange of words, the cries for help, and the struggle on the ground.

      As someone said, it is just as likely that she saw TM approaching GZ from behind at a fast pace and construed this is as a chase.

      -MM

      Reply ↓

  2. Here’s an interesting question: Did TM know that GZ left the car? GZ says “he’s running” or something to that effect. But by the time GZ got out of the car TM might have had such a lead that he didn’t hear the car door open and close.

    Interestingly, DD didn’t mention TM saying anything about the car until prompted to by BDLR. She responds, “is that what you want me to say.”

    Reply ↓

    • At about 14:48 in the tape she is asked:

      “Question: “did he ever say the guy got out of the car”
      Answer: “you want that too?”
      Question: I want to know the truth”

      DeeDee does not immediately answer but instead again talks about the “mail thing” The questioner then pushes her about whether Trayvon told her if the man got out of the car and she acknowledges that Traynon didn’t tell her the man got out of the car.

      Here is a key part of the interview in sequential order from the tape. The words may be slightly off because I did this quickly but there is more than enough to see that this version is similar to the first ABC interview version and is completely at odds with the timing and what is heard on the dispatcher tape. Note the key statement at [9:20] where Trayvon tells her “[9:20] “So he say he right by his father’s house”

      Excerpts:

      [5:40] stated rain so he ran to mail thing
      phone hung up she called back
      white man in car watching (man is on phone)
      going to start walkin
      phone hung up
      she called back again
      man’s still following him “behind the car”
      he put his hoodie on because “still dripping water”
      she says to Trayvon: run to dad’s house
      he said will run from the back, easier
      [7:47] next hear he is running, can hear wind blow
      he say he lost him (the man)
      Trayvon was out of breath
      voice changed (she recognized fear because voice got low)
      he said lost him
      he ran from “the back”
      she says to Trayvon: keep running
      he say he ain’t goin run
      [9:20] “So he say he right by his father’s house”
      “Then a couple minutes he said the man following him again behind him”
      9:31 “I say run”
      “he say he not going to run” “I know he not going to run because he out of breath”
      “he say the guy getting close to him”
      9:47 “so I say run”
      Martin says “he not going to run”
      “why you not running?”
      “because he tired. I know he tired”
      Question: “how could you tell he was tired”?
      “because he was breathing hard” “real hard”
      Question: Then what happened?
      he getting real close to him
      “why are you following me for”
      old man says “what are you doing around here”
      [12:00] didn’t hear any screams or shots

      I put quote marks around parts I believe are exact and things unquoted are still exact or very close because the questioner and DeeDee repeated some points.

      Reply ↓

    • “Zimmerman followed Trayvon by car. Serino reports that Zimmerman was out doing neighborhood watch on foot.”

      Serino arrived on the scene at 8:00. At 8:20 he called the medical examiner (who arrived at 9;44). He had not interviewed any witnesses at that time.

      Most of what Serino reported to the medical examiner was wrong. The only part that was accurate was that there was an unidentified black male with a gunshot wound to the chest.

      Some of the police officers knew that Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch, and the shooting occurred where there were no vehicles, Zimmerman was injured, and the 911 calls included reports of fighting and a gunshot.

      The medical examiner was told enough so that they could perform an autopsy.

      Reply ↓

    • I have no idea why StanS keeps posting and reposting his “ridiculous” misinformation and his attempts to discredit DeeDee’s statement. What DeeDee says is difficult to hear, but you can make it out if you’re used to having to be bothered with communicating with others which requires both listening and hearing skills. If you’re experienced in communications with people that aren’t always the best in the articulation department — perhaps under-educated people, foreigners with accents, people in various regions of the U.S. that have a drawl, youngsters talking lazily, folks with speech impediments, old people that can only speak partial sentences at a time before napping off, etc., you would put in the extra effort to hear what is said and understand what’s actually being said.

      At about 14:48 in the tape DeeDee is asked:

      “Question: “Did he ever say the guy got out of the car?”
      Answer: “HE WALKED UP TO HIM”
      (Alt: “HE WALKED UP TO ‘EM”)
      Question: I want to know the truth.”

      The interviewer misunderstood what DeeDee said as evident by his own defensive “I want to know the truth” remark immediately after he misheard DeeDee. The interviewer realized his own error and eventually understood exactly what DeeDee had said. Why else do you think he would put this evidence forth when it could have easily been withheld since DeeDee is a minor?

      I’m going to break this down to you in another form of teenage-speak to see if you can understand, ok? Here goes nothing..

      “Question: “Did he ever say the guy got out of the car?”
      Answer: “DUH. You know he was on the sidewalk, right?”

      Reply ↓

    • Piecing together parts of what DeeDee says:

      1. Nothing up until Martin starts running supports saying Zimmerman was “following” Martin. She says Martin entered the complex and was by the “mail thing” or “shed” and noticed a white man sitting in a car on the phone who was looking at him.

      2. Martin did not tell her he saw Zimmerman exit the truck, so he couldn’t have told her that Zimmerman was “following” him. Martin just told her he “lost” him right after running from the parked car.

      3. Martin first ran straight “home” (which should have taken about 20-25 seconds) without seeing Zimmerman. ([9:20 “So he say he right by his father’s house”]

      4. right after Martin told her he was right by his father’s house she says:
      “Then a couple minutes he said the man following him again behind him”
      [9:31] “I say run”
      “he say he not going to run” “I know he not going to run because he out of breath”
      “he say the guy getting close to him”
      [9:47] “so I say run”
      Martin says “he not going to run”
      “why you not running?”
      “because he tired. I know he tired”

      If Martin first immediately ran home (also indicated by DeeDee, after saying that, then saying “Then a couple minutes he said”) then why didn’t the prosecutor ask her what went on during those crucial “couple minutes” after he reached the apt? Those two minutes after reaching the apt is a key to the whole “Terminator” type chase theory.

      Where did Martin go for those two minutes after reaching the apt? What did he tell DeeDee during those two minutes? What did he say as to why he didn’t go into the apt? Did he say he couldn’t get in the front or back door or that Chad would not let him in or that he could not reach Chad or Tracy or Brandy on the phone to get in? Why didn’t either of them call 911? Why, after two minutes passed from his running at most 20-25 seconds, is he ‘tired’ and still “out of breath”? Was he smoking dope that night? Did he have any drug habit? Did he sell drugs? Did he participate in schoolyard fights? Was there an incident where Martin was accused of “swinging on a bus driver? The prosecutor asked about his relationship with his mother to put forth an positive non-threatening image of Martin, so the other questions of another side to Martin were valid to ask at the time.

      Notably, DeeDee never says Martin told her he was afraid or scared. That was just her story based on her saying she reached that conclusion because his voice “sounded low”. If so, then why didn’t she ask, or didn’t Martin tell her why he simply didn’t go into his dad’s apt when he arrived, particularly if he was “tired” and wanted to see the ball game?

      In the 7/11 video, Martin was wearing the hoodie hood up on his head, even while indoors. Why would he even tell her he was later putting the hoodie up at the time when he arrived at the complex 40 minutes after leaving the store (a 20 minute walk from his dad’s apt) when it was already up? It looks like she was coached to say that to deflect from the projected image of a man with a hood covering his face at night and where Martin was near a building in the complex and not instead directly walking home.

      Reply ↓

    • Common Sense,

      You omitted the following a few seconds later in the tape where Dee specifically says Martin didn’t tell her he saw the man get out of the car:

      [15:30] Question: “so he didn’t say like the man got out, you just believed that?”
      DeeDee: “Yeah”
      Question: “But Trayvon didn’t tell you the man got out of the car”
      DeeDee: “Yeah”

      Reply ↓

    • #1 – Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin by car first (as DeeDee states) and then by foot. This makes it MULTIPLE incidents of stalking per Florida.

      #2 – Your number 4 cancels out your #2.

      Again, not hard if you start from the ethical position that both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman had a right to:

      – walk around
      – walk around at night
      – go to the store
      – SYG when suspicious about a predator (hint: George Zimmerman was only the prey in his mind while pumped up on the drugs he admitted to being on as reported by the paramedics; Trayvon Martin had NO IDEA who this crazy man following him was and gave crazy man an opportunity to diffuse the fear by asking him “why are you following me” or in communication you pounce on as not credible since it was grammatically incorrect: “why are you following me for”).

      Reply ↓

    • @StanS,

      You said:

      “You omitted the following a few seconds later in the tape where Dee specifically says Martin didn’t tell her he saw the man get out of the car: [15:30] Question: “so he didn’t say like the man got out, you just believed that?” DeeDee: “Yeah”
      Question: “But Trayvon didn’t tell you the man got out of the car”
      DeeDee: “Yeah”

      No. You’re changing the subject. DeeDee’s answers is “no”. You and DeeDee appear to agree on what she said now.

      She indicates “no” but by retorting with a “He walked up to him” response which is the same as “DUH”. She find the question ridiculous because she’s probably not familiar with prosecutor-style questions. She, like Trayvon Martin, is probably NOT a criminal and finds the question ridiculous, stupid, silly, lacking in something someone with common sense would even ask.

      Reply ↓

    • Zimmerman followed Trayvon by car. Serino reports that Zimmerman was out doing neighborhood watch on foot. A decision not to charge was made based on Zimmerman’s story and selective inputs from neighbors who later changed their testimony and witnesses with contrary info were ignored for days, weeks, etc. Probably based on this, the location of Zimmerman’s car along with any evidence it contained were moved after the opportunity presented itself since the SPD went with Zimmerman’s story. Zimmerman’s wife moved the car/suv — a Honda presumably since Zimmerman’s Honda key was found at the crime scene.

      Reply ↓

    • At the end, she says “finish”watching the game in reference to the leading questions about the All Star game. How is that possible if the game had not started? I still don’t know what she meant about hearing the grass. Can you even imagine this girl at O’Mara’s deposition table where she will get no coaching? You will never see her anywhere near a witness stand. This is the first time I have watched it and I had to repeat some of it to understand what she said. I am stunned the state would even bother with her and include her in the charging document. This girl needs some lessons in speaking our language. She almost sounds like she is on some kind of downer drug or is that just me?

      Reply ↓

  4. Two questions:

    (1) Does anybody here know how a body shrinks or grows in either height or weight post-mortem?

    (2) Does anybody here know how much weight/fat can be lost/extracted while in hiding for at least 3-weeks either via diet or $50K surgical reduction?

    Reply ↓

    • Sure wish you would stay on topic and stop insulting the people here who try to make logical posts. Your attempt is sarcasm is not working. Common Sense For Change? Holy cow.

      Reply ↓

    • If somebody knowledgeable about my two questions above could respond, I’d like to hear what you have to say.

      Reply ↓

  5. OK, this whole idea that TM gets all the way home and decides to go back to find Zimmerman? What logic does this make? What could have changed after running from someone to suddenly motivate him to go back. BTW, how would he know that he would find Zimmerman walking around? How does he know WHERE he would find him in the dark. The only scenario I could see this happening would be IF TM was hiding and was discovered by Zimmerman or about to be discovered. I could see in this situation where TM might attack then but even in this scenario (which the evidence does not support), TM would be lawfully standing his ground.

    But keep in mind, the LE investigation revealed that Martin was heading towards home and there is no evidence that he ambushed Zimmerman. Unless of course, you count Zimmerman’s own self-serving statements.

    Reply ↓

    • What you’ve asked really is the whole problem with the defense’s illogical scenario. Trayvon Martin runs from the possible danger, feels safe and then is forced into a confrontation for no reason other than some paranoid nut on aggression inducing meds pushes him. There’s absolutely no reason or evidence to push forward the notion that Trayvon Martin exhibits behavior that is not typical of his usual demeanor and upbringing which is to avoid confrontation and therefore no reason to believe he provoked a fight. The defense must get beyond arguments that boil down to “all blacks are the same”/”all blacks are violent” arguments in order to talk about the two individuals involved in this incident.

      Makes no sense to run from a fight, then hide or lay in wait to attack. In George Zimmerman’s own words, “he ran”.

      Reply ↓

    • “DeeDee” said he “ran from the back” and was by his dad’s place and was out of breath because he was tired. 30 seconds running would easily get him to Brandy Green’s residence.

      Reply ↓

    • @CommonSenseForChange – You are obviously biased about this case, as your comments and tone suggest. Most of us on here are just discussing the case and applying logic as much as we can, considering the fact that we don’t have all of the evidence at this point. I know I’ve said it before, but Zimmerman’s explanation has to NOT make sense in order for the state to win this case. It’s not enough for other explanations/scenarios to be possible. All that is required is for Zimmerman’s explanation to be possible (and reasonable considering the evidence). Nothing we’ve seen, nothing we’ve heard, nothing you’ve said has shown his explanation to be implausible or un-reasonable. Sorry. I am still willing to be convinced, but so far it’s not happening.

      Reply ↓

  6. Several other points about DeeDee’s statement:

    1. She, not once, said Martin saw a gun on Zimmerman, particularly when he walked right by Zimmerman sitting in his car while on the phone and Martin even [apparently] walked the long way around the car to look at Zimmerman. If Martin ran because he saw a gun, as so many speculate, that would be the one of the first things he would say to DeeDee (e.g., “the man has a gun”). But that never happened [Zimmerman’s gun was concealed, as required by law, so it couldn’t have been seen].

    2. The next myth to go is that Martin was “afraid” or “scared.” DeeDee never said Martin told her he was afraid, and when the questioner asked her about Martin’s ‘fear,’ she only said she thought he was afraid because his “voice was low,” hardly a sign of fear (if it really happened).

    Martin said nothing about fear when he walked directly up to Zimmerman’s car and passed him and he didn’t see a gun, which he would have certainly told DeeDee about. So he ran for another reason which was likely because he could have been a little high or had a joint on him (he did have a lighter but he doesn’t smoke cigarettes) or just worried Zimmerman might be talking to the police and he could have had a stash hidden in Brandy’s apt — after all, he had just been suspended and didn’t need more problems. There is no indication from him that he was “afraid” of Zimmerman and he never told DeeDee he was afraid of Zimmerman. He was annoyed at Zimmerman for continually looking at him.

    Even when DeeDee says she told Martin to “run,” Martin said he was not going to run (assuming that really happened). And if he was already right at the apt and he was afraid, why not simply go inside?

    Reply ↓

    • Why didn’t Trayvon go inside the apartment? Maybe Trayvon didn’t have a key.

      Oh yeah, Trayvon DIDN’T have a key. It would have been on the police report. Should he run up to the door and knock? Depends on how close behind Zimmerman was.

      Why did Trayvon run? Maybe it was raining. Oh yeah, it WAS raining. Or maybe Zimmerman just looked very mean, like someone who might shoot someone. Oh yeah, Zimmerman DID shoot someone.

      Reply ↓

      • Some questions:

        Chad Green, who was 14, was at home alone while Martin’s father, Tracy, and girlfriend, Brandy Green had gone out for the evening. Trayvon had left to get him some tea and skittles.

        I am wondering if Chad noticed all of the commotion, with cops all over the place. I would think that he would at least look outside to see what has happening since he was waiting for his skittles and iced tea. Did he call his mother, Martin, or anyone? Did he say anything when his Mom and Martin got home?

        I cannot find definitive answers in the released documents so does anyone have answers?

        Also, does anyone know, for sure, when Martin and Brandy returned home and at what time the cops finally left the scene? If I recall, Tracy had planned to watch a ball game with Trayvon. When did the ball game start?

        Reply ↓

    • The point is that DeeDee said the ‘chase took up’ a ‘couple of minutes’ after Martin reached the apt. which, running would have taken 20-25 seconds from when he started running and Zimmerman was on the phone for 3 more minutes from the running and was saying he didn’t see Martin. So no one was ‘chasing him’ for at least 2 minutes from when he reached the apt and Zimmerman didn’t even see him for several minutes after leaving his car.

      I and many others saw Zimmerman’s pictures that night … he looked perfectly normal and was average looking — at least before he was beaten up by Martin. I find it impossible to believe anyone, simply seeing someone on the phone in a car would automatically think he has a gun and he will attack a person walking by and use that as an excuse to run — people would be running all the time.

      Your suggestion about running to get out of the rain does make some sense. But then, once Martin reached Brandy’s apt, his anger got the better of him so he returned to teach the white guy in the car, who was annoying him, a lesson.

      If you listen to DeeDee’s interview you can see all the questions the prosecutor DIDN’T ask DeeDee that could hurt their case. Such as, if DeeDee was telling him to run to the apt. then why didn’t she tell him to just go INTO the apt. Or even say anything to Martin asking about why Martin wasn’t going into the apt. The prosecutor knew he wouldn’t like the answers he got, so he made sure he never asked DeeDee the tough questions, the answers to which could dramatically hurt his case. A defense lawyer will certainly ask DeeDee those questions.

      Don’t you, and anyone else want to know why he didn’t go in? If it was that he didn’t have a key then why wasn’t DeeDee just asked that by the prosecutor? Chad was home. Martin had the phone number of Tracy. Martin could have knocked (even banged) on the front or back doors or knocked on a window or called 911. What are missing are questions to DeeDee about why Martin decided not to go into the apartment or what he said to her about that.

      Reply ↓

      • “Zimmerman was on the phone for 3 more minutes from the running …”

        4:05 – 2:08 = 1:57

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • Unitron,

      What would we do without you?

      I said in the rest of the sentence 2 minutes (the 3 was a typo). What is important, and what I was focusing on, is what occurred during the at least 2 minutes in DeeDee’s statement where she said: “Then a couple minutes he said the man following him again” after she said he reached the apt — maybe longer because the confrontation came anywhere from 1-2 minutes after Zimmerman hung up.

      The apt was only about 20-25 seconds running from Zimmerman’s car and DeeDee said he was out of breath when he reached it so he was running all the way. No one wanted to ask her what took place within that ‘couple minutes’ she admitted to, after Martin reached the apt.

      All I have seen is, quite frankly, ridiculous speculation that it was impossible to get into the apt because he didn’t carry a key to explain why he didn’t just go into the apt or make an attempt to get in. In fact, DeeDee was describing what happened, so why didn’t she say Martin was trying to get into the apt but couldn’t get in because Chad wouldn’t let him in or that he couldn’t reach Tracy or that he had not left the door open because he intended to return quickly? She said nothing about Martin saying he could not get in the apt, which would certainly have helped her misplaced speculation about Martin being “afraid” of Zimmerman — when there was no real evidence of that and Martin never said that to her.

      Reply ↓

      • I think it’s a miracle if anybody can get any coherent information out of the young lady at all, but I must have thought your 2 minutes was the time between the end of the call and the start of the struggle, since 7:13:39 to 7:15:30-ish (estimated fight start) is 2 minutes.

        Of course if that new time line that moves both Zimmerman’s calls and the 911 calls is correct, that screws up all previous theories.

        Reply ↓

    • unitron,

      What I was doing was independently showing, using even DeeDee’s unreliable statement, that there is a several minute gap after Martin arrived at Brandy’s apt that is unexplained. That is a lot of time to determine what Martin was doing and “saying” to DeeDee. We learn from the statement that DeeDee herself, identifies a 2+ minute gap in her explanation and what Martin was doing during that time. Independently, we know from the dispatcher tape that for several minutes Zimmerman had no idea where Martin was and did not see him. So now that unexplained missing element as to what Martin was doing is “confirmed” — obviously, more reliably by the dispatcher tape then by DeeDee.

      The purpose of my earlier analysis was to show that it doesn’t make much sense to simply say, without DeeDee’s explanation, that Martin “didn’t have a key.” There is much more to explain since the “missing” key issue is so easily corrected by the ways I mentioned. DeeDee is clearly hiding something about those 2+ minutes — and so is the prosecutor as evidenced by his not asking even the most obvious question as to why Martin made no attempt to go INTO the apt after he ran to it and he was purportedly so “afraid” of Zimmerman (which I do not believe for a minute).

      Reply ↓

    • unitron,

      It doesn’t screw up any previous time line because it is simply a parallel verification of the time line, using DeeDee’s statement. We still know the approximate time from the ‘running’ to the confrontation … that doesn’t change. We can confirm from DeeDee that Martin was continually running (from DeeDee’s statement about how out breath he was) so that he [quickly] reached the apt. So the missing time for which we need explanation from, his point of view, is from the time he reached the apt until the confrontation. DeeDee must have heard something from Martin earlier than what she says about the actual later confrontation, which is the only thing she tells us about.

      Reply ↓

    • Brandy Green and Tracy Martin arrived home between 10:15 and 10:45 (conveniently vague), and it is reported that they went to dinner in Orlando. The investigator from the medical examiner arrived at 9:44, and the body left at 10:10. The latest interviews by police started around 9:30. It is (barely) conceivable that if they came in the back gate and went into the garage with an automatic opener, they might not see a patrol car parked up the street. And in the TV coverage of that night, more cars were on Twin Trees.

      Martin was at the 7-11 and 6:22, so he must have left by about 6:05. He was on a phone call with “DeeDee” from 5:09 to 6:30.

      Brandy Green in the TV coverage on the 27th said that Martin was “sitting on the porch”, “he was going to the store”, and “this man shot him”.

      In an interview with Brandy Green and Chad (not-Green), he said that Trayvon was like a brother, that they liked to hang out together, and that Trayvon had asked him what he wanted when he went to the store, and he told him Skittles and a drink. He had gone to school on Monday so that he didn’t know that Trayvon had died until after school. He said that the whole incident had taught him not to be racist. Brandy said that she had never heard of any burglaries in the neighborhood.

      Reply ↓

  7. I don’t seem to be able to respond directly to specific comments anymore.

    The post comment button disappears when I enter text.

    How will y’all ever manage without me?

    : – )

    unitron

    Reply ↓

    • Let’s see if it lets me reply to myself (and yes I have heard what it means if you’re talking to yourself)

      The police had a gizmo called a Cellebrite for extracting cell phone data but Martin’s phone battery was too weak for it to work.

      Maybe when the phone was lost from his possession, however that happened, the weak battery caused the call to be dropped.

      Right when it would be the most helpful to have let her hear the struggle and the shouting.

      A most annoying co-incidence but probably just a co-incidence.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

      • especially considering that the Samsung Comet is A) an Android phone (notoriously bad for battery life) and B) a cheap low end Android phone…extra notoriously bad for battery life.

        And without knowing what the initial charge was, whether he was listening to music, browsing the web, and also talking at the phone (not all at once) it is impossible to gauge how much battery had been used.

        Interestingly enough that phone (and all phones aside from Apple’s) uses a universal micro USB port to charge…odd that the police wouldn’t have any laying around.

        Reply ↓

        • I don’t know if recharging his phone would have been considered tampering with evidence, or if they needed a warrant to do so, or if they were busy with other stuff and the father identified him before they got around to the phone again, and made moot their only legal justification for messing with it.

          I’m not sure what 4th Amendment protections one has after one has died.

          Reply ↓

  8. If Trayvon didn’t see Zimmerman leave the car, then Trayvon would have had no reason to hide.

    Wasn’t there a report somewhere – from the father or brother or family friend – that ZIMMMERMAN said Trayvon saw the gun when Zimmerman opened his jacket to get his cellphone (just BEFORE Trayvon hit Zimmerman)?

    Reply ↓

    • Yea that was said. No version of events following the revelation that he was on the phone at the time he encountered Zimmerman states Trayvon attacking before a suspicious and possibly aggressive motion by Zimmerman. His father mentions when he reached to get his phone his gun was revealed. And that is when TM struck.

      The Zimmerheads conclude this is not reason enough for Trayvon to have hit Zimmerman

      Reply ↓

    • Where? Post a cite. The media has gotten their reports so wrong so many times that they cannot even be relied on.

      What does Zimmerman’s statement to police say?

      Reply ↓

  9. Well, thanks Stan for linking the tape with DeeDee. It seems even more likely now to me that Zimmerman found Trayvon as Trayvon was headed south FOR THE SECOND time between the rows. DeeDee says, “he started walking back AGAIN.”

    I believe it’s very possible that the first time Trayvon headed toward his back patio, he passed it up because HE DIDN’T HAVE A KEY (it’s not listed in the police report), and he obviously didn’t know how long it would take for Chad to answer the door, OR because he was afraid of “crazy”, “creepy” Zimmerman busting the door down. Trayvon would have gone east at the south T, and then north up Rereat View Circle. At that point, since Zimmerman never followed Trayvon up Retreat View Circle, and since Trayvon didn’t see Zimmerman between the two rows once Trayvon got back to the north T, Trayvon thought he lost Zimmerman. That’s when Trayvon “started walking BACK AGAIN”, south, between the two rows, toward his father’s patio again. Zimmerman spotted Trayvon again from his vantage point near his vehicle, and went after Trayvon again.

    When DeeDee said, “You want that too?” in response to the detective’s question about Trayvon seeing Zimmerman leave the vehicle, it sounded to me like she was really trying very hard to remember all that happened, and now the detective wants a detail that maybe she hadn’t thought about before and now had to try to remember. She ended up saying that she thought he’d never said that.

    DeeDee also said that Trayvon told her way back at the mailboxes, before Trayvon ever passed Zimmerman in Zimmerman’s truck that the guy (Zimmerman) was on the phone. Why would she make that up? If that’s the truth, then it doesn’t make sense that Trayvon would have suddenly started running after circling Zimmerman’s truck for the reason stated by Stan: that Trayvon realized that Zimmerman was on the phone while circling Zimmerman’s truck.

    I personally found the interview to be very credible, because if DeeDee was out to lie to get Zimmerman, she could have offered lots of information (that may have been false) to directly incriminate Zimmerman. DeeDee didn’t offer anything that she wasn’t asked.

    In my opinion, she sounded absolutely traumatized. She’d known Trayvon since kindergarten.

    I think people should cut this young lady a big break and stop trying to hurt her for being on the phone with her friend. My gosh.

    People may not like her testimony because it’s incriminating to Zimmerman. For anyone in that category, I just say please lighten up on this girl. Try to prove your point in some way that doesn’t require insulting this young lady.

    Reply ↓

    • When I first listened to this exchange, my immediate thought was that Crump had not covered the question with her or she forgot what he told her, and I was giving her the benefit of the doubt in the interview with state. She seemed stunned by the question.

      When DeeDee said, “You want that too?” in response to the detective’s question about Trayvon seeing Zimmerman leave the vehicle, it sounded to me like she was really trying very hard to remember all that happened, and now the detective wants a detail that maybe she hadn’t thought about before and now had to try to remember. She ended up saying that she thought he’d never said that.

      The state discussed the basketball game with her but she clearly says that Martin was going back to “finish” watching the game which had never even started. Am I to believe that the state did mot know that?

      Reply ↓

    • The 7/11 tape shows Martin left the store just before 6:30 p.m.. It should have taken Martin less than 20 minutes walking to get home. He was walking by Zimmerman’s car at about 7:10, 40 minutes later.

      Reply ↓

    • “DeeDee” said that Martin arrived at the mail shed, and then the phone disconnected. That would have made it 6:54. He left the 7-11 at 6:24.

      Reply ↓

    • Amen hapufern, assuming the posters on this site are adults and responsible people, who talks about a 16 year old kid criticizing their communication abilities especially given the circumstances of having to recall details after losing a close friend.
      I found her credible and objective. Her sequence and time stamps are missing but who does remember that level of detail from a conversation that obviously grew pretty intense which causes heightened emotions and excitement which can make it harder to recall sequential details. Given all of that, she did very well.

      Reply ↓

      • They were such close friends that she NEVER told anyone even at the funeral nor did she ever call anybody. Sorry for using common sense. Insofar as her speaking skills, I would say what I have said about anyone.. I am 65 and grew up with blacks picking cotton and cropping tobacco. I have never heard anyone talk like that except for those who refuse to assimilate into a white society. She is 16, for crying out loud. Who do you know that cannot speak complete sentences at that age? I personally kids with Down’s Syndrome that do better.

        We have different perceptions but mine is I do not believe this girl. When she said, “You want to know that, too,” that sealed it for me. it sounded to me like no one had told her how to respond that question. She was surprised.

        Reply ↓

  10. She specifically stated that the phone disconnected when Martin reached the mail shed. We have the phone records to know the time. 7-11 shows us when he left there.

    Reply ↓

  11. The witness statements in the first few days were in support of Zimmerman’s account, after a few weeks enter Sharpton, Jackson and the NBPP party. The Media spotlight gets turned on and the nation knows about this case, you start getting witnesses showing up on Sharpton’s Network (MSNBC) saying they were never interviewed. NBPP starts putting out “Wanted Dead or Alive!” posters and bragging about it on the news, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson threaten riots and vandalism, with every level of Govt. – Local, State, of Federal elected officials actively supporting Travon’s side in this case, with the US Attorney General (the same one that dropped charges against the NBPP even with video of voter intimidation) weighing in on the side on Martin and his boss the Leader of the Free World saying Travon could be his son. The witnesses see that the Govt. is not going to protect them unless they support Travon. How could they not take this as; if they change their story to support Travon they WILL NOT be prosecuted for Perjury, and if they don’t change their story the NBPP and Al Sharpton’s Rioters will be allowed to deal with them with impunity. Why would they not change their stories to support Travon? The only Witness statements I consider credible are the ones made before the Media started running stories on this case.

    I fully believe the people threatening riots and assassinations should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for threatening acts of terrorism.

    Reply ↓

    • Please tell me you’re kidding right? You think Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson could make threats to threaten riots! Please show me where this was said. Even if that were true, it’s ridiculous to think that witnesses would give a rats @$%! and change their story out of fear of causing race riots! LOL, the fact is these people were manilulated by SFD who “shaped” their stories. Good example – the witness who originally said he heard zimmerman screaming while on the bottom… he would have been cross examined anyway and asked how can you be certain it was zimmerman screaming, did you see his mouth? So after reflection and continued thought about it, he realized that he could not have been certain who was calling for help.

      Reply ↓

    • Al Sharpton is not a lone agent in this, he represents NBC’s interests as their spokesman in this series of incidents. Here is an excellent breakdown of the liability issues against Sharpton and his Boss NBC for a case from Zimmerman, what I would also add would be the people that have already been attacked in the name of Justice for Travon. Mathew Owens in Mobile, the two reporters that were attacked in Norfolk, the guy that was attacked by Alton L. Hayes III in Chicago, and any number of others that have been the victims of “Justice for Travon” should all file suit against Sharpton/NBC. And if there is rioting all of the damages and injuries associated with that due to the amount of manipulated evidence to present this as a racial incident. They are responsible for laying the groundwork for the racial violence that is waiting for a trigger to set it off.

      http://www.examiner.com/article/zimmerman-s-lawsuit-against-al-sharpton-nbc-and-the-martin-family-attorneys

      Here is the NBPP

      Louis Farrakhan tweeted “Where there is no justice, there will be no peace. Soon and very soon, the law of retaliation may very well be applied.”

      Reply ↓

  12. The Press is at it again! Read the headlines and you are led to believe Zimmerman’s defense was somehow ‘hurt’ by ‘recanting’ witnesses. Look at what actually occurred and you get an entirely different picture.

    Reports say there were 4 witnesses who altered their story upon re-interviewing. Here is a summary of the changes (some papers even distort those changes)

    1. The key witness, who saw the two fighting on the ground, “John,” revised his statement in ways that simply reflect what would have happened at trial. When witnesses see events, as does everyone day to day, they fill in reasonable ‘gaps’. For example, you see a car heading towards a light pole, you turn your head for a few seconds, you see the car wrapped around the pole, you testify you saw the car crash into the light pole — it happens all the time. “John” corrected his statement (as he would certainly have done at trial under questioning by the prosecutor) by saying, in effect, he didn’t see Zimmerman’s lips moving when he heard the screams for help — he made the reasonable transition that the person on the bottom being pummeled was likely the person screaming for his life, not the person on top (don’t bother to comment saying it was Martin screaming because jurors will still likely think otherwise that the common sense probabilities say it was Zimmerman). He also said that because of low light conditions, the moving arms of Martin (that he believed were punches) could have been struggling to hold Zimmerman down. He said he remains absolutely certain it was a black guy on top and a white guy on the bottom and desribed accurately what they were wearing. The reality is that Zimmerman’s face tells the story he was beaten badly and he, realistically said he was also being ‘smothered’ (or to keep his face down for further punching). So “John’s” story still remains consistent with self-defense.

    2. The “two man chase” witness really ended her value as a witness when she admitted later she didn’t have her contact lens in and could not tell even if one or two persons were running and otherwise ended her value as a ‘chase’ witness.

    3. The young mother who changed her statement to reflect the sizes of the fighters to later feel Zimmerman was on top (completely at odds with “John”) said see did so based on news accounts of the sizes of Zimmerman and Marin. At the time the media plastered pictures of a 250 lb (never showing his height) “monster” Zimmerman and a 140 lb schoolboy Martin. We now know those pictures were misleading — and so does a good defense lawyer. Look at the 711 store video (the view from behind the counter) and you will see the relative sizes of Martin and the clerk — who is about the same size as Zimmerman at the time. Martin towers over the clerk by at least 5 inches and in the dark with a loose hoodie on would look bulkier than his 160lb weight.

    4. The last witness, who said Zimmerman was “unfazed” when he said to call his wife, has no value. He isn’t an expert on reactions to PTSD and reactions to stress can run the gamut of appearances, including speaking in an “unfazed” manner. No one will convict Zimmerman of murder based on his saying “tell my wife I shot someone”

    Reply ↓

    • You should add that the press called witness 4 an “important” witness!

      No wonder no one trusts the press anymore.

      Reply ↓

    • And just how do you say this does NOT hurt Zimmerman? Obviously this does not help him when the accounts either neutralize his self def claim or damage it altogether. The witnesses will have to be given the benefit because there’s no motive for suddenly wanting to change their story… (oh unless you suscribe to the previous poster / conspiracy theorist who said that
      al sharpton and Jesse Jackson scared them all into changes their accounts or else face the deadly race riots that will doom us all) – LOL

      Reply ↓

    • Ace,

      You said: “And just how do you say this does NOT hurt Zimmerman?”

      I said it. Just read my post.

      I have sat through many court proceedings and depositions, conducted them, questioned witnesses and handled appeals. On balance, it is clear that Zimmerman’s case was stronger with the corrections.

      To repeat, and add:

      1. “John,” unequivocally, stated he saw Martin on top. His revisions only add to his credibility. You seem to believe that because he admitted he “didn’t see Zimmerman’s lips” that hurts his credibility when it does the opposite. You may not like to hear that, but a jury is now more likely to believe the unequivocal part of his testimony because of his honesty. Come on, what John will say is something like he, based on what he was seeing, believed Zimmerman was being beaten and that led him to believe Zimmerman was calling for help … and the jurors themselves with reach that same conclusion, whether or not the prosecutor likes it or not.

      The jury will also see how battered Zimmerman’s face was. So the honesty of John, admitting Martin’s moving arms could, possibly, have been the part of the fight where he was trying to keep Zimmerman quiet, only helps solidify his unequivocal statement of Martin on top. The jury will reach the only possible conclusion … that it was Martin who battered Zimmerman’s face while they while Zimmerman was on the ground. John is a ‘grade A’ witness for self-defense.

      2. The ‘chase’ witness has now give 3 different versions and the last, that she didn’t even have her contact lenses on, ends her use. A plus for Zimmerman.

      3. the young mother gave her reason (size based on press reports at the time) for saying Zimmerman was on top. Those press reports were wrong. Zimmerman’s defense attorney will have no trouble, whatsoever, neutrualizing anything she say by going through the actual sizes of Martin v. Zimmerman … Martin towers over Zimmerman and in his hoodie looks much larger. A plus for Zimmerman when she is easily neutralized on the stand.

      4. the “unfazed” witness was never of any value … no matter what the press wants you to believe … or what you, wishfully, believe.

      The only slight negative for Zimmerman (but he now has a ‘stronger’ witness, John) is the young african-american boy who say Martin on top. Jurors are stupid, and will recognize that his mother is changing his testimony based on “community” pressure. You may not believe this, but a skillful questioner will make it very clear why his testimony went from seeing Martin on top to “not seeing anything.”

      Zimmerman’s defense had a plus day with respect to the witness revisions.

      Reply ↓

    • 2. Chase witness in first in interview says she was downstairs. In final version she was tossing something into her sister’s bedroom in the back upstairs, and was walking toward her room on the front, when she heard a loud bang which she thought was her sister dropping something in the kitchen. It was only when her sister came upstairs that she realized the sound was a shot. She had been outside reading a little while earlier (my impression was this might have been 15 or 30 minutes, rather than 1 or 2), and clearly wanted to have heard something.

      She says that the glance was 15 seconds before the shot, and she could time this by imagining walking from the back bedroom towards her bedroom.

      John called 10 seconds after the shot, and was going upstairs to call 911 when he heard the shot. So he would have been watching them wrestle at the same time the woman may have seen something.

      There is another woman who had just opened her back door to take her dog out, and she heard grunts and calls for help, and then heard someone say 911 (it could even have been John). She thinking it was he elderly neighbor 4 units to the north having an heart attack went back inside to call 911.

      So someone running from the south 15 seconds before the shot, was not Martin or Zimmerman (assuming they were the two fighting).

      3. She could not tell what the “young boy” was wearing, and in her deposition to the private investigator described a “broad built man” in a short sleeve shirt with maybe a collar (she knew it wasn’t black). She also said that the 911 operator told here that someone had called in a suspicious person – the operator had said that there were other 911 calls, and police were on the way. She refers to Martin as a “little boy”. Her voice is very high pitched, and the 911 operator asked her age.

      Reply ↓

  13. Does anyone ever expect to see a drug residue test on Martin’s hoodie?

    It is important — because Zimmerman allegedly “profiled” martin — to see if Martin could possibly have been high. This could be one reason explaining why Zimmerman believed Martin was acting suspiciously and said he looked high on something.

    Reply ↓

  14. I agree with Ace and partially agree with StanS. 3 of the witness accounts cited by StanS do seem less than 100% credible. However, I think “John’s” new take on it will be viewed as sincere, and will contribute to a jury’s consideration of scenarios other than the one presented by Zimmerman.

    Definitely, Trayvon could have been calling for help while attempting to hold Zimmerman down, and /or prevent Zimmerman from using his gun.

    While John’s testimony certainly will NOT PROVE that Trayvon was doing this, it WILL remove substantial evidence – perhaps the MOST substantial evidence so far – for the defense.

    Zimmerman’s injuries don’t prove anything at all. There was a fight, one person died, the other person was injured. There’s no logical reason to conclude that the person who suffered the least was defending himself, and the person who suffered the most was the aggressor. It could just as easily have been the other way around.

    We do know that Zimmerman was following Trayvon with a gun, and we do have a witness (DeeDee, like it or not) that Trayvon was trying to get away from Zimmerman.

    Reply ↓

    • Well, we can’t PROVE any scenario with the evidence we have so far. I was on a recent jury and the scenario the prosecution gave COULD have happened. Trouble is, the defense scenario also COULD have happened. Both seemed at least somewhat reasonable to me. (Defendant got a lesser charge). In the Zimmerman case, while we can’t PROVE anything, does anyone being honest actually believe that it could not have happened the way Zimmerman described it the night of the event? Or that Zimmerman’s explanation is not reasonable?

      Reply ↓

    • We know that Zimmerman followed in the direction that Martin ran, and had lost him by the first turn. “DeeDee” testified that he “ran from the back”, “had lost Zimmerman” and that Martin was “by his father’s place”. The time and speed which they could have run make this plausible. Martin had longer legs, and had his hands free. Zimmerman had shorter legs, and was talking on the phone as he shuffled along.

      Reply ↓

  15. Thanks Tristan for what you’d remembered about Trayvon seeing the gun when Zimmerman reached for his cell phone!

    I couldn’t find anything directly from Zimmerman’s father, but I found this from thedailybeast.com:

    “She (a neighbor) said Zimmerman’s parents had insisted Zimmerman had acted in self-defense. “What they told us,” the neighbor said, “is that he was reaching for his cell phone and Trayvon Martin saw his gun and reached for the gun and there was a struggle.”

    The insert above in parentheses is mine. This sounds like total hearsay, but I wonder if there’s another reference like this directly from Zimmerman’s father. Whatever the case, if Zimmerman’s Sr. testifies on the stand that Zimmerman Jr. said this, then it would definitely weaken the case for self-defense (in my view), unless both people in a struggle can legitimately claim self-defense.

    Reply ↓

    • Its called “multiple hearsay” or “double hearsay” and is completely inadmissible … for good reason.

      While you are speculating, why not speculate that Zimmerman told his father, a [former?] Magistrate, that he deliberately shot Martin? That shows how valuable your speculation really is: valueless.

      Reply ↓

  16. Pingback: More Evidence Supporting Zimmerman in Trayvon Case - Stormfront

  17. On second thought, it would probably be considered hearsay coming from Zimmerman Sr. too, so maybe it means nothing.

    Definitely, it will be interesting to find out exactly what Zimmerman told the police.

    Reply ↓

  18. HP,

    1. I still don’t know why DD didn’t call the police if she heard what she claims she heard. She is not credible. She will be horrible on the stand. Just listen to her interview by the friendly BDLR. The “you want that too?” is devastating.

    2. In any event, DD doesn’t say that TM reported that he was lost, afraid that GZ would find where he lived or couldn’t get in the house because he didn’t have a key.

    3. If you take DD out of the picture, you have GZ following TM for probably 10 seconds.

    4. I don’t think the chase witness will be called.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

    • For me the key things emerging were:
      1. He observed the actual fighting for only about 10 seconds from inside his screen door. There was a light on but the illumination didn’t extend beyond his patio. He was only really sure that the darker person (clothing + skin) was on the top in the time he watched.

      2. The yelling started at a distance away from his house and migrated to his lawn.

      3. The prosecution questions were only to establish that he didn’t hear any fists hitting a face or a head hitting concrete. This indicates a part of the prosecution strategy will be to convince the jury that Zimmerman wasn’t getting beat up enough to justify shooting Martin.

      Reply ↓

    • It sounds like, originally that Martin had his back to the door or at somewhat of an angle, so that John could only see Zimmerman’s face when he tried to lift up.

      And then they were more parallel to the sidewalk. John thinks they moved to the sidewalk, but that might not be accurate. It might be that the bodies were closer to the sidewalk because they were turned more. It is only after the shooting that the body is on the grass. And since he was at a higher angle and there were people with flashlights the gap might be more noticeable.

      It is not clear whether or not John was looking through a screen door or not.

      What is interesting is the follow-on interview from BDLR. The interview from the FDLE investigators was very thorough. It is pretty clear that John was trying to figure out if they were understanding anything, and they weren’t giving any indication with their eyes or face. BDLR did a quick interview to fill in a couple of points.

      The FDLE never did an interview with “DeeDee” They would have done a very thorough interview to figure out everything she could remember. But Crump was with BDLR and “DeeDee” before the interview, which BDLR mentions toward the end of the interview. And he appears only to ask enough questions to corroborate “DeeDee”s affidavit with Crump.

      Reply ↓

    • At 15:00, John states the yells for help got louder but he qualifies louder as “moving closer,” I think this is significant because based on zimmerman’s story, once he was punched, he was straddled and beaten (assumption there was limited movement from that location.) Perhaps Trayvon was yelling as zimmerman pulled his gun and attacked him? This would seem more likely that TM was trying to move away “during” the scuffle. To our knowledge, zimmerman has reported nothing to support yelling while being on the move.

      Reply ↓

    • He and his fiancee were watching TV, the windows were closed, as well as blinds. He was upstairs when he heard the shot, which he wasn’t sure whether or not it was a rock hitting the window.

      Reply ↓

    • Actually, it confirms that he couldn’t see the grass and made an assumption that parts of the struggle seemed to be on the concrete froTm where he was viewing, but it was definitely on the grass at some points.

      Not sure if you missed it or not, but listen to the video at your own link again. John also confirms there was no punching or pounding in the cement noises that he could hear and he states clearly that Trayvon Martin could have been trying to hold Zimmerman down (as in to protect himself).

      John also said Trayvon Martin’s dead body was moved since his account specifically details how Trayvon Martin’s body (arms, legs, hands, feet) were in the sprawled position BEFORE the police turned him over to administer CPR. Who do you suppose moved the body before the police arrived.

      How do you find John’s clarifications of what he saw as anything helpful to George Zimmerman’s defense? How do you find John’s clarifications hurtful to George Zimmerman’s defense?

      There is no logic in finding the person on top innocent automatically is there? As previoously pointed out, if the person on top is trying to restrain the person on the bottom from harming them, how does being on the bottom help Zimmerman? Oh yeah, John admitted he did not see how the fight started in your video.

      Reply ↓

    • Confirms DeeDee’s 2-minute recollection of events is just as credible/reliable as John’s 5-minute estimate to go from his patio door to hearing the gunshot (as heard in your video presented above). Gotta listen to the whole tape to understand what he’s saying.

      Reply ↓

  20. Those were good points Ricky Jimenez.

    MM, the quote from DeeDee, “You want that too?” could only be considered “devastating” by people who already believe DeeDee was coached by the detective. I don’t see any indication WHATSOEVER that DeeDee was coached.

    There’s nothing in the quote to imply what DeeDee might have thought she was expected to say, if she WERE coached. And DeeDee’s answer – that she didn’t think Trayvon ever told her WHETHER he saw Zimmerman exit the vehicle OR NOT – confirms that she was NOT coached on the question she was referring to; or if she was, she didn’t comply with whatever she was coached to say.

    DeeDee’s testimony as a witness is huge in my opinion, regardless of her grammar skills.

    Reply ↓

    • By the way, if DeeDee WERE coached, what do people think DeeDee thought she was supposed to say? Or what do people think DeeDee SHOULD have said to support the prosecution?

      Reply ↓

      • Why was there no follow up to her comment that Martin was going to “finish” watching the game? I have not heard an answer to that yet.

        Reply ↓

        • “Why was there no follow up to her comment that Martin was going to “finish” watching the game? I have not heard an answer to that yet.”

          It would appear that she follows sports even less closely than I, if that’s possible, but there were some other games and stuff previously that weekend in conjunction with that all-star game that night, so maybe he was referring to watching the last of the weekend’s all-star “package” of events.

          unitron

          Reply ↓

    • HP,

      I didn’t say DD was coached. I think she believes that she is supposed to answer in a certain way.

      People note that her testimony is somewhat understated. She doesn’t claim that TM told her that he couldn’t get into the house. Nor does she claim to have heard GZ threaten TM. But she doesn’t have the brains to create a story that helps the prosecution. If she tried she would probably make things worse. As it is, her account doesn’t fit in with the chronology and the layout of the complex.

      -MM

      Reply ↓

    • I agree. She has no reason to lie. The misinformation posted here by some people who seem to equate lack of communication/articulation skills to being liars is beyond belief. Never seen such bias on display at a lawyer’s site, ever!

      Reply ↓

    • DeeDee never said “you want that, too”. Consider the source.

      Scroll up and listen to the video to hear what she says. Search for “DUH” or “ridiculous” on this page to hear the facts.

      Reply ↓

  21. If the DeeDee “supporters,” having read all the problems with DeeDee as witness pointed out in this blog, still actually believe she helps the prosecution, I can only add one thing: they are in for a rude surprise once the defense questions her and at trial.

    I have said before that the whole theory of a “running” (or not “running”) chase just before the confrontation is physically impossible due the time constraints, the complex layout and the distances involved … and a defense attorney will easily show that. It makes no difference if the chase was running or not since both fail — except for the simple explanation that Martin, once Zimmerman turned his back and started for his car, ran out of hiding to confront Zimmerman.

    DeeDee has implied (and the “no contact lenses in” witness implied or said both were “runninng”). But DeeDee never said either of them was out of breath at the time of their “conversation.” Which is it, they were running or not? She cannot say both. If they were running then Zimmerman had to be able to sprint almost twice as fast as Martin catch up with him within the short distance available on the back path. Reality check: Zimmerman could never catch up to Martin if both were running and even if possible, they would have ended up a far distance from either path.

    If they were, instead, both walking south to north, with Zimmerman behind Martin, that theory too is impossible because when Zimmerman ended the dispatcher call he was not out of breath (so not running) and did not see Martin. There was only about 60 to 90 seconds from that time to the confrontation. How, walking could Zimmerman ever have gotten behind Martin within that time period. If he walked South first that alone would have taken up most of the time and if Martin walked North to return South down the back path that too would have taken longer then 90 seconds. DeeDee did not say he was “out of breath” just before the confrontation.

    For the DeeDee “believers,” GOOD LUCK.

    I would like to add that her statements that Martin was at the “mail shed” and that he “put his hoodie up” because of the rain simply expose her to more problems because she now has to explain all of the times during that day that Martin described exactly where he was (and even why he would do so) and the times he put his hoodie up and down (and why) during the day. No jury is going to believe that was any part of their conversations. Why would Martin even take the time to do that — keep reporting what roof he was under and why he was putting his hoodie up and down.

    As for DeeDee’s coaching, cynics (I am one) would believe she was asking for a prompt as to what to say when asked about Zimmerman exiting the car. The prosecutor could not say ‘Yes’ without getting in trouble so he said “tell the truth” which, in that case, she did: Martin did not tell her he heard Zimmerman exiting the car. When witnesses are coached, as she was, they always create greater problems for themselves because a good defense lawyer will find new problems for that witness to explain.

    Reply ↓

    • Excellent logical play by play analysis. Any chance you are an attorney? Your arguments sound similar to that of some of my legal friends

      Reply ↓

    • Based on the “Zimmerman’s call started at 7:09:34 PM and the first 911 call was at 7:16:11 PM” timeline, the general consensus seems to be that the struggle began around 7:15:30 PM.

      That’s closer to 2 minutes after Zimmerman hangs up at 7:13:39 PM

      I don’t know how long it took Martin to get from the 7-11 back to TRATL, but when he got there he could have stepped under the overhang at the mailbox kiosk to wait for the rain to slack off and lowered his hood to let the water run off or even removed the hoodie and shook it and then put it back on with the hood down, which would let him put it back up when he supposedly said that he was going to.

      Zimmerman,unfortunately, is as bad a narrator as he is a giver of directions, so we really don’t know where it was exactly that he saw Martin, or Martin’s path during the time he watched him.

      Do you believe the young lady was “coached” by the guy from the state or before he ever got to her?

      As for running, we know Zimmerman did, we heard him do it for 26 seconds. After that, we don’t know how long he stood still and how long he spent walking, but if he was going to find an address near where he was parked to be able to report that, it would seem that one of the houses on Twin Trees would be best since supposedly that’s the street on which he was parked, but if he got jumped on the way back there he would have had to have been over on the east leg of Retreat View to only have gotten as far as he did during that last almost 2 minutes even if he had stood still for the entire phone call. Even then he must have been walking very slowly. That’s if he was actually looking for an address. Otherwise he might have been down toward Brandy Green’s house and headed back north on that long sidewalk.

      It seems more plausible that after he quit running he kept looking for Martin.

      That clicking or knocking sound heard in the latter part of the call could be Zimmerman trying to get a flashlight to work (especially if it’s a 2 AA cell Mini-MagLite, he said with a tone of bitterness and frustration in his voice).

      As for hapufern’s question about the effect of Martin seeing or not seeing Zimmerman get out on foot, if he saw it, it increased his fear of Zimmerman, if he didn’t see it, it increases the likelyhood of them tripping over each other in the dark.

      As best I can figure from what Zimmerman said, Martin was walking from the mailboxes along Twin Trees, starts running after getting past the vehicle, and then either takes the cut-through sidewalk all the way to Retreat View and turns south, takes it to the T and heads south, or gets to where Twin Trees turns south and does the same until he gets to the end of the houses and turns east again. It seems he needs to head south at some point for Zimmerman to say he’s headed for the back entrance, unless Zimmerman is convinced that at that point he’s just looking to get out of the entire neighborhood and any movement to the south or the east is a movement toward the back entrance.

      It would help to know exactly where Zimmerman was parked, and which direction his vehicle was pointed.

      It would also be helpful to know exactly where pedestrians could enter and exit TRATL without having to unlock anything or input a code on a keypad.

      If Martin was naturally combative enough to have decided on hiding to ambush Zimmerman instead of just hiding until he left to avoid revealing his destination, it seems like there’d be more about him getting into trouble at school for fighting.

      It’s not impossible that Martin was a more thuggish than Moriarity-style criminal mastermind, but I’m just not seeing it.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • There was an interview with a friend, who showed where Zimmerman was parked. He was on the north side of Twin Trees, about even with the gap between the buildings to the north (that face Retreat View Circle). There were evidence photos, that must have been taken the next day, because it was light, that show a Honda Element at that location. There are Bing photos that show a Honda Element in his driveway, and he had a Honda key.

      Listening to his call, and from the time he began to relax, from the time he reported Martin running would be enough time for Martin to go from behind Zimmermans’s car to the curve in the sidewalk off Twin Trees. There is a 4-foot pole with a light right there, probably more to mark the turn than to illuminate. There is a street light on the SW corners of both turns in Twin Trees. “DeeDee” said that Martin “ran from the back”.

      It makes perfect sense if you thought the man who was sitting in the car was a cop, or whomever, to walk past while pretending that you weren’t afraid, then when you get past, to begin running, especially if he was in his car, and you could get off the street into a dark area.

      Zimmerman would have a hard time seeing him, either in his rearview mirrors, or turned around looking out the back window. Remember, Martin had a dark gray sweater on, and it was at least drizzling. He could see more if he got out of his truck. Zimmerman doesn’t start moving for 11 seconds after he reports Martin was running. Martin could be close to the T. It could be that Zimmerman sees Martin turn, and had anticipated him going through to Retreat View Circle – as someone less familiar with the neighborhood might.

      Zimmerman was explaining that the other entrance was the back entrance, and the dispatcher was logging this information. That is likely why he didn’t catch on that Zimmerman was moving. He may have wanted the information more than he was concerned with Zimmerman following.

      Zimmerman doesn’t melt into a puddle when he says “OK”, but he slows, and this matches the time needed to just be getting to the T. If you have gone that far, you might as well go the 10 extra steps to get to where he can see something. By this time Martin could be at Brandy’s place, assuming he was fit enough to run for 30 seconds (this is 150 yards, so it is not an all out sprint).

      He can’t see Martin, and his flashlight isn’t working. Martin can’t see Zimmerman, because “DeeDee” said that he had lost him. The dispatcher is getting his biographical details, and is not concerned that he is not in his truck.

      He asks if Zimmerman wants to meet with the officer when he gets *there*. Where is *there*. From Zimmerman’s frame of reference it is at the “T”. To the dispatcher it is 1111 Retreat View Circle where the 2 police officers were dispatched to. The dispatcher where he wants to meet at. Zimmerman begins to explain where he is at, and the dispatcher got side-tracked and suggested the mailboxes, which were a far from west of his truck as he was east. He decides he can explain to the officer how to find him, easier than the dispatcher, especially if he can explain one step at a time.

      While he is waiting, he replays the conversation in his mind. He realizes that the dispatcher wanted an address. Or maybe he is trying to figure out an easy way to explain. Maybe he decided it would be easier for the officer to go down Retreat View Circle to the rear gate. Maybe he decided to look down the street. He goes to the end of the sidewalk gets the address on the first house (front of garage), he is walking back towards his truck.

      Maybe Martin had dropped the juice can. When he left the store he was carrying it in a bag. Someone applying CPR found it under his shirt, but the bag was separate.

      Reply ↓

      • What color is that Honda?

        (trying to figure out if I have seen it or not)

        It was 6 seconds after Zimmerman says that Martin is running until you hear the sound of him shutting the door behind him after getting out.

        After the dispatcher tells him they don’t need for him to follow, and gets his name and phone number he asks if Zimmerman wants to meet with the police when they get there, and then asks where he will meet with them.

        At that point Zimmerman gives such horrible directions the dispatcher gives up and asks in front of which address he is parked.

        Zimmerman, no longer in or apparently particularly near his vehicle can only give the answer about the cut-though, which leads the dispatcher to wonder if Zimmerman even lives in that neighborhood.

        That’s when he asks for Zimmerman’s address.

        Zimmerman balks at giving all of it and the dispatcher asks if he wants to meet them by the mailboxes.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • White

      7 seconds to door closing.
      11 seconds to starting after Martin, who may have rounded corner by then.

      Zimmerman was giving his truck’s location of waypoint. The dispatcher talked over him as he was explaining where he was located relative to the truck. Is Zimmerman responsible for careless listening skills by the dispatcher?

      Zimmerman was not parked in front of any address. The closest buildings were the buildings to the north, which face Retreat View Circle. He was behind them.
      He was across the street and to the east of the north facing building on Twin Trees. He was north of the end of the east facing building on Twin Trees, and around the corner. He was west of the west facing building on Twin Trees, and around the corner.

      Reply ↓

      • “You come straight in the main entrance until you have to turn left and then you go until you have to turn right and my truck will be right there parked on the side of the road.”

        Now, was that so hard?

        Don’t need street names, addresses, or compass references.

        Zimmerman sucks at giving directions.

        So badly the dispatcher wondered if he even lived in that area.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • “‘You come straight in the main entrance until you have to turn left and then you go until you have to turn right and my truck will be right there parked on the side of the road.'”

      Now, was that so hard?”

      You had a chance to rehearse. I suspect that many people would turn left on Retreat View Circle, after they came straight in the main entrance. They would go until they had to make a right turn.

      “Oh that’s what you meant Unit Ron! Why didn’t you say blah blah instead.”

      Even if they followed your directions in the intended way, they would have driven past his truck, and wondered why you couldn’t give an address.

      The problem is that a “turn” is understood to mean “turning” onto a street, while a “curve” is following a street in a different direction. But in this case, the curves are right angles. If Twin Trees curved toward the southeast, instead of right angle turn 100 feet south of Retreat View Circle, it would be easier.

      Reply ↓

  22. StanS, Please note that the interview was conducted by the POLICE, not the PROSECUTION.

    DeeDee never asked the police interviewer WHAT she was supposed to say. She only asked if he wanted an answer to the question, most likely because she was having a hard time trying to remember everything in her conversation with Trayvon, and this last question from the police seemed like an unimportant detail.

    There’s no reason to believe that DeeDee made up anything she said about Trayvon being at the “mail thing”, although I’m sure some Zimmerman supporters might NOT like the idea of some people ducking under buildings or putting up their hoodies due to RAIN rather than some evil motive.

    Some Zimmerman supporters might also not like to hear DeeDee say that Trayvon could see Zimmerman was ON THE PHONE, even BEFORE Trayvon passed Zimmerman on his way home.

    Well of course, if Zimmerman could see what Trayvon was doing, Trayvon could also see what Zimmerman was doing, unless Zimmerman’s windows were tinted.

    One thing I think is interesting is that Zimmerman was watching and reporting Trayvon’s every move to the dispatcher, and yet Zimmerman sounded so shocked and threatened when he told the dispatcher, “Now he’s looking at ME”!

    I do think it’s interesting Stan that you refuse to consider anything but the most linear of possibilities for where Trayvon and Zimmerman went from the time Trayvon started “running” (ZIMMERMAN’S words) to the time they actually met up. And of course there are other physical possibilities for the encounter besides the one given by Zimmerman.

    But back to DeeDee. StanS (or anyone): Do you think it would have been favorable for the prosecution if Trayvon DID see Zimmerman exiting the vehicle, or DID NOT see Zimmerman exiting the vehicle? Why or why not?

    Reply ↓

      • “Someone from the prosecutor’s office conducted the interview.”

        It would have been interesting if she had been interviewed by the police during the trying to figure out what happened phase instead of the prosecutors during the how can we convict this guy phase.

        I suspect not all of the questions would have been the same.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • Unitron,

      For once, we are in agreement. The prosecutor, a trained attorney, wanted to make sure a police officer did not ask the “wrong” question. In some of my above posts I pointed out what those questions could have been. This was a ‘softball’ interview to make sure she was never asked about anything that could hurt the case against Zimmerman. An more objective police officer would be questioning her with an intent to “break” her story to get to the truth.

      Reply ↓

      • During the trying to find out what happened phase I don’t know that she’d already be classified as a prosecution or defense witness, so I don’t think a cop would be out to “break” her story, i.e., assume that it’s all false and needs disproving, as much as they would have been looking to “decipher” it.

        You’d want to keep her in the dark with regard to information from any other source about what happened that night until you were sure you’d heard everything she had to say, so taking the “you said X, but so-and-so said Y” antagonistic approach might not be best, at least the first time around.

        But at least it wouldn’t have been from a “how do we fit this into the narrative we’ve already decided on” approach, even if it were a subconcious one.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • Some questions off the top of my head (also listen to “John’s” second round of questioning to see how details are tested). It is in no way a complete list:

      Was Martin smoking anything that day?
      Why would Martin be carrying a lighter?
      Why was Martin suspended? What did he tell you?
      Did Martin tell you about his “swinging on a bus driver”
      What did Martin tell you about the jewelry he was caught with?
      Why didn’t Martin just go into Brandy’s apt when he got there? Did you discuss that with him?

      etc. etc.

      Reply ↓

      • “Some questions off the top of my head…”

        If the prosecutor were bringing Trayvon up on charges of not having been a perfect person, the lighter and the jewelry and the bus driver might be relevant but I’m not sure that “she said that Trayvon said” wouldn’t be objected to as hearsay.

        Except for their physical altercation, Zimmerman hasn’t accused Martin of any specific violations of the law (“He looks suspicious” isn’t “I saw him break into 1234 Elm Street”).

        If they need to know about the bus driver, they can go ask the bus driver and get it first hand.

        If he got suspended for X and told her it was for Y, I don’t know that has any specific significance outside of their relationship.

        Now anything about why he didn’t go back to the house would be relevant to the events of that night.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • unitron,

      Good thing you are so versed in the law!

      Talk to a lawyer and find out what ‘hearsay’ and ‘hearsay exceptions’ are. EVERYTHING Martin told her is ‘hearsay’ the issue is hearsay exceptions.

      In a deposition, everything is fair game. The issue is what is admissible at trial. Don’t you find it strange that all about Zimmerman’s ‘background’ is cited so heavily, but nothing about Martin’s background is deemed ‘relevant’ according to the ‘pundits’? Backgrounds are relevant, discoverable and worthy of questioning.

      Reply ↓

    • “It would have been interesting if she had been interviewed by the police during the trying to figure out what happened phase instead of the prosecutors during the how can we convict this guy phase.”

      They likely wouldn’t have given her an exact timeline. They would have told her that the phone records showed her phone was connected to Martin’s “some time” prior to his death.

      You’d ask her if she knew where Martin was staying; if she knew when he was planning to return to Miami; if he had mentioned going some where; if she could remember anything he told her about that he saw or heard.

      Reply ↓

  23. Edit from above (sorry) :

    “One thing I think is interesting is that Zimmerman was watching and reporting Trayvon’s every move to the dispatcher, and yet Zimmerman sounded so shocked and threatened when he told the dispatcher, ‘Now he’s staring at ME!'”

    Reply ↓

  24. What is “Pingback”? I noticed the “Pingback” not too far above that gives a link to a Stormfront forum.

    Susan’s timeline was quoted at the Stormfront forum. But what is “Pingback” and how did the Stormfront forum link get placed on this blog? Is this an automatic feature of this blog, or did someone here link Stormfront?

    Reply ↓

  25. StanS. You’re right that the interviewer was from the prosecution office. However, I don’t think the interview was coached. That seems a little silly.

    BUT, do you think it would have been favorable for the prosecution if Trayvon DID see Zimmerman exiting the vehicle, or DID NOT see Zimmerman exiting the vehicle? Why or why not?

    Reply ↓

    • HP,

      If TM didn’t see or hear GZ exit the vehicle, I think this would help the defense. Then there is no evidence that TM thought he was being followed. It makes it even more certain that he could have made it to Brandi’s house in time.

      On the other hand, the defense will have to concede that GZ didn’t something to tick off TM. I don’t think just starting at the kid in your car would have been enough. I assume TM thought GZ was following him.

      -MM

      Reply ↓

  26. No post button on replies bug strikes again.

    “Dummy me .. what is BLDR?”

    Don’t feel like the Lone Ranger.

    As best I can Google:

    Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda

    unitron

    Reply ↓

    • BDLR is “Bernie de la Rionda”

      He is an assistant to Angela Corey, the state attorney in Jacksonville. A state attorney is like a district attorney in other States, They prosecute cases that occur in their district. The state attorney for Seminole and Brevard County, Norm Wolfinger, was the one who declined to prosecute. He must have told the police that he didn’t have the evidence to overcome a self-defense defense (it was never going to be about Stand Your Ground).

      Governor Rick Scott ordered Angela Corey to take over the case, and the FDLE (Florida Department of Law Enforcement) take over the investigation – or at least review it. Bernie de la Rionda is Corey’s assistant, and was the lawyer for the State at the bail hearing, and presumably will be who prosecutes the case if it goes to trial.

      I don’t like names that aren’t all caps, so I use BDLR.

      Reply ↓

      • OK, I got it and thanks. Your detailed reply prompts to me once request a thread on the politics of this case which appear to us here in Florida
        to have poisoned the justice system.

        Why on earth would Scott allow Corey to bypass the grand jury and then pursue a ridiculous second degree murder charge? I do not see her being a scapegoat and Scott will ultimately get the blame for the aftermath.

        What really baffles me about Scott and his relationship with Corey is that, unlike other states, Democrats here actually are PRO GUN, in spite of what the Tampa Bay Times and other liberal media report You may doubt that but look at their voting records sometime.

        Many people don’t know that Stand Your Ground was passed by an “overwhelming” majority of a bipartisan legislature, including 100 percent of the Senate. That means ALL of the Democrats in the Senate.

        Corey has ALWAYS been anti gun. Yet she was reelected unopposed. I am 65 and have been here since 1969 so I pay attention but this makes no sense. Do you have any observations?

        Reply ↓

  27. unitron,

    you said:
    “Except for their physical altercation, Zimmerman hasn’t accused Martin of any specific violations of the law (“He looks suspicious” isn’t “I saw him break into 1234 Elm Street”).”

    ***He doesn’t have to accuse a suspect of a crime to call the police dispatcher (I assume you are referring to the nonsensical “profiling” accusation). Indeed, he told the dispatcher everything he saw and the dispatcher sent the patrol car (i.e., did the “profiling”)

    you said:
    “If they need to know about the bus driver, they can go ask the bus driver and get it first hand.”

    ***They can also ask DeeDee about what Martin told her about the incident. This would reflect on Martin’s credibility in terms of what he tells DeeDee and on Martin’s propensity towards violence, an important issue.

    you said:
    “If he got suspended for X and told her it was for Y, I don’t know that has any specific significance outside of their relationship.”

    ***If Martin lied to DeeDee that would undermine the story DeeDee is telling, which is based almost entirely on what Martin purportedly told her..

    Reply ↓

  28. “Was Martin smoking anything that day?
    Why would Martin be carrying a lighter?
    Why was Martin suspended? What did he tell you?
    Did Martin tell you about his “swinging on a bus driver”
    What did Martin tell you about the jewelry he was caught with?
    Why didn’t Martin just go into Brandy’s apt when he got there? Did you discuss that with him?”

    None of the above questions indicate any tendency toward violence except for the bus driver question; and the rumor about the bus driver could easily be checked out by ASKING THE BUS DRIVER – not DeeDee.

    Therefore, all of these questions – except for the last question – have absolutely no relevance at all to the case, particularly the question about whether or not Trayvon told DeeDee why he was suspended. What possible connection could DeeDee’s understanding of why Trayvon was suspended have to do with the case? Only someone attempting to badger a witness close to the deceased would ask such a question. Unfortunately, these are the questions that seem most relevant to Zimmerman supporters, who often appear to veer from the case.

    Definitely DeeDee should have been asked the last question, but it can’t be asked in the form of “Why….” That would be an actual “leading question”. After all, we really don’t know whether Trayvon went into Brandy’s house or not. The question can only be asked in the form of, “Did Trayvon say that he passed Brandy’s house without going in?”… If so, “Did he give you a reason, and if so, what reason did he give?”

    On the other hand, the interviewer may not have asked those particular questions because he may already know the answer from other evidence, including but not limited to the fact that Trayvon’s possessions at the time of his death DID NOT INCLUDE A KEY.

    Reply ↓

  29. In addition to the above, why would any investigator in this case ask DeeDee if Trayvon told her about jewelry? Does THAT have anything to do with this case? No, absolutely not. it’s just a question some Zimmerman supporter would ask for the purpose of badgering a witness close to the deceased, a witness who is a minor and who was possibly devasted and traumatized about her close friend’s death – all of the above making her an easy target for some conceited bully to further stomp on.

    It wouldn’t be allowed in a court of law either.

    Reply ↓

  30. Why do the Zimmerman supporters never claim that Trayvon hid inside his HOUSE and THEN went back out? I’ve never seen this possibility brought up, even though Zimmerman supporters are always talking about how easy it would have been for Trayvon to just go into his house.

    Maybe it’s because if they say that, then they’d have to explain why Trayvon didn’t come out with some kind of weapon – being such a thug and all, so intent on killing Zimmerman that Zimmerman had to shoot to kill.

    And off course, they don’t want to talk about the fact Trayvon DIDN’T HAVE A KEY!

    Trayvon DIDN’T HAVE A KEY! If you see some crazy person running after you, do you knock on a door and let the crazy person get you WHILE YOU WAIT FOR SOMEONE TO ANSWER THE DOOR?!

    No, you try to put as much distance as possible between yourself and the crazy person. In this circumstance, that would have meant running around the south end of the rows, “running from the back”, as DeeDee put it.

    If Trayvon had wanted to “hide”, and if it was so easy to get into his house, he would have hidden IN HIS HOUSE.

    Oh well, I’m sure some people here would much rather talk about jewelry.

    Reply ↓

    • I have no idea what makes people disregard facts and adopt speculation that fits their precontrived notions about people. For example, they are suspicious of DeeDee’s 2-minute mention (probably expecting teen DeeDee to have a stopwatch on her silly conversations with her teen friend Trayvon), but they completely excuse John’s testimony that it took FIVE (5) minutes to get from his patio door to head upstairs to hear a gunshot along his way.

      They give John some slack for his memories, but expect a 16-year old DeeDee to not mean 2-seconds or briefly or soon thereafter and they focus only on whether her 2-minutes means she can prove it via stop-watch.

      Reply ↓

    • We have corroboration from 2, and probably 3 other witnesses that John yelled at the persons fighting, immediately prior to the shooting.

      Reply ↓

    • Who are the actual “Zimmerman supporters” here? A number of us are simply trying to look at what we know without bias. I must say, the media hype has created a lot more “Martin supporters” than “Zimmerman supporters,” even though the media historically reports half-truths, omits known evidence, etc. As for your speculation about not having a key, seeing some “crazy person” and not knocking on the door, etc., it is certainly possible. So it Zimmerman’s explanation of the incident. As a Martin supporter, you will have to get a jury to believe that either 1) Zimmerman’s story is not possible or 2) Zimmerman’s story is not reasonable. So far, IMHO, nothing that has been presented comes close to meeting either of those requirements (for a conviction). Hence, reasonable doubt concerning the current charges seems likely.

      Reply ↓

      • DeeDee says he got home. Why didn’t he just go inside?

        When asked if Martin ever said he saw George get out of the truck, she answers, “You want that, too?” but seems to confirm he never saw him get out the truck. Look at Brandy’s house, the crime scene and Martin’s truck. How is that possible? Sorry none if it makes sense to me.

        Do we even know what she meant by “Coupla minutes go by/”

        Reply ↓

  31. HP,

    It never occurred to me that TM would go into the house and then come back.

    OK, TM didn’t have a key. But according to DD he didn’t say anything about being unable to get into the house, being afraid of the alleged pursuer knowing where he lives or being lost.

    I mentioned the key and said that if this were a civil case brought by TM’s estate, then maybe a smart attorney could convince me that by a preponderance of the evidence GZ was at fault, using the lack of a key, DD’s testimony, etc.

    But why don’t “TM defenders” tell us why DD didn’t call the police that night or at least after she heard that TM was dead? I imagine the claim will be that she was too distraught. But her mother admitted her to the hospital the next day because she was distraught. Didn’t she at least tell her mother what she allegedly heard? Why didn’t she then call the police?

    Either DD didn’t hear anything, or what she heard was quite different from what she has been prompted to say now.

    –MM

    Reply ↓

  32. HP,

    You write:
    _______

    Definitely DeeDee should have been asked the last question, but it can’t be asked in the form of “Why….” That would be an actual “leading question”. After all, we really don’t know whether Trayvon went into Brandy’s house or not. The question can only be asked in the form of, “Did Trayvon say that he passed Brandy’s house without going in?”… If so, “Did he give you a reason, and if so, what reason did he give?”

    On the other hand, the interviewer may not have asked those particular questions because he may already know the answer from other evidence, including but not limited to the fact that Trayvon’s possessions at the time of his death DID NOT INCLUDE A KEY.
    ______

    Maybe TM left the door unlocked. Of course we’ll probably never know, but the only evidence of that would likely be something that TM said to DD that night. I doubt that TM’s “little brother” (!) or Tracy Martin would remember.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

  33. A further point on DD’s interview: as someone notes on Talk Left, GZ reports in real time that TM is walking around and it’s raining. DD has him under the “mail thing” because of the rain.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

    • The area between the pool and the clubhouse appears to be open (under the roofline of the clubhouse, but outside – a covered patio area before you get to the pool deck). Unless it has been remodeled, why would Martin stand under the small mail area for 18 minutes?

      Reply ↓

    • If he was walking home in the rain, and looking at GZ while in the rain, why not walk or jog back to Brandy’s house? How much more soaked could he have got?

      And didn’t he want to watch the game?

      -MM

      Reply ↓

    • Also, DD’s report that TM would tell her that he is putting his hoodie up is odd as well. He’s got it up in the 7-11 video. And why tell someone that?

      Reply ↓

  34. Mark, first, before I get into this, I want to let you know that I appreciate your sincerity.

    You say: “OK, TM didn’t have a key. But according to DD he didn’t say anything about being unable to get into the house, being afraid of the alleged pursuer knowing where he lives or being lost.”

    Mark, did DeeDee ever say “Trayvon didn’t say anything about being unable to get into the house…..” No!!!!!! DeeDee NEVER SAID Trayvon didn’t tell her didn’t tell her these things. Remember, she was NEVER ASKED about why Trayvon didn’t go into his house! Remember?!! Trayvon could have possibly told DeeDee lots of things that she didn’t relate during the interview, simply because SHE WAS NEVER ASKED!!!

    And why NOT tell someone that you just put up your hoody? Have you ever heard 2 teenagers talk on a cellphone for hours? They tell each other EVERY detail. It’s how they’re able to stay on the phone for so long!!!!!!

    (Q: Is that simple statement about putting up a hoodie in the rain so threatening to the Zimmerman line? Possibly it is, since the Z-line is so weak to begin with. Or maybe Zimmerman supporters are just looking at ANY possible thing they can find to try to make this girl into a liar and destroy her credibility: As in, “Oh, she said Trayvon put up his hoodie? Now that MUST have been a lie!………. Uh huh.)

    And you doubt that Chad would have remembered if the door had been left unlocked for Trayvon????????? Really???????? You don’t think they would have discussed this before Trayvon left WITHOUT A KEY????????

    Did it occur to you that maybe Trayvon’s father was not expecting Trayvon to go to the store and leave his little brother alone? And did it occur to you that maybe this is why Trayvon never called the police or his family when some crazy guy started chasing him in the night? And maybe even why DeeDee never called the family or police?

    People aren’t necessarily lying just because we’d rather THINK they’re lying.

    Reply ↓

    • Basically, I’m just saying there are a whole lot of possibilities here that most Zimmerman supporters are refusing to even begin to contemplate, which is why they can only come up with one scenario – a very weak one – that just happens to supports the Z-line: Trayvon ran and hid (for no logical, evident reason). Then Trayvon waited for Zimmerman to get off the phone (for no logical, evident reason), and had a complete reversal in character from running to attacking (for no logical, evident reason).

      I’m interested in reading Zimmerman’s account to police.

      Reply ↓

    • HP,

      Of course it’s possible that they did discuss how he would get back into the house. On the other hand, TM may have just left the door open as a matter of course.

      I don’t know why BDLR didn’t do an in-depth interview of DD like he and the investigator did of John. But if DD didn’t tell Crump that TM had a problem getting into the house (of course I don’t know) and didn’t tell BDLR that, then it is going to be suspicious to a jury if she takes the stand and testifies to this supposed fact for the first time.

      But if you are BDLR, you ask DD, “what happened?” Then you lock it down, “did TM say x, did TM say y.” Then you ask Chad, “do you know if the door was locked?” If DD says, “the door was locked” and Chad said “he would leave without locking the door” you conclude that there are problems with DD’s testimony. Of course if they testify consistently then this tends to show she is telling the truth.

      The fact is there are a lot of things in DD’s interview which don’t make sense. Do you really think that this girl’s statement is sufficient to put GM in the slammer for 25 years? (I realize there might be some circumstantial evidence, but DD’s statement seems like the only evidence about who started the altercation.) The investigator said there was no evidence about who started the fight, which might say something about what he thinks of her statement.

      I’m still waiting for your explanation as to why DD didn’t call police that night or after she learned that TM was dead.

      -MM

      Reply ↓

    • HP,

      You write:
      _____

      Did it occur to you that maybe Trayvon’s father was not expecting Trayvon to go to the store and leave his little brother alone? And did it occur to you that maybe this is why Trayvon never called the police or his family when some crazy guy started chasing him in the night? And maybe even why DeeDee never called the family or police?
      _____

      That may be a good explanation as to why TM didn’t call the police, but it’s a rather poor explanation of why DD didn’t. She knows that TM was shot dead outside the house. It’s a moot point as to whether he was outside contrary to his father’s instructions.

      -MM

      Reply ↓

  35. HP,

    There are lots of scenarios. For example, GZ, after he gets off the call, starts looking for TM. They bump into each other, a fight starts, and it goes from bad to worse. Would it suprise me? No.

    I don’t find it odd that TM would run from the car if he found GZ on the phone and looking at him in a creepy way. Then he hears that he is being followed. He says to himself, “I’m going to teach this guy a lesson,” hides and then sucker punches him.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

    • I never bought this “creepy way” that Zimmerman was purportedly looking at Martin from his car. Zimmerman was simply on the phone. Does the prosecutor intend to call in a gypsy card reader to give expert testimony on what a “creepy look” is (one commentator above called it an “evil eye”)? Of course not.

      Zimmerman was a normal looking guy talking in a perfectly normal tone on the dispatcher tape, which we can clearly hear. The premise he was somehow simultaneously making faces at Martin — who was approaching him without any indication of fear while — while talking normally in the car makes no sense. In fact, how exactly was that done? Did Zimmerman sneer, stick his tongue out or what? A good defense attorney will end that “creepy look” nonsense very quickly at trial.

      It looks like Martin took offense with someone looking at him from his car and called him “crazy” for doing so (if he really said that). Having attended an urban school, I find it hard to believe that anyone who did so would not understand the trouble you can get into by constantly looking at the wrong person.

      The whole “crazy guy” routine that DeeDee went through was more in the line of this guy’s looking at me, I’m going to see what his story is (or similar such statements). Remember, at no time did DeeDee every say Martin said he was afraid of the smaller white guy on the phone in his car. DeeDee only reached that conclusion based on her dubious proposition that because Martin purportedly lowered his he had to be afraid. I would love to hear the experts duel on that issue: If a lowered voice really is an indicator of fear … or simply getting ready for action. DeeDee is not an expert witness on voice volume analysis and its psychological meanings.

      A defense attorney will made a very credible argument that Martin ran because he was already in trouble because of his suspension for drugs. And, after seeing Zimmerman on the phone, probably believed his father would be very upset if he was stopped and questioned by the police. He also could easily have believed he even could be busted again for pot or for harassing Zimmerman. So Martin ran. Martin then came back and hid to see if the police had come. When he saw they didn’t come and Zimmerman was off the phone, Martin decided to teach Zimmerman a lesson for all the trouble he was caused him and for staring at him.

      Which version would you believe? Which version do you think a jury will believe once they hear both sides and where the standard is to disbelieve Zimmerman’s side beyond a reasonable doubt? I think we all know the answer.

      Reply ↓

  36. More on DeeDee’s questioning by the prosecutor’s office:

    At trial, there is a maxim that you never ask a witness a question you don’t already know the answer that will be given. The prosecutor only asked DeeDee questions designed to give answers favorable to the prosecution … he was clearly following that maxim and knew the interview would be widely disseminated. As an interesting side note, at the bond hearing we got the clear impression that a police investigator had conducted the interview, not the prosecutor, thereby implying a ‘neutral’ police investigation interview was conducted, not the staged interview that actually occurred.

    The incident where DeeDee was apparently looking for more coaching was at about 14:48 in the tape. She was asked:

    “Question: “did he ever say the guy got out of the car”
    Answer: “you want that too?”
    Question: I want to know the truth”

    The prosecutor’s response of “I want to know the truth” is strange indeed. A simple “tell me what you remember” would be the response. Listen to all of the police interviews in this case where they always give words to that effect and never tell the witness to “tell the truth” which implies they are expected to possibly be lying. But DeeDee asked the question so quickly that the prosecutor let down his guard and instead told her to tell “the truth.” That slip indicated that he felt she was capable of lying, was coached or might otherwise say something more, which could further torpedo her testimony. So the prosecutor inserted the word “truth” to distance himself. There is no reason to tell an interviewee to tell “the truth,” since it is already assumed the truth is being told … unless you are trying to warn off the interviewee in anticipation of a possible lie or other harmful action

    Reply ↓

    • The stuff posted by you and repeated by your comrades here on this blog regarding what DeeDee said at 14:48 of the tape is a total fabrication. While your error could be due to hearing loss on the part of yourself and the listeners, it could also be due to intolerance of less than articulate people or it could be willfully discounting unbiased conversation.

      However, I’ve posted above what DeeDee actually said, so I’m of the opinion that DeeDee’s testimony is not coached, she was probably not lying and, although not the best in the articulation department, she managed to answer the questions after the interviewer regrouped and re-asked his question.

      Reply ↓

      • Maybe I missed it but if DeeDee did not say,”You want that, too?” What did she say? Do you have an actual transcript? That would clear up a lot of things.

        Reply ↓

    • CSFC,

      Here is the tape. Go to 14:44 and you will see I quoted the tape at that point “EXACTLY”

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=related

      Anyone can listen to the tape and hear it for themselves:

      To repeat. This is EXACTLY what was said on the tape at 14:44:

      Question: “Did he ever say the guy got out of the car
      DeeDee: “you want that too”
      Question: “I want to know the truth”

      No need for you to be insulting and say the tape didn’t record what it clearly says.

      Reply ↓

  37. Hi Mark, you make a good point that certainly DeeDee had no reason to neglect to call the police or tell her parents after she found out Trayvon had been killed (I should have thought of that, duh).

    I don’t know why she didn’t call police as soon as she knew Trayvon was dead. Total shock maybe? Maybe DeeDee DID tell her parents, and the whole family has a trauma history with police, whether through their own fault or not.

    Certainly, we know DeeDee was on the phone with Trayvon, and we have no evidence at all to indicate that there was some evil motive for not calling the police. Maybe DeeDee just didn’t think her testimony would matter to anyone.

    Why DO people think DeeDee didn’t call police? I don’t have a clue.

    I would bet though that certain people have searched high and low to find anything negative that they could possibly find on DeeDee, and we haven’t heard a thing. Oh well, give them time……(sigh). Maybe she got an F on a spelling test or something.

    ———

    Mark, I’d say your first scenario is definitely a possibility. The second one seems a little awkward. I agree that this would put Trayvon right about at the place where the struggle is known to have occurred, because Trayvon would have had to hide before Zimmerman turned south between the rows. Otherwise, Zimmerman would have seen Trayvon hide.

    But why would Trayvon hide? Why not just knock Z’s lights out when he turned the corner? What was the purpose of hiding? To get an advantage over Zimmerman? If Trayvon was hiding to get an advantage, why didn’t he hit Zimmerman from behind? And why would he wait for Zimmerman to finish his phone call? Just trying to be polite before smashing him?

    If Trayvon was hiding to GET AWAY from Zimmerman, that doesn’t make sense either, since he’d be risking getting caught when he could easily outrun Zimmerman instead. And meanwhile, the phone conversation with DeeDee is continuing while Trayvon is supposedly hiding. This just doesn’t make any sense.

    So Stan, you’re saying that when Trayvon saw (from his hiding place) that the police didn’t come, Trayvon attacked Zimmerman? Um, Trayvon gave the police how many minutes to get there? Back to the drawing board for you, I think.
    .

    Reply ↓

    • hapufern,

      My guess is you really do have a clue. Obvious reasons DeeDee didn’t want to get involved are (are you telling us you never thought of them?):

      1. She thought it might have been a bad drug deal.
      2. Martin told her he was about to attack the “white guy” (why even tell her he was “white”?) and she didn’t want to hurt Martin’s “memory”?
      3. During the 6 hours(?) of talking, Martin was bragging about his burglaries, fights and drug dealing so why bring THAT up?
      4. Martin never really told her anything like what she later said; the phone hung up so she never really heard anything … except that Martin told her he was about to attack Zimmerman?
      5. Laziness? She now tells us she has “high blood pressure.” I am still waiting to see proof she “went to the hospital” the next day (or even a doctor) for any matter dealing with ‘grief’ because of Martin’s death. BTW how soon after the shooting did she find out? Tracy didn’t know until the next day. How fast would she have found out? She certainly didn’t call the police after the alleged incident she says she heard.
      6. She could have believed that Martin followed through attacking the “white guy” and because of that why would she call to police on her ‘friend’ and thereby turn him in? Maybe Martin told her he was putting his hoodie up so he couldn’t be identified … sort of bragging to her while he was about to commit a crime in “real time”? The last thing she would want to do would be to call the police and end up being a ‘snitch’ on Martin.

      You also sometimes seem to favor disingenuity and brilliantly answering issues you know were never seriously raised in the first place. Such as “I would bet though that certain people have searched high and low to find anything negative that they could possibly find on DeeDee, and we haven’t heard a thing. Oh well, give them time……(sigh). Maybe she got an F on a spelling test or something.”
      Haven’t you been reading the many posts to see that no one is counting on looking for a DeeDee criminal or disciplinary record? So why say that? You know that DeeDee’s challengers are looking instead to challenge and use her bizarre, inconsistent, carefully constrained and coached statements to get to the real bottom of what really happened, Martin’s true nature and to show that she is lying.

      Reply ↓

      • The “clincher” for me was that she went to funeral and still NEVER mentioned to anyone. I simply cannot grasp that. There simply had to
        be a reason why she kept silent until Crump contacted her. What reasonable reasons could there be for waiting so long?

        BTW has anyone seen any credible evidence that Julison and Crump are under investigation?

        Reply ↓

        • “The “clincher” for me was that she went to funeral and still NEVER mentioned to anyone.”

          I was sure I had read somewhere that she specifically did not go to the funeral.

          unitron

          Reply ↓

    • HP,

      DD sounds dumber than a pile of rocks, but she must have known that if she heard what she know claims the police would be interested. She hears her boyfriend being assaulted and killed and she doesn’t want the killer prosecuted?

      Give me a break.

      -MM

      Reply ↓

  38. Stan,

    I don’t know that GZ was looking at TM in a “creepy” way. I can only assume that TM felt “disrespected” and that’s what prompted him to take action.

    Sure TM didn’t want to get stopped by the cops for suspicion of drug use, but why not just go back to the house?

    -MM

    Reply ↓

    • He wanted to get even with the “white guy” and remedy the ‘disrespect.’ So it was simple, after reaching the apt, to work himself up and go back around the front of the house row his apt was in, hide a few minutes to see if it was the police who were called and when seeing Zimmerman alone, no police lights and Zimmerman was off the phone (so maybe the white guy didn’t call the police after all), quickly ran up behind him, let him know he was about to beat him up as a taunt before he attacked. I am amazed such a simple, likely explanation is met with such (feigned) disbelief.

      Reply ↓

    • Susan –

      Is this site affiliated with StormFront? Someone asked above about it and pingbacks to StormFront, but I’d like to know, too. It makes a difference to some of us.

      Thank you in advance for a reply.

      Reply ↓

  39. Stan,

    I think that is a very plausible scenario.

    HP,

    I say that DD didn’t call the police because she wasn’t interviewed by them until much later. In addition, it has been reported that no one knew that she was the last person TM talked to until Tracy Martin got the phone and then finally the code. Of course it wouldn’t surprise me if the media got this wrong, but until I hear otherwise I think this is a fair assumption.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

  40. IANAL but the way I understand this, all of these theories about alternate ways these events could have happened while I am interested in, are in the end secondary to the case. Zimmerman has put forth the way he says events happened, even if you can show 10 other ways these events could have happened, his version of the events is what will be on trial. The prosecutor has to prove BEYOND A RESONABLE DOUBT that events DID NOT happen the way Zimmerman has presented them that night. When asked directly if there is any evidence that Det. Gilbreath knows of that contradicts Zimmerman’s version of events, Det. Gilbreath said under oath that there is no contradictory evidence other than Zimmerman’s statements. In a public statement Sanford PD also said they had no contradictory evidence, and that is why they could not arrest. Unless new evidence has been found since Apr 20 their case revolves around tearing apart Zimmerman’s statements. And short of Zimmerman breaking down completely on the stand, I do not see them proving beyond a reasonable doubt that his version of events did not happen.

    On a side note, even if you are completely innocent and you know it, take Zimmerman’s statements to the police as a warning. If you have to defend yourself, before you sit down and talk to police GET A FRICKING LAWYER. I think it is safe to say that if O’Mara had been by his side during questioning even an out of control prosecutor like Angela Corey could not have gotten an arrest.

    Reply ↓

    • You said: “On a side note, even if you are completely innocent and you know it, take Zimmerman’s statements to the police as a warning. If you have to defend yourself, before you sit down and talk to police GET A FRICKING LAWYER.”

      Amen.

      It is not that most police and prosecutors are dishonest, to the contrary, but they, like anyone else are many times under pressure, cut corners and automatically assume guilt and try to prove it by whatever means possible, including shading the truth and (so they believe for a ‘greater good’) fiddling with or withholding evidence. The strategy here is clearly to “catch” Zimmerman in inconsistencies that are part and parcel of anyone placed under the extreme stress he was under at the time. Just read all the bizarre “theories” and misinformation presented in the press (and in this blog) and you will understand why many innocent persons are in prison. Many times, anything you say can and will be twisted against you.

      A good example concerns the witnesses who implied Zimmerman was guilty because he appeared “unfazed” after the shooting and had asked his wife to be told he had shot someone. There are many people who actually believe the nonsensical theory that being “unfazed” is proof of guilt. One press article even said that “evidence” was important! Better not to have said anything at all. Of course, in that case he would be accused of guilt because he didn’t say anything … you can never win in those circumstances, proving the truth of the saying: “damned of you do and damned of you don’t.”

      Reply ↓

      • Notice how the liberal media went silent when the evidence starting coming out. The state just released some of Zimmerman’s statements and the media labeled them as “confessions” as if he had admitted guilt. The truth is that all of his statements are considered “confessions” under Florida law: That is a legal term. They coordinated that with the release of a motion by the state to suppress the statements when the law already excludes them from public release. It’s all BS to influence the potential jury pool and it should be criminal.

        The media has not once ever mentioned,, since they began reporting.. that George gave all of his statements WITHOUT an attorney present, and that includes his video taped reenactment at the scene the next morning as well as his daily contact with the Sanford PD after this happened. Who does that except a person who is not guilty? His father was a magistrate and he had taken courses in law enforcement so he understood what he was doing. He had nothing to hide.

        Anyone who makes 5 separate statements to the police, some of which were “bad guy” intense interrogations is bound to have some minor consistencies. This went on for at least 5 hours on the night of the incident and continued the next day.

        O’Mara will have a chance to review his statements and ask the judge to exclude some of them as long as his overall account is the same but we will never hear any of them unless there is a trial.

        In the meantime, Crump in conjunction with his hired publicist, Ryan Julison are releasing statements that all of his statements are contradictory and point to guilt. Under normal circumstances this would NEVER be permitted but Crump is black.

        This is why we should NEVER talk to law enforcement without an attorney present.

        Reply ↓

    • In this case, he would have been arrested and prosecuted no matter what he said or didn’t say because of the political pressure. The only issue is evidence at trial.

      Reply ↓

    • I was watching one if the news shows with both Crump and O’Mara on at the same time, It started out civil enough, then Crump started spinning statements made by Zimmerman, O’Mara kept hammering him for an ethical violation. Crump is the Martin family attorney, although Corey acts like she is also an attorney for the family, would Crump have that type of free access to the prosecutions evidence i.e.statements made by Zimmerman, or would he be kept at a distance with general overviews so as not to taint the case?

      My second question is assuming a change of venue would the case still have to be in FL i.e here in Pensacola as far away from Sanford as possible or could they go as far as another state altogether?

      Reply ↓

    • In the Casey Anthony trial, the jury was selected in Pinellas County (St Petersburg), but the trial was in Orlando. I don’t know if there is a standard in Florida, or whether it was easier to move the jurors who were going to be sequestered vs. having to transport witnesses, etc.

      Reply ↓

  41. Inspector,

    You write:
    ____

    Zimmerman has put forth the way he says events happened, even if you can show 10 other ways these events could have happened, his version of the events is what will be on trial. The prosecutor has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that events DID NOT happen the way Zimmerman has presented them that night.
    _____

    This isn’t quite right. The prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ did not engage in self defense. Zimmerman’s description of events as such is not on trial. If the jury believes that GZ has exaggerated his injuries or that he followed TM for longer than he admits, a jury is still obligated to acquit if it finds he acted in self defense.

    I practice civil, not criminal law; but I think I’m correct here.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

    • Well, I don’t practice law at all, and feel free anyone to clarify my nuance if I’m not quite on the right track and tell me I’m completely off base if I am completely off base.

      I thought that what the prosecution had to do was prove reasonable doubt that GZ needed to use Lethal Force in self-defense. I mean, without that, couldn’t anyone ever in a fistfight shoot and kill someone and claim self-defense?

      Reply ↓

    • This is my problem as a Floridian with everything that has transpired. We are supposed to be protected from overzealous prosecutors ruining our lives unless they have probable cause to believe it was not justified. And the Detectives that work for Corey have admitted they did not have any contradictory evidence but arrested anyway. The City did not have any contradictory evidence, followed F.S. 776.032 and did not arrest. If I have to defend myself will I now have to be worried about a Hoplophobic prosecutor ruining my life anyway regardless of the restrictions placed on prosecutors under 776.032?

      —– (This is Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground subsection (3) note the sections about presumption)

      776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
      (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
      (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
      (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
      (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
      (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
      (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
      (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
      (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle 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 entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
      (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
      (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
      (5) As used in this section, the term:
      (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
      (b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
      (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

      —– (This Statute takes the presumption in the last statute and places restrictions on prosecutors actions without having probable cause to believe otherwise)

      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.
      (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

      Reply ↓

  42. Here is an interesting link with all the witnessess audio including paramedics, except 4, 7, and 10 from the discovery list. I’ ve read alot of your post regarding Dee Dee, and I think she is not as important as most people think. Of course she establishes timeline and what she heard, but witness 6, and 18 and 19 are better. Especially number 18 she is the on who provided the 13 page written statement. Also number 19 the dog owner, actually heard the moaning. So I just wanted to bring in a new discussion of actually hearing and comparing the witnesses from actual audio clips. http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/
    Have a good day!

    Reply ↓

  43. I previously noted that the “running in fear from Zimmerman in car” theory makes no sense. I had said:

    “A defense attorney will made a very credible argument that Martin ran because he was already in trouble because of his suspension for drugs. And, after seeing Zimmerman on the phone, probably believed his father would be very upset if he was stopped and questioned by the police. He also could easily have believed he even could be busted again for pot or for harassing Zimmerman. So Martin ran. Martin then came back and hid to see if the police had come. When he saw they didn’t come and Zimmerman was off the phone, Martin decided to teach Zimmerman a lesson for all the trouble he was caused him and for staring at him.”

    To fill in a few gaps supporting that likely scenario:

    1. Martin was in a situation similar to why he was suspended 7 days earlier. We can now agree that he was somewhere in the complex not on a direct path to Brandy’s apt (whether the mail shed or pool makes no difference). So, while not illegal, he likely feared he could be questioned in the same manner he was questioned at school about being in an area he “shouldn’t be in,” explanation or not. He had a lighter on him so he likely had been smoking something; it is unlikely he gave up the “weed” habit; the 7/11 store video shows him moving with the slightly exaggerated movements of someone slightly high (it was only 6:25 in the evening); the police did not test his hoodie for drugs (leading me to believe they already have an idea it would test positive). All in all, Martin had good reason to run when he saw Zimmerman on the phone in case the police were being called.

    2. What Martin saw was a short, pudgy white guy (5’7″-5’8″) sitting in a car on the phone with what could be the police. He wasn’t afraid of the guy because he boldly approached him sitting in the car and circled the long way around the car. The running was simply in case the police were being called. He never heard Zimmerman get out of the car (according to DeeDee) so there was no reason to fear he was being followed at that time. From Martin’s point of view, it was prudent to get home quickly … so he did so by running.

    3. Once outside Brandy’s apt (running, within 20-25 seconds) he was safe from any police hassling him since if he caught sight of them he could simply duck in the front or back door.

    4. Martin then decided to go back, likely out of curiosity to see if the police were called and possibly with the idea of confronting the pudgy white guy if he saw him again. By staying in the shadows, Martin was now safe from any police questioning (if they had in fact been called) because he could quickly pop back into the apt if he saw them within seconds. He was perfectly safe from questioning. No one saw his face or knew where he was staying. That was when he caught sight of the short pudgy white guy and saw him still on the phone. So he waited until he was off the phone, saw no police (probably believed the guy never called the police) and when the guy turned, Martin quickly ran up behind him to confront and attack him.

    The above is the simplest and, by far, most likely scenario.

    Also, besides DeeDee saying Martin never heard Zimmerman leave the truck, SHE ALSO DID NOT SAY MARTIN TOLD HER ABOUT SEEING A GUN … even just before the fight started (according to her). So there goes the “chambering round” and “waving gun” theories used to support the claim Martin was “afraid” of the “crazy white guy” chasing him. Martin was never scared of the pudgy white guy in the first place, he just didn’t want to be questioned by the police again.

    Reply ↓

    • Great analysis, StanS. Do we have a log of DeeDee’s calls? O do you know when her last call ended? Does anyone know if the 3 people Martin encountered when he left the 7 11 store were interviewed?

      Reply ↓

    • All we know about DeeDee’s call logs are from Martin’s records which show two calls were interrupted at about 7:12, which would be somewhere in the middle of her narrative of events. I have given up trying to pinpoint it more because there are the issues of phone start times being rounded down, minute count being rounded up, and possible inaccuracies of times.

      Reply ↓

      • I would think the State would be able to secure a precise record. I still cannot find a transcript of her recorded statement.

        Do you know anything about the 3 people Martin encountered when he left the store? It was in the video as part of the released evidence but you have to download it to see it. There is some speculation, of course, that he got drugs from them but there is no evidence so far that the state ever interviewed them.

        Reply ↓

    • Stan, since there is no evidence to actually support your theory, one must really take an imaginative journey to buy into this story. Most of what you suggest are thoughts that TM may have had in his head. The problem with this angle is that TM has zero violence in his background. A 17 year old kid deciding to attack a grown man in the dark in an area that he is not from, and of course, TM knows that he himself is unarmed, and of course he doesn’t know whether the strange man is armed (logically for safety reasons he would assume he is. I mean it would take a real bad dude to take this kind of risk. Hard to imagine even the worst teenager doing this, but virtually impossible to think a kid with no violent background deciding to to something that dangerous on a whim.

      Reply ↓

    • “We can now agree that he was somewhere in the complex not on a direct path to Brandy’s apt (whether the mail shed or pool makes no difference).”

      If he were on a direct path he’d need to be able to walk on water as it would go across the retention pond. East on Twin Trees and south on something is about as direct a path as would be possible.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • unitron,

      “East on Twin Trees and south on something is about as direct a path as would be possible.”

      We know Martin detoured from that direct path from DeeDee (if you believe her). She said Martin went to the “mail shed”. Or he detoured somewhere else, according to Crump in his contradictory press statements (if you believe Crump).

      Reply ↓

      • If you’re traveling east on the north leg of Retreat View, and you get out of the rain at the mailbox kiosk, then going back up to Retreat View would mean going north when your destination is south.

        More direct to head due east a few feet to Twin Trees, turn south on it for about 2 car lengths, and then east on it, until time to turn south again.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

  44. Try axionamnesia,com but no transcript available.

    “”DeeDee” is Witness 8. It includes an audio of Crump’s telephonic interview, but it is impossible to understand anything.

    The BDLR interview of “DeeDee” was done with Crump’s cooperation – he mentions at the end of the interview that he had been there before the interview. It is possible that all BDLR was doing was to have an independent corroboration of her statement given to Crump.

    The witnesses that were interviewed by the Sanford Police Department, were re-interviewed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, who did a very thorough interview. But they were actually investigating the Sanford Police Department investigation.

    Since Crump had found “DeeDee” because he wouldn’t let Tracy Martin give the SPD the PIN to Trayvon’s phone, it was outside the scope of the SPD investigation, so BDLR didn’t bother beyond finding out that they did not want to go to a grand jury with “DeeDee”.

    Supposedly the 7-11 video actually covers 5:00 to 8:00, and is in some proprietary format. The networks edited to suit their narrative. Either, cutting the part where he wanders back into the store after paying, entirely, or mysteriously leaving him headed to where there is no exit.

    The versions with audio don’t include where the clerk tells him he needs an ID, in the video it looks like a friendly clerk is maybe giving him directions or something, instead of you need an ID to buy things behind the counter.

    When he finally heads back along the sidewalk, it is 5 minutes after he had exited the store.

    Reply ↓

  45. I found this article on Martin’s undisclosed background, including his interests in MMA style fighting and drugs that were researched from his public online accounts (this research was done even after Crump had Martin’s “fight club” videos he had posted, purged).

    Fascinating reading and will surely be brought up at trial to show the “real” Trayvon Martin!

    To get to the article, you must do a Google search for the following term (without quotes):

    “Update #26 Part 1 Trayvon Martin What were the last 18 months like for him”

    The website should be right near the top. You must use Google because a link to the website with the article is not permitted by Susan on this site.

    Reply ↓

  47. Stan, I agree with Ace. Your version of events doesn’t seem realistic at all.

    According to you, Trayvon had no reason to be scared of Zimmerman, because Zimmerman was such a normal looking guy; and the only reason Trayvon ran was because he saw Zimmerman on the phone, and this madeTrayvon afraid that Zimmerman was calling the police.

    What?! People are on their cell phones all the time! Do you think Trayvon was in the habit of running every time he saw someone on the phone??????? It’s not like there’s any evidence floating around out there that Zimmerman saw Trayvon doing anything wrong. Where’s your evidence for this running motive going to come from? Outer space? We already have Zimmerman’s 911 recording to the police dispatcher. Or do we just say Trayvon must have done something wrong because he ran because he did something wrong because he ran because he did something wrong because he ran because he did something wrong?

    Of course, the defense can say anything; but there’s a limit to what other people will believe, knowing that Z-man is on trial for 2nd degree murder, and knowing the defense needs some kind of scenario to back up their story, and knowing they don’t have any evidence of Trayvon doing something wrong.

    OK, moving on, you say that Trayvon made it to Brandy’s house, but then decided to stay outside and lurk around in the shadows for a while. He did this just out of curiosity about Zimmerman, even though, according to you, Trayvon never saw Zimmerman leave his truck. While lurking, Trayvon spotted Zimmerman now out of his truck, still talking on the phone; but Zimmerman didn’t see Trayvon, because of course, Trayvon was lurking and Zimmerman was not lurking.

    Trayvon now assumes the identity of the evil invisible ninja superpower shadow-lurker, and he shadow-lurks all the way from Brandy’s house at the south end of the rows to the spot where the conflict took place at the north end of the rows. Trayvon was able to accomplish this remarkable feat even while talking to DeeDee on his cellphone (!) without detection by Zimmerman, because Trayvon was invisible and because one of Trayvon’s other superpowers allowed him to talk with no one hearing him – except of course the evil cellphone superpower friend-from-kindergarten co-conspirator-teenager DeeDee.

    Trayvon the shadow-lurker is now intent upon his attack of Zimmerman, ….but even every evil superpower at least has the decency to wait for their victims to finish their phone conversations before attacking. Right?

    Lucky for us, as Zimmerman turns off his cell phone and as Trayvon attacks, Zimmerman now assumes his OWN superpower identity: super huff-puff skinhead vigilante-man!!!! Da da dahhhhhhh!!!!!!

    Short story now: Shadow-lurker attacks Vigilante-man because that’s what shadow-lurkers do, and Vigilante-man shoots Shadow-lurker dead because that’s what vigilante-mans do – for a good cause of course!

    And we all know for sure that the jury will always believe everything that we happen to make up in our heads, despite whatever evidence we may not happen to know about at all.

    Personally, I think there could be some pretty incriminating stuff in Zimmerman’s “confession”, but then this possibility may just be in MY own head.

    We shall see.

    Reply ↓

    • HP,

      Of course TM would wait for GZ to finish his call. He doesn’t want GZ to be on the phone while he attacks him, if that’s what happened.

      And why would GZ initiate a confrontation with TM when he knows police are on there way?

      I wonder if GZ, based on his previous interactions with police, knew they would get there soon. If he did, then this makes it less likely that he started something.

      -MM

      Reply ↓

    • “DeeDee” in her interview said that Martin told her there was a white man, sitting in his car, talking in his phone, who was watching him.

      “DeeDee” said that Martin was going to walk past Zimmerman and run from the back (behind Zimmerman’s truck). In preparation for doing so, he put his hood up – plus it was dripping a little bit. It was when he was walking that he related that Zimmerman was creepy or crazy, because he was watching him.

      “DeeDee” said that Martin ran from the back, had run for so long that he was tired and breathing hard, and that he had lost him, and that he was by his “Da[d]’s house”. BDLR thought she had said that “he was by his ass”, meaning that Zimmerman was behind him.

      “DeeDee” immediately corrected BDLR. It was not a “nahmanah”, but absolute NO. Martin ran from the back, had run from the back, and lost the man, and that he was by his Dad’s house.

      Martin deliberately ran in an attempt to evade Zimmerman. “DeeDee” did not report that Martin informed her of anything that Zimmerman did, or that he chased or followed him at that point. Martin wished to evade because Zimmerman was white, was sitting in his car, or was talking on his phone, or some combination of the three, or maybe just because. Maybe he was influenced by “DeeDee”, since she told him to run from the back to his Dad’s place.

      Martin wanted to evade, he was successful at evading, since he told “DeeDee” that he lost him, had done so by running until he was breathing hard (rather than hiding), was by his Dad’s house and then continued to walk for another two minutes. Meanwhile, Zimmerman had followed after him (Martin had a 100 foot + 11 second lead, longer legs, was wearing sneakers, and had a hand’s free cell phone) and could not see him by the time he had shuffled for 20 seconds.

      There was no chase. Martin had chosen the time and position for his running so that he would be successful. He put his hood up, likely to make it harder to be seen, or possibly because it was like a security blanket.

      Either Martin did not tell her that he was returning towards the clubhouse, or she is fibbing. She reports that Martin initiated the verbal confrontation, and possibly did so because Zimmerman was white (or so perceived by Martin), or elderly (DeeDee said he sounded like an old man).

      Reply ↓

  48. Why are you guys so committed to the impossible task of trying to figure out the true minute by minute timeline for the actions of Zimmerman and Martin? The legal system only requires answers to some specific questions. Is it reasonable that Martin attacked Zimmerman and the latter was unable to safely retreat? Ace, is is up to the prosecution to show that Martin was such a sweet good kid that he would never do that. The dirt that some websites have come up with on him indicates that that task won’t be easy. Did Zimmerman reasonably fear that Martin might severely injure or kill him if he didn’t shoot Martin? Stan, do you expect to make money by publishing your speculations as a “true crime” novel? Remember, the defense has to come up with only one reasonable innocent scenario while the prosecution has to show all innocent scenarios are unreasonable.

    Reply ↓

    • “Why are you guys so committed to the impossible task of trying to figure out the true minute by minute timeline for the actions of Zimmerman and Martin? ”

      The court will decide what the court will decide.

      We’re trying to solve the puzzle.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • Mr. Only,

      The issue is not what happened or what the court will decide, the question is what the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

      They are very unlikely to prove that GZ was the agressor and/or that he was in reasonable fear of bodily harm.

      The lead investigator admitted as much.

      -MM

      Reply ↓

    • Ricky, Ace and the (always present) HP.

      Your perceptions on how trials work differs from reality. Here is a textbook, routine defense strategy that will be used by Zimmerman. And when it happens, you can come back to this post to review it:

      The defense will select a reasonable scenario, with a few very possible alternatives. It will show Martin had the predisposition to attack Zimmerman, the physical ability to successfully attack Zimmerman, a mock up explaining how Martin attacked and beat Zimmerman badly (You don’t consider a broken nose, black eyes, bruises, cuts and contusions on the face and head to be the result of a bad beating?), and a timeline scenario tracing the Zimmerman and Martin most likely movements.

      The above will include a step by step scenario of Martin’s likely movements that fit the evidence available. The defense will show that Zimmerman had no predisposition for violence, was a man devoted to community service and helping his neighbors (a “stand up” guy as one neighbor said), including trying to work with the police to stop a crime-wave in the complex he lived (400 police incidents, burglaries and a shooting in the previous 12 months) by voluntarily participating in a neighborhood watch. Of course there is much more to Zimmerman’s defense that will be presented at trial.

      This is the way the defense pulls the rug out from under the prosecution. It discredit’s the prosecution’s case by taking the offensive and using its own scenario to show what happened that night and the motivations of the persons involved. In general, this is how the defense convinces a jury (in this case the judge first) that the prosecution’s claims cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and that Zimmerman’s claim he acted in self-defense cannot be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.

      As a side note, I am glad to see Ace solved the youth violence and crime problem by recognizing that because youthful perpetrators all know a potential victim can be carrying a concealed weapon, it is not worth the risk to attack them so they never do so for fear of being shot (including, in particular, Martin). In short, there really are no such attacks! Let’s get real. Ace’s argument also seems to be a reason for MORE concealed gun laws, since according to Ace, carrying concealed weapons stops crime because attackers all fear they will be shot if they commit a crime.

      Reply ↓

  49. I don’t know if it is such a good thing for the defense to push a particular scenario. The jury might get confused and think that their job is to evaluate if that one probably happened rather than could have reasonably happened. Rather than trying to exactly describe Martin’s motions, they could just point out that Martin’s failure to return home after Zimmerman lost sight of him makes it reasonable, not certain, that he was the one stalking Zimmerman and looking for a confrontation and challenge the prosecution to show that was unreasonable.

    Look how well the defense in the OJ criminal trial (among countless other examples) did. They never proposed a reasonable scenario how the “real killers” managed to leave so much evidence implicating OJ. They just kept suggesting bits of evidence planting and mishandling scenarios without putting a big story together. The incompetent prosecution never methodically went through the evidence and showed the defense explanations could not be combined into a reasonable innocent explanation for the totality.

    Reply ↓

    • I don’t follow your logic. You say:

      “They never proposed a reasonable scenario how the “real killers” managed to leave so much evidence implicating OJ. They just kept suggesting bits of evidence planting and mishandling SCENARIOS without putting a big story together.”

      Isn’t a scenario, a scenario?

      I always thought OJ’s single main theme/scenario defense was “the police framed me, and here’s how they did it”?

      Reply ↓

      • I always thought OJ’s single main theme/scenario defense was “the police framed me, and here’s how they did it”?

        He certainly claimed the part before the “and”. He never addressed the part after. Until this day, despite many books written by supporters of the defense in that case, there has never been a reasonable innocent explanation of the evidence.

        Reply ↓

    • Ricky,

      Now I am even more confused than before.

      How could the OJ defense say “they framed him” WITHOUT advancing a scenario[s] on how they did the frame-up. I thought that was what the defense was doing … advancing theories/scenarios on how the frame up occurred. For example, switching blood samples and planting evidence etc.

      Reply ↓

      • They never proposed a REASONABLE innocent scenario that would explain the totality of the evidence.

        1. A good part of the defense presentation was ad hominem attacks on the police or other witnesses. So the innocent explanation of much of the evidence was that the witness presenting it was a liar.
        2. Much forensic evidence was attacked because it was claimed that the lab technician or evidence collector violated some rule in some book. However, it wasn’t shown how the rule violation could have produced the results offered as evidence.
        3. The rest of the evidence was attacked as possibly the result of planting by the police, even though it was never clear that they had the motive, means or opportunity for doing that.

        So the scenario they hinted at, but never explicitly stated, was that a bunch (maybe 50 or more) of cops, lab technicians, clothing manufacturers and other assorted bad people had decided to either frame a fine man or get very sloppy handling evidence so it all pointed to him instead of the real killer(s), and lucky for these ne’er-do-wells , nobody caught them doing any of it. Now that is unreasonable.

        Reply ↓

    • Ricky,

      Now I am triply confused!

      you said: “They never proposed a REASONABLE innocent scenario that would explain the totality of the evidence.”

      Obviously, however much you disagree with the verdict and the validity or completeness of the defense, from the point of view of the OJ jurors, the defense raised scenarios sufficiently REASONABLE to result in NOT GUILTY.

      Reply ↓

  50. Mark or anyone, can you explain why you think Trayvon didn’t want Zimmerman to be on the phone when Trayvon allegedly attacked Zimmerman?

    And why you think Zimmerman didn’t attack knowing the police were on their way, but you think Trayvon did attack, while thinking the police were on their way (which is why some people here say Trayvon ran in the first place)?

    It seems to me that the major FACTS your’e trying so hard to explain away are:
    #1. Zimmerman has a violent history.
    #2. Trayvon ran away from Zimmerman
    #3. Zimmerman went after Trayvon (with a loaded gun).
    #4. Zimmerman shot Trayvon to death.

    You (and possibly the defense) feel it’s important to come up with a reasonable explanation for how #2 And #3 were at some point completely reversed (sans gun), and yet there is still the outcome of #4.

    Of course, this task requires turning Trayvon into a dangerous person, even though he has no violent history, and even though Zimmerman does. And since DeeDee’s account doesn’t jive with anything that could help turn around the known events and in fact SUPPORTS a continuum of known events implicating Zimmerman, DeeDee must also go down with Trayvon (dumb as a stump, coached, and lying).

    Whatever the reason for your reasoning, it’s certainly not something to be so sure about. And THAT’S the only sure thing.

    You may think you’re smarter than the prosecution, since you’ve already figured out the outcome of the trial; but at this point, they have the evidence and you don’t.

    Reply ↓

    • Thank you for providing some really needed common sense to counteract all the imaginative drama proposed by those who have condemned the victim in order to “save” the accused!

      Reply ↓

    • Hapufern, you also ignore the task of judicial proceedings and use words to spin events into a Zimmerman must be guilty message. Writing “#3. Zimmerman went after Trayvon (with a loaded gun)”, is a bizarre, comical stretching of the fact that Zimmerman left his vehicle with a concealed weapon, with the obvious accusation that his intention at the time was to shoot Martin. Asking all sorts of questions that nobody will ever know the answer to doesn’t convict Zimmerman. Please don’t assume that the defense will use the arguments that you read here. The prosecution has
      released a good part of its case and the defense has released nothing. They just have to come up with one reasonable innocent scenario for
      Zimmerman. You can’t conceive of a single one?

      Reply ↓

    • hapufern, salient points for sure! It baffles me how people can stretch the rule of reason so far just to try and fit their opinion into the facts. Everyone knows past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior and the facts clearly show zimmerman had violence laced in his past and TM did not. I mean c’mon, the bad dude scenario does not fit into this one where a kid is frantically trying to get away from this stranger who is following him. The evidence will show that zimmerman cut TM off before he arrived home and chased him north towards the T where he confronted TM and murdered him after a scuffle.

      Reply ↓

  51. Peter, I remember seeing interviews with the OJ jurors. They weren’t thinking in terms of scenarios. The basic reason that they acquitted was that the defense asked all sorts of questions (eg, Why did Detective X wait until the next day to book some evidence) that the prosecution thought it beneath them to answer. They seemed to think that you can only vote guilty if the prosecution answers every question, no matter how silly, that the defense raises. If the prosecution and judge did a better job of explaining to them what their task was, I think there would not have been an acquittal.

    What I notice on this board is something similar in the way people raise all sorts of points that are irrelevant to the basic task for figuring out a reasonable scenario or refuting than any can be constructed. For example, getting dozens of witnesses to attest that Martin was such a good boy that he would never do violence on a stranger would be very good evidence that Zimmerman was guilty if the prosecution would dare go there. The Trayvonites here just assert that, as if his lack of arrests and parents’ protestations are the proof beyond a reasonable doubt that would be needed to convict Zimmerman.

    Reply ↓

    • Ricky, our debate really concerns the meaning and scope of the word “reasonable.” I believe it is an all encompassing, contextual word that can include “potentially reasonable” (isn’t that was any defense attorney is trying for). Obviously, the end result determines if the scenario presented (no matter how illogical someone may view it) is accepted BY THE JURY as “reasonable” enough to defeat the standard of proof needed for guilt (whether “preponderance of evidence” or “beyond a reasonable doubt”). Someone, beside the jurors, may consider the defense NOT reasonable but, when it is said a defense attorney raises alternative “reasonable” arguments, obviously he is doing the best he can given whatever he has.

      As for the upcoming trial, I firmly believe that not only will the prosecution “go there” regarding Martin’s “stellar” character, but has already (along with Crump, the media, Sharpton etc.) tried the case in the media to influence the jury pool. This is done all the time. EVERYTHING is “grist for the mill.”

      The reality of jurors is that many of them cannot even get “their heads around” the concept of “beyond reasonable doubt” and are given complex “jury instructions” that many don’t pay attention to and do not understand (but will never say that). And they reach their verdicts by how they feel emotionally about the case. The picture of an “angelic” 140 lb child being shot by a 250lb “monster” who was hunting him, is bad for Zimmerman. The opposite picture of a full grown man in a 17 year old teenager capable of attacking a pudgy, out of shape 5’7″ guy who was simply trying to do the “right thing,” is good for Zimmerman’s defense.

      Reply ↓

    • Actually Ricky, you’re correct. I can’t think of a single scenario that makes sense where Trayvon Martin was killed in “self-defense”. Not a single one.

      In fact, every scenario of self-defense offered here so far sounds pretty ridiculous to me and leaves out much of what we already know.

      It may be true that the prosecution has defended the reputation of a dead boy – and especially the parents have done so. I see nothing wrong in this given that this boy was shot to death, and given that Zimmerman’s supporters are doing everything they can possibly think of to destroy his reputation – whether deservedly or not – for their own purposes. Many don’t mind hurling insults at the family and denigrating DeeDee’s character as well.

      At least one person has come here (and is possibly still here) from Stormfront.

      I don’t mind at all discussing scenarios. In fact I like it. However, if a scenario has a hole, it has a hole. So far, all the Zimmerman scenarios have craters, and I believe it may be worse for Zimmerman when his statements are released.

      Reply ↓

  53. Just for the record — to answer the question asked above, there is definitely no connection between this blog and Stormfront.

    A “pingback” is automatically generated (in some cases, anyway) as a notification in the comment thread when another site links to a post on a WordPress blog. It’s not something that the blogger posts themselves.

    Reply ↓

  55. HP,

    You said:
    “It may be true that the prosecution has defended the reputation of a dead boy – and especially the parents have done so. I see nothing wrong in this given that this boy was shot to death”

    If Crump or Martin’s parents destroyed the Trayvon “fight club” video tapes, tapes with voice samples of Trayvon (hard to believe there are none), or evidence Trayvon was using drugs the night of the shooting, the potential evidentiary value of those items to a criminal investigation could mean obstruction of justice ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice ) or spoliation of evidence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence ) charges.

    In addition, there is little doubt in my mind that DeeDee committed perjury during her interview with the prosecutor and in tell her bizarre, impossible “terminator” type ongoing chase sequence story.

    Reply ↓

    • Hi Stan, I really do think it’s an improvement that you included the words “if” and “In my mind”. Very good. I appreciate this.

      Reply ↓

  56. While I have not actually been able to get the full scenario presented by Zimmerman, we have got bits and pieces through third parties, we probably wont see the actual full account until the trial. There are 2 groups that have gotten Zimmerman’s full story. Sanford PD/Prosecutors had his full version of events within 24hrs from the interviews and the prosecutor decided that there was not enough evidence/probable cause to overcome the restrictions of 776.032 immunity. The second group is Angela Corey’s people, on the stand Det. Gilbreath admitted that he knew of no contradictory evidence even though he signed the probable cause document, He stated that his Probable cause that Zimmerman attacked Martin was solely based on the fact that there was a confrontation period and he specifically said he had no evidence as to who attacked who. Whatever the details of Zimmerman’s account of events they do seem to be holding up quite well against the evidence/witness statements. Det. Gilbreath admitted that his only evidence was based solely in Zimmerman’s statements seeming to contradict, and that could very well be due to the fluidity of the fight (i.e. How can he yell for help when his mouth was covered, this is easily explained by both of them moving arms hands and bodies vs Martin sitting still on Zimmerman’s chest with his hands planted over Zimmerman’s mouth.) I was fully behind Martin before the 20 Apr hearing specifically Det. Gilbreath’s testimony, and since have started looking closer at both parties and their backgrounds.

    Reply ↓

    • Gadget it may be premature to read into the bond hearing shananigans that were pulled off by Omara. He asked “do you know who started the fight” which is an isolated question and has no relevance to the overall narrative of the case which is zimmerman was the aggressor and confronted and murdered Martin, whether Martin or zimmerman initiated the first physical act is not central to the charges of murder against zimmerman.

      Reply ↓

  57. jimtrex on May 28, 2012 at 11:35 pm said:

    “Martin deliberately ran in an attempt to evade Zimmerman.”

    I agree with your earlier post except on the above point.

    There is nothing to support the theory Martin was running to evade the pudgy white guy on the phone in his car. Much more likely, Martin didn’t want to be questioned by the cops. If the man in the car was calling the cops, even if Martin had an explanation for being “under the mail shed” or elsewhere not on the main route home, Martin also had a lighter in his pocket, THC in his system and was moving with exaggerated movements in the 7/11 video — indicating he could have been high.

    Most likely, prudently, Martin ran to Brandy’s apt to evade any chance he could be questioned by police if they were being called. Also, DeeDee said Martin didn’t even know Zimmerman had exited his car and Zimmerman said he rolled up the window to avoid contact with the suspect — all non-threatening actions.

    According to DeeDee (if you believe her — I don’t) Martin never once told her he was running to evade the short white guy who was talking on the phone in his car.

    During the interview, she newly states it was Trayvon who first said he was going to run (presumably after he circled the car). This completely contradicts the story she gave in her ABC “interviews” where she kept saying it was she who told Martin to ‘run,’ based implicitly on Martin’s fear of Zimmerman — even though Martin never told her he was afraid of the short guy in the car. That false impression of Martin ‘fear of Zimmerman’ was a key component holding up the bizarre “Terminator” type story she was telling and the media was promoting.

    At no time did Martin tell her he was afraid of the pudgy short white guy in the car.

    Like you, I am mystified how Martin, just seeing a short guy on on the phone in his car, would call the guy “crazy,” (if he said that) except in a pejorative manner meaning something like “this guy is looking at me and I don’t like that.”

    Martin purportedly told DeeDee about the guy in the car as he was approaching the car (even here she gives contradictory answers about the order of events). Yet, Martin boldly walked up to the car and around it, then, after clearly seeing the pudgy white guy on the phone, he ran after he had told her he was going to run — but without giving her a reason for his running.

    Reply ↓

  58. I am amazed how obsessed a couple of posters are (mainly Stan S. and a couple of others) in trying to prove the “guilt” of the victim in this sad story! Under the pretence of keeping with the law that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, they purposely create highly creative, and not very logical scenarios that are not only taking into account ONLY what could be positive to provide support for Zimmerman’s innocence, but also rely on bashing and trashing both the victim and his very young girl friend.
    Why can’t the “innocent until proven guilty” be applied to the dead teenager? In fact, why didn’t that law apply in the eyes of Zimmerman when, in the space of about 8 minutes, he focused on a “suspect,” found him guilty, and executed him without further inquiry?
    I realize that I do not know more about this case than ANYONE of you (even those of you who insist in claiming their unwavering knowledge of the law and psychology!), but I know one thing: Whether Zimmerman is found innocent or guilty in the eyes of the “law” (and in my limited knowledge of the facts, I do not believe he should be found guilty of murder, but SHOULD be found guilty of manslaughter with the use of excessive force), he is NOT an innocent man, and never will be again. Morally, NO ONE who puts himself in a position to recklessly endanger an innocent teenager’s life is totally innocent.
    And, whether Zimmerman is found guilty by the law or not. . . . I hope this unnecessary killing will follow him for the rest of his life. . .that is if he has any sense of morality.

    Reply ↓

    • I completely agree Sadani! I’m still waiting for more evidence however before deciding if I think the charge of 2nd degree murder is appropriate.

      Reply ↓

    • Sedanie, when you write highly biased, non evidence based spin like, “In fact, why didn’t that law apply in the eyes of Zimmerman when, in the space of about 8 minutes, he focused on a “suspect,” found him guilty, and executed him without further inquiry?”, you lose any credibility as a serious critic of others or even somebody who has the ability to evaluate evidence. You are apparently here to express rather than communicate.

      Reply ↓

      • Ricky, first let me reassure you: I do not care whether people who have demonstrated their strong biais and obsessive desire to demonize a dead teenager, find me “credible” or not! Actually, I do not find THEM credible, and if it wasn’t such a serious issue, I would be laughing my head about the ridiculous “assumptions” they make! I find Susan’s links very informative, this is the reason I am here, NOT to listen to “horror stories” that are so obviously biased that they are ridiculous. Now. . .I have the right to express my point of view, and you have the right to find my point of view ridiculous or “not credible.” That is the extend of it. Either way, it is a moot point for me.
        But, I do want to point out that, Stan S, and many of his “fan team,” who seem to find pleasure in “creating” an alternate reality for this case by demonizing a dead teenager are much less than “credible. . .” They are morally sick!
        And, I do not believe that Zimmerman should be found guilty of second degree murder, and I don’t think he will be as I don’t believe that, although he PURPOSELY went after the teenager based due to his hyper vigilance and his paranoia toward the “young Black males,” he DIDN”T purposely go after Trayvon to shoot him. . .he just acted as a coward and used unnecessary deadly force and provoke the death of an innocent youth.
        For that, I hope he will receive a judgment of involuntary man slaughter with aggravated circumstances, namely the use of excessive, unnecessary force.

        I also agree with Hapufern that the comment “he ran to the back” wasn’t intended to mean “back to the truck,” but to the back of the houses on his way to Brandy’s home.

        Reply ↓

    • Wayne, it doesn’t have anything to do with Trayvon’s family. I’ve posted a pdf of it here.

      It’s a typically bizarre pro se complaint filed by some serial prisoner-litigant in Nebraska. Dude has a lot of time on his hands, has to find something to keep him occupied, I guess. But Trayvon’s mother wasn’t part of it, he just put her name in as Plaintiff because he felt like doing so.

      Reply ↓

    • Good point Ricky. Many of us here are simply analyzing what evidence we know of at the moment. Granted, it may not be all the evidence, but it is what we have right now. I don’t consider myself part of any “fan team”, that’s for sure — simply trying to understand what happened. If anyone has created an “alternative reality” in this case, it’s the media and most of their hype, especially in the beginning.

      BTW Sadanie, you say Zimmerman “PURPOSELY went after the teenager based due to his hyper vigilance and his paranoia toward the “young Black males”. He also purposely called the police. Understanding the neighborhood and the past occurrences there helps you to understand why he called the police and why he was watching Martin. To help you understand, read this quote from a resident:

      “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.”

      Zimmerman likely did what any other concerned citizen of the neighborhood would have done, at least initially. I’m not saying I am happy about a young man being shot dead, but it is quite possible that the result would have been the opposite (Zimmerman being dead or seriously injured) without him being a CHL holder.

      Reply ↓

    • Wayne, she’s writing a piece of legal advocacy that is firmly from the perspective of a defense attorney, not a neutral assessment of the strength of Zimmerman’s legal defenses,

      It’s not incorrect in any of its claims, but it’s drawing conclusions as if they were established legal precedent rather than the author’s particular interpretation of the (firmly ambiguous) existing case law:

      Even if the state could convince a judge or jury that Zimmerman was following Martin, rather than walking back to his car, rendering his pursuit a contemporaneous act, it is not an act that provokes Martin’s use of force against him.

      This is an argument about how the law should be, not a claim about existing law. What it means under the statute to “provoke” use of force is not currently established, and until we get another few judges and probably an appeals court or two reaching a decision about whether it would apply in Zimmerman’s situation, it’s an open question. There is certainly room to argue about the relative strengths of the various positions, but there just isn’t a clear answer yet. Full stop.

      Moreover, that defense attorney is taking some liberties in establishing the factual record. The contradicted testimony of a single witness is by no means sufficient proof to establish such a critical element of the case as is whether or not Zimmerman was in mortal danger at the time of the killing — especially when that witness has since recanted to say that he doesn’t know whether any fight was occurring at the time of the shooting.

      Reply ↓

    • I’m not saying I am happy about a young man being shot dead, but it is quite possible that the result would have been the opposite (Zimmerman being dead or seriously injured) without him being a CHL holder.

      BRRAB, this isn’t true.

      1) When Trayvon was shot, he and Zimmerman were firmly on the grass, and there is no possible way Zimmerman’s head could have reached the concrete from there. See this photo, for the relative position of Trayvon’s body vs. the sidewalk. [WARNING: Graphic photo.] There was no risk of death-by-improbable-head-slamming at the time that Zimmerman claims he pulled his gun.

      2) Police were less than a minute from arriving when Zimmerman shot Trayvon. There is no plausible way Trayvon could have killed him in those 40-50 seconds. Without a gun, both parties would have waked away alive.

      3) Less conclusive, but still relevant, is the fact that if Zimmerman hadn’t been emboldened by the knowledge he was packing heat, he probably would have been less likely to follow a stranger outside at night. If he had actually obeyed Neighborhood Watch protocol, Trayvon would be alive and Zimmerman would not be facing charges.

      Reply ↓

    • Susan — Thanks for the link to the photo. I had not seen that. So…

      1) Are you saying that the cut on Zimmerman’s head and the blood that was apparently evident that night when he was treated at the scene was created by something other than the concrete?

      2) Note that I said “dead or seriously injured.” Of course a killing can happen in 40-50 seconds. We obviously don’t know what would have happened if the struggle continued without the weapon (gun) being present.

      3) Perhaps you are right, but see #2 above. What would have happened without a weapon is hard to determine. (Your point actually seems more like an argument against concealed handgun licensing in general. I know some are against CHLs, but not the people of the state of Florida). It’s fair to say that Florida law allowed Zimmerman to carry his weapon for the purpose of self-defense, which is what he claims he used it for.

      I am guessing you think that some (or much) of the prosecution’s case will depend on them convincing a jury that Zimmerman’s life was never in danger and thus his claim of self-defense is null and void. Forgive me if that is an incorrect assumption — just trying to understand each side and how this case will likely be argued.

      Reply ↓

    • I understand that Zimmerman said (we may have to wait for his statement on this) he fired a single shot and (after removing the immediate threat of damage) then tried to wrestle his assailant to the ground (instead of firing more shots). After Martin moved and Zimmerman tried to restrain him was when he realized the single shot was so serious.

      So the ending position photo of Martin says nothing. It is the position where Zimmerman fired the single shot that is important. I note that, under Zimmerman’s story, by only firing a single shot when he felt absolutely necessary to do so and then refraining from firing more shots in favor of physically trying to restrain his attacker after Martin moved from on top of him because of the shot, works greatly in Zimmerman’s favor.

      Reply ↓

      • Funny how that ONE SHOT Z. felt he had to fire had to be straight to the chest!
        You are trying to make a hero out of this man. . . for what reason. . .I am still wondering! But the fact is that, even IF he felt in danger of losing that struggle (what a courageous and well trained bouncer/wannabe security guard he was!) he could have fired a warning shot or fired low (which, in view of his alleged position “being straddled by the kid,” would have been easier to do) rather than take his gun and bring it up from his waist to shoot the kid in the chest! It seems that the angle of the shot will be significant also in trying to determine what the position of both men was. I am still wondering how a man who is straddled by another (if true, Trayvon must have been straddling Z. at about the waist level) and who is afraid to receive more hits in the face (or having his “head smashed in the . . .non existent. . .concrete) and whose instinct would obviously be to cover his face or try to restrain the hand that hits him, manages to slip his hand under the legs who are straddling him to reach his waistband, grab his gun, slip it out of its holster (still while being straddled by a “ninja” fighter) and turn the gun in the direction of the kid’s chest. . .without the kid noticing it?
        Nice fairy tale. . .maybe you watch too much TV!

        Reply ↓

    • “2) Police were less than a minute from arriving when Zimmerman shot Trayvon. There is no plausible way Trayvon could have killed him in those 40-50 seconds. Without a gun, both parties would have waked away alive.”

      That isn’t the standard under Florida law. I posted a link to an MMA video to demonstrate the damage that can be inflicted in just seconds (by middleweights — the same weight as Martin) in such fights (search for StanS on May 19, 2012 at 4:26 pm said: on this page).

      A single head smash to concrete could kill someone. And the only issue is the belief Zimmerman had at the time concerning his belief he could suffer great bodily harm or death. How was he to know the police would arrive at the exact scene of the fight in one minute or that he could not be brain damaged, dead or otherwise seriously injured by that time? That is what a jury will decide. Personally, I think it will be an easy decision (particularly, using the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard).

      Reply ↓

    • For those that live in FL, FL does not recognize “Warning Shots” or or the mythical “Shooting to Wound” if you pull the trigger and you are not justified using deadly force under FL Statutes you are facing mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years regardless of circumstances. Most States do not recognize “Warning Shots” or this idea people get from watching too many cop shows of “Shooting to Wound”. If you do not live in FL check your own states laws before you go to prison for firing a “Warning Shot” because you heard somewhere you could.

      Angela Corey just finished persecuting (Not a Typo) a woman that was trying to keep her abusive ex-boyfriend away from her, in her own residence, by firing a warning shot to let him know she is serious about defending herself. The judge and jury wanted to be lenient since she was abused, but with the way Corey wrote the charges the judge was forced to give the 20 year minimum sentence to this mom of an 11 year old. If she had written the charges differently or not even prosecuted then this young woman could have been allowed to live the rest of her life. Thanks to Angela Corey her 11year old daughter will be 31 in 2032 when she gets out of prison unless the Gov. Scott pardons her, or an appeals court throws out Corey’s Charges.

      http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/19/2807386/woman-gets-20-years-for-firing.html

      For those of you that say that I am more concerned about Gun RIghts than about Zimmerman or Martin, yes I am concerned about the rights of Florida’s citizens to protect themselves and this is why. If Zimmerman goes to see Ol’Sparky for this, I could care less. If you are an enviromentalnut you can hook up solar panels and do it at noon for all I care, but it HAD BETTER better be in accordance with the laws of the state of FL and not just because Sharpton wants a modern day lynch mob. Det Gilbreath has admitted that they do not have contradictory evidence, yet they arrested anyway in violation of 776.032 immunity. There are also questions about 776.032 immunity in the Alexander case as well, but I don’t see Sharpton rushing to her aid since it would undermine his soapbox over the Martin case, or maybe he just considers it meaningless Black on Black violence that is not worth his valuable time.

      Reply ↓

    • jimtrex,

      That is an excellent point.

      The emergency unit attempted CPR (and I am uncertain about what Zimmerman tried), the unit did this immediately upon arrival so the photos, taken after the police photographer much later arrived, would not reliablly show the body position of where Martin fell, nor would it show the position where Martin was shot because death was not instantaneously and, according to reports by Zimmerman (to be later confirmed), he tried to pin Martin down after Martin release him after the shot.

      Reply ↓

    • John reported that the positions changed in the 15 seconds or so that he watched before going to call 911. Initially, Martin’s back was to him at somewhat of an angle, and he only saw Zimmerman when he lifted his face or back up. And then they were more parallel to the sidewalk, Zimmerman has reportedly said that after the shot he lunged to get on top of Martin. And witnesses reported Martin’s body as sprawled out, sort of like he was running, with a pants leg pulled up to expose a leg. Martin may have twisted away and fallen forward as Zimmerman was scrambling out from under his legs. John said that after they had performed CPR the limbs were closer together. And the body may have been moved to lift it into the body bag. The center of drainage is not at the sidewalk but to the west, so any gravity-assisted movement would tend to be to the west, whether trying to roll or squirm. And there is also a concrete drain in the grass, which would hurt just as much as concrete.

      Reply ↓

  59. “DeeDee” reported that Martin told her that he had “lost” [Zimmerman]. Since this was right after he had ran (long enough to be tired), it shows that his intent was to evade, Zimmerman.

    If you lose your keys or eyeglasses, it is probably not intentional. If you lose your child it is probably not intentional.

    In reality it was Zimmerman who lost sight of Martin, the person he had observed acting in a suspicious manner, and whom the dispatcher had told him to continue report on what he was doing. But it is idiomatically correct to say that you have lost someone, when it is actually the other way around, that you caused the other person to have lost [sight of] you.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evade

    When you evade someone’s glance, you are avoiding making eye contact. “DeeDee” was evasive about her relationship with Martin. BDLR thought she said that “they [we]re getting there”, meaning that she and Martin were entering into a more romantic relationship, when she actually said “you’re getting there” which means that there was some relationship between her and Martin, but it wasn’t necessarily a romantic relationship, or perhaps not current, or possibly not between the two. The relationship between BDLR and her was not one where she could say “none of your business”, so she was evasive.

    It does not matter why Martin evaded Zimmerman, or whether it was even rational. He might have profiled Zimmerman. He might have been paranoid. He might be shy about people watching him while he was wooing a girlfriend over the phone.

    Martin took affirmative action to evade Zimmerman. He ran *after* he had passed Zimmerman’s truck. This was apparently planned in advance, since “DeeDee” said both that he “ran from the back” and “was going to run from the back”. He put his hood up, presumably so Zimmerman could not see him as well, or perhaps to intimidate him, perhaps to hide his earphones. He had a destination in mind, and “DeeDee” urged him go there. She heard evidence of him running, both in the sound of the wind, and his labored breathing. He told “DeeDee” that his evasive effort was successful. If Zimmerman could not see Martin, Martin could not see Zimmerman, unless he was hiding.

    Of course we are assuming that Martin was truthful to “DeeDee” and that “DeeDee” was truthful to BDLR, at least about this part of the interaction between Zimmerman and Martin. According to “DeeDee”, Zimmerman’s only apparent interaction at this point were to be white, sit in a parked car along the curb of a street, and to talk on the phone, while perhaps watching Martin. The plan to run apparently worked out successfully.

    If Zimmerman *had* followed Martin their later encounter would not have occurred where it did. “DeeDee” fabricated the later part of her narrative, or was mislead by Martin.

    Reply ↓

    • I too, had picked up on the “lost” comment but discounted it as having much significance within the context of why Martin would run.

      The problem is that the word “evade” has been inextricably linked to “Martin fear of Zimmerman.” There is no doubt running can be considered “evasive” (or it could just be a random impulse). The issue is what was Martin really “afraid” of or concerned about. He had recently been suspended after being “busted” in an area he should not have been in and for possessing drugs. As I previously said, prudence dictated running in a situation where the guy in the car on the phone, under the circumstances at the time, could mean cops might again question him (regardless of real guilt), so he wanted to avoid that. Importantly, Martin already showed he had no fear of the short pudgy white guy in the car on the phone by circling him. Quickly leaving the area to a place of “safety” from questioning made sense.

      Using the word “lost,” in the above context (if he really said that), could simply have been him equating distancing himself from the guy in the car to ending the chance he could be questioned by the cops (and his father getting angry … or worse if he was high).

      The most important part of the interview is DeeDee’s recanting on who first said to run since it devastates the “terminator” story fiction. Remember her dramatic ABC interviews where she repeatedly say she told him to “RUN” to so effectively embellish the story of a “big game hunt” by a 250 lb white, violent behemouth of a 140lb black child? That story is now virtually gone because the “fear” factor ( Martin, in her new version, never once said he was in fear of Zimmerman) is no longer there based on her fictitious embellishments.

      There is another item from DeeDee’s interview that could be a further problem for her story. She, for the first time, acknowledged the phone disconnected after Martin purportedly left the “mail shed.” She said she immediately called back while Martin was continuing to walk towards the guy on the phone in the car. Yet:

      1. We know from the dispatcher tape that Martin ran before 7:12 (at about 7:11:43);

      2. Martin’s phone records show a connection on the second DeeDee call at 7:12, which is a time that is rounded downwards — meaning the call connection time could be anywhere from 7:12:00 to 7:12:59; and

      3. DeeDee now admits that Martin ran straight to Brandy’s apt.

      So if the connect time was, correctly, after 7:12, then she could not have been talking to him after the disconnect until after he had gotten to Brandy’s apt. That would explain why she remembered he was “out of breath.” That is another major problem with her story — if her phone records and the Martin times can be verified and show the call connected after 712:00. Her records have not yet been released.

      During the interview, the prosecutor made a point of telling DeeDee that they had her phone records in hand (a possible warning to be careful in what she said?). So, for the first time we then learned from her of the hangup … now leaving open the critical time of the reconnecting call.

      Also, the “fear” issue only first came up in the questioning when she was asked about the confrontation (the “why are you following me” etc. exchange). That was when she said she detected fear on Martin’s part because “his voice was low” (not that he told her he was afraid). Her “low voice” theory to identify Martin fear, was impossible earlier when Martin was walking towards Zimmerman because both were on the phone and it was raining so there was no reason for Martin to “talk low” (even from “fear”) because neither could hear the other.

      Reply ↓

      • And you continue your witch hunt and obsessive attempts to paint a dead teenager in the most potentially damaging and ugly light!
        What drives you? Arrogance . ..or are you trying to write a bad fiction story?
        I am not impressed. Sick!

        Reply ↓

  60. Stan, you said, “Also, DeeDee said Martin didn’t even know Zimmerman had exited his car.”

    For accuracy’s sake, please keep in mind that DeeDee NEVER SAID THAT. DeeDee said Martin didn’t tell her if he saw Zimmerman exit the vehicle or not. There’s a very big difference.

    Reply ↓

  61. Sadianie, I don’t know for sure, but I think some people here may be much more concerned about gun rights than about Zimmerman. This is just a guess, but I agree with your sentiments either way.

    Any comment Stan?

    Reply ↓

  62. Conjecture:

    In my view, “run from the back” was not referring to the back of the car. It was referring to the back entrance of Brandy’s house, which DeeDee does several times during the interview. When Trayvon saw Zimmerman running behind him south between the rows, Trayvon bipassed the back entrance to Brandy’s house because he didn’t have a key (which we know from the evidence), and he didn’t want to be caught by Zimmerman at the door of Brandy’s house, waiting for Chad to answer his knock. Or, if that back entrance had been left open, Trayvon didn’t want Zimmerman to bust down the door (since it did seem pretty “crazy” that this guy was following him home).

    Trayvon ran east around the south end of the rows. Zimmerman saw him make the turn and assumed his information to police about Trayvon’s direction was correct, because the back gate to the complex is in that easterly direction. At that point, Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon and stopped running.

    After making the turn, Trayvon ran north up Retreat View Circle however, not continuing east through the back gate of the complex. He put as much distance as he could between himself and Zimmerman. Zimmerman meanwhile finished his phone conversation and headed back to his vehicle.

    Trayvon didn’t see Zimmerman following him on Retreat View Circle or when Trayvon reached the north end of Retreat View Circle and looked south between the rows. Trayvon told DeeDee he’d “LOST” Zimmerman. Zimmerman may have reached his vehicle by then, but spotted Trayvon when Trayvon turned south again between the rows, headed towards the back entrance of Brandy’s house AGAIN.

    CHECK THE PART OF DEEDEE’S TAPE WHERE SHE SAID TRAYVON HEADED TO THE BACK “AGAIN”.

    Zimmerman goes after Trayvon again, and Trayvon sees him and tells DeeDee that the guy is following him again. By now, Trayvon is out of breath from running around the entire east row, while Zimmerman hasn’t traveled very far. Trayvon tells DeeDee he’s not going to run. He says he’s close to Brandy’s house, and this time, he’s not going to run. He’s just going to walk fast.

    The confrontation occurs.

    Reply ↓

    • Listen from about 7:30

      The man’s still watching from his car.
      He’s going to run from the back.
      Run to his dad’s place.
      Next thing I know I can hear the wind blowing
      He said he lost him.
      He scared (change in voice) <=== This is out of place.
      He's right by his da's place.
      BDLR: He say's he's right by his ass, meaning he's behind him.

      "DeeDee": NO — She's adamant that Martin started walking after he lost the man.

      She says:

      He lost him.
      He ran from the back.
      He lost him

      He only lost him once. But she forgot the context, and had to insert that in and then have Martin lose him.

      Finally BDLR understands that Martin had started walking after he had lost him by running (long enough to be tired). He wasn't scared at all, at least at this point.

      She told him to keep running.
      But Martin told her he was **right by** his father's house.
      Then in a couple of minutes the man was following him again.

      Did Martin tell "DeeDee" that he didn't have a key? Did he tell "DeeDee" that he was afraid that the white man who he had last seen sitting in his truck talking on the phone was going to do something to "his little brother"?

      Reply ↓

  63. At about 15:30 in DeeDee’s interview, when trying to reconcile that Zimmerman was “following” Martin while Martin was also saying Zimmerman was just sitting in the car on the phone. She says:

    DeeDee: “I think he made that up for some reason”
    Question: “That’s what you believe?”
    DeeDee: “Yeah. Because he said the man was still following him”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=related

    So DeeDee did not even believe a key part of her own story of an on again, off again “following” chase. She didn’t believe Martin was being followed before he passed Zimmerman’s car.

    Reply ↓

    • Zimmerman may have been following Trayvon in his car (before he even called the dispatcher), or with his eyes. We don’t know. DeeDee gave her IMPRESSION, from being on the phone, which is all that she could do.

      Reply ↓

    • She DISTINCTLY said Martin told her he was being “followed” and she said she didn’t believe that because the “following” was supposed to be occurring just after he left the “shed” which was simultaneously with Martin also telling her the guy was just sitting in the car on the phone looking at him. That’s why she didn’t believe him … and she said so to the prosecutor.

      Following “with his eyes?” That’s the “chase” plastered across the media to prove Zimmerman is a child murderer?

      Reply ↓

    • Moreover, DeeDee was constantly on the phone with Martin from when he entered the complex until the hangup, so she would have heard about any previous “following” by car.

      Reply ↓

    • In her interview, “DeeDee” said that Martin read for the mail shed and the phone hung up. This establishes that he arrived at the mail shed at 6:54. Since Zimmerman did not leave his house until around 7:00 he could not have observed Martin, unless “DeeDee” was fabricating her testimony to match a certain timeline.

      Reply ↓

    • I primarily caught DeeDee’s admission, in the interview, that she did not believe Martin when he said he was being followed.

      This was just after leaving the “shed” area and just before he ran down the back path. This is important in that whatever chase sequence [DeeDee] previously reported as occurring before the passing of Zimmerman in his car, never occurred. Previously, in her media interviews (not under oath) and through Crump, the impression was given that the ‘chase’ was well underway by the time Martin ran down the back path and that chase was the impetus for her to dramatically tell Martin to “RUN RUN,” presumably in fear of his life.

      What we now have left is that the fictitious, intermittent, stop, lose him, find Martin again, run again, extensive ‘chase’ (during which Martin was huffing and puffing) had to completely occur in about the 90 or so seconds after Zimmerman got off the phone with the dispatcher (minutes after Martin first ran down the back path) until the fight began.

      Plus, there is the key DeeDee admission that she did not believe what Martin told her at a critical point in time.

      Why has no one in the media reported that DeeDee, under oath, said she did not believe a critical part of what Martin was telling her on the phone?

      Reply ↓

  64. Listen to the very end of DeeDee’s interview, from about 21:40 on.

    At the windup of the interview, without being asked a question, DeeDee offers an amazing admission (followed briefly up by the prosecutor) that she felt “very guilty” because she says “I ain’t know about it.” Just a little earlier, when the prosecutor asked her if she heard Zimmerman attack Martin, she (in a very very small voice) said “You could say that.”

    The whole problem now is that she admits she didn’t know Martin was hurt. This leads to the question as to what she actually heard (which should have been further followed up by the prosecutor). If she heard Martin being attacked then why say “I ain’t know about it” (Martin being injured). Even not knowing about the shooting she still, long after the fact, (weakly) claimed she actually heard Martin being attacked. It doesn’t add up. Two realistic possibilities are that she never heard a fight (and was later coached into her testimony), or she believed Martin would (or did) the attacking and didn’t want to report that, which could get Martin in trouble.

    Many times, coached witnesses, knowing both the truth and trying to keep track of coached testimony, say too much and get caught up in easy conflicting traps like what apparently occurred here.

    Reply ↓

    • unitron,
      What university? You should learn proper English. You said:
      “I just copypasta’ed from Wikipedia, so blame them for the punctuation.

      I just went back and listened to the recording.

      He says “It’s a home it’s 1950″, then he bangs on his flashlight some more or something, then he says “oh crap I don’t want to give it all out I don’t know where this kid is.” with almost no pause whatever between “all out” and “I don’t know”, indicating to me that not knowing where Martin is is the reason he doesn’t want to be overheard revealing his address. Zimmerman’s so addle-brained …”

      First, while a period would have been better, Wikipedia’s use of a comma is not a critical English error and you still would use punctuation. The two parts of the sentence (that you now remove ALL punctuation from) are what is known as independent clauses (clauses that can ‘stand’ alone as separate sentences). To relate those independent clause to show one is logically linked to the other in causation, you must include an appropriate connector, such as “because” (the clauses then become dependent) See: http://www.english-on-the-web.de/vconnect.htm . Without “because,” under English grammar, Zimmerman is communicating exactly what I said, two independent, unlinked items, not logically connected items of inference or causation.

      Moreover, your arbitrarily adding a silent sentence connective “because,” because it suit your argument purposes, creates more problems. I makes no sense to simply add the word “because,” since the new logic (that you pluck out of thin air) is that because the suspect could be anywhere (including 1/2 mile away), Zimmerman is concerned that he could hear him (which makes no sense). So you, to solve that problem now introduce another silent concept: that Zimmerman had to mean (to you) that Zimmerman is saying the guy is hiding within a few feet near enough to overhear him talking in a low voice (or covering the phone) — which you then use to “prove” Zimmerman was stalking Martin!.

      The final touch is that because Zimmerman never said your bizarre extension of what you wanted him to say, you then claim “Zimmerman’s so addle-brained”

      Who really is “addle-brained” here, Zimmerman or you?

      Unitron, if you want to be listened to, stop going off on these wild theories and misstating what is clearly said in plain English.

      Reply ↓

  65. If Zimmerman is so leery of this kid while he’s in a better lit area that he can’t just walk up and say “Hi, I’m George Zimmerman”, and has to call the police to check him out, what’s he doing a few minutes later jumping out of the Honda to chase after him on foot in the dark? He could have driven down to the back entrance in seconds to see if he went that way and stayed on the line with the police to keep up a running commentary on Trayvon’s whereabouts.

    unitron

    Reply ↓

    • What’s amazing to me is that most of the “alternate reality” someone mentioned is from people trying to figure out something different than the story Zimmerman has consistently told. Is there something about his story that doesn’t make sense? For example:

      1. Multiple break-ins, thefts, and an attack in the neighborhood within the past year.
      2. Someone unknown and suspicious (i.e., fits the description of the previous crimes) sighted. Police called.
      3. Dispatcher asks questions about the suspect (Martin) — race, etc.
      4. Dispatcher asks more questions related to where suspect is going, keep an eye on him, etc. (thus Zimmerman feels the need to exit his vehicle). It seems logical that Zimmerman is simply trying to see where Martin is going to report to the dispatcher, especially since the police are on the way.
      5. Dispatcher says we don’t need you to follow him. Zimmerman says ok and apparently stops following (at least stops running from sounds on tape, and his statement says he stopped and was returning to his vehicle).
      6. Zimmerman says he is confronted and attacked. A struggle ensues. At some point during the struggle he feels his life is in danger and a shot is fired.

      Now, without any evidence to contradict this scenario, without any bias against CHLs or against guns, what is wrong with this story? Do we really believe that Zimmerman could dream up a false story in a few stressful minutes, and then repeat it to police during 5 or more hours of questioning without slipping up somewhere? The standards and protocols of police questioning tell us that is very unlikely. It is a tragedy that someone is dead in this situation, and if more evidence comes out that disproves the Zimmerman story I will be one of the first to say “guilty.” In the meantime, the “alternate reality” seems to be from some who have bought into all the original hype and want this trial to end a particular way.

      Reply ↓

      • “…and his statement says he stopped and was returning to his vehicle…”

        And there’s where the problem is.

        He jumps out of the Honda and takes off running (or jogging) at 7:11:48 PM

        By 7:12:14 PM (26 seconds later) he has been told that they don’t need for him to follow and the sound of his heavier breathing and the wind/air noise in the cell phone microphone have died down.

        The struggle is generally considered to have started around 7:15:30 PM or later, so from the time he supposedly quits following until then is about 3 and one-quarter minutes or more.

        Even if he stands still until he hangs up at 7:13:39 PM, that’s still almost 2 minutes to go.

        Whichever direction he ran, he only did so for 26 seconds, but returning over that same ground in the opposite direction, which would put him back at his vehicle, he has all that time and still comes up 100 feet short.

        What was he doing instead of returning to his vehicle?

        He was only asked about an address in front of which his vehicle was parked. He didn’t need to go all the way over to Retreat View’s eastern leg to get that address, he was parked on Twin Trees.

        He had lost sight of Martin, so the Twin Trees address would be as good as any other for a “where did you last see him?”.

        Either he was just standing around in the dark (despite the fear that Martin was close by enough to hear him give out his own home address), or he was still actively looking for him.

        If he was still that determined to find him, I’m wondering if he wasn’t capable, when he and Martin met up, of grabbing him to hold him for the police.

        That would make him guilty of assault, and Martin the one practicing self-defense.

        There’s no way he starts back for his vehicle as soon as he supposedly stops following and still comes up 100 feet short all that time later.

        So doubts are raised.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • As a side note, there is no proof of the following:

      “despite the fear that Martin was close by enough to hear him give out his own home address”

      What had happened was Zimmerman, in two consecutive sentences, relayed to the dispatcher that he did not see the suspect and, separately, did not want to give out his address (I and many others, never give out my address unless absolutely necessary).

      The dispatcher did not connect the two thoughts as being a fear by Zimmerman that the suspect could be hiding close enough to hear Zimmerman on the phone — otherwise he would likely have warned Zimmerman to leave the area immediately.

      If Zimmerman really feared the suspect could hear him from hiding, he could simply put his hand over the phone, move to a more open area and.or tell the dispatcher that was what he was doing and why. Remember, it was raining, which also muffled any sound. Talking in a low voice, his phone conversation could not be heard in any distance over a few feet.

      Reply ↓

      • Has anyone here actually changed positions on this case? My observation is that everyone is fixed and unyielding. I notice the same at other sites. The only exception is a few people at talkleft are some who, after actually reviewing the evidence, now believe that Zimmerman is innocent. What is clear is that the liberal media has gone silent but I can not forget their relentless attacks.

        Reply ↓

        • “Has anyone here actually changed positions on this case? ”

          My position remains that we do not yet know who first laid hands on whom.

          I’m trying to make sense of the rest in order to figure the probablilities on that all-crucial question.

          It’s a shame the people who followed Martin and Zimmerman around these past few years reading their every thought and observing their every action didn’t think to have a video camera with them that night.

          Reply ↓

          • I have wondered if George’s phone or even Martin’s might have recorded the event but by now someone would have leaked that info.
            Maybe someone will show up who saw or even heard it all when it started. Has the state released its best evidence or is there more to come?

            They sure as hell need more than we have seen so far. Otherwise I doubt that there will even be a trial .

      • “What had happened was Zimmerman, in two consecutive sentences, relayed to the dispatcher that he did not see the suspect and, separately, did not want to give out his address…”

        “7:12:44: Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?
        7:12:53: Zimmerman: I don’t know, it’s a cut through so I don’t know the address.[Note 3, 6th & 7th pictures]
        7:12:58: Dispatcher: Okay do you live in the area?
        7:13:03: Zimmerman: Yeah, I…[unintelligible]
        7:13:04: Dispatcher: What’s your apartment number?
        7:13:10: Zimmerman: It’s a home it’s 1950,[Note 3, 3rd picture] oh crap I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t know where this kid is…”

        They aren’t talking about where Martin is, they’re talking about where the Honda is, and Zimmerman’s lack of direction giving skill that prompted the dispatcher to ask for the vehicle location in the first place makes it seem like he doesn’t even live in the neighborhood.

        I suppose, given the addled way Zimmerman’s brain appears to work, that he decided not to give out all of his info and then totally jumped topics, but that’s not how it sounds to me.

        Reply ↓

    • The dispatcher was not bothered by him being out of his truck. As soon as Zimmerman stopped, he started asking about biographical details and calming him down. He then asked whether Zimmerman wanted to meet with the officer when they got “there”.

      Is Zimmerman expected to interpret “there” as meaning at the clubhouse, simply because the dispatcher was sending the police to the clubhouse? If Zimmerman interprets “there” to mean where he is standing, does not that exhibit a “depraved mind showing no regard for human life”? Do you believe that beyond a reasonable doubt?

      Zimmerman tries to explain where he is at as the meeting place. He was not suggesting at his truck. He was using the truck as a way point. The dispatcher was simply not patient enough to explain what he was seeking and went off on a tangent, about whether Zimmerman even lived in the area, and simply wanted to get an address. If there is “indifference” it is by the dispatcher, for not ensuring that Zimmerman was in a relatively safe location. And recall that it was when Zimmerman was in his truck, that the dispatcher actually initiated the dispatch of officers.

      After he was off the phone, Zimmerman was probably replaying the phone call in his mind. What directions am I going to give the police when they get here. The dispatcher was confused, maybe the police will be confused. I think I will walk down to the other end of the cut-through. It is closer to the T than Twin Trees, the directions are simpler, and the officer can either just go on toward the back gate. So he strolls towards the east end of the sidewalk.

      The addresses are on the front of the garages, with a light next to them. It is about a 45 degree angle from the end of the sidewalk, and the light would appear more behind. So Zimmerman walks 10 feet south. There is no sidewalk, so he would walk in the street. He’d take a good look down toward the back gate, especially since the lighting is better. Shrugs his shoulder and walks back towards the T. It’s cold and raining and he has been outside for almost 4 plus minutes. He decides to get the address at the other end of the cut-through and maybe go sit in his truck.

      Reply ↓

    • Yeah Me
      I was firmly of the belief that Martin was an innocent victim, I believed the media hype. I thought there was solid evidence that Zimmerman was guilty, and Sanford PD was ignoring it. Until the bond hearing, specifically Det. Gilbreath’s testimony that he had no contradictory evidence, at that point I started doing my own research in to the events. I have always tried to keep up with Florida’s Self Defense and Gun Laws since I carry regularly, hearing Gilbreath’s testimony gave me a “There by the Grace of God” moment. If they can violate his rights that easily, they they can violate yours, mine or anyone else. The Angela Corey’s of Florida need to be held accountable or they will run rough-shot over us just like Corey did to Marissa Alexander.

      I am also angry that the MSM has tried to manipulate us to their own agenda, by distorting facts, video’s, and audio.

      Reply ↓

    • unitron,

      Nice editing! Your transcription of what Zimmerman says was:

      7:13:10: Zimmerman: It’s a home it’s 1950,[Note 3, 3rd picture] oh crap I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t know where this kid is…”

      Listening to the tape the real transcription is (note the correct placement of the period, not the comma you used):

      “7:13:10: Zimmerman: It’s a home it’s 1950,[Note 3, 3rd picture] oh crap I don’t want to give it all out. I don’t know where this kid is…”

      The second sentence was simply a separate comment Zimmerman made. Of course, the dispatcher, when asked, should give an interesting answer as to why, if Zimmerman was afraid the suspect who already disappeared was hiding only a few feet away, he did not pick up on that extreme risk to Zimmerman and warn Zimmerman again. The reason is obvious, it makes no sense for Zimmerman to not give out an address based on fear the suspect can overhear him in the rain when he could simply have solved that problem by talking in a low voice, moving a few feet toward any light or covering the mouthpiece with his hand.

      The dispatcher clearly came to the conclusion that Zimmerman simply did not want to release his address (a common enough occurrence), which obviously was not a required piece of information, so he saw no need to follow up. And he was also was provided with up to the minute information that the suspect was still out of sight.

      Reply ↓

      • “unitron, Nice editing!”

        I just copypasta’ed from Wikipedia, so blame them for the punctuation.

        I just went back and listened to the recording.

        He says “It’s a home it’s 1950”, then he bangs on his flashlight some more or somehing, then he says “oh crap I don’t want to give it all out I don’t know where this kid is.” with almost no pause whatever between “all out” and “I don’t know”, indicating to me that not knowing where Martin is is the reason he doesn’t want to be overheard revealing his address.

        Of course as I’ve indicated elsewhere Zimmerman’s so addle-brained it’s possible he’d jump topics abruptly.

        Reply ↓

    • Unit Ron,

      Which residence was Zimmernan’s truck parked in front of?

      And Zimmerman was giving further instructions when the dispatcher interrupted him. .You’re assuming that Zimmerman heard or comprehended fully the question that he was asked while he was talking.

      Why didn’t the dispatcher ask for the street?

      And after Zimmerman told that he lived in the area, why didn’t he ask for the street? Why did he need to know Zimmerman’s address?

      And when Zimmerman called, he said “there have been some break-ins in my neighborhood, the best address I can give you ….” Why had the dispatcher forgot?

      Reply ↓

      • It’s unitron, short for university electronics

        1211 Twin Trees Lane is the best address for both the Honda and where Martin was last seen.

        The dispatcher, having already noted that Zimmerman didn’t even get the clubhouse address right, wants to know if Zimmerman wants to meet with the police when they get “out there” (which I take to mean “arrive at The Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood”, not when they’re close enought to run over his toes), and, getting an affirmative answer, is trying to find out where he wants to meet up with them.

        He’s not trying to get directions, which is fortunate because Zimmerman is terrible at giving them, he’s trying to get a location, an address he can give the cops, and they can work out how to get there on their own or with the help of some sort of in-car display. If you ask “where’s the White House?”, then “1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC” is a better answer than “Well, you go up Interstate ‘foo’ until you get to highway ‘bar’…”.

        The dispatcher doesn’t ask “how do you get to…?”, he asks “where?”.

        So he asks for the address in front of which Zimmerman is parked.

        Zimmerman can’t, or doesn’t, even come up with the name of the street on which he is parked.

        I’d start wondering if this guy was a local as well.

        When Zimmerman confirmed that he did live in that neighborhood, the dispatcher probably asked for his address so that the cops could meet him there.

        When he couldn’t get that, he probably figured that maybe Zimmerman could find his way back to the mailboxes and the cops could meet him there.

        Go listen to the recording of the call and ask yourself which of these guys had the higher SAT score.

        Reply ↓

    • “1211 Twin Trees Lane is the best address for both the Honda and where Martin was last seen.”

      2xxx Retreat View Circle is the closest street address to where he is at.

      1211 is the 5th closest building to where his truck is at. The two buildings to the north are the closest. The building to the SW across Twin Trees is next, and then the building to the south (facing east on Twin Trees), and finally the building to the east, which is properly seen to around the corner. This does not change simply because the curb cut for the north-most unit is barely on the curve.

      “The dispatcher, having already noted that Zimmerman didn’t even get the clubhouse address right, wants to know if Zimmerman wants to meet with the police when they get ‘out there’ (which I take to mean ‘arrive at The Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood’, not when they’re close enough to run over his toes), and, getting an affirmative answer, is trying to find out where he wants to meet up with them.”

      The dispatcher, who presumably works for Seminole County, and not Sanford, thought Zimmerman lived in an apartment complex, even though Zimmerman had started out referring to it as “our neighborhood”. The dispatcher was tuning in for certain things that he could type into his computer.

      “He’s not trying to get directions, which is fortunate because Zimmerman is terrible at giving them, he’s trying to get a location, an address he can give the cops, and they can work out how to get there on their own or with the help of some sort of in-car display.”

      The mind of many persons, particularly males, visualize things in map view. The Neighborhood Watch encourages the acquisition of a plat map, on which the names of residents could be entered. Zimmerman was parked facing west on a north-south street, turned around trying to watch Martin, describing what someone coming in the gate should do. The problem in giving instructions is trying to understand how someone else will comprehend them. Most people will understand “turn” to mean to switch to an intersecting street.

      “The dispatcher doesn’t ask ‘how do you get to…?’, he asks ‘where?’.”

      I think that the dispatcher was careless. He was not listening, nor stating what information he was seeking. If he had to take another call, he could have placed Zimmerman on hold. He asked “where do you want to meet at?”

      Zimmerman wanted to meet at the “T”. If you were located where Zimmerman was at, how would have described the location?

      “Zimmerman can’t, or doesn’t, even come up with the name of the street on which he is parked.”

      Zimmerman wasn’t in his truck at that time. He was not parked anywhere. The dispatcher didn’t ask where his truck was parked. Was Zimmerman supposed to be training the dispatcher?

      “I’d start wondering if this guy was a local as well.”

      That would be more reason to listen to him carefully.

      “When Zimmerman confirmed that he did live in that neighborhood, the dispatcher probably asked for his address so that the cops could meet him there.”

      The dispatcher was lazy and careless.

      “When he couldn’t get that, he probably figured that maybe Zimmerman could find his way back to the mailboxes and the cops could meet him there.”

      The dispatcher was lazy and careless.

      “Go listen to the recording of the call and ask yourself which of these guys had the higher SAT score.”

      What does that have to do with whether he was lazy or careless?

      Reply ↓

  66. The protocol, as I understand it, is if you see a suspect you call the police and do not try to confront him. As to why he left the car, you will have to see his answer at trial (even though the question is almost completely irrelevant). Likely answer: once the suspect ran and disappeared Zimmerman had less fear the suspect would turn around and attack him. The dispatcher knew better, so he warned Zimmerman, who immediately said ‘OK’ and stopped and took another 15 or so seconds to catch his breath.

    Zimmerman could have done a lot of other things, too bad you were not there to advise him. What he did do was perfectly legal and reasonable under the circumstances, particularly with the dispatcher twice telling him to keep reporting on the suspects movements just seconds before he exited the car.

    Reply ↓

  67. Unitron, you’re correct of course, as usual! This is an excellent point and seems so simple. Why didn’t Zimmerman just DRIVE to the back gate, or to a spot where he could observe it?

    PeterO, I’m not sure I’m understanding you here. You said, “She didn’t believe Martin was being followed before he passed Zimmerman’s car.” This is what I was referring to as well – BEFORE he passed Zimmerman’s car (taking your word for it that DeeDee ever said this, since I can’t remember it and don’t have time today to check it out).

    “The ‘chase’ plastered across the media” is all about what happened AFTER Trayvon passed Zimmerman’s car. I don’t recall anyone EVER talking about a chase on foot before Trayvon passed Zimmerman’s car.

    Reply ↓

    • I don’t know about the “as usual” part, but I think I made a valid point this time, or at least asked a thought-provoking question.

      Unless Zimmerman was driving during the first part of the phone call, I don’t think there was any following done before Martin runs, but I’ll bet the way Zimmerman looked at him as he walked by was in no danger of being mistaken for friendly.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • Ace, the problem is that BDLR is either uncurious, incompetent, or racist. “DeeDee” is probably ordinarily a poised young woman, but was naturally nervous, and slipped into dialect, and relates things as a narrative rather than responding to questions. BDLR apparently thinks that black teenagers can’t talk or are unreliable, and simply skips over things, or mishears. She said that Martin said he was “by his da[d]’s house”, and BDLR asks if he said he “was by his ass”, meaning that he was behind him.

      The result is that we can’t really understand the sequence of events.

      When did the phone disconnect? When did Martin formulate his plan to run from the back? What did she mean by “run from the back?” What did she mean by Martin being “by his Dad’s place”?

      Reply ↓

  69. Pingback: Slideshow of the Retreat at Twin Lakes.. (explains alot oabout the evernts) - Page 6

  70. I think some of the comments here ignore Zimmerman’s claim, as transmitted to us through either his father or brother, that Martin had noticed his gun in his waistband and was trying to gain control of it. Unless that can be disproved, firing the gun at Martin was a reasonable defense. It is not clear at all that he could have aimed it at all, let alone to a non lethal area.

    I have speculated elsewhere on Martin’s defense had he emerged the victor with Zimmerman dead after either bashing his brains out or managing to get the gun pointed at Zimmerman’s chest. I think he would have just as good SYG a case as Zimmerman has now with the claim that he saw Z starting to pull out his gun after a purely verbal altercation and then tackled him. Deadrat on misc.legal has the interesting observation that had both been armed and killed each other during the altercation and then both families sued each other, the suits would be immediately dismissed.

    Reply ↓

    • Ricky — I’m certainly not ignoring it.

      It’s important because it may very well show Zimmerman changing his story. Can’t be sure until/if the police interview transcripts are released, but all indications from the cops suggest that in Zimmerman’s initial statements, he made no mention of Trayvon trying to wrestle away his weapon. But it does make a plausible sounding defense — perhaps Zimmerman started subtly changing his story later to make Trayvon seem more and more threatening.

      Remember, his initial claims for why he was in fear of his life was that Trayvon was bashing his head into concrete (when Zimmerman only had superficial scratches, and the fight was on the grass by the end) and that Trayvon was “smothering him” (when he claims he was still able to yell for help for over a minute). The “he was stealing my gun” account didn’t come out until he supposedly told it to his dad and brother.

      While I don’t think there’s evidence that Trayvon ever tried to draw the gun himself, I do suspect the gun was a significant factor in the fight even before it was actually drawn and fired. My “pet theory” for how the shooting occurred is that, either before or during the tussle, Trayvon did see (or feel) that Zimmerman was armed. Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman most likely, and had Zimmerman’s arms pinned down, and that’s when the frantic yells for “help” began. Trayvon knows he’s in a fight for his life, but as long as he has Zimmerman’s arms pinned, the gun can’t be used — so they remained locked in a near stalemate for over 30 seconds, until finally Zimmerman is able to shift Trayvon enough to draw the weapon and fire.

      Reply ↓

    • “all indications from the cops suggest that in Zimmerman’s initial statements, he made no mention of Trayvon trying to wrestle away his weapon”

      Which police officers have made any such “indications”?

      I thought you were a lawyer?

      “The ‘he was stealing my gun’ account didn’t come out until he supposedly told it to his dad and brother.”

      Why would it have “come out” before then? Maybe the Sanford Police Department and the State Attorney in Sanford can keep statements made by a potential suspect confidential.

      Reply ↓

  71. I certainly agree with you Susan that it would be devastating to his case if Zimmerman did not mention in his police interviews that Martin said, “You are going to die now” and then they had a fight for possession of the gun. By the way, in my Martin self defense speculations, I can’t see why Martin couldn’t claim it was him screaming all the time after Zimmerman pulled the gun and that he gave Zimmerman his injuries during the scuffle while trying to get the gun away from him. He could have had his knees on Z’s face while holding his wrists and manage to break the nose and bang the head on concrete or the utility cover with one motion.

    I don’t have a social agenda like many others interested in this case. I just find it fascinating that based on what we know now, neither Zimmerman nor hypothetically Martin is guilty of manslaughter or worse, beyond a reasonable doubt. I have a hunch that many self defense cases have been like that. The victor walks.

    Reply ↓

    • It is very likely, and Zimmerman will certainly have an expert saying so, that he was suffering from PTSD (his stoic appearance, later crying, later erratic actions etc.). To say a witness under the stress he was under (with or without PTSD) has to “get it exactly right” the first time he talks and will be convicted for murder because, as he settled down and gave multiple largely repetitive statements within a short period of time, is unrealistic. It is hard to imagine that anyone, having just gone through what Zimmerman went through, could compute all the legal permutations of his statements and thereby concoct a story that will survive a legal challenge at trial.

      I find it interesting that even the important witness “John” who was closest to the fight and saw Martin on top says (after honest consideration in a re-interview — not a true “recanting” as many wishfully believe) Martin was on top. His correction was that due to light conditions Martin’s moving arms could have been either or both punches or attempts to control a struggling Zimmerman (and upon defense questioning will also say it could have been Martin slamming Zimmerman’s head down — a similar ‘arm movement’ result). So here, even a non-participant in the fight “changed” his recollection of events in a perfectly credible way.

      Variations in defendant statements — whether guilty or innocent — are quite common, including remembering essential facts.

      Reply ↓

    • To carry your good observations one step further: Zimmerman is very likely to invoke a “collective” effect type defense where the alternating actions of Martin — punching, slamming his head onto concrete, grabbing for the gun, smothering (really an MMA technique of holding the head down to disorient and punch an opponent) — collectively made him fear great harm. To remember the exact one of those events the exact instant he pulled the trigger is not essential to that defense.

      Reply ↓

  72. Susan said:

    “it’s drawing conclusions as if they were established legal precedent rather than the author’s particular interpretation of the (firmly ambiguous) existing case law:

    Even if the state could convince a judge or jury that Zimmerman was following Martin, rather than walking back to his car, rendering his pursuit a contemporaneous act, it is not an act that provokes Martin’s use of force against him.

    This is an argument about how the law should be, not a claim about existing law. What it means under the statute to “provoke” use of force is not currently established, and until we get another few judges and probably an appeals court or two reaching a decision about whether it would apply in Zimmerman’s situation, it’s an open question.”

    The reality is that no Florida judge (or federal judge for that matter) is going to view any sort of verbal action as provocation for a physical attack such as initiated by Martin (assuming that version of events cannot be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt). If it is true that the law on “provoke” is not completely established in Florida, then what happens is analogous Florida laws, federal case law, SCOTUS case law (not necessarily in that order or all inclusive) are looked at. A self-defense defense has been around a long long time.

    I, and I assume most commentators here, are not going to waste time doing legal research this issue, which will be decided before jury instructions are issued (if it gets to a jury).

    Consider this: Martin’s physical attack on Zimmerman was a serious criminal act against Zimmerman in Florida. It is wishful thinking to not realize that that attack will effectively estop any claim Zimmerman provoked Martin through words … no matter how insulting the words. Are we now legalizing a self-defense claim for attacks when the victim looked at a person the wrong way or insulted the attacker? I think not, nor will any Florida judge.

    Reply ↓

    • Lets look at this from another angle with one fact changed, Martin was shot and lived. Martin would probably go on trial for Assault, his parents would tell you how wonderful he is, how he walks on water on his way to help disabled children and everything you would expect them to say. In this modern Social Networking age where would the investigators go to see what type of person he was. First to his school and look at his records, then to his Facebook/Twitter/YouTube accounts. We have hashed out what is on these accounts here a number of times.

      The single most important question in all of this is fairly simple, and the prosecution admitted they had no contradictory evidence to Zimmerman’s story that he was attacked. But if Zimmerman physically attacked Martin, he is not immune under 776.041 depending on the specifics of his testimony. If Martin attacked Zimmerman regardless of who was following who, or words said before the first punch then Martin has initiated a Forcible Felony F.S. 776.08. Saying the police arrived a minute later is irrelevant, neither party knew when the police were going to arrive, and no sirens that would have alerted either party that the police were nearby were heard on any of the 911 recordings. We also have a number of cases in FL where a guy is knocked down with a single blow, hits his head on the pavement and dies. The assailants go to jail for murder, “one hit on the cement shouldn’t have been enough to kill him” is not a defense. Before the shot was fired one of them committed a forcible felony, Zimmerman says it was Martin and 2 different groups of investigators have no evidence to the contrary. Some of Martins Backers say it was Zimmerman, some of Martins backers say Martin was provoked to attack Zimmerman by his following (Not a Legal Defense in FL). I hear people saying we should look at Zimmerman’s background to see how violent he is but we should not look at Martins because he was an innocent kid, if we look at one we should look at both and determine what type of people they both are from there.

      776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
      (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
      (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
      (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
      (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

      776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

      Reply ↓

      • Sorry Inspector, I don’t follow you. Are you claiming that in your hypothetical situation, Martin is more like to be put on trial than Zimmerman because the latter’s injuries (with the exception of the bullet wound) were worse? That doesn’t seem logical to me. The prosecutors could charge, none, one or both with assault depending on their stories. I mentioned previously that a sharp lawyer with a weird handle said in a usenet group that any civil case resulting from the situation that both killed each other would be dismissed immediately.

        Reply ↓

    • The prosecutors could charge, none, one or both with assault depending on their stories.

      I guess I didn’t explain clear enough but you got the idea where I was going. Kind of a stretch, but you could theoretically have 2 trials where both were found guilty or both were found innocent. In this particular case Zimmerman is on trial and the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the Physical Assault, any doubt because Martin could have started the assault and the case has to go to Zimmerman’s benefit. In the theoretical Martin case the state would have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt Martin started the assault, any doubt because Zimmerman could have started the assault and the case has to go to Martin’s benefit. Someone previously stated that the benefit of the doubt should go to the witness, that is completely wrong, the benefit of the doubt goes to the person on trial, that is the whole basis of beyond a reasonable doubt. I can give you two words that show that no matter how sure we and the media are of a persons guilt all the defense has to do is raise a reasonable doubt in the states case in the minds of a jury — Casey Anthony…..

      Reply ↓

    • To followup on Inspector Gadget’s explanation. There is case law on inconsistent results at different trials and the results have usually held up. There are too many differences in theories, degrees of guilt/innocence, witnesses used, juries, standards of proof (as the Inspector notes) for the Courts to try to sort out the situation when apparently inconsistent results may occur. Most times the results, even if apparently inconsistent, are allowed to stand.

      In this case, the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard will apply in multiple ways to benefit the defendant, Zimmerman. So the Inspector’s explanation makes perfect legal sense.

      Reply ↓

    • Stan, if a woman is violently raped and murdered and during that violent event, she causes injuries to the perpetrator, is the survivor any less guilty? To characterize the fight as “Martin attack on zimmerman” is a tenuos approach to the full context of this case. For those who view zimmerman’s injuries as significant (which IMO is a stretch) I wonder if they had a side by side photo of Martin with a hole in his chest/heart and his 17 year-old face as he lay dead, if zimmerman’s injuries would appear that he was the one attacked. Let’s not forget, TM was unarmed, zimmerman was armed. Because zimmerman confronted, and likely initiated the first physical contact, it doesn’t matter that zimmerman suffered injuries because the fight was caused by him.

      Reply ↓

  73. “I mentioned previously that a sharp lawyer with a weird handle said in a usenet group that any civil case resulting from the situation that both killed each other would be dismissed immediately.”

    I wouldn’t pay much attention to that comment.

    In Florida, asserted facts are almost always accepted as true. And, without getting into the details of summary judgment etc., you could have conflicting facts and legal theories asserted by each party (and even conflicting legal theories by a party) and have both parties claims survive summary judgment with the jury deciding the matter.

    Reply ↓

  74. One of the things I find troubling is the lack of any mention of bruising on M from the ME. If Z was being struck by M, why no bruising on his hands? Yes, there was the one small abrasion on one finger.

    The cries for help happened for 38 seconds. If someone is hitting someone else in the face for 38 seconds, or ‘bashing their head’ (and it could not have been on the sidewalk at that point) for 38 seconds, or any combo of the two, there would be far more observable damage on the one being hit. This tends to support John’s changed story that M could have been pinning him. But again, in 38 seconds, Z didn’t even try to kick M? No bruising on M’s legs, knees, thighs or groin was reported.

    Martin’s body being so nearly ‘fight-evidence free’ has some people (on other threads) saying it’s proof M must have been the aggressor. But to me it seems like Z didn’t even try to fight back before he pulled his gun and shot M, knowing full well when he did the result was almost surely to result in the kid’s death.

    And yes, Z knew how old he was. On the call to police he said “late teens” and later he said “I don’t know where this kid is”.

    I maintain the ‘beating’ never happened. Did M pop Z in the nose? Maybe. Did Z’s head hit concrete or another hard surface? Yes, probably exactly once.

    So what was happening for the 38 seconds of screaming for help?

    It makes more sense to me and seems fit the facts better, that M was on top, pinning Z down and doing it very well, while yelling for help. It is possible M was on top pinning and it was still Z yelling help, but he was not being beaten, and he knew the cops were on the way.

    I don’t see how that warrants Z shooting to kill.

    Reply ↓

    • Marvin, what you say sounds like part of Martin’s self defense claims in my hypothetical trial. If we just concentrate on whether Zimmerman has a reasonable story, we first of all have to know it. If during the 5 hour police interview he comes across as coherent as DeeDee then we are back to square 1 and chalk it up, like Peter does, to PTSD and the outcome of the case is very murky. If he seems fairly coherent but omitted, as Susan conjectures, the struggle over the possession of the gun, I think his goose is cooked. If he did describe that then whatever exaggerations he made about his actual injuries will be ignored since just the lethal possibility that Martin might gain control of the gun would make him reasonable in shooting before it happened and he is not guilty.

      Reply ↓

    • Here is a link to pictures of Zimmerman’s injuries.

      http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/342834/20120518/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-shot-evidence-photos.htm#page2

      His medical report and those pictures show:

      1. broken nose,
      2. two black eyes
      3. cuts or abrasions on both sides of his forehead,
      4. swollen lip
      5. multiple cuts and abrasions on top of and the back of his head.

      Not beaten up? One punch and a single fall to concrete? Beyond a reasonable doubt?

      See in the pictures how many different places are damaged on the top and back of Zimmerman’s head. The concrete sidewalk, no matter what angle a single hit occurred at, is still a flat plane so there had to be many different hits on concrete to reach the different areas of damage on Zimmerman’s head (even a single corner hit would still be a single isolated hit).

      Also, are you saying that even a single hard hit on concrete could not permanently damage or kill a person? If you are saying that, I believe most jurors will say otherwise, as will expert witnesses.

      Martin’s autopsy showed damage to his knuckle area. Obviously, he hit Zimmerman at least enough times to damage Zimmerman as shown above. Makes no sense to now argue Martin didn’t beat Zimmerman. If the above isn’t a beating, I don’t know what is … nor will a jury.

      Reply ↓

      • There was eyewitness testimony that the guy on top was hitting the guy on the bottom MMA style. That would not cause injuries to the knuckles. What happened to Martin’s fight videos? Did Crump take them all down permanently?

        Reply ↓

      • “Martin’s autopsy showed damage to his knuckle area.”

        What a beautifully imprecise phrase, making, as it does, one small abrasion one one finger on one hand sound like so much more.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

      • An edit button!

        My kingdom for an edit button!

        Or even a preview mode.

        That should have been “on one finger on one hand”, of course.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • “If during the 5 hour police interview he comes across as coherent as DeeDee then we are back to square 1 and chalk it up, like Peter does, to PTSD and the outcome of the case is very murky”

      I am only saying that PTSD and even extreme emotional distress can account for some level of inconsistencies in multiple statements by Zimmerman, including later remembering important details. I am not saying his statements are unreliable, particularly in the sense that DeeDee’s statement are unreliable (who, obviously, was not suffering from PTSD or extreme emotional distress at the time events happened — indeed, she said she felt guilty because she didn’t even know anything happened to Martin).

      The expert witnesses will debate the effects of PTSD on reliability of memory, if that is what Zimmerman suffered from.

      Reply ↓

    • Marvin, you’re spot on. If you carefully listen to John’s account, the fight seems to mostly be a “wrestling” type tug of war. I have unfortunately seen plenty of fights and punches are extremely distinguished and the sound and damage of a beating for this extended period of time there would be physical evidence to support it. The other thing to consider is that a person under a punching assault does not scream clearly like the screams heard on the 911 tapes (unless there were long pauses between the punching). He would be more concerned with protecting himself than screaming, the brain just doesn’t operate that way. If a violent fist fight was going on, the loser would make more grunting sounds and impact-related gasps which would sound more sparadic and interrupted.

      Reply ↓

    • The ‘it didn’t happen’ or ’emaculate beating” arguments are getting silly (“That should have been “on one finger on one hand”, of course.???). A prosecutor trying that nonsense — in light of the graphic photos of Zimmerman’s beating alone — will be laughed out of court (and Zimmerman set free). Who else, besides Martin, could have inflicted that massive beating on Zimmerman that we are now told never occurred?

      Reply ↓

    • For anyone (including MarvinM) really interested in the ramifications of what looks like Zimmerman suffered from (a grade 1 to grade 2 concussion) based on his behavior that night should look at this site:

      http://www.drugs.com/cg/concussion.html

      Some highlights on concussion symptoms and treatment that appears to apply to Zimmerman’s case, including his statements, behavior and symptoms:

      “Concussions can be further described by the following categories:

      Grade 1: A mild concussion. You did not lose consciousness (were not “knocked out”). You may have been dazed or confused for a short time after the injury. Normal thinking and behavior returns within 20 minutes of the injury.

      Grade 2: You did not lose consciousness, but you did not think clearly for more than 20 minutes after the injury. Also, you may not remember what happened.

      Grade 3: You lost consciousness for a short time. Also, you may not remember what happened.”

      Symptoms:

      “After a concussion, most people get better within four weeks. After the injury, you may have one or more of these symptoms:

      Mild to moderate headache.

      Dizziness or loss of balance.

      Nausea (feeling sick) or vomiting (throwing up).

      Change in mood (such as restlessness or irritability).

      Trouble thinking, remembering things, or concentrating (giving full attention to one thing for a period of time).”

      “What signs and symptoms should concern me in the days following a concussion?

      It is common to have a headache or feel dizzy after a concussion. Some people who are thought to have minor concussions may have a more serious injury. The symptoms of a serious head injury may not show up right away.”

      “How is a concussion treated?

      Although you need to be seen by a caregiver, usually no treatment for a concussion is needed. The most important thing you can do is to watch for signs of a more serious problem. You may need tests or to stay in the hospital for a short time. You may be sent home with special instructions.

      If you lost consciousness, a CT or MRI scan may be taken of your brain to check for serious injury. You may have a concussion even if it does not show up on a CT or MRI scan.

      You may need x-rays taken of your neck or face if there is a chance of other injuries.”

      I now, after reading the above information and looking at Zimmerman’s behavior immediately after the incident and for the next several weeks, believe he had a Grade 1 to Grade 2 concussion (which might very well never show up in an optional MRI or CAT scan that many times are simply inconclusive or do not show mild brain damage). At trial, there will certainly be an expert on Zimmerman’s behalf, going through Zimmerman’s actions, statements on how he felt immediately after and for the next several weeks. The fact that Zimmerman (foolishly for his own health and, if anything negative to his defense) decided to “tough it out” means nothing.

      Reply ↓

  75. I’m not ignoring people who have replied to me, it’s just that I’m very new here and I don’t see a reply button for your comments. So I will respond to your statements when I figure out how to do it, or best to do it. Coaching is welcome.

    So, one thing at a time.

    The head injuries only prove there were injuries – not how they happened.

    Someone asked if hitting your head on concrete once can’t kill you, and yes, it is true about head injuries – one can be all it takes (The story of Miranda Richardson [I think it was …] comes to mind. Total accident. Fell off a ski lift or something, told her husband Liam Neeson she was just fine, and dies about three hours later. Very sad.)

    Yes, head wounds are serious. And they bleed a lot. That’s mostly what is seen in the photo, but the actual injuries are pretty minimal.

    The EMT treating Z that night characterized his back head wound as ‘one small laceration’ with ‘minor bleeding’. The EMT did all the field tests that might suggest problems/concussion or suggest he needed to be transported to the emergency room rather than the police department, and nothing was found to suggest that. Z himself ‘denied LOC, neck/back pain’ at the time.

    Thus I conclude Z’s head injuries do not show a severity that indicates Z’s head was being ‘slammed’, ‘bashed’ multiple times into concrete.

    Also, if you had your head pounded into concrete several times, what would you do?

    a. take the police up on the multiple offers they gave you to go to the hospital/emergency room right away the night of the incident
    b. have your wife/spouse/friend take you to the hospital/emergency room at the first available opportunity the night of the incident
    c. see your family doctor the next morning and apparently not ask for (or get from your doctor) an X-ray, MRI, CAT scan, or blood work.

    I would have done b even if I tripped while jogging and hit my noggin on concrete, if it made a laceration.

    Z had every opportunity to do a or b, but chose c.

    That’s why the story of the ‘head bashing into concrete’ never happened. The physical evidence doesn’t bear it out and neither does Z’s own behavior.

    Reply ↓

  76. “The head injuries only prove there were injuries – not how they happened.”

    ***hard to believe that is what a prosecutor would say without some reasonable explanation for the injuries. You haven’t offered any on how Zimmerman, presumably uninjured a few minutes before the fight (as I am sure his wife will testify) suddenly received so many clearly documented injuries. It wasn’t Martin? Who was it?

    “but the actual injuries are pretty minimal.”

    ***if Zimmerman was knocked out or dead we would never have this blog. Zimmerman was lucky he stopped Martin from inflicting more damage. The test is what Zimmerman feared at the time, not whether someone later has the opinion the victim knew the potential injuries would by “pretty minimal” a conclusion that most would disagree with.

    “The EMT treating Z that night characterized his back head wound as ‘one small laceration’ with ‘minor bleeding’.”

    ***the police photos taken that night show far more extensive damage. Who do you believe, an abbreviated paramedic report, or the actual photos showing graphically the damage done to Zimmerman. I believe the latter as I am sure most jurors will.

    “The EMT did all the field tests that might suggest problems/concussion or suggest he needed to be transported to the emergency room rather than the police department, and nothing was found to suggest that. Z himself ‘denied LOC, neck/back pain’ at the time.””

    ***the operative word is “suggest.” As you yourself said in the Richardson case, no apparent damage may turn out to still be fatal, particularly in head injuries. Zimmerman “waving off help” means nothing. It could be simply self-denial of personal vulnerability, a misunderstanding of the harm he could have potentially suffered and/or sheer stupidity in not to immediately having an x-ray taken no matter how he felt. Look what happened to Richardson.

    “I would have done b even if I tripped while jogging and hit my noggin on concrete, if it made a laceration. Z had every opportunity to do a or b, but chose c.”

    ***If you were there to advise him, maybe he would have listened. He didn’t listen to the paramedic or police. Richardson didn’t do what you suggested, and she died. Many would have done what Zimmerman did. It doesn’t make Zimmerman guilty of murder … only that he made a foolish choice, for his own health, in not going to the hospital. Or maybe it was a PTSD affected illogical reaction?

    Reply ↓

    • regarding choice c, that you imply means Zimmerman is guilty:

      “see your family doctor the next morning and apparently not ask for (or get from your doctor) an X-ray, MRI, CAT scan, or blood work.”

      We don’t know what the doctor recommended to Zimmerman (apparently Zimmerman did not take some of the doctor’s recommendations). But NOT doing so has NO benefit to Zimmerman’s defense because NOT doing so will obviously be, and is being (as your post shows), construed as showing there was no further damage found. Zimmerman only LOSES by refusing tests.

      Zimmerman gets NO benefit to refusing tests and, indeed, may well have suffered a concussion which he is NOT claiming he suffered (as far as I know). By refusing tests, he potentially lost out on the benefit to his defense if he really did suffer a silent concussion — that he now can never claim.

      So MarvinM, your comment appears to be simply spinning a foolishly detrimental act by Zimmerman, to both his defense and his health in not having tests immediately taken, into a fallacious “proof” of guilt. A strange exercise in logic indeed!

      Reply ↓

  77. On a somewhat related note. From The Southern District of Florida Blog:
    http://sdfla.blogspot.com/2012/05/welcome-to-amercia.html

    “The judge said, because Mr. Ravi had been convicted of tampering with a witness (trying to get Ms. Wei to lie to the police) and with evidence (trying to cover up his Twitter and text messages) he sentenced him to 30 days in jail. Under state statute, Mr. Ravi could serve as little as 20 days, if he earns work credits and rewards for good behavior in jail.”

    Does anyone think this will happen to Crump after DeeDee’s interview under oath?

    What about the purged Martin tweets, YouTube MMA style “fight club” videos that were purged from Trayvon’s postings, any trace of videos or other recordings of Martin’s voice (to compare against the ‘help’ yells), any traces (at or around Brandy’s apt) that Martin could have been high that night (to explain why Zimmerman was suspicious)?

    Even if the above items existed and were removed, I hope they have been retained in a safe place for discovery.

    Reply ↓

    • There are people who knew about Crump’s history and ethics violations and immediately went to work finding everything about Martin’s past. Crump deleted everything but others have it. I do wonder if what Crump did is illegal but I also read that he and Julison are under investigation. Is what Crump did considered to be tampering without evidence? I do not know. Interesting question.

      Reply ↓

    • So just to point out the obvious, Zimmerman’s attorney has likewise done his best to scrub every trace of his client off the web.

      And yet, strangely enough, I don’t hear anyone here speculating about him having committed professional malpractice. Hmm.

      Reply ↓

      • I thought he had addressed all of George’s online past issues. No? How do you know this?

        So just to point out the obvious, Zimmerman’s attorney has likewise done his best to scrub every trace of his client off the web.

        Reply ↓

    • There’s “scrubbing” (information non relevant to investigation/case/trial) and there’s “scrubbing” (information relevant to investigation/case/trial).

      The difference is — as StanS posted above — obstruction of justice or spoliation (the latter case) and not (the former case).

      A careful attorney (or other person) would keep the prosecutor/police informed as to his/her actions and retain copies of all potential evidence to prevent later accusations.

      There is also the issue of witness tampering (a form of obstruction of justice) which can be a fact intensive matter as to what occurred.

      It would be interesting to know exactly what O’Mara allegedly scrubbed and if Crump disclosed to and provided the police/prosecutor with copies of what we, at least in part, now know was scrubbed from Martin’s online history.

      Reply ↓

    • BTW, the issue has nothing to do with malpractice, which is “is the term for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, or breach of contract by an attorney that causes harm to his or her client.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_malpractice

      A claim for malpractice against an attorney, at least in Florida, is owned only by the client and is non-transferable to any other party.

      Reply ↓

    • This business of destroying evidence in the electronic age seems to be murky. Jose Rodriguez of the CIA had audio and video of torture of Al Quaeda detainees destroyed. Torture violates the Geneva Conventions and probably US laws. He hasn’t been charged with anything and has written a book “Hard Measures” telling us what a hero he is. Powerless teenagers are much easier targets for prosecutors.

      Reply ↓

    • “This business of destroying evidence in the electronic age seems to be murky.”

      *** Not really. What has been murky is liability and issues of anonymity not destruction of evidence, which has been around for a long time. Electronic evidence in whatever form, is evidence. To destroy evidence is is against the law.

      “CIA … Al Quaeda detainees … Torture … Geneva Conventions

      *** enough said. Not applicable.

      “Powerless teenagers are much easier targets for prosecutors.”

      *** rhetoric

      Reply ↓

  78. I think Susan has such a good point.

    For some reason, Zimmerman supporters are certain that Trayvon’s internet history is relevant, but Zimmerman’s internet history is not.

    We also have Trayvon’s past school suspensions constantly cited as “evidence” by Zimmerman supporters that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, while Zimmerman supporters appear to ignore Zimmerman’s past arrest and his other violent encounters (with x-girlfriend and the lady whose ankle he alleged twisted when he threw her).

    In addition, some Zimmerman supporters have mentioned their belief that Trayvon’s father and and fiance cleaned their apartment of drugs before the police could get there and that this would essentially be destroying evidence in the case.

    However, they don’t seem concerned about the same possibility with Zimmerman’s truck, when his wife came and retreived the vehicle, nor do they seem concerned that Zimmerman was never tested for drugs or alcohol after shooting and killing an unidentified minor who had committed no known crime.

    I agree with Marvin’s statement above: “The head injuries only prove there were injuries – not how they happened.”

    The head injuries could have been caused when Trayvon took action to defend himself, perhaps after seeing Zimmerman’s gun, or perhaps after being pushed by Zimmerman several times.

    Another thought: I agree with Ace that whoever was screaming for help was not getting punched at the same time. If it was Zimmerman screaming, then he had no reason to pull the trigger, because he wasn’t getting punched at the time (or suffocated or slammed into the concrete). To me, what makes most sense is that Trayvon was screaming for help while trying to hold Zimmerman down. The police didn’t arrive on time.

    Reply ↓

    • Up above, I said, “The head injuries could have been caused when Trayvon took action to defend himself, perhaps after seeing Zimmerman’s gun, or perhaps after being pushed by Zimmerman several times.”

      Or, one time (not several times).

      Reply ↓

    • HP,

      ______

      However, they don’t seem concerned about the same possibility with Zimmerman’s truck, when his wife came and retreived the vehicle, nor do they seem concerned that Zimmerman was never tested for drugs or alcohol after shooting and killing an unidentified minor who had committed no known crime.
      ______

      It would have been within Zimmerman’s right not to take a drug or alcohol test. I don’t know the details of when his wife got the truck, but he hadn’t been charged with a crime.

      I think some people have made too much about TM and GZ’s background and internet postings. It may be significant at some point, but now this case looks like a garden variety self defense case. Since the state has, by its own admission, virtually nothing to refute Zimmerman’s claim that Martin started the confrontation a jury will find reasonable doubt.

      -MM

      Reply ↓

  79. I wonder if George might have unknowingly been taking some of that counterfeit Adderall that’s been in the news of late.

    unitron

    Reply ↓

  80. MM, I think the state actually said something to the effect that they had nothing to refute Zimmerman’s claims, EXCEPT for Zimmerman’s own statements.

    Reply ↓

    • Exactly, we were led by the media at different points to believe there were no injuries on Zimmerman, he was using racial slurs all over the 911 tapes, a lot of people seeing Zimmerman chasing a 12yo little boy waiving his gun around yelling I’m gonna kill you and all of the weird theories I have seen on boards and on the news didn’t really exist.

      If Zimmerman had gotten a lawyer immediately he would not be in all of this trouble, and even if he is found guilty he has an appeal because the arrest should have never been made in the first place under 776.032 immunity. They can use standard investigation techniques but they MAY NOT arrest without Probable Cause.

      Reply ↓

    • HP,

      So a guy after an extremely traumatic incident gives some exaggerated or contradictory statements. That doesn’t help his case, but I don’t think it’s reason to find guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

      Of course I haven’t seen the statements.

      -MM

      Reply ↓

  81. He just got his bond revoked and has 48 hrs to surrender himself for lying to the judge during the bond hearing, LOL. He and his wife just got caught in their first lie and the judge suggested the state charge the wife with contempt. Also the judge ruled that everything will be released to the press with only some minor redaction’s. All round a really bad day for Z.

    Reply ↓

    • Thanks sandbagger. Didn’t know this about the the wife.

      Apparently there was a problem with Zimmerman having a passport also, contrary to what he’d told the judge previously. And then a second passport as well? Does anyone have more info about passports? I’ve only just read something in CNN, including this:

      “Prosecutors argued that Zimmerman “misrepresented, misled and deceived the court” during the April bond hearing not only about his family’s financial circumstances but about whether he had a U.S. passport.

      Lester appeared to accept the explanation from Zimmerman’s lawyer that his client had given him a second passport that he had obtained, but that the lawyer simply forgot to hand it over to authorities until Friday.”

      Reply ↓

    • I think this is a good look at how this trial will play out. I have read about every opinion and scenario on just about every blog. I think what will condemn Z is his own big mouth. Already it is not a far stretch to guess that what Z told police and what the evidence is just don’t match up. I know a lot of cops and one of the things they are really good at is pretending to be your best friend and acting like nothing is wrong and getting you to talk and talk. At the end of the day I don’t think it’s going to matter much who started the fight. If a jury see’s him lying, he’s guilty. You can see that his lawyer is already talking about a trial that will go into 2013, so you know he has no expectations of this judge granting a SYG dismissal. And the only people I have seen that defend Z are people who seem to deny the vast holes in the evidence. A jury wont do that. They WILL consider it all and then look at how it stacks up against Z story. Remember, he has already given the only testimony that he will ever give, he’s hung himself already. All the optional stories the people are coming up with would only have been an option had Z keep his mouth shut and asked for a lawyer. The defense dose not have the option you all seem to think they do of the “what if” stories that could cause reasonable doubt. Already you have people like Susan here that can blast holes in his story with only some of the evidence. Just think what a jury is going to do with all of the evidence. Still, this is just one persons guess. Z’s new lawyer West is supposed to be good at murder cases, frankly that’s the best thing Z has going for him, decent lawyers. LOL

      Reply ↓

    • I think what some of us are frustrated with is the “conviction” via the media/internet. You said, “…the only people I have seen that defend Z are people who seem to deny the vast holes in the evidence. A jury wont do that.” See what I mean? As someone who is reporting to jury duty once or twice a year (for the past 10 years) and who has served this year on a first degree felony jury, I must say I disagree with your analysis. From the evidence I have seen and heard so far, there is no need for “what if” stories — the reasonable doubt already exists. You (and the prosecution) will need to dispel those doubts with more evidence than we currently have to prevail, IMHO. (BTW, I’m not saying the prosecution doesn’t have more than we know at the moment — we will see eventually).

      Reply ↓

    • I understand what your frustration is. However what I am saying is simple. GZ thought he was never going to be charged with a crime, so he talked and stated his version of what happened in great detail. What nobody on this post has suggested yet is that if the jury looks at the evidence and it is obvious that his story can’t support the collected evidence then what dose he do?(i know that your opinion is that it dose) but he can’t change his story. So what I am saying is that he better have told it exactly the way it happened. What I think a lot of you are talking about is a different situation. One were if GZ had said nothing to police then his story would have been able to be told by his lawyer after looking over the evidence. That will not happen now. This is also the reason that both the defense and the prosecution wanted the records of what he said to police not release, they both say it is a confession. LOL (judge didn’t buy that) it’s being released. Either the evidence supports his current story or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t he is going to be found guilty. Also the judge talked about the concerns of the media and jury selection and in his view he said that in this day in age no juror is expected to be free of knowledge of the case. So the judge has already shown that he doesn’t care about that in any way.

      I am not arguing for or against GZ, I am simply saying that the ability for the defense to create reasonable doubt is non existent. GZ shot and killed him, fact, GZ has explained how it happened in great detail, fact. The evidence either supports that or it doesn’t. All of you who keep coming up with all these different stories, that isn’t going to happen here. This is why lawyers tell you to never talk. The funny thing is, the SYG law is what really screwed any chance of him getting off because it gave him a false sense of security. Truthfully, even if GZ is totally innocent there is now a very good chance that he will be convicted and spend 20 years in prison. You still like the SYG law?

      Reply ↓

    • @Sandbagger — You said, “Either the evidence supports his current story or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t he is going to be found guilty.” So, using your logic, if the evidence supports his current story, he is going to be found innocent, right?

      And yes, I still like the SYG law. In my humble opinion, this case has nothing to do with SYG. It’s a simple self-defense case/question. The self-defense argument existed well before SYG was ever thought of.

      Reply ↓

    • Well sure, but I think you are really missing the point. Even if he is innocent, there is a strong chance that his story will not match the evidence and he may be found guilty. I don’t think you are taking seriously the fact that Z has already locked himself into a very detailed account of what has happened. One that contrary to your opinion, there seems to be a lot of people who feel that his statements don’t match the evidence. His own lawyer has publicly shown a lot of concern about this. The judge openly discussed this problem in court today with both lawyers and the lawyers for the media outlets. The only people that seem to think there is no problem are the supporters of Z. I am trying my best to not state an opinion on his innocence. I am simply trying to bring to light the very serious trouble this guy is in that most people seem to not be taking very seriously.

      Reply ↓

    • I am so glad Judge Lester refused to let the Zimmerman’s make a mockery of the justice system on this issue of indigence.

      +1 for the State.

      Reply ↓

  82. This is from “The Sanford Herald”:

    Judge Kenneth Lester ruled to revoke George Zimmerman’s bond during a hearing held today, giving Zimmerman 48 hours to turn himself into the court.

    The decision, said Judge Lester, was based on the misrepresentation by both George Zimmerman and his wife Shellie Zimmerman during his bond hearing that they did not have any money.

    It was learned shortly after the bond hearing held April 20 that Zimmerman had raised more than $200,000 through an account on his website, http://www.TheRealGeorgeZimmerman.com.

    Evidence provided by Assistant State Attorney Bernie De La Rionda showed Zimmerman and his wife had conversations prior to the bond hearing where they discussed paying his bond with the money from the account.

    De La Rionda also stated the couple went as far as using code words when discussing the funds, hoping police may not catch on. Those conversations were recorded calls made by Zimmerman from the Seminole County jail.

    “This court was mislead to believe they didn’t have a single penny,” said De La Rionda. “I don’t know what other words to use other than it was a blatant lie.”

    De La Rionda also pointed out although Zimmerman had allegedly surrendered a passport to the court – it was not his only one. The passport given to the court, he said, was one Zimmerman claimed to have lost years ago.

    Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, argued the family was afraid to the use the money and even considered mortgaging both Zimmerman’s parents’ and grandparents’ home to post his $150,000 bond.

    O’Mara also stated following the bond hearing Zimmerman’s family turned over the funds to his law firm to manage them. Since then, he said, the firm has kept an exact ledger of how the funds have been utilized.

    O’Mara even argued that since Zimmerman was only 28-years-old and charged with a serious crime, he may have been unsure what to do. He also noted he was in possession of the second passport and had intended to make the court aware of it a month ago, but forgot to file the motion.

    After revoking the bond Judge Lester said Zimmerman will be given a chance to testify about what happened.

    Reply ↓

  83. Just like OJ? Armed Robbery? Proves Zimmerman is a murderer? More like:

    Desperation:
    — faced with million dollar legal fee that would ruin his family and no funds to pay.
    — him and his family were being hunted (black panther bounty and all) by black panthers … with the aid of multimillionaire Spike Lee, who was filling the role of ‘point and reconnaissance man’ to fund finding him and his family … for fitting justice for his ‘hunting and gunning down’ Trayvon.
    — reported serious assault on whites around the country as ‘justice for Trayvon’ to demonstate the seriousness of the threats. And with no funds to pay for even lodging, let alone protection for him and his family.

    So what did he do?
    — raised a tiny fraction of his then known projected legal bills
    — told his attorney about it, who, in turn informed the Court and a proper trust fund was set up and accounted for.
    — turned over ALL of his passport(s) to his attorney, who is an officer of the court (meaning he would never give it back to Zimmerman for ‘escape’)
    — The funds were enmeshed in the uncertainty and legalities of whose money it really is and for what purposes (an issue in the hands of his attorney who, along with the world, certainly knew Zimmerman had raised money). The funds were in a constructive trust in legal parlance terms.
    — So Zimmerman and his wife’s ‘crime’? They spoke in “code” (him and his wife must be drug dealers or arranging a ‘hit’ on a witness!) while the matters, to laymen at least, related to attorney-client communications and legal uncertainties. It is no a crime to speak in ‘code’ when it is possible someone out to hurt you may be listening under those circumstances. Hasn’t the media, pundits and various rabble rousers been speaking in code for months down?

    The State (and the world) knew Zimmerman was raising money. So why didn’t the State raise that issue at the bond hearing?

    Including the funds raised, Zimmerman and his wife were deeply insolvent (without even raising the issue that the funds were in a constructive trust — considered a separate legal entity even without any ‘paperwork’) … to the tune of 7 figures. With a projected upcoming legal bill running into 7 figures, Zimmerman and his wife were so insolvent that they could have later declared bankruptcy when the known bills became due.

    Importantly, at the time of the bond hearing AND with the amount raised in the constructive trust, they were INSOLVENT. Anticipated legal bills are correctly included in any consideration of the family’s insolvency status.

    It is hard to imagine how an insolvent man and wife can be accused of perjury when the complex legal status of the funds was up in the air, the fact the funds existed was known (including the approximate amount), the matter was turned over to his attorney (whose advice he followed) and, most importantly, THEY REMAINED DEEPLY INSOLVENT (INCLUDING WITH THE DISCLOSED FUNDS BEING COUNTED) … STILL TO THE TUNE OF 7 FIGURES.

    So, another OJ? Guilty of murder? Guilty of perjury? I think not.

    Guilty of foolishness? I think so?

    Reply ↓

    • It is not okay to lie to a judge just because you are in a tough spot. They had funds, and then falsely stated they did not — this is a lie, no matter how uncertain your financial future may be.

      It is not okay to represent at a bond hearing that you only have one passport, when you know you have two. He knew he had two — but let his attorney tell the court that he only had one.

      It is fully possible to believe Zimmerman acted rightfully in killing Trayvon, and also to believe that Zimmerman lying to a judge is wrong and troubling. Zimmerman doesn’t have to be perfect in order for his claim that he was allowed to shoot an unarmed attacker to still be valid — so why are you trying so hard to excuse Zimmerman’s objectively duplicitous behavior?

      Reply ↓

    • I have to agree with Susan here, at least on most items. If the financial future is uncertain, you can bring that up before the judge. The omission may have been a result of uncertainty as to what to say, foolishness, ignorance, or whatever. However, they still should have told all the details and let the court sort it out. Most likely there will be a new hearing and probably a new bond at some point. As for the passport — even the judge dismissed that as nothing. He had lost one and found it later, then turned it over to his attorney.

      Reply ↓

    • Except that the passport he handed over was not a valid passport; it was reported lost and stolen. Also, the conversations with his wife indicate Zimmerman had full knowledge of his two passports only three days before his bond hearing. And still he let his attorney represent that he only had one.

      But honestly, I think I’m more troubled/confused that O’Mara had the second passport for “a month” and never got around to notifying the state. What the heck? That’s awfully sloppy right there.

      Reply ↓

    • An interesting twist is this issue’s “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” aspect. Something Judge Lester and O’Mara must certainly be aware of:

      Since the funds raised were in a constructive trust and if the Zimmermans were concerned about the legal status of the funds, then to say the funds are “theirs” could also expose them to fraud charges as an admission.

      Reply ↓

    • PeterO, that simply isn’t true.

      At the time of the hearing, the funds were not in a trust. They had been funneled into a pay pal account and then transferred to other bank accounts. Some of the funds were spent on various undisclosed items.

      Even had there been some sort of trust, it would not have been “fraud” to respond, when specifically asked during the hearing about the funds raised by Zimmerman, to inform the court that “hey we’ve got like $200,000.00 we raised, but we’re not entirely sure what we can do with it.” But this is not what they did. They chose to lie to the court instead.

      Reply ↓

    • This issue is not as open and shut as some portray. For example, there is a world of difference between a constructive trust (which is governed by the representations made for its creation) and saying the money is property of even a beneficiary — this will be a very interesting issue with the millions being raised, presumably for the Martin’s daughter, and where the money really goes.

      It is not at all hard to imagine that if the Zimmermans said — as Susan appears to believe they should have said in her comment that “They had funds” — that the money raised was theirs, the headlines would immediately have been something like: “Zimmerman fraud in raising money!” “Zimmermans admits to fraud!”

      The proper use of the funds raised, because of Zimmerman’s obvious inexperience — and as many observed, his erratic behavior, including with his then attorneys — was very much in doubt.

      It is easy to imagine fraud charges being leveled against the Zimmermans, particularly in the press and possibly by the State in a political prosecution. Here is an example of how the press played up the legal uncertainty of the strange (bizarre?) website Zimmerman had set up where the funds were raised:

      http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/zimmermans_baffling_website/

      Unconditionally, admitting the funds were “theirs” had very serious potential legal consequences for the Zimmermans — and in the all important media war against the Zimmerman family that served to generate what many believe was a political prosecution.

      Reply ↓

    • Susan,

      A constructive trust is applicable to EXACTLY the situation present here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_trust

      The ‘settlors’ were the persons contributing money, not the Zimmermans. And the representations made by Zimmerman are material to potential fraud charges against him (as you clearly imply by saying there are “unaccounted” funds).

      My point is simple: given the uncertainty of exactly how the funds could be used, and the erratic representations used to raise the funds, anyone, including the Zimmermans, would be very careful to NOT testify under oath that the money was “theirs.”

      As for volunteering the information you presume was required of them, the general rule in testimony is to ONLY answer EXACTLY the question asked, no matter what other information may exist that should change an interpretation of any answer.

      There have been many ‘perjury’ cases that have been thrown out of court because the alleged perjurer LITTERALLY answered a question correctly, even where (by not offering additional information) a different conclusion could be reached. There was much doubt about the legality of the funds.

      Why didn’t the prosecutor question the Zimmerman’s about how much was raised? If they then lied, after specifically being asked for the amounts raised on Zimmerman’s website, then you would have a stronger argument. But the prosecutors did NOT ask those crucial questions … even though the world was aware of the website (and demeaning it incessantly) and that money was being raised.

      Don’t blame the Zimmermans for the incompetence of the prosecutors or say they lied to questions that were never asked of them, which should have been asked for the Zimmermans to be accused of lying.

      Reply ↓

    • A minor correction. The term “constructive trust” usually appears in the context of fraud (as shown in the wikipedia website link I had attached). The area of trust law is extremely complex and the situation here falls within a general area of oral trusts. So my use of the term “constructive trust” was related to potential accusations against the Zimmermans for misuse of the raised funds — but not addressing the validity of such potential claims.

      Reply ↓

    • It seems that Zimmerman had no problem using about $50,000 dollars from that fund that “wasn’t his” prior to the fund being turned over to the attorney. . .
      So, he at least KNEW (or felt very comfortable with the fact) that this fund contained money donated to HIM for whatever he wanted to use it for. . .
      If that fund wasn’t really “HIS” in legal terms. . .should he be charged for withdrawing the close to $50,000 from that fund?

      Either way you want to look at it, he lied to the judge, both about the fund and about his passports. This should at the very least show him as a pretty convincing liar.

      The comments he made in his social site in 2005, basically bragging about “getting away” without charges for violence toward his then girl friend (whom he called his ex-ho) because of the sharp defense he got from his attorney were a pretty good indication of his character already. . .this latest discovery just confirms the quality of this man’s character: it stinks.

      Reply ↓

    • “It seems that Zimmerman had no problem using about $50,000 dollars from that fund that “wasn’t his” prior to the fund being turned over to the attorney. . .
      So, he at least KNEW (or felt very comfortable with the fact) that this fund contained money donated to HIM for whatever he wanted to use it for. . .
      If that fund wasn’t really “HIS” in legal terms. . .should he be charged for withdrawing the close to $50,000 from that fund?

      Either way you want to look at it, he lied to the judge, both about the fund and about his passports. This should at the very least show him as a pretty convincing liar”

      ***Those paragraphs show exactly the landmine situation the Zimmermans faced at the bond hearing no matter how they answered. The real problem is that the prosecutor never asked the Zimmerman about the well known website and the money raising efforts … most likely because the State knew it wouldn’t make much difference.

      The reality, that I am certain Judge Lester will consider, is the the effect of the $200k in the scope of the Zimmermans’ financial picture. Significantly, when the exact amount was immediately pointed out the judge after the original bond hearing, bond was not immediately revoked or even a new hearing scheduled — for the obvious reason that it made no realistic difference in the effective insolvency of the Zimmermans. So there is nothing really new here … the 200k didn’t make much of a difference in the factors for bond or its amount.

      Realistically, this is a political case driven by the media and without that driving force, bond would not have now been revoked.

      If Zimmerman lied, that is a criminal contempt matter, and has no relation to whether or not bond is appropriate.

      Reply ↓

    • The real problem is that the prosecutor never asked the Zimmerman about the well known website and the money raising efforts … most likely because the State knew it wouldn’t make much difference.

      PeterO, I recommend actually reading the State’s motion, because the things you are claiming are wrong. The prosecutor did ask about the website, and Zimmerman’s wife lied. See the below exchange:

      Reply ↓

    • Also Zimmerman’s wife instructs Zimmerman, four days before the bond hearing, that he should use the Pay Pal money to pay his bond, because “that’s what it’s for.” Zimmerman, on the other hand, seems to think they should only pay the bond if it’s $15,000 or less, otherwise they should get a bondsman:

      So, it’s pretty clear that they knew they could use the money for the bond. I’m really not sure how you can argue otherwise.

      Reply ↓

    • The date of the purported conversation was April 16, 11 days before the hearing, not 4 days.

      Look further in the motion and you will see the state saying the following:

      “20. … Defense Counsel also argued that all the money that was not already spent was transferred into Counsel’s trust account. The money still belongs to Defendant and he can demand it at any time.”

      Susan said:

      “So, it’s pretty clear that they knew they could use the money for the bond. I’m really not sure how you can argue otherwise.”

      Not really clear at all:

      Because the money had been transferred into O’Mara’s control BEFORE THE BOND HEARING, the statement “The money still belongs to Defendant and he can demand it at any time” is NOT true. Once O’Mara, AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, took control of the funds BEFORE THE BOND HEARING, he effectively became trustee for the funds and his approval was needed.

      The issues of exactly how the funds could legally be used (including for bond) and the interrelated issue of a potential risk of Zimmerman being charged with perjury and fraud concerning raising the funds and their disposition, WAS IN THE HANDS OF AND CONTROLLED BY O’Mara, and no longer in Zimmerman’s hands. And it appears as though O’Mara did not use the raised funds for bond.

      I think it is very clear they can argue otherwise, and will do so.

      Reply ↓

    • In addition, I looked at Zimmerman’s wife’s statements and find it hard to believe that, under the circumstances in existence on the day of the hearing, how she could possibly ever be charged with perjury. She gave precise answers as to what she knew at that time and what she didn’t know. Strange that the prosecutor didn’t ask Zimmerman those question … or much more importantly, O’Mara — who not only would have answered them but, in all likelihood, had already told the prosecutor in private.

      Reply ↓

    • PeterO, I’m going to be mean and ban you from commenting until you can promise you have actually read the State’s Motion to Revoke Bond.

      Because you obviously haven’t read it. Which makes this whole conversation pretty pointless.

      The bond hearing was on the 20th. O’Mara, at a separate hearing on the 27th, notified the court — as he was obligated to do by rules of professional conduct — that it had come to his attention that his client and the client’s family members had made misrepresentations to the court about the state of their finances.

      Only at that time did O’Mara take the funds into a trust.

      O’Mara did not know of the funds, let alone have the funds, at the April 20th bond hearing. If he’d had the funds, he’d have been lying to the court, and his license would be on the line.

      Before you comment again, read every word of the State’s motion and accompanying exhibits. And then you’re welcome to rejoin the conversation.

      Reply ↓

  84. I had said:

    “The real problem is that the prosecutor never asked the Zimmerman about the well known website and the money raising efforts … most likely because the State knew it wouldn’t make much difference.”

    I had overlooked, in the bond transcript, where Zimmerman’s wife was asked about the website and she answered. I said above that I believe she answered truthfully based on the circumstances present on the day of the hearing. I stand by that statement and the statement that “most likely because the State knew it wouldn’t make much difference.” It would not have made any real difference.

    Reply ↓

    • I believe you are wrong. The combination of the hiding of the $200,000 paypal fund (much of it had already been transferred to private accounts by Shellie Zimmerman, AND the fact that Zimmerman had also like about his passport, and had relinquished a NON-VALID passport (it had been falesely declared stolen or lost two weeks after the killing of Trayvon Martin, and a NEW passport had been issued) to the court, but kept silent the existence of the VALID passport obtained shortly after Zimmerman shot Martin and kept in Shellie and George’s safety deposit box. ..at the same bank as some of the paypal funds had been transferred to by Shellie.
      These two elements togethers would have made a HUGE difference on assessing whether or not Zimmerman was a risk for fleeing the country!

      Reply ↓

      • Susan, I apologize for my mistake. I reported what I read on the web. But here is the real story that confirms that the “new passport” was obtained in 2004 and is valid until 2014, while the “old passport” expired in May (but was already non-valid, as it had been declared stolen when the new passport was obtained). It also shows that it is the OLD, invalid passport that was surrendered to the court, and that Zimmerman and his wife “plotted” to keep the new and valid passport under wrap . . .for future needs?

        “Back in 2004, George Zimmerman can’t find his passport. So he reports it stolen, and gets another one. Sometime between now and then, he finds it, so he has two passports. One of the passports expires in May of this year, and the other expires in 2014.

        At George Zimmerman’s bond hearing, he is ordered to turn in his passport, so he gives the one that expires in May of this year.

        Then while he is in jail, he is recorded over the phone with his wife talking about another passport:

        Zimmerman spoke of the second passport while in the Seminole County Jail in a phone call to his wife that authorities recorded, Corey said. Court records provided a partial transcript:
        Zimmerman: “Do you know what? I think my passport is in that bag.”

        Shelly (sic) Zimmerman: “I have one for you in safety deposit box …”

        Zimmerman: “OK, you hold onto that.”

        Reply ↓

    • Susan,

      You are correct about the dates, due to time constraints I had jumped to the testimony itself. With those matters in mind and while still waiting to see O’Mara’s response. I make the following corrections to my posts:

      1. The jail phone conversations were 4 days before the original bond hearing.

      2. We have to wait to see from the wife and her attorney if anything occurred between the time of the conversations and the hearing that raised doubts about the status of the money and what it could be used for. For example, if the wife, in the interim, had talked to an attorney who raised questions about the raising of the funds and the use of the funds. Or if she might have had personal misgivings about using the money before the hearing and decided to consult with an attorney. These issues (and whatever else may apply) will all be considered by the judge at the next hearing. To rely exclusively on the Prosecutor’s motion, without seeing the response, is always premature.

      3. The full phone transcripts will, I am sure, be examined by O’Mara for accuracy. Many times prosecutors mis-transcribe tapes or omit key contrasting parts — there is no real penalty when this occurs, accidental or not, and unfortunately, it is quite common.

      4. A big question that O’Mara and the wife will have to answer is what took place in the days before the bond hearing that could have caused the wife to question the legality of how the funds were being used and this will include how soon O’Mara or others were notified and clarification sought. The seven day interval before the April 27 hearing may work against or for the Zimmermans depending on what was done. In their favor, O’Mara was the first to raise the issue and disclose the information.

      5. As for the materiality of the issue, in light of the overall financial situation of the Zimmermans, in my opinion, nothing changes. They were and remain deeply insolvent and O’Mara’s estimate of 7 figures needed for a defense is very realistic and doesn’t begin to cover any civil litigation that is certain to occur … and of course, Zimmerman even if released on bail, is realistically unemployable.

      Reply ↓

    • He would have been 18 in 2002 when he got the first passport. If he can’t find it in 2004, presumably when he was making another trip, and gets a new one, does he actually notice the difference in expiration date or just think it is a replacement. He finds the old one some time later.

      I really don’t think that Colin Powell called him in 2004 and told him that the other one was null and void. O’Mara didn’t say the passport was null and void because it was loss, but said it would expire in a few weeks.

      Reply ↓

  85. PeterO: The money was transferred in the counsel’s account AFTER the bond hearing. Here is the statement made by GZ’s legal counsel re: the disposition of the money:

    “Update Regarding the Zimmerman Legal Defense Fund

    on 16 May 2012.
    As of May 16, 2012, the George Zimmerman Legal Defense Fund has raised $15,424. The fund was established on May 3, after approval was received from the Florida Division of Consumer Services. This fund replaces a PayPal account set up by Mr. Zimmerman that raised just over $200,000. The week of April 26, Mr. Zimmerman, on advice of counsel, shut down that account in favor of a new account that is independently maintained by a third party who can insure the monies raised are allocated to reasonable living expenses for Mr. Zimmerman, defense costs, and legal fees.

    The majority of the donations have come from the PayPal link on the http://www.gzdefensefund.com website, and about $3,700 has been received in the form of checks and money orders. Approximately $30,000 from the initial fund was spent making Mr. Zimmerman’s complicated transition from a private life in Sanford, FL to his new life in hiding as the defendant in a high-profile case. Approximately $20,000 has been kept liquid to fund Mr. Zimmerman’s living expenses for the next several months. None of the funds have yet been allocated for legal fees or defense costs; however it is expected for some of the funds to be used for this purpose in the near future.

    The largest donation received was $3,000, then $2,000 and the lowest was one dollar. Most donate between $25 and $100, and many include notes of support for Mr. Zimmerman and his family.”

    In addition, if one takes into account the “future” liabilities of the defense fund, yes, Zimmerman would still be insolvent in the future. . .one more reason to plan to hide those $200,000 and the VALID passport (the one that was given to the authorities was a NON-valid passport, as it had been reported as stolen or lost), and flee!

    So. . . since you seem to take in consideration the “future,” in your assessment of GZ’s actions, you must have the fairness of mind to consider what HIS actions (his silence re: the $200,000 fund, and his silence about his continued possession of the VALID passport) seem to indicate about his “future” intention: to flee the country!

    And that risk of fleeing the country IS EXTREMELY meaningful when a judge makes a decision whether or not to allow release, and the amount of the bond required!

    Reply ↓

    • Susan — can we ban people from commenting about the passport issue until they read the judge’s comments and attitude towards it? Just a thought. I agree that the $$ issue is relevant. According to the judge, the passport issue is not.

      Reply ↓

    • Zimmerman’s bond hearing was on a Friday. I don’t know what day he was released, so assuming the first day he could do anything was Monday, April 23, by April 26, three days later the new trust account had been set up, which was after his consulting with an attorney on the actions to take — so as early as Monday, attorneys could have become involved to correct what could be corrected. And O’Mara immediately disclosed to the Court the full circumstances before the April 27 hearing.

      So steps were quickly taken to make disclosure, a factor in Zimmerman’s favor. How much that helps will be for the judge to determine.

      Reply ↓

    • It will be interesting to see what the phone transcripts show for the 4 days up to the hearing. Four days is a big gap.

      We will have to see if, in those missing 4 days of transcripts, misgivings or second thoughts about using the money were raised among the Zimmermans.

      Reply ↓

  86. To BBRAB: Why? Should Susan also ban the “creative” assumptions made of the events of February 26. . .until the judge comments on those events and demonstrates what his attitude is on the FACTUAL events when they come out?
    Then, what would be the purpose of this site?

    Reply ↓

  87. Thanks Sadanie for the info from GZ’s legal counsel. Nice to keep these facts straight.

    BBRAB, what exactly WERE the judge’s comments and attitude towards the passport issue? Do you know, or can anyone add them here or provide a link that gives exact quotes from the judge?

    Reply ↓

  88. I think Sandbagger made some very important points. If Zimmerman made statements to the police that can be proven false, then 2 important facts will be very clear to the jury:

    Trayvon died.
    Zimmerman lied.

    Reply ↓

    • I agree. Sandbagger’s point is a very good one.

      Add to that, the world has now witnessed how the Zimmermans made a fool of George Zimmerman’s SECOND attorney. Remember Zimmerman’s 1st legal crew split in a televised interview? They said they didn’t know where George Zimmerman was? Flight risk?

      Actually, the world now got a taste of how George Zimmerman gets others to lie on his behalf.

      Reply ↓

  89. Now that the sideshow has been debated, back to important matters, the many screams for help.

    The evidence, far beyond disbelieving Zimmerman was screaming beyond a reasonable doubt, overwhelming favors that Zimmerman was the person screaming for help.

    1. Overwhelmingly, Martin, until the shot was fired, was winning the fight (beating Zimmerman to a pulp may be more accurate). Martin had no marks on his body (based on the autopsy and his mortician). Zimmerman has graphic evidence, in the form of pictures of massive and extensive damage to the front and back of his head consistent with multiple slams to a flat concrete surface:

    Here is a link to pictures of Zimmerman’s injuries.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/342834/20120518/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-shot-evidence-photos.htm#page2

    His medical report and those pictures show a broken nose, two black eyes, cuts or abrasions on both sides of his forehead, swollen lip, and multiple cuts and abrasions on top of and the back of his head. An expert witness will identify anywhere from 10-20 hits to a solid concrete flat surface from the graphic photos. The limited paramedic report, in light of the actual photos, will have little value.

    What this means is that if it was Martin screaming, he had no reason to express the terror heard in the screams since he was so dominant in the fight. Instead, his voice would have been loud, but without fear or terror. If, as some say, he was only trying to pin Zimmerman (but how to then explain the extensive damage to Zimmerman?) because he saw a gun, then he would have loudly yelled something like “he’s got a gun” or “call the police, he’s got a gun.” Not once was that said in approximately 9 different screams for help nor did any witness hear the word ‘gun’ in any scream;

    2. Zimmerman, within minutes of the fight told a fireman that he repeatedly had called for help but no one would aid him. That was a contemporaneous statement made right near the time of the incident and he knew there were witnesses around (who didn’t help him). He had to have heard John loudly saying to Martin he was calling the police. To lie under those circumstances made no sense nor would he have had the presence of mind to make a lie like that up when he knew eyewitnesses were there;

    3. Martin’s voice samples, from videos and phone messages, have vanished. His family, if they truly believed the voice was Trayvon’s would have produced a plethora of voice samples to prove the voice was Trayvons. Yet they haven’t;

    4. Martin’s father Tracy, said the voice on the 911 tapes was not Trayvon’s voice (he later said othewise);

    5. Martin’s mother later identified the screams as Martin’s;

    6.Zimmerman’s family identified the screams as from Zimmerman.

    The evidence overwhelmingly favors the screams coming from Zimmerman.

    Reply ↓

    • Martin does speak on the 7-11 audio, but it has a lot of noise, but it appears his voice was very deep, so that you can’t tell what he asked for and the clerk refused to sell him because he didn’t have an ID.

      Reply ↓

    • I think this case is going to be so much simpler than you think for the prosecution. They really don’t have that much work for them. Z has already made about 5 full statements to the cops, his has stated his story to the greatest detail, his dad did a full confession for him on TV, his brother also made a full confession on his behalf. All the prosecution has to do is simply prove that he is lying, and truthfully even his own lawyer is scared of this. All your analysis has absolutely no meaning. Z has already committed to only one version of what happened and if the evidence doesn’t match what he is saying, he will be found guilty. Now if he had said nothing to the cops and keep quiet then his defense would have a chance at doing what all you guys are doing, looking at ways to provide reasonable doubt. But what none of you seem to be willing to except is that Z and his legal team no longer have the option to offer any other version of the story other than the one he has already given. Ask anyone, when a defendant talks to the cops it is extremely rare that they get off, they often just plead guilty or at best they plea bargen. As much fun as it may be for all of us to sit and try and figure out different types of defenses Z could use, he has already committed to one and it is IMHO crap. You could put 6 redneck, right wing NRA gun nuts in the jury, once they look at the story Z gave and compare it to the evidence even they could not find him not guilty. Sorry people but I think this “trial of the decade” is gona be over before it even gets started. The who hit who and what is self defense just wont matter to a jury that can clearly see his story was a total lie. Take this as a lesson all, no matter how friendly cops are, never open your mouth, not to the cops, friends, family, email, FB, ask for a lawyer and only talk to them.

      Reply ↓

    • I meant good point, jimrtex! Wasn’t is Mary Cruchner (spelling?) who said she heard a “child’s” scream … conveniently after hearing the Crump media blitz.

      Reply ↓

    • Perhaps Cutcher could be asked if the person in the 7-11 video is the same as that of the young boy whose body she saw 45 minutes later.

      Reply ↓

  90. I think Sandbagger makes a very good point. Of course the defense will try their best to distract the jurors, but what will they distract the jurors with? It seems to me that all of the evidence for the defense comes from Zimmerman’s story, and if Zimmerman is a proven liar, that’s going to have a major effect.

    “PeterO, you said: “What this means is that if it was Martin screaming, he had no reason toexpress the terror heard in the screams since he was so dominant in the fight. Instead, his voice would have been loud, but without fear or terror. If, as some say, he was only trying to pin Zimmerman (but how to then explain the extensive damage to Zimmerman?) because he saw a gun, then he would have loudly yelled something like ‘he’s got a gun’ or ‘call the police, he’s got a gun.'”

    If Trayvon saw that Zimmerman had a gun, he would certainly have reason to express terror, I don’t think anyone’s personal conjecture on what Trayvon “would have” yelled can be considered evidence.

    It may not matter anyway though, because even if Zimmerman WAS yelling, it’s going to be difficult for the jury to believe that Zimmerman was being hit or smothered or smashed on the concrete during the entire time the yelling occurred. There’s absolutely no abrupt interruption in the yelling until the shot is heard, and this fact presents problems for Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense.

    Reply ↓

  91. Susan, I wonder if you would mind giving us your opinion (if not, no problem) on whether the following would likely be presented as evidence in court:

    -Zimmerman’s revoked bond.
    -Trayvon’s suspensions from school and the reasons for the suspensions.
    -Trayvon’s backpack contents of jewelry and screwdriver at school (if this turns out to be the truth).
    -Zimmerman’s previous violent episodes.
    -Zimmerman’s drug prescriptions.
    -Will there most likely be character witnesses for both Trayvon and Zimmerman?

    –

    Reply ↓

    • I’ve gone into this in a little more detail elsewhere, but everything except the rumors about Trayvon’s backpack and Zimmerman’s drug prescriptions could potentially come into play, but most of it likely will not.

      Any evidence about Trayvon’s character other than his propensity for violence is not admissible. The drug use, the backpack thing, the suspensions — none of that gets in.. And I didn’t know about Zimmerman’s drug prescriptions being an “issue” in the case until now, but that’s bogus too.

      Zimmerman’s previous violent episodes only get in if Zimmerman tries to introduce evidence regarding his supposed peace loving nature, which then opens the door to the prosecution rebutting that with evidence of Zimmerman’s previous violence.

      Theoretically, Zimmerman’s previous altercations and history as a bouncer could come up for purposes of showing Zimmerman was physically capable of handling himself in a fight, and knew how to fight well enough to handle himself against a smaller opponent. That would be a bit of a stretch, though — the prosecution would need something solid/more specific to back up the relevance of it.

      And Zimmerman can try to bring evidence in to show Trayvon had a propensity towards violence. Interestingly, a very rough look seems to show that, unlike FRE 404, Florida doesn’t provide that an accused’s introduction of character evidence regarding the victim will open the door for the prosecution to introduce similar evidence regarding the accused. So Zimmerman can portray Trayvon as violent, while the prosecution is barred from doing the opposite, so long as Zimmerman doesn’t try to portray himself as being peaceful.

      The real question of interest is in regards to impeachment evidence. The only living person who saw the start of the fight is Zimmerman — which means Zimmerman is going to face a very difficult question about whether or not to take the stand. If he doesn’t take the stand, he risks losing the self-defense claim, because he has no other way of proving he did not instigate the altercation. But if he does take the stand, it’s open season on Zimmerman’s veracity, and he is just not going to do well on that score.

      Reply ↓

  92. Did Zimmerman surrender a passport as a condition of bail, and was that the first time he surrendered a passport?

    If so, was it the valid passport that runs out in 2014?

    Did the passport which runs out this year which is invalid because it was reported lost get turned over to his lawyer upon being found? Did this take place after surrendering the valid one?

    Which one was in the bag or safety deposit box?

    unitron

    Reply ↓

    • Yes. The passport surrendered on 4/20/12 was the one that had been reported “lost or stolen” and it was the one that would have expired in May 2012 if it were not already invalid. I would think that one was already invalidated by the Department of State.

      The passport that Zimmerman and his wife were discussing while Zimmerman was in jail was the one in the safety box which would not expire until 2014 — the valid one.

      Note that Zimmerman had been released on bond BEFORE he gave it to O’Mara. O’Mara claims it came to him along with the check for the new fundraising site.

      I would guess somebody, possibly his wife, may have discouraged him from fleeing after the Judge initially let him out on such a low bond. The monitoring device also probably had a little something to do with it as well.

      Reply ↓

    • OIAUR,

      O’Mara handed a passport over a passport to the judge at the beginning of the bail hearing and noted that it expired in May 2012. O’Mara received the 2nd passport on April 26, in a Fedex package that also included the check for the money in the other account.

      The other passport may have been in a safe deposit box, that the Zimmerman’s may have cleaned out when forced to flee the state.

      Reply ↓

    • Hello Susan –

      You said:

      “And Zimmerman can try to bring evidence in to show Trayvon had a propensity towards violence. Interestingly, a very rough look seems to show that, unlike FRE 404, Florida doesn’t provide that an accused’s introduction of character evidence regarding the victim will open the door for the prosecution to introduce similar evidence regarding the accused. So Zimmerman can portray Trayvon as violent, while the prosecution is barred from doing the opposite, so long as Zimmerman doesn’t try to portray himself as being peaceful..”

      Couldn’t the State bring in Zimmerman’s violence by speaking to the effects of the drugs Zimmerman has admitted (his own words again!) to the Emergency Response personnel at the scene of the shooting? I would think that the only way to avoid that would be for O’Mara to stop pushing that med report he’s show-boating as if it’s real evidence.

      Reply ↓

  93. Thanks Susan! That’s all very interesting. It seems to me that the laws of the State of Florida favor the defense in many ways in this particular case at least.

    Unitron, Sadanie had a quote above with an explanation that included a partial court transcript of a discussion between Zimmerman and his wife. I’m guessing that the quote came from DailyKos (because that’s what came up in a corresponding search):

    “Back in 2004, George Zimmerman can’t find his passport. So he reports it stolen, and gets another one. Sometime between now and then, he finds it, so he has two passports. One of the passports expires in May of this year, and the other expires in 2014.

    “At George Zimmerman’s bond hearing, he is ordered to turn in his passport, so he gives the one that expires in May of this year.

    Then while he is in jail, he is recorded over the phone with his wife talking about another passport:

    Zimmerman spoke of the second passport while in the Seminole County Jail in a phone call to his wife that authorities recorded, Corey said. Court records provided a partial transcript:
    Zimmerman: “Do you know what? I think my passport is in that bag”

    Shelly (sic) Zimmerman: “I have one for you in safety deposit box …”

    Zimmerman: “OK, you hold onto that.”

    Reply ↓

    • So did the phone conversation about the passports occur after he was granted bail but before he was actually released on bail?

      unitron, with a lowercase “u”

      Reply ↓

    • OIAUR,

      O’mara handed the passport over to the judge at the very beginning of the bail hearing. He very much made a show of handing it to the judge.

      Reply ↓

  94. Fact: Z told police that TM attacked him at the T and started to slam his head into the pavement and he shot him in self defense, BTW RZ also backed up this claim on tv.

    Fact: Z body was found 50+ feet from that location, though Z keys are found at the T, this suggests a chase, not a self defense at this point.

    This is lie #1

    Fact: Z told police that his head was being slammed into cement at the time of the shooting.

    Fact: the location of the body was found in the grass.

    Lie #2

    Fact: Z told police that TM said “you got me, you got me” after he shot him

    Fact: the medical report states that the bullet nicked TM lung collapsing it immediately, TM could not have spoken, also on the 911 call you hear screaming and then nothing

    Lie #3

    Once these lies and more are presented to the jury his entire story is out the window. The defense have no way of retelling a different story.

    I watched the last bond and media stuff live and got a good idea of what the defense was trying to do. They wanted the confession of Z to police redacted from the media, and you could tell that the defense thought that this would help with ultimately getting the entire confession found inadmissible, if they had been able to pull this off then the defense could have tried to tell a more favorable story in court, one that would maybe cause reasonable doubt in favor of self defense for the defendant.

    You guys can make arguments and scenarios all day long to excuse these above statements, but in court they will not have that freedom. Unless they are willing to state upfront that Z lied to the police.

    Also, if they take it to trial they are crazy, because that fact the Z started lying just minutes after shooting Z will go to prove a depraved mind. And the very fact that they can prove even a couple of lies will prove to a court that in Z head he felt it necessary to lie because he knew it was not self defense. 2nd degree murder. This wont happen if his lawyers have half a brain when they know they can make a deal with the DA and plea bargain a manslaughter deal, Z could end up serving as little as 2-3 years compared to 20.

    Reply ↓

    • The 911 tape did not pick up John calling out to to stop fighting, even though there are 3 witnesses who heard him do so, and another who saw him, and John lives next door to the persons who had the screams on the 911 call. Martin is reported to have told Zimmerman that “you got it” or “you got me”, which might have been said just before the shot. And the gunshot or the echo would have made anything else inaudible.

      The 911 tape with all the screams was because the callers were aware of the break-ins in the area, and knew to call 911. Their patio door was open, because they have a screened porch, but with blinds covering the screens, so they could not see outside.

      Their patio is on the corner closest to the T, and they reported the sound as moving away from them. Screaming for 45 seconds covering 40 feet does not sound like a “chase” to me. It sounds like Zimmerman trying to escape being beaten, and screaming for help.

      Perhaps Martin has a low threshold of pain, and he was screaming because he hurt his finger.

      If “DeeDee” really did hear Martin’s phone hitting the grass (what exactly is the “sound of grass”?) then he dropped it before running over to jump Zimmerman.

      Have you seen any of Zimmerman’s statements?

      Reply ↓

    • jimrtex,

      My question to you is this, when we get the official statements made by Z (by the way RZ’s statements about what GZ confessed to him are admissible evidence) and “IF” the statement is that that the fight took place in only one location and there is no mention of it being spread over 50 feet (for one example). What then? At that point how do you defend him? You seem to be putting a lot of thought and time into looking at (BTW might i say great ideas) into a plausible defense for Z, as I think he deserves. So I ask you, how do/would you defend someone if they are caught lying? My point all along is this. “WHEN” all the evidence is released, and “IF” reasonable people can easily conclude that he lied, what then? I don’t see how his lawyer or anyone can create a defense for him. You are right to say this is still “hypothetical”, but for a moment please indulge me.

      Reply ↓

  95. Hi unitron. Good question! I was assuming it occurred before he was granted bail, but I really don’t know.

    Reply ↓

  96. More clearing the air on evidence admissible at trial:

    Martin’s backpack contents, THC body levels, THC residue tests on his hoodie (strange that was not done … but it will be and should be done quickly) will all come into evidence because Zimmerman is being accused of “profiling.” Even though “profiling” is not a crime, it will be used to infer a Zimmerman hatred/animosity towards blacks at trial … just read the headlines. Profiling (with its implicit associated animus to blacks) was portrayed as of the “probable cause” for arresting Zimmerman. That alleged animus be inferred by the prosecution as one reason in proving Zimmerman was the aggressor and was predisposed to shoot without the necessary provocation to claim self-defense.

    Martin’s drug use is also relevant because it undermines any claim that Martin was “running in fear” of Zimmerman because he could have been running in fear that the police were being called instead. He had just been suspended for drugs, had THC in his system and possibly drug residue on his hoodie, may have spoken to DeeDee about drugs (she will be asked this) or texted drug related messages. All of this evidence will likely be admitted to assure the perception of a fair trial.

    If Zimmerman can show he had good reason to claim Martin was acting suspiciously — e.g., he was acting ‘high’ — then that would be evidence the “profiling” was legitimate and not race or animus related, hence no predisposition to not have acted in self-defense. That argument undermines the prosecutions claims.

    I would be amazed if Judge Lester does not allow a drug angle to be introduced to show Zimmerman did not single Martin out for racial reasons or animus to blacks in hoodies. In fact, if he did not allow that defense it would be excellent grounds for reversal in the case of a conviction.

    Reply ↓

    • There is also the 7-11 tapes which show rather bizarre behavior when leaving the store, a possible attempt to purchase an item that is sometimes used for drug use, his not leaving the vicinity of the store for 5 minutes.

      Reply ↓

    • Here are relevant parts of §90.404 Florida Statutes:

      “90.404 Character evidence; when admissible.—
      (1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.—Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:
      (a) Character of accused.—Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.
      (b) Character of victim.—
      1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or
      2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor.
      (c) Character of witness.—Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in ss. 90.608-90.610.
      (2) OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.—
      (a) Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.”

      Section (2)(a) appears to apply to both Zimmerman and Martin, subject to the limitations of section (1). Here is some interesting commentary on admissibility in Florida that appears relevant from:

      http://ckcattorneys.com/Publications/Articles/Character%20Evidence%20in%20Civil%20and%20Criminal%20Cases.aspx

      “Is Character Evidence allowed in Criminal Cases? Sometimes

      In criminal actions, the Defendant can introduce character evidence when it is directed at a trait relevant to the crime. On the other hand, the prosecution cannot introduce evidence meant to prove the bad character of Defendant (or anyone else). The prosecutor can, however, rebut the Defendant’s evidence. For example, if a Defendant has been charged with a theft, it would be relevant for him/her to show that s/he has a reputation for honesty because it is inconsistent with the Defendant’s character to commit a theft crime. The character trait has to be relevant to the charge. Mere introduction of good character in general is not allowed.

      A Defendant can also introduce evidence regarding a relevant trait of the victim (with some exceptions) and the prosecutor can rebut that evidence.6 Evidence of victim’s character can be proven by both reputation evidence and by specific instances of conduct.

      The prosecution is permitted to offer evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, because it is probative of a material issue and is not directed at bad character or propensity. While this evidence may prove bad character, it cannot be offered solely for this purpose. This evidence is subject to several conditions including a time sensitive notice to the defense, a requirement for the proof to be clear and convincing and is subject to a Fla. Stat. §90.403 analysis.

      A Defendant can offer specific acts of conduct of the victim to show the reasonableness of Defendant’s actions in a self-defense case, but it cannot be offered to show bad character, as it is not really character evidence at all. These specific acts are offered to show reasonableness of Defendant’s apprehension.”

      Needless to say there will be many fights over admissibility but the permissible scope of admissible evidence appears very broad and Judge Lester will most likely favor admissibility given the public nature of this case and to offset any hint of media contamination of the juror pool.

      Reply ↓

    • Except.. Zimmerman (the guy who got fired from a previous employer for constantly reporting/complaining about other employees per his former co-worker who claims Zimmerman bullied him at work) was the ONLY person that decided George Zimmerman was suspicious that night. The 7-eleven clerk didn’t seem to find Trayvon Martin’s actions suspicious.

      Except.. ALL of Zimmerman’s reports to the police about suspicious people during the time he rented his home at this community were reports of black males.

      Except.. One of the statements in evidence was by someone who claims to know George Zimmerman and his family and that witness said George Zimmerman and his family don’t like black people.

      Except.. Drugs, you say??? George Zimmerman was the one to tell the ER team responding to the scene that night that he was on the aggression-inducing drugs. MJ is NOT a drug of aggression and the very tiny amounts found in Trayvon Martin’s lungs disprove he was using them that night.

      Reply ↓

    • Correction:

      “Except.. Zimmerman (the guy who got fired from a previous employer for constantly reporting/complaining about other employees per his former co-worker who claims Zimmerman bullied him at work) was the ONLY person that decided Trayvon Martin was suspicious that night. The 7-eleven clerk didn’t seem to find Trayvon Martin’s actions suspicious.

      Except.. ALL of Zimmerman’s reports to the police about suspicious people during the time he rented his home at this community were reports of black males.

      Except.. One of the statements in evidence was by someone who claims to know George Zimmerman and his family and that witness said George Zimmerman and his family don’t like black people.

      Except.. Drugs, you say??? George Zimmerman was the one to tell the ER team responding to the scene that night that he was on the aggression-inducing drugs. MJ is NOT a drug of aggression and the very tiny amounts found in Trayvon Martin’s lungs disprove he was using them that night.

      Reply ↓

      • To PeterO: Your obsession with trying to prove that Zimmerman was seriously beaten is puzzling, but also quite amuzing!
        You mention a “damage knuckle” (some dishonest media even reported that the autopsy showed DAMAGE to MARTIN’s KNUCKLES!). . .now, the REAL autopsy report mentions a 1/4 by 1/8 inch abrasion on top of the finger knuckle of Martin’s LEFT hand. . .but Martin was right handed, and therefore it is much more likely that, even IF he had been hitting Zimmerman, he would have done so with his RIGHT hand, not the left. . .but there is NO damage at all on his right hand.

        The autopsy report also gives the REAL height and weight of Martin (5’11” and 158 lbs. . .NOT the previously reported 6’3″!) and the police report confirms Zimmerman’s weight at 200 lbs.

        The autopsy report describe the bullet trajectory to be “DIRECT FROM FRONT TO BACK” and “17 1/2” from the head, and 1 lateral inch from the center of the chest. I am still waiting for an explanation of how a man “close to losing consciousness” and being pinned down and having his “head smashed in concrete,” and his “face bashed in” and “his mouth covered by Martin’s hand” was able to grab his gun from an holster inside his waistband, bring it up (while Martin was still straddling him, probably sitting on him at about the level of that waistband), and fire a shot directly in the 5th space between the ribs, 1″ to the left of the center of the chest, directly in line (NO ANGLED TRAJECTORY) with the heart. . .while the 158 lbs person straddling him was engaged in constant movement to “smash his head in concrete!”

        By the way, how does one manage to both “bash someone’s face in” AND “repeatedly smash one’s head into concrete” while at the same time holding one hand on that person’s mouth?

        Further, how does one “repeatedly smash someone’s head in concrete” when that someone has NO HAIR to hold on to, and has both hands free?

        Reply ↓

    • We do know that Martin tried to make an illegal purchase, and the 7-11 clerk refused. It perhaps depends on what you mean by “suspicious”. Perhaps his suspicion was that Martin was underage. Or maybe he thought Martin looked 20, and it was suspicious that he didn’t have an ID. Or perhaps he simply realized he would be the one who would get fired if Martin were working undercover.

      The clerk was certainly watchful of Martin. 7-11 likely gets all kinds of customers who are drug-impaired, alcohol-impaired, or mentally-impaired. So whether you characterize it as being suspicious or merely warranting careful observation it amounts to the same. Maybe Martin had an undiagnosed brain tumor that caused his recent strange behavior.

      I previously ridiculed BDLR for his whirling dervish gesticulation at the bond hearing, but maybe Martin was actually spinning around like that – similar to how Martin spun around at the 7-11.

      Reply ↓

  97. To OnlyIunitron/Jimrtex and Hapfurn:
    The conversation between GZ and his wife re: the VALID passport (the one that will expire only in 2014) took place PRIOR to the bond hearing.

    “In a recorded phone call from a few days before the April 20 bond hearing, George and Shelley talked about the passport:

    Defendant: Do you know what? I think my passport is in that bag.
    Shelley Zimmerman: I have one for you in a safety deposit box…
    Defendant: OK, you hold on to that.
    Shelley Zimmerman: For you…”

    And, yes, Jimrtex, O’Marra made a show of handing the INVALID passport a few days AFTER that conversation. . . Can we assume he didn’t know there was another VALID passport kept in the safety box at a credit union. . . and that both Zimmerman and his wife had plotted to hide the existence of that passport from the judge?
    Also, if O’Marra made such a “show” of handing the invalid passport to the judge. . .how do you explain that he “just forgot” to notify the judge of the existence of that second passport once he became aware of it on April 26? It is not exactly as if, that second passport was meaningless since its existence totally invalidated the “show” of handing the INVALID passport to the court 6 days earlier!
    I find that “I forgot” explanation a little fishy. . .and at the least, very unprofessional!

    Reply ↓

  98. I’ll think about all this stuff from PeterO and jimrtex; but jimrtex, what is the implication of someone not leaving the vicinity of a store for 5 minutes?

    Reply ↓

    • Martin is videoed walking down the sidewalk just before entering the store. He proceeds to pick up the watermelon juice and the skittles. As he hands the clerk his purchases, he inquires about some product, the clerk says he needs an ID. As he begins to head for the door, he suddenly wheels around and heads toward the back of the store, bends over as if picking something off the floor, straightens up, and then continues further into the back of the store, and turns around and walks out the door (there are chimes on the door).

      A couple minutes later three other persons enter the store. They purchase a product that requires an ID. The person who was paying cash, apparently did not have an ID – or at least one showing him to be over 18, but one of the other two did. The product was handed to the person with the ID, while the first person was actually handing the cash to the clerk.

      The person with the ID then slid in front of the counter to buy some other items, which he paid for with a debit/credit card and then showed his ID. Meanwhile the first guy grabbed the over-18 product and then exited the store. After the credit/purchase had been completed, the other two persons left the store and Martin can be seen walking on the sidewalk the opposite direction he arrived.

      Reply ↓

  99. If the defense went in that direction, and if this were allowed in court, wouldn’t that bring into question Zimmerman’s ability to judge Trayvon’s sobriety by sight? Since Trayvon had only a small quantity of drugs in his system, and since Trayvon didn’t fall down in the store or confront anyone, couldn’t Zimmerman’s determination that Trayvon was on drugs be considered an indication of profiling?

    Also, if Zimmerman’s judgement of Trayvon’s actions becomes an issue, wouldn’t Zimmerman’s use of mood-altering prescriptions that night also become an issue?

    Susan, your input would be welcome, of course (if you happen to have time).

    Reply ↓

Leave a comment