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[Update, 7/20/12: This timeline of events has been superseded by the release of a great deal of discovery that was unavailable at the time that it was constructed.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. I don’t think Trayvon’s hoodie will be tested for residue. If residue lasts this long on the hoodie, then there’s no way to show that it got there on the night of Trayvon’s death. It could have gotten there a week prior to the death or a month prior to the death.

    Reply ↓

    • It could get there any time after Trayvon’s death as well. Even George Zimmerman’s contact could put it there.

      Reply ↓

  2. To PeterO and Jimrtex: You seem to be determined to provide as many negative information about the victim as you can, taking great care to omit the REAL factual information, but flaunting the “headlines” in order to demonize the victim. Not nice!
    In fact, the TRACES of THC found in Trayvon’s blood were minutes. Here is an article that describes what those “traces” really represents. . . and it DOESN”T support your assumption that Trayvon was drugged up in the video at the 7/11:

    “. . . .the media is focusing on the marijuana findings.
    That’s a mistake that only serves to distort an already contentious case. The levels of THC detected don’t reflect Martin’s character or even his state of mind the night he was shot. For one, they are so low as to almost certainly not be connected to recent intoxication: 1.5 nanograms of THC were found as well as 7.3 nanograms of THC-COOH, a metabolite of THC that can stay in the system for weeks after cannabis has been smoked. Immediately after inhaling, THC levels typically rise to 100 to 200 nanograms per milliter of blood, although there can be a great deal of variation.
    “THC in blood or urine tells us nothing about the level of intoxication,” says Carl Hart, associate professor of psychology at Columbia University and author of the leading college textbook on drug use and behavior. “That would be like someone going to have a beer some evening, and when he goes to work the next day, you can find alcohol metabolites in his bodily fluids. That says nothing about his functioning.”

    Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/18/traces-of-marijuana-found-in-trayvon-martins-body-does-it-matter-2/#ixzz1wfhnHESc”

    One element of the autopsy that puzzles me though is the finding that the trajectory of the shot was DIRECTLY FRONT TO BACK. . .no angle, no deviation, no up and down or left to right trajectory. . .AND STRAIGHT TO THE HEART through the lung!. . . Doesn’t it seem an amazing coincidence that a guy (who is “almost unconscious after having his head smashed repeatedly on concrete” and who is having his “head bashed in,” while being “pinned under the alledged attacker”) manages to pull his gun (instead of protecting his face!) out of it’s holster at waist level (just about where Trayvon would have been straddling him while “bashing his head on concrete!) and raise that gun to the EXACT HEIGHT OF THE HEART, to the CENTER (1” left of the center) of Trayvon’s chest, and shoot Trayvon (who was supposed to have been violently beating on GZ, so was not standing still!) DIRECTLY FRONT TO BACK!

    Isn’t that an amazing accomplishment from a guy who was “scared of being killed, almost unconscious, and almost ready to wear diapers for the rest of his life?”

    Reply ↓

    • Sadanie, look at my posting above on admissibility of evidence under §90.404 (Fla. Stat.) and you will see for yourself the scope of evidence the prosecution and Zimmerman are permitted to raise. It would help if you understood the law before presuming what it allows and does not allow.

      Reply ↓

  3. can anyone, maybe Susan, explain to me why this doesn’t apply to Z

    Fla. Stat. § 784.048. Stalking; definitions; penalties. (2008)

    (1) As used in this section, the term:

    (a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

    (b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

    (c) “Credible threat” means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

    (d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.

    (2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

    In my view Z was most defiantly in violation of this law. § 784.048. (a)(b) (2) and by this any defense of self defense requires that you NOT be in violation of any laws while defending yourself.

    Just a funny question. All the money that the Z supporters are giving him, if at the end of the trial he is found guilty, and TM parents start the civil case, could all that donated money be awarded to TM parents for a wrongful death suit? I say funny because the money that the Z supporters want in the hands of GZ will eventually end up in the hands of the very people they dislike. Sort of justice of a grand scale. LOL

    Almost makes me want to go and convince as many Z supporters to donate as much as they can.

    This brings me to another point. Dose anyone think that when the HOA president is put on the stand that they wanted a NW captain to exit his car and chase on foot? BTW he has already commented on this, he said he thought Z was wrong for doing this.

    Reply ↓

    • Are you referring to the following wording, “repeatedly follows” in the stalking statute?

      DeeDee, in her sworn interview with the prosecutor, said she didn’t believe Martin when he said Zimmerman was following him. So she will make a good witness for Zimmerman’s defense!

      Reply ↓

    • “means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short”

      I think that the “however short” here say’s that if you follow someone, lose them, continue looking, find them again, lose them again and then find them that this would be evidence of a “series of acts over a period of time, however short”

      Z’s own 911 call confirms this.

      Your attempt to use deedees statement is…. well wow! I can’t even respond to that.

      Reply ↓

    • To be honest, I was expressing some sarcasm because the prosecutor has not charged Zimmerman with “stalking” and the statute you cite to was never designed to be used in the manner you intend it to be used.

      As for DeeDee’s interview with the prosecutor, in it she makes some amazing admissions that have been commented on in prior posts; admissions that seriously undermine and contradict the prosecutor’s case and her prior statements to the media.

      While the media has studiously ignored what she swore to in that interview, her statements will be dissected in stunning detail if the prosecution is foolish enough to call her as a witness at trial.

      Reply ↓

    • OK, yeah I understand that they didn’t use this. It was more of a curiosity as to why not. I don’t know that I totally agree with you that it was not meant to be used in this way though, however it is off topic, as you point out, it’s not being used in this case.

      I will have to go back and listen to deedee’s entire recording, i listened to some of it, but must admit that I have yet to sit through the entirety of it :\

      I still feel that the best witnesses and possibly the only one the prosecution needs to get a full conviction of GZ, is GZ himself and his own testimony to police. As I have said before, it is incredibly rare that a defendant mounts a feasible defense if they have talked to and made a full confession to police. I know that we disagree on this case, but for me, from a legal perspective, I am gambling that being the DA had access to all the evidence and Z statements and decided to make 2nd degree murder charges, that they feel very confident, otherwise I think they would have gone with manslaughter. I know you are going to come back at me with the whole “it’s all political”, I don’t buy it.

      This entire case rest on only one thing. Z credibility that he can convince a jury that it was self defense and that they must take his word for it. The second his story starts to fall apart, so does his credibility, without that he can’t make a case that a jury will except and they will have no choice but to find him guilty. Also, this so call story of his has already been set in stone. He can’t change his story now to fit the facts. I say good luck to him.

      Also a lot of time is being spent on looking at TM and his character. IMHO, and I ask you very seriously this question. I think if the Defense were to attack TM character it would lead some in the jury to make them sound and look like they were being insensitive to the deceased 17 year old. I doubt you will see the defense start a character assassination on him for this reason. Even if it is true that he is a bad kid, if they make a big deal out of it, it show insensitivity of GZ to him.

      Reply ↓

    • @PeterO

      You lied when you said:

      “DeeDee, in her sworn interview with the prosecutor, said she didn’t believe Martin when he said Zimmerman was following him. So she will make a good witness for Zimmerman’s defense!”

      If I am incorrect, please provide the reference.

      Reply ↓

    • Being white is not harassment. Sitting in a vehicle is not harassment. Talking on a cell phone is not harassment. Talking to the police is not harassment. Watching someone is not harassment. Doing all five at the same time is not harassment.

      Reply ↓

    • That is about the most useless comment I have seen on this blog jimrtex. really?

      I don’t think that it is to much to ask that statements like”being white” are just uncalled for.

      I also don’t think that asking an honest question like I did deserves such a dishonest answer.
      The idea that someone follows another person in their vehicle, then follows them on foot, and there is evidence suggesting that TM felt like he was being followed and stalked by someone begs the question that this law may qualify that Z was in violation of it. There are plenty of reasons you could have gone with, let me help you out.

      Here would have been a response you could have gone with.

      Being that Z was on the phone with 911 and he was trying to report the potential of a crime, it was neither illegitimate or malicious motive. therefor he was not stalking him.

      But your disrespectful nature forces me to no longer take anything you say with any seriousness. I doubt anyone else will either.

      Reply ↓

    • “That is about the most useless comment I have seen on this blog jimrtex. really?

      I don’t think that it is to much to ask that statements like”being white” are just uncalled for.”

      “DeeDee” in her interview suggests that a “white male sitting in a parked car talking on his phone while apparently watching Martin, caused considerable mental distress for Martin.

      Are you going to be able to prove that this activity by Zimmerman had no legitimate purpose?

      “DeeDee” claims that Martin told her that Zimmerman looked “creepy” or “crazy” but she did not mention anything that would give that impression. If Martin thought that Zimmerman looked like someone in a 7-year old booking photo, she did not state so in her interview.

      What evidence is there that Zimmerman followed Martin in his vehicle? If so, “DeeDee” did not mention it in her interview. She said that Martin reached the mailbox area and the call disconnected. She said that some time later Martin perceived a white guy watching him, the phone disconnected after he left the mail area. According to “DeeDee” and the phone records, Martin was under the mail area for 18 minutes. It Zimmerman had followed previously, then Martin would have told her that the guy who had been following him was now parked and watching him. Alternatively, it did not cause considerable mental distress for Martin.

      Zimmerman followed after Martin. He was sitting in his truck, explaining where the police officer should go when they arrived. Martin was 100 feet or so behind his truck, in the darkened sidewalk area, when he suddenly started running. Martin could likely barely be seen. Rearview mirrors really aren’t designed for that sort of tracking, so Zimmerman was probably looking through the back window. The dispatcher urgently requested/demanded that Zimmerman tell him where Martin was running. Immediately after, the door opened and Zimmerman reports his perception that Martin was running towards the other entrance. As he was explaining to the dispatcher that the other en trance was the back entrance, he began to follow Martin. Martin had a 100 foot and 11-second lead, had longer legs, was wearing sneakers, and had his hands free. Zimmerman was wearing boots, had shorter legs, and was talking on the phone to the dispatcher. It is likely that Martin was at or near the T before Zimmerman began moving, which would mean that Zimmerman’s original assessment may have been wrong. The dispatcher was busy logging the important information about Martin running, so that he did not immediately notice that Zimmerman had started moving.

      By the time Martin arrived at the T, Martin would have been “right by his Dad’s place”, just as “DeeDee” reported. Martin told “DeeDee” that he had “lost” Zimmerman, but there is no evidence that Martin ever saw Zimmerman exit his truck. “DeeDee” repeatedly uses the words “run from the back” to describe Martin’s actions, which strongly indicates it was planned in advance, along with his putting his hoodie up. Unless we are going to believe that the hoodie was a security blanket, it was because he didn’t like being observed. Martin’s running was not in response to Zimmerman following him. Zimmerman followed after Martin in reaction to the running. Martin’s was apparently relieved that the white guy could no longer observe him.

      You have no proof of any course of conduct that would come close to be considered stalking.

      Reply ↓

      • “The dispatcher urgently requested/demanded that Zimmerman tell him where Martin was running.”

        “He’s running? Which way is he running?”

        I thought the dispatcher remained quite professional and dispassionate, and maintained a very level and even sound throughout the conversation, but I’ve only got decades of broadcasting and commercial producing experience upon which to base my interpretation of how people sound on recordings.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • There have been interviews with a women who says that she is Trayvon Martin’s step-mother, Tracy Martin’s wife. If so, then Tracy Martin was engaging in adultery with Brandy Green, and forcing his son to accompany him on his visits to his mistress, apparently encouraging him to refer to his mistress’s son as a “brother”.

      If Tracy Martin were to hit the jackpot, isn’t it likely that all his money would go to his wife in the divorce settlement?

      Reply ↓

      • What does Tracy Martin’s sex life have to do with Zimmerman profiling Trayvon and killing him?
        It seems that some are no longer happy to demonize the victim, now they find it necessary to demonize his whole family!
        Would that be “acceptable evidence?” LOL!

        Reply ↓

    • It is definitely said with more urgency, and it is only the second item that the dispatcher logged. The rest was pretty much routine questioning to get a description. And I believe it was his typing that distracted him from realizing that Zimmerman had left his truck.

      Reply ↓

      • I can only surmise that there exist two different recordings and neither of us has heard the one heard by the other of us.

        Perhaps the one you heard has a screwy timebase, like many of the versions of the 7-11 video.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • I didn’t find the HOA president all that credible (this may partially have to do with his accent). He said that he started hearing from people who said that Zimmerman was taking a petition around to start a neighborhood watch,. But from the communication between Zimmerman and the Sanford Police Department it sounds like Zimmerman was circulating flyers encouraging people to attend a (re)organizational meeting of the neighborhood watch. The meeting/presentation was on a Thursday;. The HOA board meets on Tuesday.

      The HOA president took office at the board meeting two days before, and Zimmerman’s organizational effort had been well underway before that. The June 2011 newsletter said that the neighborhood watch committee met 30 minutes before the board meeting – but it said that for all the committees, landscaping, architecture, etc. It wouldn’t be surprising if Zimmerman had read the newsletter and showed up for a committee meeting and found no one there.

      The other board member when asked whether she had attended, seemed kind of puzzled about a Thursday date, saying the board meets on Tuesday, and that she wasn’t available on Thursdays.

      There were some concerns raised at the neighborhood watch meeting that were the responsibility of the HOA, including lighting and leasing oversight (eg whether background checks were required).

      The president of the HOA claimed that the HOA had created a committee and put Zimmerman in charge. I suspect he was kind of aware, but not really, and wanted to sound knowledgeable but was filling in details.

      Reply ↓

    • How is it demonizing Trayvon Martin’s family by hoping that the step-mother who raised him benefits, rather than the man who was cheating on her and hopes to get rich with his new squeeze, if the “Martin family” were to win some lawsuit, as sandbeggar suggested.

      Reply ↓

    • @jimtrex –

      “on June 3, 2012 at 8:39 am said:
      “If Tracy Martin were to hit the jackpot, isn’t it likely that all his money would go to his wife in the divorce settlement?”

      Does Gladys Zimmerman (her married name), George Zimmerman’s mother, get to keep the money raised by the Zimmerman website now that George Zimmerman publicly denounced all other fund collecting sites on his behalf including the one the media reported was set up by his stepfather Robert Zimmerman? How long were Gladys Zimmerman and Robert Zimmerman married before George Zimmerman decided it would be good to use Robert Zimmerman’s house as collateral for George Zimmerman’s bond when at the time George Zimmerman could have posted the full bond without putting Robert Zimmerman’s home at risk? At the time George Zimmerman felt it ok to put Robert Zimmerman’s home up for grabs, George Zimmerman had a second valid passport and loads of cash (in excess of $135K – 204K).

      Why would anybody put up a loved one’s home if he had the cash?

      Isn’t it likely that Robert Zimmerman would lose his home as George Zimmerman “hit the jackpot” and hid his website fund and his passport in pursuit of a better life for himself, his wife and his mom in Peru leaving Robert holding the bag?

      Are boys or girls more likely to act out due to hatred of a step-father?

      Reply ↓

    • You’re not making any sense, not that is uncommon, or likely to change.

      Gladys and Robert Zimmerman have been married since 1975. Her maiden name was Meza (but since she was from Peru, she probably also user maternal grandfather’s name). You are correct, her married name is Glady Zimmerman.

      Robert Zimmerman, Jr. is also their son – probably first son, but I don’t know for sure.

      Reply ↓

  4. Sadanie, I think you are correct that the THC level doesn’t provide conclusive evidence of Trayvon’s condition that night. Also, after thinking about it, I’m pretty sure there’s no way for ANYONE to tell from any distance at least, that a person is stoned on pot. They don’t stumble or carry a sign or anything. One indication can be pupil dilation, or the smell of pot, but Zimmerman wouldn’t have seen or smelled this from his car. So how can Zimmerman claim that he could tell Trayvon was on pot and therefore wasn’t profiling him?

    If Trayvon had been drinking or had been on downers, that would seem much more believable.

    I think Sadanie’s comment about the gunshot wound brings up questions about all kinds of potential evidence that we may not be considering here at all.

    Sandbagger, I hadn’t thought of the possibility of these donations going to the Martin family!

    On the drugs

    Reply ↓

  5. sandbagger, you made some very interesting points in your last post. What will happen here is a sort of chess game between the prosecutor and defense.

    Obviously, within the parameters of admissible evidence (which, likely will be broad due to the public exposure of this case) there will be argument and counter argument. For example you noting that if Martin’s past is attacked by the defense (as permitted under the law) there may well be a backlash effect. That is the nature of trials.

    The starting point for our own analyses, is to use the hints from the probable cause case presented and then put yourself into the (objective) shoes of both the prosecutor and defense and go from there in terms of spinning arguments and counter arguments for each side from the evidence we are reasonably assured of, i.e., “hard” evidence, witness statements and our own inferences from the foregoing. That is exactly what the prosecutor and defense will do.

    Reply ↓

    • Thanks,

      BTW, I think you guys are doing an impressive job of trying to develop a defense for him. Instead of just yelling like a lot of people and ignoring the law and facts, that actually goes for everyone on this blog. I am very impressed.

      Do you agree though that the defense has almost no room for “spinning arguments and counter arguments” due to the fact that their defendant has opened his mouth to the cops and tied them into a singular line of events. That if any of this is shown to be inconsistent with the facts Z credibility will no longer grant him the ability to present any viable defense to a now distributable jury.

      I really don’t have any personal feeling about Z or TM, I don’t know them, don’t care about their past. I also don’t care about the gun laws other than I think “concealed” is dumb. I think if guns are legal, they should be carried in plain sight. Off topic though.

      I just can’t get over the fact that everyone is blindly overlooking that he has already locked himself into a very detail story of what happened and how this could very quickly turn bad for him.

      BTW, I know by my terrible writing skills it may be a shock, but I have a paralegal (wana be lawyer) degree, LOL, never really used it though. One of the most important things as a paralegal is the “first” contact with a client. One of the more important things you want to get from your client is if they made any statements to the police or anyone else. The answer to this question sets the mood immediately for the law office on how they are going to handle the case. Just saying. Z is very lucky to have such good representation, they both said that they don’t care about how much Z pays them. That is one MAJOR thing Z has gotten for the publicity from this. And frankly, if it does come down to him being guilty, West is one of the best lawyers Z could pray to have in his corner. That man can get 20 years turned into 2 without trying he is that good of a lawyer. So I don’t feel sorry for Z, so far the so called media conspiracy has done 3 things for him.

      1. He has a lot of money out of it.
      2. His lawyers may be able to use it to get some stuff deemed inadmissible, maybe?
      3. He got access to lawyers he, one could not afford, and two are highly motivated to get him off due to the public eye.

      Reply ↓

    • Sandbagger, there were several previous comments on exactly the issue you mentioned: Zimmerman, should he have kept quiet?

      Here is part of one comment by StanS in response to a statement by Inspector Gadget:

      “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.”

      The big question, which despite all the speculation, is what is in the statements given by Zimmerman? I don’t, as many others do, place much weight in the press statements by Zimmerman’s father and brother. Zimmerman was acting very erratically in the weeks after the incident and it appears that his contact with relatives may have been minimal (the incident with the attorneys, apparently contacted by his family, comes to mind). Those press statements are not only hearsay but (whether through cynicism or reality) you can be sure his relatives will say as much and not hurt Zimmerman.

      The fact is that all of the “unidentified source” statements should be ignored. We have to see exactly what he said. Remember, the first reaction of the police, after hearing his multiple statements, was that it was self-defense (I am not a believer that they were racists in coming to that conclusion and had to have at least some basis to do so). So Zimmerman has a good start and even Serano’s “about turn” appears more to protect his career and only half-hearted. That is just my opinion. So what other factors are there that relate to his “credibility” and his statements? I believe the following, at least in part, will come into play.

      — Zimmerman’s actual statements and internal consistencies and inconsistencies with forensics etc. There will be “dueling” experts on these matters;

      — Witness statements that support of don’t support Zimmerman’s story;

      — Zimmerman’s state of mind. Here I believe (after some quick net research) that he will have an well qualified expert who will testify that that he likely suffered from PTSD to some degree and had a Grade 1 to Grade 2 concussion. That is my opinion. That would be based on his behavior the night of the incident and the several weeks after. Those two factors separately or together, will be persuasively argued as the reason for any normal discrepancies that might be present in Zimmerman’s statements. Also, the actual physical movements of Martin and Zimmerman will be hotly disputed by experts. I find it hard to believe that any normal person, under the stress Zimmerman was under and the quickness of the events would “get it perfectly” every time in multiple repetitions of events … it just doesn’t happen in reality and the police certainly had to consider that when they released him initially;

      — the recent bond fiasco. I don’t think it will be allowed in since the events occurred after he was arrested and are remote in their actual relevance. Just saying he is a ‘liar’ is not enough in this case. I have seen federal cases involving “jail house” phone statements (such as witness tampering for the trial or harming a witness). Usually, those events can become a separate prosecution because the events occurred after the indictment. That may be why (so I heard) Judge Lester mentioned possible criminal contempt, a separate offense.

      Reply ↓

    • PeterO

      I agree with you that much of that will be the process of his defense. It is my opinion still that Z is in a lot of trouble here, and though it may not be illegal, anyone with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight that thinks Z getting out of his truck and following TM was the right thing to do, I think is nuts. Z has some issues and what he did was incredibly stupid in my personal opinion and I think it is inflammatory and dishonest of so many people to state otherwise. I think if anyone was to ask Z if he would do the same thing again, he would be the first to say, wait for the cops. It’s not that I think that people don’t have the right to protect their neighborhood, it’s that I have always protected cops, who when they make decisions in the heat of a chase and innocent people sometimes get hurt, that they are excused, because we as a society need a group of trained people who have the right to this and be forgiven in these strange events if we are to ask them to chase criminals for us, they can’t be held to the same standard as we are. but not NW captains, they do not get that forgiveness from me, if they want that, become a cop. I have a lot of friends who worked very hard to become cops and deserve that right. IMHO Z is exactly where he should be, and I will stand behind the decision of the jury. And I think he and the people who support him have every right in the world to give him the very best defense he can possibly get.

      Reply ↓

  6. Now, let me play defense for a moment.

    If I were to try and defend Z here is how it would go.

    1 I would use the fact that the police told Z that he was free to go because of SYG as a dishonest trick against Z to get him to confess, in the hopes of getting any statements he may have made to police deemed inadmissible by the judge. I would also attack the shoddy police work

    2 I would start with as much damage control as possible. I would try and get as much of the witness statements found inadmissible too. Including his father and brother.

    3 I would look at the remaining evidence that the jurors had access to and make the most plausible scenario of self defense I could, NOW THAT I DID NOT HAVE TO GO WITH Z’S FIRST STORY TO THE POLICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    4 I would not paint TM in a bad light, it does not help.

    5 I would not talk about Z character because I would open the door to the prosecution.

    6 I would not put my client on the stand.

    7 I would end with that i had cause enough reasonable doubt without the prosecution being able to present anything to the contrary other than speculation, and, if anyone here feels that this should not end with a gun, you should fight that with your congressman not with my client.

    This is the best defense I can see for Z. And step 1 is the most important.

    Reply ↓

    • DeeDee. Phone records validated. Zimmerman’s account that a fight with a skinny boy didn’t knock Zimmerman out/down on the ground at the Tee as the encounter traveled down to John’s backyard as Trayvon Martin tried to get away from Zimmerman towards his own temporary place of residency, AGAIN!

      AGAIN!

      Zimmerman: “He ran”.

      DeeDee: “Run!”

      Reply ↓

    • I wanted to disclose that I am not on Z’s side, I think he is guilty. I was simply stating what I would do if I were to defend him. My main point is that unless he can get all his and everyone testimony thrown out, I think he has hung himself with his own testimony to police that is inconsistent with the evidence.

      Reply ↓

    • Agreed. I was just playing along with your devil’s advocate hypothetical.

      You can’t throw out DeeDee’s statement nor Zimmerman’s statements because Zimmerman made the statements of his own free will and then participated in a reenactment.

      I think DeeDee’s phone records can’t be tossed either because she is the ONLY witness to the altercation’s start that has not been subjected to tainting by the accused George Zimmerman. All “witnesses” to the crime either spoke to George Zimmerman that night before the police arrived or talked to each other to discuss what Zimmerman led them to believe — including EMT/ER and at least one other SP officer. DeeDee doesn’t know Zimmerman and she had no opportunity to talk to the neighbors, SPD or George Zimmerman to get the “story” to tell. DeeDee’s account is the ONLY one that is untainted by the defendant. DeeDee does not know George Zimmerman.

      DeeDee has also not lied to a Judge, had bond revoked nor has she waivered in her account of that night’s events.

      DeeDee has also not been caught in a lie to

      Reply ↓

  7. Susan –

    Does the RICO Act apply to this case since ALEC wrote the SYG laws? ALEC, an organized “syndicate,” walks while writing laws giving permission to the George Zimmermans of the country to “shoot first” without impunity.

    Per Wiki:

    “The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States *federal law* that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. [*Walmart sells over-the-counter guns and has recently withdrew its sponsorship of ALEC in light of the exposed fraud and bribery in a foreign country*.] The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows for the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, *closing a perceived loophole that allowed someone who told a man to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because they did not actually do it.*

    (All emphasis mine and indicated with * or [])

    Reply ↓

    • First the SYG law will not be applied in this case. Second I see no way of this happening being that the SYG law was put into law legally and RICO only deals with illegal activity.

      Reply ↓

    • Murder2 is an illegal activity (and all other murders). SYG was written by a *syndicate* that hid its intent to usurp/bypass a jury trial among peers (a constitutional right!) and allow a *bought and paid for* elected official to deny an accused the right to be judged by a jury. The Zimmerman case has introduced payments for and capitalizing on ensuring the sanctity of what is already a right of any citizen of the U.S.

      If RICO does not apply here, I fail to see how.

      Reply ↓

  8. CommonSenseForChange, you incorrectly said:

    “@PeterO

    You lied when you said:

    “DeeDee, in her sworn interview with the prosecutor, said she didn’t believe Martin when he said Zimmerman was following him. So she will make a good witness for Zimmerman’s defense!”

    If I am incorrect, please provide the reference.”

    Here is the reference:

    Do a search on this page for “PeterO on May 29, 2012 at 7:22 pm said: ” to find the reference and a link to the interview

    Reply ↓

    • I still have to go back and listen to that again, but I think I sort of remember what you are talking about, and I think it is fair to say that this is a stretch. PeterO, people on all side of this are coming up with little things like this, and I just don’t respectively see the validity behind it as you do. Though I will go back and listen to it again. However if you are to validate her testimony to use in the way you suggest i think that you have to validate all of it, and there is some damming stuff in there for Z, IMHO.

      It will be interesting for all of us to look back on this blog after the case is over and see how our predictions stood the test of time.

      Reply ↓

    • Nope. Quit making it up, please. If you’re a Zim supporter, you’re only hurting him by posting stuff easily refuted — especially in light of the easily accessible recordings that have been released to the public.

      WRT what was said in the DeeDee interview with the State’s prosecutor who asked DeeDee about about the man that was on the phone watching Trayvon Martin (after the man had followed him), DeeDee says “I think the man got off for some reason.” She goes on to say that “The man was still following him.”

      Reply ↓

    • Here is the link to DeeDee’s interview again:

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

      The key part is from 15:00 on where DeeDee describes when Martin was at the “shed” and saw the man in the car on the phone was watching him as he started walking from the “shed.”

      She was then asked about the man leaving the car and she said she only assumed the guy left the car because Martin told her the man was then following him from the “shed.” She concluded the man had to have hung up and left the car to be able to follow Martin as he walked from the shed to the back path. The leaving guy the car was what the questioner was trying to resolve with DeeDee.

      The part at about 15:30 in DeeDee’s interview is when she says the words, but they are hard to hear. It was either “DeeDee: “I think he made that up for some reason” or what you heard, “DeeDee: “I think the man got off for some reason.”
      Question: “That’s what you believe?” DeeDee: “YEAH. BECAUSE HE SAID THE MAN WAS STILL FOLLOWING HIM.” That was from when Martin had just left the “shed.”

      It makes no real difference which version is correct because either case shows there was no “following” or “chase” up until after Martin ran down the back path.

      The problem was in Martin both saying the guy was on the phone in the car watching him while at the “shed” then saying the guy was following him while he was walking from the “shed” to the back path:

      DeeDee either didn’t believe Martin when he said the guy was following him or, because she believed him, she concluded the guy sitting in the car must have hung up and gotten out of the car to be following Martin as he walked from the shed — which we know from the dispatcher tape, didn’t happen.

      The questioner was trying to get to the bottom of if Martin told her the guy had gotten out of the car at that time or had only concluded that herself. She admitted Martin never told her that and that she concluded the guy hung up and got out of the car because Martin had told her the guy was then following him.

      We know from the dispatcher tape that Zimmerman remained on the phone in his parked car and described how Martin was walking towards him while going from the “shed” to the back path. So Zimmerman was not following Martin at that time.

      One commentor said Martin could have meant the guy in the car was “following him with his eyes.” That may well be what Martin meant, but it still changes the whole DeeDee ‘story’ because there was never any actual physical “following/chasing” until at least after Zimmerman finally got off the phone with the dispatcher. So the “on again” “off again” chases that DeeDee originally described to ABC News could only have occurred in the 60-90 seconds from when Zimmerman hung up the dispatcher call until the confrontation (Of course, we have the debate if the 15 or so seconds Zimmerman went in the direction Martin ran, after leaving his car, was “following.”)

      Importantly, also, about a minute later, at 16:35 or so on the tape, DeeDee is questioned to explain what Martin meant when he described Zimmerman as “crazy” and “creepy.” She answered by saying it was only based on the fact that the guy had been just watching Martin:

      Question: He’s saying the guy looks what?
      DeeDee: “Crazy … and creepy”
      Question: “Did you say what do you mean by that?”
      DeeDee: “Like watching him. Like watching.”
      Question: “Okay. So that’s what he meant. The guy keeps watching him.”
      DeeDee: “Yeah”

      Reply ↓

  9. Sandbagger, you seem to be thinking like a lawyer. I agree that your step 1 may be just as important as you claim. I don’t think there’s much chance though that the statement(s) will be thrown out.

    CommonSense, I so agree! And DeeDee clearly said on her tape that Trayvon “started walking back AGAIN”.

    Trayvon ran from Zimmerman’s car (1st time he tried to avoid Zimmerman), Trayvon ran from Zimmerman on foot after Zimmerman left the car (Zimmerman had to have turned south between the rows in time to see Trayvon running in front of him – 2nd time Trayvon tried to avoid Zimmerman), Trayvon “lost” Zimmerman, but suddenly Zimmerman was following Trayvon as Trayvon tried to walk back AGAIN (3rd time Trayvon tried to avoid Zimmerman).

    This is if we believe DeeDee. I do.

    Reply ↓

    • hapufern, nor do I, that is why I have been saying that I think this entire case is going to be over before it starts and Z will either be found guilty or plea bargain, that all of our ideas about “what if” and all that will just never happen in this trial. Its sure fun to talk about, but when the jury see’s that his statements to the police were total fabricated lies, I think his lawyer is going to tell poor Z that it’s time for a plea bargain, and in will walk his other lawyer, West. I think that is the main reason this lawyer is on the team, this is his specialty.

      Reply ↓

  10. I wish to take issue with several comments I have read here:

    1. I don’t think Zimmerman’s account of the incident contains serious contradictions. The only thing the the prosecution has mentioned along those lines is that Z exaggerated how badly he was being beaten by Martin. That is too subjective a thing for them to claim it shows he lied about the confrontation with Martin. But the main reason that I think Zimmerman did well in his police interviews is the released discovery material. Chris Serino’s document has Homicide-Neglig Mansl-F.S.S. 782.071 on it. I think he originally wanted Zimmerman arrested for Negligent Manslaughter for leaving his vehicle. There is no mention of any contradictions he saw in Z’s testimony. In fact he says that witnesses backed up his account.

    2. It is not clear at all who is screaming and we will never know for sure since, as the FBI said, the samples on the 911 calls are of very poor quality. I doubt that the contradictory opinions of relatives will be admitted. I like to look at this case from both Zimmerman on trial and Martin (assuming he killed Zimmerman) on trial, Martin could say he was screaming all the time. Martin’s self defense argument is that after a purely verbal confrontation, Zimmerman said he would kill him and began to draw out his gun whence Martin tackled him. His goal was to get the gun away from Zimmerman while screaming for help. Zimmerman kept clutching it while Martin desperately tried to pin Zimmerman’s wrists to the ground (consistent with John’s revised testimony). He was able to get his knees onto Z’s face and was able to bang his head against the concrete or utility cover, finally killing him. Another scenario where Martin manages to point the gun at Zimmerman and fire it is also possible.

    3. I don’t find the photographed position of the body proof that Zimmerman fired while his head was a distance away from the concrete. The body was moved twice after Martin was killed; First when Zimmerman got up from underneath it and second when a policeman turned it over to do CPR. John had seem them fighting on the concrete when he turned away from the scene, closed the patio door, grabbed his cellphone to dial 911 and headed upstairs and heard the shot while he was dialing, maybe around 15 seconds (my guess, not John’s) from seeing them on the concrete.

    4. The way I view things is that Zimmerman will be and Martin hypothetically would be acquitted of manslaughter.

    Reply ↓

  11. Hi Ricky, well you bring up some good points I think, and so does Sandbagger.

    Can the jury acquit for the 2nd degree murder charge, but find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, if manslaughter hasn’t been charged?

    Reply ↓

    • Does anyone else (besides me) think Zimmerman’s claim that he is the one screaming could hurt his defense, since the person screaming was obviously not getting hit during the entire time the screams are heard?

      It seems to me like it’s no longer self-defense when you are no longer getting hit/choked/head-bashed.(?)

      Reply ↓

    • I am very confused about Florida law on lesser offenses. That is because I remember reading that the Caylee Anthony jury wasn’t allowed to bring a lesser verdict in their case and thus acquitted. Why some people say that couldn’t happen in the Zimmerman case is a mystery to me.

      Reply ↓

  12. Hapufern, it seems that Zimmerman has told his father and brother two reasons for shooting Martin:
    1. Martin was going to keep smashing his head against the concrete.
    2. Martin had seen Zimmerman’s gun in his waistband and said “Now you are going to die” and tried to get control of it.

    That is why it is so important to see his actual interview in order to know how the two fit together to make a convincing story. But as I said before, Serino didn’t seem to find them contradictory.

    Reply ↓

    • “it is so important to see his actual interview”

      *** Yes. I see some commentors already said the interview will convict Zimmerman … without even seeing it!

      As for the rest. I believe any combination of the two actions (smashing, grabbing for the gun, and including punching with fist or MMA style) in reasonably close order and regardless of the order, is more than enough for a person to fear great bodily harm beyond a reasonable doubt. To say: the smash was first and the gun grab was second is different from the opposite order will hold no water with jurors. Zimmerman might have even said he was more concerned about the smashes than the grabbing … or vice versa. And he still can have had sufficient fear.

      I don’t see how anything Zimmerman said to his father or brother will have much significance. The father is a Magistrate and knows how to handle himself. I have not seen any statements by them given to the police (forget what the media says or the “interviews”). The vague general statements I have seen given to the media can easily be shown to be credibly consistent (smashing on concrete and grabbing for gun) with whatever statement Zimmerman gave or easily explained away. Trayvonites are desperate for any small talisman to grab on to to convict Zimmerman, no matter how insignificant or irrelevant.

      Here is a link to an article on reliability of the memory of witnesses and victims during crimes:

      http://sciencefocus.com/feature/psychology/far-i-can-remember

      Some variations in Zimmerman’s statements are expected and normal

      All the police, who initially believed Zimmerman’s statements were consistent with self-defense will, no matter what they now say, be very powerful witnesses for the defense.

      Regarding lesser offenses, they are automatically included and no one should count on them holding up … they won’t.

      Reply ↓

  13. To whom was Zimmerman talking on the phone after the shooting?

    The first views of the cell phone photo of the back of Zimmerman’s head had a black blob where his right ear should be.

    Recently I’ve seen other versions of it with the contrast adjusted or something, and there’s a cell phone being held up to that ear.

    The time stamp on that photo is supposed to be around 7:19 PM

    Was this photo taken before Zimmerman’s hands were cuffed behind him?

    Is he holding the phone or is someone holding it for him?

    Is it his phone or someone else’s?

    Would Officer Smith really let anyone else get that close to him after he arrived and handcuffed Zimmerman and took his gun?

    How close was the person who took the photo of the back of his head?

    Do we know for sure if Zimmerman told someone else to call his wife?

    If so, did he say that before or after Smith handcuffed him?

    If everybody was afraid to go out and break up the fight, why did they rush out right after the gunshot?

    Why was no one in that neighborhood concerned enough about what could very well have been the sound of a neighbor in bad trouble to go out and break up the fight?

    unitron

    Reply ↓

    • Witness 21 (W21) took the pictures. As he came running around his unit (north unit on Retreat View Circle) Zimmerman was walking about 8 feet south of the T, and asked if his head was bleeding. W21 asked if he should call police, and Zimmerman said that he already had. He apparently took the picture while Zimmerman was squatting.

      Cutcher and Lomilla (who in their police interview said they knew that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin – and were such crap witnesses, the FDLE didn’t bother to re-interview) said they came out after the shot, claimed that Zimmerman told them to call police (since they were probably 50 feet away, it may have been a yell). Later they said they saw Zimmerman holding his head, as if to indicate, “oh my god what have I done”, and then the police arrived with flashlights.

      It was more likely that Zimmerman after realizing Martin was dead, was wondering whether his head was bleeding. He probably could tell his nose waqs bleeding.

      (1) He may have been so stunned that he thought he was making a phone call by yelling at Lomilla, and then holding his phone to his ear;
      (2) He may have been referring to the phone call before the shooting.
      (3) He may have called police after the shooting. Sanford Police if they are professional, would not release such a call, or even acknowledge that it exists.

      “It is a on-going investigation and I am not at liberty to reveal any details. It is true that Zimmerman made several statements to police at various times following the events on February 26 at Retreat at Twin Lakes”. The original affidavit of probable cause said, “Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. When police arrived Zimmerman admitted shooting Martin”. The version released after the bond hearing had that redacted – and anything directly related to Zimmerman has been redacted,

      After Officer Smith handcuffed Zimmerman, Zimmerman had W21 call his wife, to tell her that he had been involved in a shooting and was being taken in for questioning. It appears that it was at this point that Zimmerman told W21 to tell his wife that he had shot some someone.

      W21 then took about 30 seconds trying to describe how Zimmerman had stated it. When he quoted Zimmerman it was, “just tell her I shot someone” spoken quite rapidly, and at other times it was “blurted” out. But if Zimmerman was cuffed and Officer Smith had his hand in his pants, he might not been in a position to have a long conversation. He might have handed his cell phone to W21, or since W21 had his with him, he might have given his number. If the phone rang, and a stranger said, “Hello, your husband wanted me to call and tell you he was involved in a shooting and was being taken in for questioning”, she would probably want more information. But Officer Smith was showing some deference by letting a person he had just handcuffed talk to neighbors, so it is quite reasonable for Zimmerman to simply state the facts.

      W21 supposedly also provided a written statement, but I don’t think it was released.

      Incidentally, the prosecutors had the bloody picture for a month before the bond hearing (you may recall ABC obtained it the day of the bond hearing).

      Reply ↓

      • Actually, in the most recent police report, one of the officer reporting (Officer Michael Wagner) states that HE took the picture of Zimmerman (as well as one of Martin’s face) with his phone, because no digital camera was available at the time.

        Reply ↓

        • “Actually, in the most recent police report, one of the officer reporting (Officer Michael Wagner) states that HE took the picture of Zimmerman (as well as one of Martin’s face) with his phone, because no digital camera was available at the time.”

          I’m pretty sure that refers to the picture of Zimmerman’s face after he was already handcuffed and in the back of the patrol car. It’s the one of which we’ve seen a black and white copy. Officer Wagner didn’t get there in time to take the one of the back of Zimmerman’s head.

          Reply ↓

    • “If everybody was afraid to go out and break up the fight, why did they rush out right after the gunshot?

      Why was no one in that neighborhood concerned enough about what could very well have been the sound of a neighbor in bad trouble to go out and break up the fight?”

      The witness who recorded the 45 seconds of screams is a member of the HOA board and had enough familiarity with the neighborhood watch program to at least know to call police. And you might be aware that neighborhood watch stresses to call the police and let them do the actual policing.

      But they also had their patio door open, since they had a screened porch (but with blinds so they couldn’t see out) and were closest to the location where Martin initially attacked Zimmerman, so they would have been more conscious of the sounds. They were in their kitchen, and her husband was looking for a knife when the gun shot went off. And if you listen to the rest of the 911 call, she is telling him to get in here (or up here). The ground floor of most units appears to be a single room, with the kitchens partially walled, so that many people retreated to the upstairs. Sometime after, the male went down and out the front entrance and around.

      The neighbor who took the pictures says he was assembling furniture when they (he and his wife) heard some yelling, and his wife peeked out and saw fighting. He says he told her, they are grown men, let them settle it, let’s not get involved. During their FDLE interviews, it sounded like they had a toddler running around as well.

      After the shot, she peeked out again, and saw Zimmerman “hunched” over Martin. BTW, BDLR came by a really short interview and asked if she had looked out before the shot or after, and she said before. But in her earlier interview with the FDLE, she said she had looked out after the shot, and quickly closed the blinds

      He went around through the garage, and said he had a flashlight and his cellphone. He also claims that he after Zimmerman told him that he had to shoot the guy, he asked “40 or 9”. He thought Zimmerman looked Puertorican, and it sounds like the witness was imitating a Puertorican when he said, “9 man”. So I’m guessing, that he had something else besides a flashlight and a cell phone.

      John did open his porch and told them he was calling police and did so. He ended up upstairs in his 911 call, so I figured that the phone was upstairs, but in the long interviews, he says that he was trying to get his fiancee off the phone – he was watching TV, she was on her computer to the IT department at work or something like that. After the shot they went upstairs. She was using crutches at the time, so apparently ended crawling up the stairs, so he might have been trying to assist with that as well. His 911 call was from upstairs.

      The next neighbor down was upstairs and had her window open, and called 911, and peaked under her blinds. She was the one who reported the guy in the white t-shirt on top. She has a very high pitched voice, such that the 911 operator asked her how old she was (30). She also says that at some time she went into her other office and locked herself in and called her mother. Since she has two offices, I think she is single.

      Across would be two sisters, one with a daughter and “her little friend”, so I’d guess under 10. They also had a dog who is panting in both interviews. The sister downstairs was in the kitchen, heard some noises, looked out the patio door, and saw some arms flailing, and also saw John and heard him say something about calling police. She then went back in the kitchen, and then heard the shot. It kind of sounds like she might thought that John was a cranky neighbor complaining about kids wrestling in his yard. She went upstairs after the shooting. Her sister who was upstairs thought that her sister had dropped something in the kitchen or the doggy door had fallen down. The front upstairs windows were open.

      Cutcher and Lamilla heard the shot. If you listen to the 911 recording it sounds like they said the kids ran out in the back yard, and as Cutcher is yelling outside to Lamilla, she is yelling at someone to call “Shirley” while relaying from Lamilla that it is “the black guy standing up”. They were reluctant to talk to police that night, and finally did a written statement.

      The next woman had come outside to walk her dog, and heard some sounds that she thought an elderly neighbor was having a heart attack, and heard John say something about 911, and she immediately went back inside and called 911 – her call was one of the earliest.

      The young boy whose dog ran away, apparently only saw Zimmerman, but he said he said he was 25 yards away. Even this is short if he was directly behind his house. Serino said he would have him show them outside. Presumably the dog didn’t run toward the yelling.

      I think that the the screaming wasn’t as loud as it sounded. The townhouses are recent construction, so will be well insulated. It is possible that the patio doors are double-paned. Sound does travel around corners, but is attenuated, so while might travel down the courtyard, it won’t necessarily come in through windows at an oblique angle. The downstairs are a large room with 9’4 ceilings. They probably have large screen TVs and the sound cranked up to fill the space.

      Reply ↓

  14. Thanks for your answer Ricky. I guess we’ll find out more later.

    Good questions from unitron. Could the cell phone call be to Zimmerman’s wife?

    Due to “John’s” account, I’ve pretty much assumed Trayvon was on top during the entire fight with Zimmerman – although I thought Trayvon was holding Zimmerman down, not hitting Zimmerman after the initial punch. But here’s a concern noted from a CNN comment: The blood on Zimmerman’s head looks like it’s flowing towards Zimmerman’s face, like it would be if Zimmerman was on top, at least during the time the blood flow was strongest.

    Reply ↓

  15. Zimmerman was taking two prescription medications; Adderall and Temazapam.

    Adderall is prescribed to people who have attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Symptoms of this disorder include “having trouble concentrating, inability to complete simple or complex tasks, losing or misplacing important items, forgetfulness, becoming easily distracted, hyperactivity, restlessness, impulsivity, inability to get along well with others and frequent insubordination.”

    “Your medical doctor will likely start you off on a small dose and slowly increase the medication until it reaches the desired effects. The reason for the tapered dosage is because the side effects of this medicine can cause troubling side effects initially.”

    “Taking too much Adderall medicine initially, could make attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms worse.”

    One of many side effects of Adderall include: “Inability to fall asleep and stay asleep”. Temazapam “is used to treat insomnia symptoms, such as trouble falling or staying asleep.”

    “While most patients can tolerate low dosages of Adderall prescription medicine with minimal problems, there are some dangerous or hazardous side effects you should discuss with your doctor before starting a treatment plan. Some hazardous side effects include:”
    . . .
    • Extreme nervousness and paranoid delusions
    • Mood swings that include hostility and severe aggression
    • Depression”

    “Long-term use of Adderall as a prescription medication treatment for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder may make symptoms worse and make withdrawal symptoms unbearable. Signs of withdrawal include severe depression or dysphoria, irritability, rage, trouble sleeping and an intense craving for the medication. Symptoms of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder may be more severe during the withdrawal phase.”

    Temazepam:

    “Stop using temazepam and call your doctor at once if you have any of these serious side effects:”
    . . .
    • confusion, slurred speech, unusual thoughts or behavior;
    • hallucinations, agitation, aggression;
    • thoughts of suicide or hurting yourself;
    . . .
    • feeling nervous, excited, or irritable;

    . . . among other symptoms less relevant to this discussion.

    Sources for the above after brief internet search:

    http://sideeffectsbase.com/adderall-side-effects/

    http://www.drugs.com/temazepam.html

    Reply ↓

    • Very informative and enlightening! I always thought Zimmerman’s voice sounded blurred and slow on the 911 call, and I always thought that his “profiling” of young Black men was close to an obssession. . .and his comments about Trayvon coming for him sound very paranoid!
      I also always wonder why this “seriously injured person, who was so close to losing consciousness and wearing diapers for the rest of his life, and probably suffering from concusions with his smashed cranium” had refused to be taken to an emergency room. . .and why did he, the next day, decide to see his “family doctor” instead of going to the emergency room then to have a CT scan or even an MRI of such “SERIOUS INJURIES!”
      Could it be that he didn’t want to take the risk of having his blood drawn and the level of those mood altering prescription medications be held against him?

      Reply ↓

  17. Think about this, the hearing starts and one of the witnesses the State calls is Det. Gilbreath. As soon as the State is done with direct, on cross O’Mara introduces the hour testimony from the Bond Hearing as evidence and plays it for the jury. “You said that you based the statement in the charging document that Zimmerman initiated the actual fight based on the fact that there was a confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin but when asked if you had any evidence as of 20 Apr as to who initiated the fight you said no, and later said you had no contradictory evidence to Zimmerman’s account of events.” Then when the state calls anybody from Sanford PD including Det. Soriano, O’Mara asks them why they did not arrest and they also say they have no contradictory evidence as stated by the Commissioner and Sheriff in their public letter. The State has admitted that they have no evidence under oath, yet they have to prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that Zimmerman initially attacked Martin; O’Mara does not have to prove that Martin attacked Zimmerman at all much less Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If Martin were on trial this would be reversed. Given this criteria even if you doubt Zimmerman’s credibility, without evidence to the contrary there is no guilty verdict, just look at the Anthony Case. The only thing I can see that would change this is if Zimmerman takes the stand and breaks down confessing to initially attacking Martin. Why would he plea deal, or even take the stand in the first place, the State has given him the case through Det. Gilbreath’s testimony during the Bond Hearing. You have an autopsy on Martin, and a medical report, Paramedic reports, and Interrogation room photos of Zimmerman to show who was on the losing end of the fight. All of the events leading up to the fight are Aggravating circumstances, or if Martin were on trial for a Forcible Felony Mitigating Circumstances leading to the fight. The State has thrown out Manslaughter right from the get go, it is either the state proves Second Degree Murder (782.04 (2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.) or it falls under (782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.) and therefore 776.032 immunity kicks in whether SYG or simply (776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013)

    Reply ↓

    • It is interesting that you refer to the Anthony case. Anyone looking to see how this case will likely parallel the Anthony case in terms of how a jury thinks and court rulings should read the Anthony case history, particularly the parts on how the jury felt about the State’s case:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony

      As said above, unless Zimmerman somehow breaks down on the stand and changes the story he gave in his statements, it is difficult to see how he will not prevail on self-defense.

      Without any real evidence, it seems impossible to disprove Zimmerman’s defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Just look at the Anthony defense strategy, how the jurors’ reacted to it and the evidentiary rulings in the Anthony case.

      All of the [mostly farfetched] elaborate theories in favor of guilt, on this site and in the media, are simply too remote in probability, too ‘nit-picking’ or even lacking bare believability, to ever reach the standard needed to defeat Zimmerman’s self-defense claim.

      Reply ↓

      • If the defendant has given an audio or video statement to the police, containing his account of the incident, the defense council can decide to play that for the jury instead of having the defendant take the stand and be cross examined by the prosecution. That happened in the Conrad Murray and Dharun Ravi trials. I assume that Florida permits it also.

        Reply ↓

    • Ricky,

      If what you say is correct in Florida, then not putting Zimmerman on the stand makes perfect sense. There are enough witnesses and supporting evidence to back his case …. assuming of course, that in his statement he used the magic words of fearing great harm or death.

      Reply ↓

    • The prosecutors mentioned the “shadow” evidence in the bond hearing, but that is unbelievably bad evidence.

      Serino was interviewing her outside, and she goes through this story about being in the kitchen and seeing a couple people run by, and then going to the patio window and seeing fighting, and then going back to the stove and hearing the shot. A little bit later Serino comes back and asks how far apart, and she says 10 feet.

      An hour later he is interviewing the sister inside, and she goes through almost the same story, but without the chase. Serino asks about her sister, and she says, yeah but she was upstairs.

      The next time, the sister is interviewed, she says she was upstairs, without her contacts, had just walked into a back bedroom (over the courtyard) and set something down and picked something up and walked back toward the front. She thought that her sister had dropped something in the kitchen, or the doggy door had fallen down. Her sister then came up stairs and said she thought someone had been shot.

      They must have talked, because her original version sounds too much like her sister’s. And in the second version she estimates the time it took her to walk toward the front of the townhome as about 15 seconds. John was probably watching out his patio door at 15 seconds before the shot, and the earlier screaming to the north.

      If there was indeed a figure running north, it was someone other than Zimmerman or Martin.

      Reply ↓

    • One thought about the “figure running North.”

      Holding aside any timing issue to when the shot was heard, If Zimmerman had just turned around to head back to his car and Martin suddenly approached him from his rear, it is very possible that Martin (wearing tennis shoes) ran from hiding to quickly catch up with Zimmerman while his back was turned so as to not warn him and to prevent Zimmerman using the phone again.

      Reply ↓

    • George’s undoing will be the “Depraved Mind.” He has no defense. I’m sure they’ve done an actual reenactment and TIMED Trayvon’s path home. They’ve done the same with George. He had been pursuing Trayvon while on the phone with the dispactcher for atleast 15 minutes–from the mailboxes, while making the statement, “They always get away,” being advised not to follow, his agreeing (“Okay”) NOT to continue pursuit, and the call ending with his being on a street without a street sign. DEPRAVED MIND – The motive: From the moment George made the comment “They always get away,” Trayvon’s destiny was in conflict and his future was in crisis.

      Being NW Captain, George knows the neighborhood; he had no problem locating Trayvon. After ending the call with 911, he immediately disregarded lawful advice/legal system and drove to another location for the purpose/with the intent of pursuit and confrontation. He “tracked Trayon down.” George’s actions weren’t spontaneous; they were planned or “decided.” When George got out of his truck, he had already made 3 conscious decisions: 1. To get out of his truck to track down and confront Trayvon. 2 To bring his loaded gun 3. To shoot Trayvon. Trayvon never had a chance. There was nothing that he could say or do to stop George from his intent, WHICH is why it was over so quickly. He fully intended to shoot Trayvon, which is why he didn’t create any reasons to NOT shoot him (meaning, if he gives me a good explanation as to why he’s here; or I’m going to tell him I’m NW and ask him…, or I’m going to keep following him from a distance to see where he goes…, or I’m going to tell him I’ve got a gun and the police are on their way….etc.) but DID create an excuse TO SHOOT him.

      Reply ↓

      • “…and a stranger had been following him for atleast 15 minutes.”
        Are yoiu getting the 15 minute figure from the young lady’s recounting of the phone calls between herself and Martin?

        unitron

        Reply ↓

      • “He had been pursuing Trayvon while on the phone with the dispactcher for atleast 15 minutes…”

        The phone call began at 7:09:34 PM and he hung up at 7:13:39 PM, so that’s only 4 minutes, 5 seconds, less than one-third of 15 minutes.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

  18. Well, I think people are correct, that “without evidence”, Zimmerman gets off. I’m assuming though that the prosecution HAS evidence or they wouldn’t have gone with a charge of Murder 2.

    We shall see.

    Reply ↓

    • Hapufern, that was exactly where I was until 20 Apr. Sanford PD had already said they had no Contradictory evidence and could not arrest, I thought Corey’s people Det. Gilbreath and Det. O’Steen had found some new evidence. Then Gilbreath was an the stand and said under oath that he had no contradictory evidence from the FBI or anyone else. If the evidence was known about by the people investigating this case before 20 Apr then Gilbreath has perjured himself for no reason. I might be able to see him risk perjury to say he has evidence if he is desperate to get a conviction, but to lie under oath by saying he has no contradictory evidence, destroy his own case and his own career in that manner is just plain stupid. By Gilbreath’s statement at the Bond Hearing, he practically admitted to a malicious prosecution, a violation of 776.032 immunity and is practically begging for an ethics investigation by his statements on the stand that he misrepresented probable cause to the judge just to get an arrest, in violation of Zimmerman’s rights under 776.032 immunity. I believe him when he said the State has no contradictory evidence.

      Reply ↓

  19. I don’t know, Inspector Gadget. Wouldn’t the judge have picked up on what you’re claiming? And wouldn’t he have just thrown the case out by now? Are you claiming the same thing as Dershowitz?

    Reply ↓

    • This is from the bond hearing:

      “UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But — and I’m going to get into every little contradiction but wouldn’t you agree that a lot of his statements can be contradicted by the evidence either witnesses or just based on what he says himself?

      GILBREATH: Yes.”

      Sounds to me like Zimmerman made some statements to police that the prosecution believes contradicted the known evidence AND contradicted what Zimmerman himself had said.

      Reply ↓

    • At this stage, the judge does not “pick[] up on” what InspG is claiming. Zimmerman will get one shot at a mini trial before Judge Lester to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he acted in self defense.

      O’Mara, as any good defense lawyer, will want to maximize his one chance of getting the case thrown out at that hearing. That is what O’Mara will now be working on.

      Obviously, the State says what they can, otherwise there would be no trial. That doesn’t make it true or that a jury will buy it. To have a prosecution depend on [nit] picking parts of a defendant’s statements to show “inconsistencies” with no other evidence is about the weakest case a prosecutor could ever have. I believe, and had done some research a long time ago, about using “credibility” alone as an exclusive basis for a decision and, if I remember correctly, in some cases decisions have been reversed when the only evidence is credibility. It remains to be seen what happens here.

      Many seem to think the State has some sort of “ace in the hole.” That is silly thinking because the State must provide all evidence they have and intend to use, including witness statements. So far, we have already either seen the vast bulk of the State’s case or statements the State had made that will be near impossible for it to take back — such as those made at the bond hearing.

      Juries don’t nit-pick to put a man away for life or go off on wild tangents to simple explanations supported by witnesses and of evidence. Particularly where the standard is to disbelieve the defendant’s case beyond a reasonable doubt. Just read up on the Anthony case and how the jurors reacted to the evidence.

      I previously suggested that commentors should look at the Anthony case to get an idea on how the “system” works and the workings of what a [good] jury will actually consider in their deliberations … and not consider.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony

      Reply ↓

    • That’s just it, they put out that they have this evidence, yet when asked directly if they have any they answer no. The quote you presented from DeLaRosa was made in response to O’Mara asking Gilbreath if there is any contradictory evidence as of 20Apr. That statement from DeLaRosa was a Glittering Generality of no use to Judge Lester in this hearing, it was directed at the emotions in the court of public opinion. It was so vaguely general that Gilbreath could answer in any way he wanted without Perjuring himself. If it had been directed at the Judge, BDLR would have given the “Little Contradictions”. Judge Lester was not the one who approved the arrest with Gilbreath’s Probable Cause document, and as such he will have to overturn Judge Recksiedler, something that he does not do easily.

      Judge Jessica Recksiedler was the first Judge, and she brought up a vague reason and recused herself quickly. I personally believe she realized that she had messed up by authorizing the arrest in violation of 776.032 and ran for the hills.

      Reply ↓

  20. Another way to phrase my musings on a hypothetical Martin trial is: The earlier Zimmerman’s gun came out, the more likely Zimmerman was the aggressor; the later it came out, the more likely Martin was the aggressor. Unfortunately, we will have no evidence about that except for Zimmerman’s statements. John was in no position to see if Zimmerman had a gun in his hand during the 10 seconds he opened the patio door and watched. He wasn’t sure whether Martin was pinning Zimmerman’s hands down or punching MMA style. The comments from witnesses on what they think they heard are also very unreliable.

    If I have understood Judge Lester’s comments, he may be powerless to prevent release of Zimmerman’s police statements soon. Am I correct?

    Reply ↓

    • “He wasn’t sure whether Martin was pinning Zimmerman’s hands down or punching MMA style”

      ***John’s testimony will be much more than that. He will be allowed to express his opinion on what he saw, subject to the qualifications of not “seeing the lips move” or that the actions “could have been pinning.”

      This isn’t an area of “expert” witnesses, to the exclusion of the actual witnesses, but instead well within the scope of what can be asked and opined on by a eyewitness.

      So John will asked, and will say something like:

      Q: Recognizing the qualifications you expressed, on balance what did you believe you had seen at the time? A: Given the movements I saw, on balance, I believed the man on the bottom was being hit by the man on the top. Q: Who, at the time, did you believe was yelling for help? A: I believed the man on the bottom was yelling for help. Q: At the time, did you believe the man on the bottom was being hurt badly or could be hurt badly? A: Yes.

      The jury sorts it out. But common sense says they will not disbelieve John’s version — he sounds like a very credibly witness — beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Reply ↓

  21. Peter, you seem to be hoping that John will go back to his first account during the trial. I hope that someone will take the time to post the portion of the second interview where he expresses doubt about his first account. If John does what you say, the prosecution will have no problem impeaching him.

    Reply ↓

    • “Peter, you seem to be hoping that John will go back to his first account during the trial.”

      I didn’t say that at all.

      What I said was that John will explain what he saw and, within those parameters, give his interpretation of what happened, including his first reaction and even now, after consideration, what ON BALANCE, he believes happened. That is what the jury will weigh. His later qualifications of saying he did not “see the lips move” or that the movement of arms could have been pinning, does not at all preclude him expressing his general opinion based on what he did see and react to.

      If a precondition of having a certain level of supporting evidence was needed for a witness to give an opinion and interpretation of what the witness did see, you would have no witnesses! They tell what they saw and what they believed happened. No more, no less. The jury weighs it.

      Indeed, to prohibit John from giving his opinion that he had at the time, his qualifications to the conditions and his current leanings, means every other witness in this case, including DeeDee, should be excluded from giving their opinion. John, by far, is the strongest witness in giving eyewitness evidence as to what happened.

      Reply ↓

    • I should add that my opinion on how John will likely testify is based simply on estimated probabilities using what he originally said, the nature of his update and normal experience with witnesses and human nature.

      Many incorrectly read into John’s update that he said he did NOT see punching or MMA style hitting. That is NOT what he said. He only updated his statement to reflect low light conditions and conclude that given the arm and body movements he could see, other possibilities existed. It doesn’t take much logic to conclude he would testify he could have seen any of, or a combination of: pinning, MMA style punching, punching, smothering (holding face down to hit), smothering to stop the yelling for help, etc.

      I find it hard to believe that when questioned by an experienced defense lawyer and in light of the changes he did make, he would not answer in similar manner to what I stated. My opinion is not based on “hope” but instead a simple application of probabilities and past experience and that his update only attenuates his original thoughts and does not negate them entirely as some, including the media, have portrayed.

      As for “impeachment,” what John effectively did was remove “impeachment” from consideration based on low light by anticipating that obvious objection and, credibly, explaining it before he is challenged on the low light conditions on the stand. In short, impeachment based on low light was always there, John just finessed the issue by bringing it up first.

      Reply ↓

  22. What you are saying is news to me. Maybe Florida courts are different, but everywhere else I know, witnesses are told to report on what they saw, heard or did and the speculation and interpretation is left to the lawyers and jury. “Expert” witnesses may have more leeway.

    Reply ↓

    • Q: Why did you call 911?
      John: I thought this guy was being killed or seriously hurt the way he was screaming for help and what I saw. I was so concerned that I yelled to the guy on top to stop. But he wouldn’t.
      Q. Why did you think he was being killed or seriously being hurt?
      ETC.

      Reply ↓

    • I think this is also a question of the trial in front of Judge Lester (No Jury) where the judge may throw out charges, where all parties would have massive leeway. Or the full trial in front of a jury where Judge Lester would be far more strict in what he allows the Lawyers to do and when. If Corey and DeLaROsa can not convince Judge Lester that they actually have a case in spite of their media blitz then this may never make it to a full trial with a jury. Of course IANAL and I could be completely wrong.

      Reply ↓

    • There are many more complexities at trial, such as when leading questions can be asked (when questioning opposing witnesses). And there are many ways to “skin a cat.” Lawyers can be very good on finding ways to get testimony into evidence.

      Reply ↓

  23. PeterO, you said: “To have a prosecution depend on [nit] picking parts of a defendant’s statements to show ‘inconsistencies’ with no other evidence is about the weakest case a prosecutor could ever have.”

    I think the strength of the case will depend on how serious the contradictions in Zimmerman’s statements actually are. My guess is they are serious.

    Reply ↓

  24. FANTASTIC ANALYSIS! FINALLY–someone else with some COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC! I agree with almost everything you’ve addressed, with two slight differences.

    1. I believe that George sat in his truck initially located in CLOSER proximity (between points 1 and 2) to where Trayvon had taken cover. When Trayvon passed George, he began to slowly follow Trayvon in his truck. Trayvon was “tired” from running, because he had run a longer distance. He probably started running faster somewhere in the general area of point 3 towards the direction of point 4. George who had been slowly pursuing him as soon as Trayvon walked past him stopped and exited his truck once he reached that same location near point 3 (where he saw Trayvon beginning to run). At which point Zimmerman started walking/running towards point 4 in pursuit. He was told to stop, he agreed returned to his truck (20 second distance from his truck is essentially “stopping before starting”) and continued following him in his truck in the direction. Zimmerman arrived at point 4 WHILE still on the phone with the dispatcher, which is why he didn’t have a street name. He didn’t give a location or his address, because 1. there was no street sign, 2. he fully intended to continue following Trayvon, and 3. (deception) he wanted to “create” a “false” sense of urgency. When he hung up, he immediately drove and exited his truck at point 5, which was the first available (short cut) path providing a view of the entire sidewalk. (REMEMBER: Zimmerman was The NW Captain and well-familiar with the entire area.) Trayvon had just passed that point, which still put George BEHIND Trayvon. This explains Trayvon seeing Zimmerman’s sudden reappearance, and the shorten distance which allowed Zimmerman to quickly approach Trayvon.

    2. The continued NEED to “pointedly” mention and explain an “insignificance,” REACHING FOR THE CELL PHONE. Overlooking it being odd they don’t share the same version of events–with two exceptions, 1. George and his family continue to make a point to mention that George reached for his cell phone causing Trayvon to “attack” him. Why? Because, George didn’t reach for his cell phone. If he had reached for his cell phone, 2. he would have introduced himself (atleast) as NW, which he never does. This would be another “defining moment” when George was no longer under the umbrella of “stand your ground,” especially if Zimmerman was fully aware that Trayvon knew he had been following him. “Trayvon” representing “the average logical thinking person” only knew that: it was dark and raining, he was in a fairly unfamiliar neighbor, and a stranger had been following him for atleast 15 minutes. It’s logical to assume that if someone is bold enough to follow you, they are armed (and you wasn’t), with the intent of causing you physical harm. When Zimmerman approached him, he verified all of this by 1. NOT introducing himself and 2. Zimmerman pulled back his jacket for the SOLE PURPOSE of INTENTIONALLY SHOWING Trayvon HIS GUN WHILE REACHING for HIS GUN. Trayvon tried to stop him. George fell, but you’re right, his injuries don’t support head bashing, because there is a lack of head swelling (I’ve hit my head before, fell to the floor, and was hit with the butt of gun–there was always a “elephant man” size “hickey”). I have a problem with Zimmerman’s ability to access his gun so quickly. He couldn’t reach it if Trayvon was sitting on top of him. If he was standing, he certainly didn’t have to shoot, because there was no reason; he has never indicated that he saw any evidence of Trayvon having a weapon.

    I think the last 911 caller/call is reliable and provides key information. A retired teacher would certainly know the difference when hearing a man and a “boy” cries for help. She also says that she hopes it wasn’t the boy who was killed, and then says it is and ask why did the man shoot/kill him. Most importantly, while on the phone she’s actually giving a “voice analysis/recognition” of the two voices she heard: She says, the BOY was YELLING for help, and the MAN SAYS he shot him. The voice she heard yelling was not the same voice she heard speaking.

    Reply ↓

    • I tend to agree with everyone of your assumptions, except one: I don’t think GZ NEEDED to get out of his truck to see a street sign. . .he had been living in that community for 3 years and was the neighborhood watch man! The retreat has exactly THREE streets. . . Not that complicated to remember after walking the relatively small community even 2 or 3 times! And. . .it is obvious to the most dense person that, if Zimmerman was looking for a house number, he would have had a much better chance to find it on the FRONT of the houses, facing the street where he was parked, than in the BACK of the houses! That was a very transparent “excuse” to get out of his truck and follow Martin!

      Reply ↓

    • The retired teacher was north of the east-west sidewalk, and Zimmerman walked toward the T, which is where the police officer arrested him. She heard him say that he shot him. She deduced that the victim had been calling for help,

      On her 911 call when asked if it were a male or a female she said “I guess a male, I don’t know”

      Reply ↓

    • Let’s pretend your fantasy is true (BTW what you refer to as “points” 4 and 5 are actually the key).

      What evidence do you have that would support your scenario?

      Reply ↓

    • Danielle,

      He was at the T when he was talking to the dispatcher. The nearest street is Retreat View Circle to the east. That would be the logical location to check for a house address.

      Reply ↓

      • “He was at the T when he was talking to the dispatcher. The nearest street is Retreat View Circle to the east. That would be the logical location to check for a house address.”

        It might have been.

        But the dispatcher wasn’t asking for an address nearest to where Martin was last seen, he was asking in front of which address Zimmerman was parked.

        That would have been a Twin Trees address, the getting of which would have had the benefit of getting him back closer to his vehicle, as well as being what the dispatcher actually asked about.

        The idea was to establish a location where the police could meet up with Zimmerman when they got to The Retreat at Twin Lakes.

        Eventually it was settled that, instead of fixing upon a location, they would call Zimmerman when they arrived to find out where he was.

        With his notable lack of skill at giving directions, perhaps obtaining an address to give them would be better, but then why would he go over to the east leg of Retreat View to get said address and then not remain there?

        If he wanted to get back into his vehicle, he could have done that and then driven around to that place and then seen the address from the street while sitting parked in front of it.

        An explanation for his actions that does not include continuing to search for Martin eludes me.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

          • “Thank you for your common sense in analyzing Zimmerman’s true reason to be at the T, onlyiamunitron.”

            Just unitron, please (someone else registered it at wordpress years ago and then left it ababndoned but unavailable, just like they did with eBay)

            I prefer to think there’s nothing common about me, and others might argue whether I have sense of any kind.

            I don’t know Zimmerman’s true reasons for anything (or Martin’s, for that matter), it’s just that what I’ve heard from the Z-team so far I have trouble reconciling with the timeline. Bear in mind, as do I, that we haven’t heard from George himself yet, so the events of the night in question remain a puzzlement.

            unitron

    • We know George was at point 4. Where was his truck when the altercation happened? If you believe George’s story, his truck would have still been parked at point 4. For his actions to “make sense,” point 4 is the location where he ended the call with the dispatcher, he had exited his truck–and remained out of his truck to look for an address (why was he looking for an address between the back of the house), and attacked while returning to his truck at point 4.

      Reply ↓

    • “But the dispatcher wasn’t asking for an address nearest to where Martin was last seen, he was asking in front of which address Zimmerman was parked.”

      The dispatcher asked whether Zimmerman wanted to meet with police when they got “there”. Zimmerman yes. The dispatcher asked where Zimmerman wanted to meet the officer at. Zimmerman began to describe where he was at, using his truck’s location as a way point. The dispatcher did not want directions, he wanted an address.

      If you list to the 911 calls, you can see similar miscommunication with other callers. I had thought that the operator in one call wanted to distinguish between “rock at” and “rocket”, in asking whether it was one word or two words. But the new release of the call that redacts differently makes it clear that the dispatcher was asking whether it was “Twintrees” or “Twin Trees”. In another case it appears that caller gave a different street than an earlier caller, and the caller has to say, “no that is the next street over”. That is, even though the caller said XXXX Twin Trees, the operator wanted to hear it as XXXX Retreat View Circle (or vice versa).

      After Zimmerman realizes that the dispatcher is simply uncomprehending, he decides to talk to the police officer directly. If the police officer were at the gate, Zimmerman could have talked him to his location, in part because the officer could have asked questions if he didn’t understand.

      It is reasonable that Zimmerman would replay the phone conversation in his mind – and realize that the dispatcher needed a street address. A more conscientious dispatcher, would have said “OK George, I need a street address.” George: “I am between streets.” “Which streets are you between?” “Twin Trees Lane and Retreat View Circle”? “You aren’t in a vehicle or residence?” etc

      Or Zimmerman might have been thinking what he would tell the officer. He realized that Retreat View Circle was closer to the T; that an officer driving from the north would be able to park on the right (near) side of the street vs. parking away from the corner and on the far side of Twin Trees. The distance is twice as large to Twin Trees. And it would be closer to the back gate. Zimmerman might have decided to simply tell the police to go on out the back gate.

      “That would have been a Twin Trees address, the getting of which would have had the benefit of getting him back closer to his vehicle, as well as being what the dispatcher actually asked about.”

      The dispatcher was careless in his questions.

      “The idea was to establish a location where the police could meet up with Zimmerman when they got to The Retreat at Twin Lakes.”

      The idea was to establish a meeting place where Zimmerman had last observed Martin.

      “With his notable lack of skill at giving directions, perhaps obtaining an address to give them would be better, but then why would he go over to the east leg of Retreat View to get said address and then not remain there?”

      If the dispatcher had been as skilled and as diligent as you, he would have explained why he wanted the address.

      “If he wanted to get back into his vehicle, he could have done that and then driven around to that place and then seen the address from the street while sitting parked in front of it.”

      He could have walked back to his truck and driven around to the front of the units on Retreat View Circle. I am parked behind the units at 3XXX Retreat View Circle, but wait for me to drive back there.

      “An explanation for his actions that does not include continuing to search for Martin eludes me.”

      Your lack of cognizance does not mean that a reasonable explanation does not exist.

      Reply ↓

      • I’m not seeing the direct relevance to Zimmerman’s conversation with the police dispatcher of the conversations between other callers and other operators, unless you think there’s something in the water in Sanford that makes them especially prone in general to misunderstanding each other on the phone in a way that people in other communities are not.

        “The dispatcher asked whether Zimmerman wanted to meet with police when they got “there”. ”

        The dispatcher said “Do you want to meet with the officer when they get *out there*?”

        Out there, as in when they got to that neighborhood, not the specific square foot of ground on which Zimmerman was standing at that moment.

        He had already gotten an answer to the question of which way Martin ran.

        He was no longer asking about Martin.

        “If the dispatcher had been as skilled and as diligent as you, he would have explained why he wanted the address.”

        He did.

        “7:12:23: Dispatcher: All right, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
        7:12:29: Zimmerman: Yeah.
        7:12:30: Dispatcher: All right, where are you going to meet with them at?”

        He was trying to establish where Zimmerman and the police could meet up.

        He figured out if he tried to rely Zimmerman’s directions to them they might well wind up in the middle of the Atlantic. So he tried to pin down an address instead.

        “7:12:44: Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?”

        When that didn’t work out, he suggested the area of the mailboxes.

        “The idea was to establish a meeting place where Zimmerman had last observed Martin.”

        Whose idea? Not the dispatcher. Unless he thought Zimmerman had last observed Martin at the mailboxes.

        “He could have walked back to his truck and driven around to the front of the units on Retreat View Circle. I am parked behind the units at 3XXX Retreat View Circle, but wait for me to drive back there.”

        Is that some odd way of saying “I’m parked over on Twin Trees but I’ll drive around and meet you in the three-thousand block of Retreat View”?

        ” “An explanation for his actions that does not include continuing to search for Martin eludes me.”

        Your lack of cognizance does not mean that a reasonable explanation does not exist.”

        Okay, after ceasing to move rapidly, did he stand still for the next minute and half and finish the phone call? If so, where was he at the time?

        What did he do in the 2 minutes after hanging up?

        Reply ↓

    • OIAMUR,

      Why do you think that Martin stood under the mail shed for almost 20 minutes when the much more protected area under the clubhouse roof was available 10 feet away? Was he trying to break in to mail boxes?

      Reply ↓

      • Jimrtex. . .what would Trayvon have used to “break into the mail boxes?” a can of ice tea? Or the screwdriver he (allegedly) have in his back pack in Miami?
        And why would he have done that? How many mail boxes would he have had to explore before finding the $5.00 bill sent by a grandmother to her grandkid? Or did he need coupons to save on his next can of ice tea?

        A good imagination is generally an asset! In your case, it is becoming to look like desperation to find ANYTHING to demonize the victim!

        What about. . .Trayvon stopped at the most convenient to the road place to get some protection from the rain (and probably to take a rest if he had been running from the store under the rain), and talk to his friend on the phone!

        Get real, please!

        Reply ↓

    • Seven tenths of a mile in 25 minutes is not “running”.

      If he stood under the covering for the mail boxes for 18 minutes, it is an indication of drug use or slow wittedness given the alternatives.

      Reply ↓

      • “If he stood under the covering for the mail boxes for 18 minutes, it is an indication of …”

        …not wanting to get rained on, perhaps?

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • “I’m not seeing the direct relevance to Zimmerman’s conversation with the police dispatcher of the conversations between other callers and other operators”

      First, you need to remember that the dispatchers don’t work for Sanford, but rather Seminole County that has 400,000 persons. They are not familiar with every street – they have to type something in and sees whether the computer recognizes it. In the case of the street mix up, they were probably typing in a street address, and weren’t listening closely to the caller and were figuring it was the same street as the 7 other callers. And remember that when they did arrive, they had to be directed behind the buildings. There are strength and weaknesses to their methods. They don’t have to be familiar with an area, they simply need to type something into the computer. But it is also important that they communicate with the caller what their needs are. In Zimmerman’s case the dispatcher was careless.

      “The dispatcher said ‘Do you want to meet with the officer when they get *out there*?'”

      Lets avoid the use of the pronoun to help reduce ambiguity

      When they arrive at your subdivision, do you want to meet with the officer?

      Adding the preposition “out there” really does not provide a different meaning than “there”, it simply is an expression of the dispatchers point of view (“us” and “in here” for the police, and “you” and “out there” for everyone else), Or do you think that the dispatcher would drop “out” for certain subdivisions?

      “Where are you going to meet with them at?”

      Where in the subdivision do you want to meet? Using the the colloquial “where are you going to meet” indicates that is Zimmerman’s choice,

      Zimmerman then tries to explain how to get where he wants to meet with the officer. Just because it is not the choice that you might have made does not make it a wrong choice or unreasonable choice. It does not indicate a depraved disregard for human life.

      “He had already gotten an answer to the question of which way Martin ran.”
      “He was no longer asking about Martin.”

      Yes. He was asking Zimmerman for the meeting place.

      “‘If the dispatcher had been as skilled and as diligent as you, he would have explained why he wanted the address.'”

      “He did.”

      “7:12:23: Dispatcher: All right, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
      7:12:29: Zimmerman: Yeah.
      7:12:30: Dispatcher: All right, where are you going to meet with them at?”

      “He was trying to establish where Zimmerman and the police could meet up.”

      He did not explain why he wanted a street address, did he? If the police had arrived sooner, or Martin gone to where he was staying, Zimmerman would have explained to the police officer where to drive to to meet him.

      “He figured out if he tried to rely Zimmerman’s directions to them they might well wind up in the middle of the Atlantic. So he tried to pin down an address instead.”

      Even if it were some as clever as you, the dispatcher would have wanted a street address.

      “7:12:44: Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?”

      Zimmerman was using his truck as a way point. He was not parked in front of any residence. Go measure the distance from the five nearest residences and explain why you think he was in front of any of them.

      You seem to think the dispatcher was thinking, “I have a much higher SAT plus an unmarketable masters in art history, it is beneath me to try to understand”. I think he was careless.

      ‘When that didn’t work out, he suggested the area of the mailboxes.”

      Does the dispatcher work on a piece rate?

      “The idea was to establish a meeting place where Zimmerman had last observed Martin.”

      “Whose idea? Not the dispatcher. Unless he thought Zimmerman had last observed Martin at the mailboxes.”

      Zimmerman’s idea. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman to choose the meeting location. Just because the dispatcher was careless in explaining why he needed a street address, it does not mean that Zimmerman’s choice was unreasonable. If the dispatcher had bothered to explain why he needed a street address, Zimmerman could have walked to get one. Did the dispatcher have something else to do? Was he working past his shift or into his break time?

      “He could have walked back to his truck and driven around to the front of the units on Retreat View Circle. I am parked behind the units at 3XXX Retreat View Circle, but wait for me to drive back there.”

      Is that some odd way of saying “I’m parked over on Twin Trees but I’ll drive around and meet you in the three-thousand block of Retreat View”?

      While he was not parked in front of any residences, he was parked behind some. If he had the address of those units, he could have simply told the officer that he was parked behind the residence at 3XXX Retreat View Circle. When the officer got to that address, Zimmerman could have told him to go around the block onto Twin Trees.

      ” “An explanation for his actions that does not include continuing to search for Martin eludes me.”

      Your lack of cognizance does not mean that a reasonable explanation does not exist.”

      Okay, after ceasing to move rapidly, did he stand still for the next minute and half and finish the phone call? If so, where was he at the time?

      I think he was at the T looking south, banging his flashlight on his leg. I think he was still north of the first unit, when the dispatcher told him that they did not need him to continue to observe Martin from a distance. His last few slowing steps were be able to see down between the buildings where Martin had ran.

      What did he do in the 2 minutes after hanging up?

      He continues to wait for the police to arrive so he can tell them how to get to where he was at so they could meet. He is thinking about the earlier call with the dispatcher. He is thinking that the rain is cold on his head. Remember that the police arrived in reverse order. Ayala took 8 minutes, and two of those were after the shooting occurred. Zimmerman might have been standing in the rain for 15 minutes if no shooting had occurred and only officer Ayala had been called. He decides to stroll down to the end of the sidewalk to get an address. There is no sidewalk on the west side of RVC south of the east-west sidewalk, and there is a curb cut, so it would be normal to walk into the street. The address might be visible, but it is about a 45 degree angle with the front of the building, and the light is on the side when you are directly in front, would be somewhat closer. So it would be expected to walk south in the street for 10 or 15 feet. Zimmerman would take a long look south down RVC toward the back gate, and then decide to go back to his truck. This would be about a 1-mimute stroll, along with however long Zimmerman looked south.

      How long was it from the beginning of the argument, before Martin assaulted Zimmerman, Zimmerman started yelling for help, and the first callers realized to pick up the phone and call 911?

      Reply ↓

    • “If he stood under the covering for the mail boxes for 18 minutes, it is an indication of …

      …not wanting to get rained on, perhaps?”

      You evidently have not seen the clubhouse videos.

      Reply ↓

      • “You evidently have not seen the clubhouse videos.”

        Have you got a link handy?

        Someone over on TalkLeft (I think that’s where it was) posted some to several different camera angles in reply to me, but now I can no longer find it , although the one I watched of the swimming pool just sitting there didn’t seem especially enlightening. Perhaps you could recommend which view actually has something to offer.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

  25. This is from CNN:

    “The revocation of bond, I hope, is temporary,” O’Mara said. “I hope that they will give us a day in court to explain George’s behavior and look at all the circumstances … in determining what (Judge Lester) is going to do about letting him back out on bond.”

    But Crump, the Martin family attorney, said Monday that “if attorney O’Mara files the motion, then the stage is set for George Zimmerman and his wife to have to take the witness stand and try to explain what the state attorney said were blatant lies to the court, thus exposing them further to credibility issues.”

    Might make for some interesting testimony. Maybe they’ll bring up the passport thing too.

    Reply ↓

  26. Headline:

    “40% Now Say Trayvon Martin Shot in Self-Defense; 24% Say It Was Murder”

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/may_2012/40_now_say_trayvon_martin_shot_in_self_defense_24_say_it_was_murder

    In the CBS video interview of Crump linked to the article, Crump says it isn’t important who threw the first punch!

    The CBS interviewer speaks to Crump as if HE is conducting the prosecution! Ignorance truly is bliss in the media!

    For all the speculation presented in this blog and elsewhere, the reality is that, based on the hard evidence (and even known witnesses), for every argument against Zimmerman’s scenario in his claim of self defense there is at least an equally valid scenario for self-defense. The State’s premise that showing inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s statements will never convict Zimmerman.

    In fact, I believe that even if Zimmerman were to “break down” on the stand and say he deliberately gunned Martin down (with one shot) he would ultimately be found not guilty (after he was treated by a psychiatrist). American courts just do not allow convictions because a defendant does not testify in a “credible” manner without actual evidence supporting that conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, no such evidence exists and the witnesses, on balance, support Zimmerman.

    If such convictions, based on credibility alone, were allowed, let’s face it, DeeDee would be serving life along with Zimmerman. That was a touch of humor directed to the serious issue of DeeDee lying so flagrantly in order to put Zimmerman away for life.

    It is interesting that the State NEVER CHARGED ZIMMERMAN FOR LYING TO THE POLICE. That was the only way Casey Anthony could be convicted of anything. Yet that was never done with Zimmerman.

    If the Casey Anthony jurors, from the onset of their deliberations, never believed the State even remotely proved their case, how does anyone expect that to happen with Zimmerman?

    Reply ↓

    • Hi I’ve been reading for quite some time, but finally wanted to chime in. In regards to the question above, I really feel that with this case, the fight has no bearing. I think it will come down to frame of mind. The gun did not kill Trayvon; it was arrogance, attitude and ego that ended his life. Zimmerman placed himself in a position where a person (Trayvon) was either going to be on the offense or defensive when and if he came in contact with him. Why? I think Zimmerman proved his intentions in his own phone call. He didn’t want an asshole to get away, thus provoking Trayvon (the asshole) when and if he came in contact with him, for him to be either on offense, or on defense no matter what. So, with that in mind, how on earth can this even be considered a SYG or self-defense case at all? The fact remains, Zimmerman had no reason to be anywhere in the cut at all, especially after handing the situation over to emergency services.

      Reply ↓

  28. I agree Jodi Ann. Zimmerman already had pegged Trayvon as one of “those aholes” that “always get away”. He sounded so disappointed that Trayvon was running away from him. Trayvon had done absolutely nothing. All it takes to be one of “those aholes” in Zimmerman’s mind is just walking down the street, maybe dodging the rain by getting under a roof eve.

    PeterO, you appear to be arguing as if you already have all the evidence. You don’t.

    Reply ↓

    • HP for the prosecution: We have no evidence to refute self-defense (except unidentified “inconsistencies”) — but we cannot prove Zimmerman lied in his statements, otherwise we would have charged him with that (as we did Casey Anthony). We have no evidence who the aggressor was. We have no evidence who confronted who. But Zimmerman is guilty of murder unless he can produce evidence (which we don’t have) to prove innocence. He’s guilty until proven innocent with no evidence either way.

      Nice spin!

      Reply ↓

      • Apparently, based on all your posts, you much prefer to find the victim, Trayvon, the DEAD teenager, “guilty until proven innocent!”
        You have spun a huge web of negative assumptions and drawn conclusions of Trayvon’s “guilt” that are made based on barely veiled racial profiling. You, like Zimmerman, have decided, based on RACE that this young man HAD to be “dangerous and a good for nothing thug.”
        Why is YOUR bias “nicer” than mine?

        Reply ↓

  29. Is a state prosecutor expected to not omit material parts of the questioning of a witness in making a motion for revocation of bond. Is it OK to to simply pull out that material, or should the fact that such an excising was done, be indicated with ellipses? Is it sufficient to include a reference to the actual transcript, in case the judge wanted to see what had actually been said.

    Reply ↓

    • It’s interesting that in a recent survey the public trusted juries much more than they trusted judges.

      Not a peep from Judge Lester when the State omitted that the dispatcher twice told Zimmerman, just before he exited his car, to keep reporting on the suspect’s actions. Which puts Zimmerman exiting his car in an entirely different light. Or that DeeDee, in her interview that the State had a transcript of, said Martin had first run directly to Brandy’s apt when he ran. She said he then, after missing where he was for the next 2-3 minutes said the confrontation occurred — at the other end of the back path between building rows. Yet the State, in its affidavit, had said Martin was only going straight home.

      Judges are notoriously pro-prosecution and Judge Lester certainly treated Zimmerman differently that he treated the State. Was he reading the headlines at the time?

      Reply ↓

      • “… the State omitted that the dispatcher twice told Zimmerman, just before he exited his car, to keep reporting on the suspect’s actions. ”

        Was that before, during, or after telling him that they didn’t need for him to be following?

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • Right before Zimmerman exited the car. He then exited the car, jogged a few seconds; the dispatcher advised him not to follow a fleeing suspect (to protect Zimmerman); Zimmerman said “OK,” immediately stopped and took another 10-15 seconds to get back his breath. I thought you knew this already, unitron?

      Reply ↓

  30. PeterO, you put words in my mouth and then called those words a spin. If the words YOU use are a spin, then the spin is YOURS!

    Please, let’s be civil, shall we?

    Reply ↓

    • HP, you said “PeterO, you appear to be arguing as if you already have all the evidence. You don’t.”

      I could not imagine more spin than that statement. Or a more graphic example of putting words in someone’s mouth.

      My arguments have always been based on the State’s ADMISSIONS (and actual known evidence), not on evidence that that the State ADMITS IT DOESN’T HAVE.

      Of course I don’t have evidence of guilt that the State admits if doesn’t have!

      Yet you say I cannot argue the implications of the State’s admissions it has no evidence disproving self-defense … because I don’t have that non-existent evidence!

      Reply ↓

  31. Two BIG differences between THIS case and the Casey Anthony case: Unlike the circumstances surrounding Caley’s death, this time we KNOW the cause of death, and we KNOW who pulled the trigger.

    I’m not saying this information is sufficient alone for a guilty verdict, but these were two huge obstacles that the prosecution had to overcome in the Casey Anthony case, that don’t apply to this case. Same with the OJ case. No comparison whatsoever.

    Reply ↓

    • Why not state it correctly.

      In the Anthony case, the State had to prove murder. In the Zimmerman case, the State has to disprove self-defense. The state had a much stronger case in the former than they have in the latter.

      Even in the stronger Anthony case, from day one of deliberations, the jurors were overwhelmingly of the belief the State did not prove its case.

      The State’s case to disprove Zimmerman’s self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt, based on what the State has already ADMITTED, is about as good as the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell.

      Reply ↓

  32. If I went out right now and found 6 people at random, and had them read this page, then asked them if they would find Z guilty. I think the answer would be unanimous, guilty. If you guys want to suggest that Z is innocent, you really are doing a terrible job of it. And lets face fact shall we, nobody is supporting Z, what they are really supporting is SYG, gun laws, and have turned this into a right vs left argument (disclaimer, I think both sides are responsible for turning into a R vs D fight)

    Reply ↓

  33. Goodbye for now guys and gals. I’ll come back, perhaps, when Zimmerman’s interviews with the police are released to the public. Right now there is not enough meat to chew on.

    Reply ↓

  35. PO:
    -A poll is not a jury. Did you post the results here previously when they went the other way? No.
    -The prosecution has not presented its case.
    -The poll was taken on May 19 – 20, BEFORE the judge threw Zimmerman back into the slammer for deliberately misleading the court.

    Judge to Zimmerman’s lawyer: “Does your client get to sit there like a potted palm and let you lead me down the primrose path?”

    Zimmerman’s lawyer to the press: “Mr. Zimmerman understands that this mistake has undermined his credibility, which he will have to work to repair.”

    Reply ↓

  36. From CNN:

    “‘Mr. Zimmerman’s legal defense team has decided to delay filing a motion for bond,’ the defense team said Tuesday on its website, GZLegalcase.com. ‘A hearing will not be scheduled for a couple of weeks, and we will file a motion well in advance of the hearing.’

    “The filing was delayed for several reasons, lead defense attorney Mark O’Mara said but did not elaborate.”

    Will O’Mara stay on this case? Will Zimmerman have the patience to put some time between his deception to the court and a request for a new bond hearing? Will there even be a new bond hearing?

    I think this does present a dilemma for the defense, because a new hearing will conceivably require Zimmerman to come before the court and publicly admit that he deliberately misled the court. This is not a good way to begin a defense that relies solely on Zimmerman’s word.

    “Reasonable” doubt can only go so far, and the prosecution has not yet presented their case.

    Reply ↓

    • How long will you keep beating the dead horse.

      Not only will this sideshow not be admitted at trial, but it has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

      I find it interesting that for all the media reports, not one of those reports mentions that the estimated cost of trial far outstrips not only the amount Zimmerman’s trust fund already raised, and even every annualized projection based on the rate of contributions.

      Charge his wife with perjury or charge him with non perjury (he never testified) or continue to discredit the State’s case by further pursuing this nonsensical theory that this “dead horse” issue will have any effect whatsoever at trial.

      Try finding the evidence the State admits it doesn’t have to disprove Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense since it would be much more productive to the case itself.

      Reply ↓

  37. If you don’t mind PO, I’ll wait for the prosecution to present their case, rather than try to be any more specific about their case than I’ve already been. Meanwhile, you may predict the outcome all that you like, based on polls, or whatever.

    I might opt to disagree with the importance placed on certain of your assumptions however. Carry on.

    Reply ↓

    • Zimmerman didn’t testify at the bond hearing and I do not see the State going after his wife.

      So what is left?

      None of the bond issue is even remotely admissible at Zimmerman’s trial.

      It is simply the media looking for “hits” and “headlines” and the rapidly declining part of the public who still believe Zimmerman guilty and are fruitlessly grasping at any vain hope to discredit Zimmerman’s iron clad defense.

      Reply ↓

  38. Its funny, I have been wondering why we, us, all of the people interested in a cease feel so strongly one way or the other. I quickly realized that given almost any case, there would be two strongly agreed camps.

    But Why?

    Why is it that there are these two major groups of people in this country that so strongly disagree over almost everything? This is not just a thing here in the USA. All over the world there are those that disagree over much the same highly defined lines as we Americans do.

    I look at this case and I think to myself, “surly these people can’t really believe 100% in their statements” But I am sure that “those” people are asking the same about my opinions and views. So I ask myself, how can we see things so differently? Surly if the facts really were that vague, there would be not two camps of thought, but rather thousands. So why only the two? why the ‘us against them’ that has happened so much in our country? What is it about us humans that creates such a distinct split?

    Many people think of GZ as a guy trying to help. But I think inside all of us that we know that he was just a guy, with a gun, who wanted to be a cop, and thought he was doing good in this world so bad that he would go to some unusual lengths to achieve this. Not such a bad thing, not racist, but not the norm. TM is the kind of kid that regardless of his skin color many of us as we get older are suspicions of, just human nature.

    But how have we as a people got to the point that we can’t come to some common ground that we don’t want this kind of action happening in our society? TM being killed and GZ possibly spending the rest of his life in jail are both terrible. But I feel that us not being able to find common ground to agree on is far worse.

    Lets forget about these two people for a moment, look at yourself, would you want this for your kids? when you look at your kids what do they think about you your opinion of this case?

    People talk about TM being on drugs that night. In my life there is no drug more dangerous than self righteousness. We are all guilty, and at some point we will all have to admit that to our self’s But this world will never get better until we admit it to one another.

    So for all our opinions about this subject, I think we need to learn more about our selfs than selfishly hope that in the end our silly projections of this case fall in line with our obvious self interests. I think we will be both disappointed. And truly anyone that says “I was right” “HAHAHAHAHA” at the end of this case is sick. There is no end to this case that will make me happy.

    Reply ↓

  39. Sandbagger emotes:

    “But I think inside all of us that we know that he was just a guy, with a gun, who wanted to be a cop, and thought he was doing good in this world so bad that he would go to some unusual lengths to achieve this.”

    When you say “I think”, you really mean “It is my opinion”. And since you haven’t produced any actual evidence of what “we know inside”, what you are really suggesting is that “we” possess some emotional or psychic knowledge, and that you having reached an elevated sense of consciousness that allows you to understand our inner feelings.

    Reply ↓

  40. Well, “I think” you are right sandbagger that it is truly very sad about this strange and unfortunate split between us humans, but it may be partly the nature of those of us who take a certain particular side to feel this way. Or maybe this is just my own perception.

    For the sake of experimentation, I’ll ask jimrtex. Hey j, do you ever feel bad about there being this split between us humans?

    Actually I do think there are some really bad people in the world, Some people are really just very, very bad and actually do like to hurt others. These people can be Republicans or Democrats. I don’t think everyone who wants to see George Zimmerman released is a bad person. Since I disagree with them, I do think they’re wrong.

    Most of me thinks that Zimmerman could fall into a “bad person” category, despite the fact that I know everyone has a good and bad side. Another side of me partly excuses what I really believe he did, as possibly being related to the prescription drugs he was taking. I’ve seen ADHD kids that were simply just hyper before they get their prescriptions. Then they start taking pills and go from hyper to violent. I hate drugs, but especially the psychotropic ones that come from doctors, because they’re such a Trojan horse.

    There’s definitely a big part of me that would like to say at the end of this, “I told you so”. But then, am I becoming the thing that I disdain? And whatever the verdict, I can’t say that I’ll change my own mind about what happened, and this may be true about everyone here.

    I’ll tell ya, it takes a lot of restraint sometimes for me to not really let loose on some of the dumb mean things I see people say here. I admire you and unitron.

    Reply ↓

    • HP,

      I don’t think you are a bad person. You are probably gullible, and have been manipulated, and your continued chase scenario is pure fantasy.

      Reply ↓

  41. Dershowitz: Zimmerman Prosecutor Threatening to Sue Harvard for My Criticism

    Here is a editorial by Alan Dershowitz about Angela Corey’s phone call to Harvard, threatening to sue Harvard Law School and Alan Dershowitz. I would like to see her sue Dershowitz and Harvard Law School :), especially if Judge Lester throws the Zimmerman case out due to insufficient probable cause and misleading Judge Recksilder with incomplete information, which may well happen.

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Zimmerman-Trayvon-Angela-Corey/2012/06/05/id/441305

    —–

    Also here is an update on the new Bond Hearing so mark your calendars.

    MEDIA UPDATE: State v. Zimmerman (2012-CF-001083-A)
    Bond Hearing Scheduled for June 29
    Circuit Judge Kenneth R. Lester will preside over a bond hearing for George
    Zimmerman on Friday, June 29, at 9:30 a.m., in courtroom 5-D of the Criminal Justice Center in
    Sanford.
    In Session and the Orlando Sentinel will be providing the video and still pool feeds for
    this hearing and all future court proceedings in this case. No additional cameras, including cell
    phones, will be permitted to be used in the courtroom.

    Reply ↓

  42. My understanding is that Ms. Corey is not happy because she knows that Dershowitz knows that she cannot publicly answer his public charges of her incompetence.

    So far the judge hasn’t shown any sign whatsoever of agreeing with Dershowitz’s accusations. Susan posted an article that disagrees with Dershowitz as well.

    Reply ↓

    • HP,

      The judge at the arrangement found probable cause.

      It doesn’t appear that any judge has been asked via motion to rule on whether there is probable cause.

      I don’t know any law professor or criminal attorney who has said that it is legally or ethically permissible for the affidavit to leave out exculpatory material, such as the injuries that Zimmerman suffered.

      -MM

      Reply ↓

    • Correction:

      “Susan posted an article that disagrees with Dershowitz”

      should be:

      “Susan posted an article that completely disagrees with Dershowitz”

      Reply ↓

  44. Oops. Sorry, those two “anonymous” posts were from me (hapufern). I didn’t fill in my details correctly!

    Reply ↓

  45. Looks like Shellie Zimmerman had good reason to be afraid for her life and the lives of her family. And had good reason to fear the State could not protect her and her family:

    Headline:

    “Junior Alexander Guy gets George Zimmerman’s old number, bombarded with death threats”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57449550-504083/junior-alexander-guy-gets-george-zimmermans-old-number-bombarded-with-death-threats/

    The “potted plant” theory of lying:

    Incident 1:

    The state (and unfortunately, Susan) excluded the key part of the dispatcher tape where Zimmerman is told to keep reporting on the suspect’s movements just before Zimmerman exits his car (the “time-line” does include Zimmerman’s “a______” comment)

    At about 1:34 in the dispatcher tape:

    PD: Just let me know if he does anything ok
    GZ: How long until you get an officer over here?
    PD: Yeah we’ve got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
    GZ: Okay. These assholes they always get away.

    So the entire context of Zimmerman leaving his car changes from reality by simply editing out the dispatcher’s instructions to Zimmerman to “let me know if he does anything.” An instruction that the dispatcher, for emphasis, TWICE REPEATED.

    Incident 2:

    No one wants to quote what DeeDee said in her sworn statement to the prosecutor:

    a) She said that Martin had run straight to Brandy’s apt once he started running. She then omitted what Martin did at the apt, or where he went in the next 2-3 minutes until the confrontation. So the State lied when it said Martin was always going home until attacked.

    b) She said (it is hard to hear) either a) she didn’t believe Martin when he said he was being followed; or b) equally important, that she believed Zimmerman had hung up from the phone and exited his car to “follow” Martin before he ran because Martin was also telling her that Zimmerman was watching him while sitting in his car and on the phone. This was all occurred, so DeeDee says, while Martin walked from the “mail shed” towards the back path. The dispatcher tape shows that Zimmerman was always on the phone while sitting in his car and he watched Martin as he walked towards the car which was about 20-30 seconds before he passed Zimmerman and then ran.

    c) DeeDee stated that the only reason Martin said Zimmerman was “crazy” was because he was looking at Martin!

    So the State has now created a defense to [Martin’s] aggravated assault on Zimmerman by creating a new form of justifiable provocation to assault: The “What? You looking at me” provocation defense (made famous by De Nero in “Taxi Driver” and universally known to any urban city high school student).

    According to the State, you are now free to attack anyone for looking at you the wrong way … and the victim can never use or claim self-defense!

    In addition, according to the State, the only way to invalidate the “looking at me” provocation defense to aggravated assault — so an assault victim can claim self-defense — is if the victim talks to the assaulter (presumably in some “conciliatory” or explanatory manner — to be determined by a jury). Of course, this new theory leads to the the next conundrum: what if the attacker, in response to the victim’s verbal (assault?) says “What? You talking to me?”

    d) the State, besides omitting mention of the extensive damage to Zimmerman in its probable cause affidavit, also failed to mention that there was NO DAMAGE TO MARTIN — except in the knuckle area. Thereby, the State omitted evidence that Martin was the attacker before the single shot was fired.

    Crump, quickly picking up on the State’s revolutionary new legal theory of the case (the “looking at me” justifiable provocation for assault), RECENTLY SAID IT IS NOT IMPORTANT WHO THREW THE FIRST PUNCH.

    Actually, to be accurate, Zimmerman never got to throw a punch as the autopsy and Martin’s own mortician established there were no marks or bruises on Martin’s body.

    Reply ↓

  46. PO, I think you’re reading a lot into what you perceive to be the State’s case (that they haven’t yet made). For example, there’s no reason to believe that the State will say that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and then try to justify that. A perceived first attack by Trayvon is not supported by anything I’ve ever heard of from the State, and that includes Crump’s statement that you quote.

    In addition, Dee Dee said that it sounded to her as if Trayvon was pushed, and then she heard Trayvon say, “Get off of me!” if Zimmerman pushed Trayvon and then got on top of Trayvon, Trayvon would certainly have been justified in punching Zimmerman to try to get him off, and this could easily explain why Trayvon had no marks.

    I believe Dee Dee’s story; and if you don’t, then I have to wonder why you quote her.

    As for the dispatcher’s instructions to Zimmerman for information regarding Trayvon’s actions, it’s notable that Zimmerman replied “OKay” to that instruction, but then did not tell the dispatcher that Trayvon was circling the truck, as Zimmerman later claimed. The action of circling the truck would have had to occur at right about the time that Zimmerman said OKay in response to the dispatcher’s instruction to tell the dispatcher if Trayvon did anything else.

    The dispatcher’s instruction to tell him what Trayvon is doing is also irrelevant to an explanation of why Zimmerman didn’t return to the truck immediately after agreeing to stop following Trayvon. We know that Zimmerman was not attacked immediately after hanging up the phone with the dispatcher, because we have DeeDee’s phone records.

    As for the State lying when they said Trayvon was always going home, I don’t think you know that at all. As I’ve said in the past, Trayvon may have bipassed his house the first time because he could see Zimmerman coming up behind him, and TRAYVON DIDN’T HAVE A KEY, which we know from the evidence list. He would not have wanted to risk getting caught at the door waiting for Chad to answer.

    DeeDee SAID, “he ran from the back”. She later said Trayvon “started walking back AGAIN”, after he told her he thought he’d lost Zimmerman.

    This is consistent with Trayvon just trying to get to Brandy’s house the entire time.

    Reply ↓

    • HP,

      I have noticed you continually misrepresent what is said, and then address your own misrepresentations to “prove” your “argument.”

      For example, you disingenuously say: “PO, I think you’re reading a lot into what you perceive to be the State’s case (that they haven’t yet made). For example, there’s no reason to believe that the State will say that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and then try to justify that. A perceived first attack by Trayvon is not supported by anything I’ve ever heard of from the State, and that includes Crump’s statement that you quote.”

      Yet, you know full well that it is Zimmerman who says he was attacked by Martin, not the State or Crump. I never said the State or Crump claimed Martin attacked Zimmerman. So you falsely imply I said that when you know it is not true.

      With regard to DeeDee, you repeatedly say “I believe Dee Dee’s story.” But you never answer the question: Which story? DeeDee has given different stories in different media interviews, the ones with ABC where you actually heard her voice and in other places, purportedly through Crump who “tells” her story.

      Yet, when DeeDee is finally questioned — five weeks after the events and after making every possible attempt to duck making a statement under oath — she tells a conflicting story. Her statement, made under oath, completely repudiates any fantasy chase of Martin by Zimmerman. Yet you “believe her”! What do you believe? The Chase? If so give a precise timeline when each of the various fictional “chases” started and stopped. DeeDee, in the ABC interviews, described many on again off again chases culminating in Zimmerman finally cornering Martin and shooting him. Does anyone still believe that nonsense, except you?. Do you, HP, still believe that?

      I have consistently said DeeDee’s “story” should be completely ignored as a work of fiction due to its contradictions and easily disproved elements. Showing her sworn statements that contradict her other statements, including those others have made for her, is called “impeachment.”
      Moreover, I am glad to see you acknowledge that the repeatedly omitted instructions from the dispatcher to Zimmerman to report on the suspect’s movements just before Zimmerman left the car, exists! No one else, including in Susan’s “time-line,”, seems to want to admit that key fact.

      BTW, Martin circling the car has no relationship to the issue of the dispatcher telling Zimmerman twice to keep reporting on the suspect. It explains why Zimmerman exited the car once the suspect had disappeared down the back path — because the dispatcher told him to keep reporting.

      As for you saying: “As for the State lying when they said Trayvon was always going home, I don’t think you know that at all.” Just read the probable cause affidavit and the hearing transcript where the State makes much of their assertion Martin was heading directly home. As for “fear” of getting “caught” by Zimmerman, DeeDee said: Martin never told her he was in any “fear” of Zimmerman (only that Zimmerman was “crazy” for just looking at him); Martin told her he believed Zimmerman was “lost” as soon as he reached the apt after passing Zimmerman in his car and running; and she did not say Martin told her he could not get into the apt (HP, you just fictionalized that!).

      Reply ↓

      • I do not believe that Deedee’s account of what she knows from her point of view (hundreds of miles away, and through a phone) are contradictory. Obviously there are some inconsistencies that are perfectly normal due to the fact that she never expected to testify in any way about this, and that she is only a very young girl, with obviously a poor command of the English language and easily intimidated (for good reasons, I would say, considering she was from the beginning the target of hateful remarks from GZ’s supporters. . .and she continues to be!)

        Her main statements are very clear: She was on the phone with Trayvon while he was near the mailboxes, and he told her about a (not only “crazy”) but CREEPY guy following him and watching him. In a teenager’s vonacular, “creepy” means “giving you goose bump, not to be trusted, someone or something with unclear but scary intentions). That expression does reflect very clearly that Trayvon was concerned and uneasy about that guy (GZ) observing him for several minutes (at least) and just sitting in his car, in the dark, and NOT in a parking area.

        I also believe that her reference to “a couple of minutes” doesn’t mean “TWO minutes,” but a rather short, and undefined (well, she wasn’t keeping track of time as we all seem to be today trying to pin down the exact “timeline” of all the phone calls and all the happenings!). . .that could have been as short as 30 seconds to 3 minutes. When kids talk on the phone, they tend to loose track of time anyway, and “silences” seem to stretch, even if they last only 20 seconds!

        Once again, you seem to pile up EVERY POSSIBLE negatives on Deedee, without ever considering her age, her situation, and her obvious problems communicating with adults. . .especially adults in situation of authority . . .like police or attorneys!

        Actually, if she had repeated word for word what Crump said of her testimony. . .that would be A LOT more suspcious as her hesitancy and the slight differences in her account. Now. . .did SHE change her story purposely? I don’t believe so. . .I think she probably doesn’t have the intelligence or the composure of telling lies. She is not a “former magistrat” who knows exactly what to say to influence a trial or public opinion. . .and she has been a lot more honest than that “former magistrat” (GZ’s father) and GZ’s brother, who have obviously told a story that has no resemblance to reality re: GZ’s injuries.

        By the way, you can keep on brushing my opinion aside because I “don’t have knowledge of the legal process,” but. . .you are missing the point here: VERY FEW jury will have “knowledge of the legal process,” and you are welcome to reject my opinion as absolutely worthless as a “legal person,” (I never pretended to be in the legal field), but you would make a BIG mistake discounting my opinion or my view of the events (or the validity of the witnesses) because there is a much greater chance that most jury will perceive the events as I have, rather than as “a legal guru!”

        Reply ↓

    • BDLR question of Gilbreath was whether Zimmerman reported that Martin “began to circle”. BDLR’s apparent tactic is to mislead people by stating something and then letting them draw the wrong conclusion. If Martin walked toward Zimmerman and then looped around his car and then came in behind, it would not be perceived as circling when it was happening, but it would be perceived as “starting to circle” after it happened.

      Dispatcher is on stand.
      BDLR: Did Zimmerman ever say anything about Martin circling the car?
      Dispatcher: No.

      MOM: Did you ever dispatch officers to the scene?
      Dispatcher: Yes.
      MOM: When?
      Dispatcher: It is in the event log. I push a button and a car is dispatched and logged.
      MOM: Do you start an event log, when someone calls?
      Dispatcher: No. The connect time is logged, and I enter information, but I am evaluating what to do with that information.
      MOM: (plays tape beginning 15 seconds before event log is opened, and includes first dispatch, also has transcript with times of opening event and dispatch shown). Why did open event at this time at dispatch the officer.
      Dispatcher: I could tell Mr. Zimmerman was threatened.
      MOM: Even though he didn’t mention Martin circling?
      Dispatcher: Listen for yourself.

      “DeeDee” says that Martin ran from the back of Zimmerman’s car after walking towards Zimmerman, and that this was planned (he was going to run from the back). He ran until he was tired, and then he was right by his Dad’s place. She could hear his breathing hard and maybe the wind. But Martin must have told her that he was “right by his Dad’s place”.

      And remember, both Brandy and Tracy Martin said he sitting on the back porch.

      Reply ↓

    • I apologize PO if my points were not sufficiently clear. To reiterate: everything I say is merely my own opinion, unless I provide clear resources.

      It is unfortunate that you were previously banned from this site for several false statements regarding a court proceeding that you continued to insist upon – even after at least 2 notices by our host that included her suggestion that you actually read the record. Therefore, much of what you say may not be credible. Anyone wishing to do so may read our former posts to see if your accusations are true.

      Please carry on, and hopefully we can be a little more civil and just agree to disagree on points we raise.

      Reply ↓

      • HP, I have to thank you for your civility and your patience! You are a role model in this forum. Even toward the most extreme attitude, you have managed to keep a respectful and fair approach, while still expressing your point of view with eloquence.
        I am pretty sure that, if more people had your sense of integrity and your kindness toward others, even those with whom you disagree, there would be more chance for both sides to come together and explore the questions remaining (many) with the few answers we already have.
        As things are, it seems that one side is so intent to see only the “thug” in the victim, and the “devoted neighborhood watch person” in the shooter.
        I, do not believe that Zimmerman purposely went after Trayvon to kill him, but I also believe that his judgement and his temper got in the way and that he is guilty of having overstepped his unofficial duty and therefore is guilty of the death of a teenager. I believe he deserves a full jury trial and I hope it will result in an aggravated manslaughter charge and SOME jail time (5 to 10 years would be more than adequate in my opinion.
        But, IF he gets a full jury trial and is found not guilty, I will accept that judgement because, at least (due to the public outcry that refused for this sad story to be swept under the rug) a full investigation and as much clarity on the story will have been reached.

        Reply ↓

    • Here is my problem with the way this mess has been handled. Lets assume 772.036 Immunity was not on the books in FL. You are in a justified shooting and have to defend yourself from an armed mugger trying to kill you while taking your wallet, then a DA decides he does not like guns so decides to go after you anyway. You are not only having to live with the aftermath of having to Kill someone in self defense, now your life is turned upside down by a trial, as well as the civil suits by little thugsley’s family trying to soak you for everything you have. Your life is completely destroyed forever because of a mugger. This is how laws are written in IL, NY, CA, and many other states, but the laws in FL (F.S. 776.032 Immunity) are supposed to protect us (FL Citizens) from out of control prosecutors and retaliation lawsuits. That is why the police have to have clear probable cause to arrest and bring to trial in the first place. Sanford PD said they did not have probable cause after looking at the photos we have only recently seen as well as all of the witnesses with the exception of DD who did not come forward at all, but was discovered almost by accident and pressured into testifying. Det Gilbreath admitted they have no contradictory evidence on the stand.

      If Zimmerman is found not guilty by a Jury, how is he supposed to get his life back, aside from Sharpton and friends Making him a Marked Man. He can not get a job under the name George Zimmerman, he can not go out and go to any college in case he is recognized, he can not lead anywhere near a normal life. His life is effectively destroyed even if he is found not-guilty of Second Degree Murder.

      Here is an example of just what the race-baiters have stirred up:

      ——-
      Orlando man given George Zimmerman’s old cellphone number bombarded with death threats

      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/08/orlando-man-given-george-zimmerman-old-cell-phone-number-bombarded-with-death/#ixzz1xG8iHJMS

      ORLANDO – At the age of 49, Orlando man Junior Alexander Guy finally bought his first cellphone. Within days he wished he hadn’t.

      At all hours of the day and night, the phone would ring and callers would insult and threaten him.

      He quickly worked out that the number he had been given by T-Mobile previously belonged to Trayvon Martin murder accused George Zimmerman, The Orlando Sentinel reported, and was the number Zimmerman gave to 911 dispatchers the night of his fatal clash with Martin.

      When his 911 call was released, his phone number — 407-435-2400 — became widely known. Zimmerman got rid of the number and it was reissued to Guy.

      “At two o’clock, three o’clock in the morning I kept getting these [calls],” Guy said.
      In all, he got about 70 threatening calls between May 7, when he bought the phone, and May 16, when he gave it to a lawyer — who is petitioning T-Mobile to pay damages to Guy.

      T-Mobile refused, saying it gave Guy a new number and provided an account credit.

      It also made the sensible decision to retire the number to prevent another innocent party ending up on the receiving end of death threats.

      ——-

      This is just some innocent guy (no pun intended) that just bought a cell phone from T-Mobile and now he has had to worry about protecting his family. Or how about the elderly couple that Spike Lee gave the address of saying it was Zimmerman’s address, will a not guilty verdict give them their life back. Or how about all of the victims of “Justice For Trayvon” violence from the guy in Mobile, to the 2 reporters in VA, to the guy is Chicago and so on all over the country. Can Sharpton wave a magic wand and give all of them their lives back, or are they just “Meaningless Collateral Damage” to him and his employers at MSNBC so they can stir up ratings. They never did name the mysterious employee that edited the Audio Tapes to stir up this mess that they supposedly fired. All of this “Meaningless Collateral Damage” should already be suing MSNBC and Sharpton for instigating this entire media fest that seems to be leading to riots. And if/when Zimmerman is found not guilty he should sue their pants off to make up for the damage they have directly done to him.

      Reply ↓

    • He ought to sue the City of Sanford for releasing a police call without redacting personal information. There was hearing to release the calls with a hearing scheduled for the 19th, and Mayor Triplett overruled the city manager and police department and said to release them.

      Someone apparently got pissy and released them unredacted (the 911 calls originally had time stamps, and then Sanford put new versions and said that the times were in no particular order).

      Just before Zimmerman was charged, the State Attorney told Sanford to take them down – they weren’t on the police department website, but the city website.

      Reply ↓

    • jimrtex,
      I actually agree with you, they should have edited out the phone number. This is why govt officials need legal leashes. If they operate on their own without legal restraints, or on the whims of Talk Show hosts they should be made to pay a steep price either legally or financially. As an example State preemption of gun and ammo laws has been on the books for years to prevent subdivisions of the State (Cities, Counties, HOA’s, etc…) from making any laws or rules in the field of firearms, so we can have uniform laws from Pensacola to Jacksonville to Key-West, but 790.33 (Field of regulation of firearms and ammunition preempted.) did not have any teeth (fines etc..). Any laws that were in violation could be overturned by a court after the fact but that was it. As of this year cities, counties, and any other agency below the FL Legislature that attempts to make any laws in this area will be fined. As a result many cities and counties are racing to repeal laws that are in violation of 790.33 as fast as they can so they do not get fined by the state.

      Reply ↓

  47. Hi Jimrtex. I agree that my chase scenario is fantasy, as well as everyone else’s scenario presented here. I think one major difference is that the scenario I’ve offered has always been offered as “conjecture”.

    I get the distinct feeling though that Zimmerman’s supporters believe their own fantasies are “fact”. For instance, some Zimmerman supporters appear to think it’s a fact that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

    As to who is gullible and manipulated, of course we don’t really know, do we? I kind of had that same impression of Zimmerman supporters.

    Maybe we have something in common after all! Which is OK by me.

    Reply ↓

  48. Jimrtex, I don’t think DeeDee ever said that Trayvon ran from the back of Zimmerman’s car. DeeDee said that Trayvon “ran from the back”. My impression was that she was talking about the back entrance of Brandy’s apartment.

    Reply ↓

    • Start listening about 7:00

      Martin is walking. The man is still watching from his car. “So he’s about going to run from the back.” She tells him to run to his Dad’s house. And then he runs. She can hear the wind, and his heavy breathing. And that he lost him.

      Since she wasn’t there, Martin must have told her of his plan to “run from the back” and that he had lost Zimmerman.

      Zimmerman reported that Martin had run once Martin was behind the car. And the timing would have been perfect for him to be on the sidewalk and edging into the dark area. The streetlight is across the corner, and there is a small light to mark where the sidewalk turns.

      If you perceive some is watching you – it doesn’t matter if Martin thought Zimmerman was a cop, a detective from the Miami schools checking up on him, just hated whites, thought Zimmerman was some gang member, or whatever.

      The plan is to get by the man in the car acting as natural as possible, then to get into an area where the car can’t follow, where it is more difficult to watch oput the back of a car, and it is dark, and take off running.

      Unfortunately, BDLR appears to not believe that she can speak comprehensible English, and isn’t interested in trying to figure out what happened, and doesn’t ask what she means by “run from the back”.

      After he lost him, “he started walking back again”, and said he wasn’t going to run because he was right by his da[d]’s house.

      BDLR then asked if Trayvon said he was by his ass, meaning the man was behind him. Dee gives an emphatic NO and restarts the story with Martin running from the back, he lost him, he started walking and he was by his Father’s place.

      And then a couple of minutes.

      And this is where she goes into fib mode, where the man is behind him and he isn’t going to run because he is out of breath and the man keeps getting closer and closer.

      Reply ↓

  50. Danielle,

    From DeeDee’s interview with the prosecutor:

    At 16:35 or so on the tape, DeeDee is questioned to explain what Martin meant when he described Zimmerman as “crazy” and “creepy.” She answered by saying it was only based on the fact that the guy had been just watching Martin:

    Question: He’s saying the guy looks what?
    DeeDee: “Crazy … and creepy”
    Question: “Did you say what do you mean by that?”
    DeeDee: “Like watching him. Like watching.”
    Question: “Okay. So that’s what he meant. The guy keeps watching him.”
    DeeDee: “Yeah”

    If you start with the time Martin began running to the apt from the dispatcher tape, and then add the 20-30 seconds it would take to run to the apt, then, according to DeeDee, Martin arrived at the apt about 2-3 minutes from the time we know the confrontation occurred.

    From the time Martin reached the apt, DeeDee only then described her version of the start of the confrontation. But, she did not explain where Martin was or what he was doing in the 2-3 minutes between reaching the apt until the approximate time the confrontation started.

    HP,

    The issue is not “I apologize PO if my points were not sufficiently clear.” Unfortunately, your points were very clear. The problem was you misrepresent what I say to “prove” your points.

    Regarding “banning,” what banning (or are you now going to ignore my posts)? You are simply avoiding the points I made. In particular, if you really “believe DeeDee,” then, surely, you must agree with DeeDee’s statement (above) about what Martin meant, when he said Zimmerman was “crazy” and “creepy,” which was that Zimmerman was simply looking at him. And you agree that DeeDee said Martin ran directly to Brandy’s apt.

    However, I don’t understand your argument that Martin upon reaching the apt (which was before confronting Zimmerman 2-3 minutes later) really meant Martin didn’t reach the apt — as explained in your unconvincing argument — SO THE STATE WAS EXCUSED FROM NOT DISCLOSING MARTIN HAD REACHED THE APT BEFORE GOING OUT AGAIN AND CONFRONTING ZIMMERMAN.

    Reply ↓

    • Did DeeDee use the word “directly”? And if she had, I don’t think this eliminates the possibility that Trayvon bipassed the back entrance and then “he started walking back AGAIN” (the words within quotation marks were DeeDee’s EXACT QUOTE).

      Reply ↓

    • HP,

      “and then “he started walking back AGAIN””

      *** which means the prosecutor was much more than a “potted plant” in withholding that information, which contradicts the State’s probable cause story that Martin was only heading back to Brandy’s apt when Zimmerman confronted and shot him.

      Reply ↓

    • The time line from when Martin started running was:

      At about 2:30 before end of the Zimmerman-dispatcher call Martin started running.

      Because it would have taken Martin about 20-30 seconds to reach Brand’s apt running or jogging, this leaves about 2 minutes during which time Zimmerman is still on the phone with the dispatcher saying he does not see the suspect.

      DeeDee never explained what Martin was doing, or where he was, from the time he first reached Brandy’s apt through the next 2 minutes (while Zimmerman remained on the phone). Whatever Martin was doing then or where he was going clearly could not have involved any chase with Zimmerman!

      DeeDee also described an on again, off again breathless chase right before the confrontation. The only possible time that chase could have happened was in the 60-90 seconds after the end of dispatcher call. And even so, before a ‘chase’ could start, Martin and Zimmerman had to first see each other — how long did that take?

      When DeeDee is finally deposed by O’Mara, we will hopefully get to the bottom of what really happened in the 2 minutes after Martin reached Brandy’s apt (while Zimmerman was still on the phone). DeeDee was very evasive about those 2 minutes. We will also find out how the repeated chasing could possibly have occurred and how an overweight, pudgy 5’7″-5’8″ Zimmerman could possibly have run down, “cornered” and attacked Martin all in 60-90 seconds — and still ended up at the shooting site right near where Zimmerman was on the phone so long with the dispatcher.

      Realistically, I don’t expect much from DeeDee, except more lies and contradictions.

      Reply ↓

  51. A real question is what do you do when a sixteen year old commits such flagrant perjury?

    DeeDee’s story, as told in her sworn statement, particularly her rendition of events leading up to the attack, is completely preposterous and contradictory, and is further contradicted by the constraints of time, distance and the statements of other witnesses (even the obviously discredited witnesses). And she has not yet even been cross-examined or deposed!

    Everyone should go to just before the 22 minute mark until the end of her sworn interview, where DeeDee finally lets slip that she felt “real guilty” because “I ain’t know about it”!

    Astoundingly, for the previous 20 minutes in her amazing rendition, she painted a picture of a chase of Martin, by a “crazy” madman (Zimmerman) intent on hurting Martin, who was scared out his mind! She described a chase so extreme, that both Martin and the “crazy” madman were continually running out of breath! And after repeatedly stopping and then resuming the chase, the (faster) madman finally caught up with Martin and cornered him! And then she actually heard the madman attacking Martin!

    Yet, after all of this, she lets slip that “I ain’t know about it”!

    Reply ↓

    • Yup, DeeDee’s a witness, and she doesn’t support your story P.O.

      However, I don’t agree that her noncompliance to your viewpoint is evidence that she committed perjury. Perhaps the opposite is true. 🙂

      Reply ↓

  52. Susan – I love your articles and method of thinking on this case. I am ready, as I am sure many are, for a new article with your take on the Zimmerman case in light of the document dump, GZ’s bail revocation – and how it will affect his case, and an updated map/timeline. Hope you have time to do this soon. Thanks again.

    Reply ↓

  53. PO, you said: “And you agree that DeeDee said Martin ran directly to Brandy’s apt.” I don’t agree that DeeDee used the word “directly”. Do you have a quote on that from DeeDee?

    I do agree that Trayvon may have run directly to Brandy’s apartment, but bipassed the back entrance because he didn’t have a key (we know he didn’t have a key because of the evidence list). He may have chosen not to wait for Chad to open the door for him, because Zimmerman was following.

    Hence the circumstances that allowed Trayvon to “lose” Zimmerman. I don’t think Trayvon was referring to merely turning south at the north T between the rows, since that point is only a few feet away from Zimmerman’s truck!

    DeeDee said after Trayvon believed he’d lost Zimmerman, Trayvon “started walking back AGAIN.”

    This does NOT in any way contradict the State’s Probable Cause Affadavit which says this:

    “During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn’t know why. Martin attempted to run home, but was followed by Zimmerman who didn’t want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin. When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.”

    What specific phrase from that affadavit contradicts anything that DeeDee said? Or I said? NOTHING.

    In addition, in my opinion, your accusations that DeeDee committed perjury all rely on your own interpretation of DeeDee’s statements, which I believe are incorrect and even far-fetched. Perjury charges must rely on facts.

    Reply ↓

    • HP,

      To start: “The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn’t know why.”

      DeeDee, when specifically asked how she “knew” Martin was afraid, said it was because his “voice” was “low.” She never said Martin told her he was afraid. So the above is a “potted plant” type lie.

      The case of the “missing key” is pure fantasy (as you yourself, HP, have admitted to posting). Even Crump never put forth that silly “missing key” theory to explain why Martin didn’t go into the apt or even give Chad his skittles and iced tea. Nor did DeeDee. DeeDee didn’t seem at all concerned that, after running and reaching the apt, Martin didn’t simply go into it and hand the skittles over to Chad (who must have been anxiously waiting for the skittles).

      [It is becoming clear that O’Mara will depose “Chad” to find out what really happened when Martin first reached the apartment.]

      Also, the suggestion to redo the “time-line” completely is a good idea. There should be two parallel time lines: Zimmerman’s (most of which we know from the dispatcher tape) and Martin’s (with many interesting gaps).

      A key time period is from when Martin started running:

      We know there was no “DeeDee chase” for at least 2 1/2 minutes from when Martin started running (because Zimmerman was still on the phone with the dispatcher).

      We know Martin ran directly to the apt, which would have taken 20-30 seconds jogging or running (leaving about 2 minutes during which no “DeeDee chase” was happening while Zimmerman was still on the phone).

      We know that the confrontation began anywhere from 60-90 seconds after the dispatcher call ended and was located near where Zimmerman was talking to the dispatcher at the T junction of the two back paths.

      We don’t know what Martin was doing in the 2 minutes after reaching the apt, except that he never gave the skittles or iced tea to Chad.

      Already, in Susan’s time line, she speculates that Zimmerman was “ducking” between buildings after Zimmerman got off the phone (the aerial view seems to show only one break in each row of buildings on the sides of the North-South path).

      What this all means is that even for the missing 60-90 seconds (after Zimmerman got off the phone until the confrontation) — which is the only time DeeDee repeated, out-of-breath chases could have occurred — there is conflict with Susan’s extensive theories that Zimmerman spent a good deal of time after getting off the phone, “ducking” between buildings to “find/stalk” Martin. Even “ducking” and “stalking,” Zimmerman clearly was not running full tilt after Martin in a “DeeDee chase,” and amazingly, catching up to him, cornering him and attacking him (according to DeeDee), all within the 60-90 second time window.

      Reply ↓

  54. PO, you said, “DeeDee, when specifically asked how she “knew” Martin was afraid, said it was because his “voice” was “low.” She never said Martin told her he was afraid. So the above is a “potted plant” type lie.”

    I have no idea why you think this was a “lie”, but it appears to be the only “lie” you mentioned specifically in your post. This is your basis for perjury?

    Dee Dee was asked why she “knew” Martin was afraid, and she gave an answer. Perhaps the interviewer should have used the word “thought”, instead of “knew” in his QUESTION, but this certainly doesn’t rise to the level of calling DeeDee’s RESPONSE a “lie”. No way. Not under any possible conceivable notion. It would never even BEGIN to amount to a perjury charge. Are you KIDDING!?!

    The “missing key” portion of my fantasy scenario is not fantasy at all, since there was no key to Brandy’s house found either on Trayvon or at the scene. This means that some arrangement had to have been made between Chad and Trayvon for how Trayvon would enter Brandy’s house upon his return – whether that door was left open, or whether Trayvon would knock. We don’t know what the arrangement was.

    These are MY conclusions and have nothing to do with what the prosecution’s case happens to be. We don’t know if the prosecution has considered any of this or if they haven’t, because they haven’t presented their case.

    This is very similar to the fact that we don’t know if the defense is considering accusing DeeDee of lying. The perjury angle is YOUR fantasy.

    You said, ” We know there was no “DeeDee chase” for at least 2 1/2 minutes from when Martin started running (because Zimmerman was still on the phone with the dispatcher).”

    And you said, “We know Martin ran directly to the apt, which would have taken 20-30 seconds jogging or running (leaving about 2 minutes during which no “DeeDee chase” was happening while Zimmerman was still on the phone). ”

    I totally disagree. For one thing, the tape appears to verify (at least to me) that seemed to that Zimmerman started exiting his vehicle immediately after seeing Trayvon start to run. This is from Susan’s timeline above:

    “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.”

    Does Susan’s conclusion match your conclusion or mine? Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote, or maybe you don’t agree with Susan either. If the latter, please listen to the tape again.

    You said, “We know that the confrontation began anywhere from 60-90 seconds after the dispatcher call ended and was located near where Zimmerman was talking to the dispatcher at the T junction of the two back paths.”

    We don’t know the exact timing because of discrepencies in phone logs, and we also don’t know the location of the initial contact. One witness said the confrontation started at one end between the rows and ended at the other. She claims this can be verified by the fact that the first caller was at the south end of the rows.

    You said, ” We don’t know what Martin was doing in the 2 minutes after reaching the apt, except that he never gave the skittles or iced tea to Chad”

    EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We don’t know what happened when Trayvon reached Brandy’s house or even if he did. The prosecution said, “Martin attempted to run home”. ATTEMPTED! But he may have bipassed the apartment or gone between buildings when he saw Zimmerman following him. This would be a natural response IF Trayvon was locked out of the house and not to wait at the door for Chad to answer, since TRAYVON DIDN’T HAVE A KEY (an actual FACT, as established by the evidence list.)

    I have no idea at all whether the prosecution is considering this or not.

    If it wasn’t included in DeeDee’s statement, this doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Trayvon may not have mentioned it to DeeDee, OR…… DeeDee may have been referring to this exact scenario when she said, “he ran from the back”.

    And then she later said “he started walking back AGAIN”, after he thought he’d lost Zimmerman. What could “AGAIN” mean, if not that Trayvon didn’t make it into the house the first time he went in that direction?

    We already know that DeeDee didn’t give any OTHER reason for Trayvon not entering the house, which means we have no reason to rule this out.

    As for Zimmerman having time to meet up with Trayvon after his phone conversation, we do know that they met up, and we do know from Zimmerman’s phone call that Trayvon had previously run away from Zimmerman. It seems more likely TO ME that during the short time from then to the struggle, facts remained in continuum, rather than reversing to allow for Trayvon to suddenly become the aggressor. A continuum scenario for who confronted whom is verified very DISTINCTLY by ONE AUDIO WITNESS ACCOUNT – DeeDee’s, whose testimony provides no indication whatsoever of perjury.

    And there is NO witness account to the contrary, except of course Zimmerman, the original “potted plant”.

    Zimmerman’s head wounds could have been due to Trayvon’s self defense response to an unknown stranger following him, pushing him, and then who knows what – exposing his gun, as Zimmerman’s father suggested? Attempting to mount Trayvon as DeeDee’s testimony implies?

    One thing we might note in the Prosecution’s affadavit: Zimmerman was called an “unknown male”. Does this mean that Zimmerman never attempted to identify himself as “neighborhood watch”? Does his statement to police verify this? This would be interesting, given Zimmerman’s previous claim during his arrest for assaulting an undercover cop, that the officer never identified himself, and could possibly be relevant at trial.

    Another observation: By both DeeDee’s account and at least one Zimmerman account, Trayvon asked Zimmerman why Zimmerman was following him. Everything else changes after that. But why is that one remark consisten in stories from both DeeDee and Trayvon??? I personally think that Zimmerman believed he had to keep this portion of his story consistant with what he KNEW someone else had heard. Zimmerman didn’t know WHO heard it. Could have been the town preacher. Zimmerman only knew SOMEONE heard it. That someone was DeeDee.

    After the phone fell, Zimmerman could say anything he wanted, including his given response of: “I’m not following you” (as opposed to DeeDee’s testimony of hearing an angry man saying “What are you doing here?”).

    Reply ↓

    • HP, when do you stop misstating what i said and then arguing based on your misstatements.

      The “potted plant” lie was in the STATE’S affidavit — so you must know I was referring to the State providing a misleading statement in its affidavit to misleading INFER they had a witness who had information, coming from Martin, that he was afraid. However, in reality, the source of the ‘advised’ information about Martin’s purported ‘fear,’ was really DeeDee’s “expert witness” type interpretation that Martin was afraid because he spoke in a low voice — not any statement from Martin that he feared Zimmerman. I NEVER said she lied about that (however, in general I believe her entire story is a pieced together fraudulent story — which may be difficult to prove).

      What did she lie about, where is substantial evidence supporting that conclusion? I believe she repeatedly lied about her bizarre, impossible, running, on again, off again chases, which she conjured up out of thin air (and gleefully embellished with each new telling). The dispatcher tape and physical time and distance facts alone are enough to discredit that story.

      As for the rest of your argument … it is to jumbled and incomprehensible it is impossible to even begin to answer.

      I am still waiting to find out what happened after Martin reached Brandy’s apt for the next 2 minutes while Zimmerman was still on the phone with the dispatcher and was clearly unaware of where Martin even was.

      I am also still curious how DeeDee’s repeated ‘chase’ sequences can possible square with the limited 60-90 seconds from when the dispatcher call ended. Or how Susan’s extensive theories on Zimmerman’s quest to find Martin (theories coming from sources I am still confused about) square with DeeDee’s “out-of-breath” multiple chases resulting in a pudgy 5’7″ overweight Zimmerman (who was winded within 15 seconds of jogging from his car) so fleet-fully outrunning, catching up with, cornering (remember DeeDee on ABC news gleefully describing how the madman Zimmerman “cornered” Martin after a long chase?), and then attacking Martin. Yet Martin did not have a single mark on his body — except in the knuckle area.

      Reply ↓

      • “and gleefully embellished with each new telling”

        Gleefully?

        Really?

        I guess I haven’t yet heard the recording of her where it sounds like she’s having a good time talking about events leading to the death of someone she apparently had known for most of her life.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • “And there is NO witness account to the contrary, except of course Zimmerman, the original “potted plant”. ”

      Actually, the judge used the term “potted palm”, and only in reference to Zimmerman sitting there silent during the bond hearing when others were making what some might consider to be mis-statements.

      Reply ↓

  55. PeterO, I copied and pasted all of your quotes, so I couldn’t have “misstated” you. You may feel that I “misunderstood” you. OK. I’ll accept that. Thank you for clarifying your meaning.

    But either way, I disagree with your assumption about the “potted plant” lie. The only “potted plant” that I’m aware of is Judge Lester’s description of Zimmerman (lol)!

    You said, “. I NEVER said she lied about that (however, in general I believe her entire story is a pieced together fraudulent story — which may be difficult to prove).

    I appreciate that we’ve now gone from “flagrant perjury” (your quote earlier today, 2:50 AM) to “difficult to prove” (today, 7:07 PM).

    This is an improvement, and I do appreciate it. Sincerely. It’s an admirable improvement in my opinion, and I give you much credit.

    You said, “I believe she repeatedly lied about her bizarre, impossible, running, on again, off again chases, which she conjured up out of thin air (and gleefully embellished with each new telling). The dispatcher tape and physical time and distance facts alone are enough to discredit that story.”

    Again, I very much appreciate that you qualified your statement with the words, “I believe…” That’s an excellent framepoint for all of our statements here, in my opinion.

    Now, can you give some example(s) of the physical time and distance “facts” that “discredit that story”, ‘(I assume you mean DeeDee’s) given your additional statement that: “We don’t know what Martin was doing in the 2 minutes after reaching the apt, except that he never gave the skittles or iced tea to Chad”?

    And that’s a very important point that you have made. We DON’T know. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we will believe Zimmerman’s story, since Zimmerman’s future is so much at stake, and since Zimmerman was the first aggressor by running after Trayvon, and since Zimmerman was incorrect in his assumptions that Trayvon was doing something wrong, and since we know Trayvon was running away from Zimmerman, and since Zimmerman ended up shooting Trayvon dead.

    OK, try this on for a POSSIBLE scenario (but there are many). Trayvon runs, gets to the north T between the rows, then heads south between the rows towards Brandy’s back entrance. He slows down after making the south turn, because he didn’t see Zimmerman get out of the vehicle. Trayvon is maybe 20, 30 yards south of the T, when along comes Zimmerman to the north end of the T, huffing and puffing away, but running right toward Trayvon. Trayvon starts running again, but Trayvon can see that Zimmerman is too close behind for Trayvon to risk stopping at Brandy’s house and knocking at the door.

    So Trayvon hangs a left at the south end of the row (Brandy’s house is located at the south end of the 2nd row). Zimmerman continues running toward Trayvon until Trayvon goes east. At that point, Zimmerman stops running and says, “He ran”.

    We know that Zimmerman could have made it back to his truck in the time that the dispatcher told him “We don’t need you to do that (follow)”. But Zimmerman wasn’t there when the confrontation occurred (obviously). So, where did Trayvon go, and where did Zimmerman go?

    MAYBE (and this is just ONE possible scenario) Zimmerman was half way or more down south between the rows when he stopped running. He saw Trayvon turn east, and this is the direction Zimmerman had given to the dispatcher of Trayvon’s direction. So, in Zimmerman’s mind, his original description of Trayvon’s direction was correct (the complex exit is in that same direction). Being the great neighborhood watch guy that Zimmerman was, he decided to walk the rest of the way down to the south end of the rows and stand at the corner of Twin Trees and Retreat View Circle, where Retreat View Circle heads east through the back complex entrance. From this vantage point, Zimmerman could see both the back complex entrance and his own truck, allowing him to guard the back complex entrance from the effing punk, while also being in a position where the police can easily find him when they arrive.

    Even Zimmerman could give these simple directions to the police: “Stay on Twin Trees until you see me standing on the corner.”

    So, sound like a plan? Well, no reason that I can think of why not.

    Meanwhile, Trayvon is running hard, not knowing if Zimmerman plans on following him or not. He heads east at the south end of the rows, away from Brandy’s back entrance. Where will he go? Zimmerman was headed south after him, so Trayvon heads north up Retreat View Circle. He gets to the top of the row. He’s out of breath because he’s a potsmoker, and because he’s just run all the way down south and then all the way up north between the rows, whereas Zimmerman has only run halfway down one row and is now just hanging out out at the south corner.

    Trayvon is still hoping to get home and he can see that Zimmerman never followed him after Trayvon made the east turn and went north up Retreat View. Back at the T again, he peers tentatively down between the north end of the two rows. He doesn’t see Zimmerman, because Zimmerman is behind a building at the south end, standing on the corner ofTwin Trees and Retreat View Circle.

    Trayvon tells DeeDee that he thinks he’s “lost” Zimmerman, and DeeDee reports this later to the interview and also then says that Trayvon “started walking back again”. So now Trayvon is headed south again between the rows toward Brandy’s house. He doesn’t see Zimmerman as Zimmerman happens to peer north between the rows (since Zimmerman is the neighborhood WATCH, and is always WATCHING). Zimmerman spots Trayvon and circles behind one or two of the south end buildings to put himself into a position where he is following Trayvon again.

    Trayvon spots Zimmerman following him again, and reports to DeeDee. Dee Dee tells Trayvon to run. By now Trayvon is tired of running and says he is almost home, and he will walk fast. Zimmerman catches up, and Trayvon says, “Why are you following me?” Zimmerman doesn’t identify himself, and at some point, soon thereafter, the confrontation occurs.

    This particular scenario does not put the victim at the point where he was shot. Trayvon is much closer to Brandy’s house. But one witness said the initial confrontation did in fact occur much further south between the rows and then ended up at the north end where the shooting occurred. The witness says her claim can be verified by the fact that the first caller came from the north end of the rows.

    Reply ↓

    • Once again, HP into the breach. With misstatements:

      HP said: “You said, “. I NEVER said she lied about that (however, in general I believe her entire story is a pieced together fraudulent story — which may be difficult to prove).

      I appreciate that we’ve now gone from “flagrant perjury” (your quote earlier today, 2:50 AM) to “difficult to prove” (today, 7:07 PM).

      This is an improvement, and I do appreciate it. Sincerely. It’s an admirable improvement in my opinion, and I give you much credit.”

      *** I only said “her ENTIRE story” may be difficult to prove, which would include everything she said about the “mail shed,” the putting up of the “hoodie” and many other details she swore to … that I disbelieve. But you extend that statement to, incorrectly, claim I changed my opinion on the parts of her story where there is strong supporting evidence showing perjury.

      The easy part — to show DeeDee’s flagrant perjury — is her impossible “chase sequences.” You should read what I say before expressing your “appreciation” for something I didn’t say while claiming I am changing my views that have not changed.

      I used the “potted plant” terminology for the legal tactic of misrepresenting something by omitting key details — such as Deshowitz criticizing Corey for leaving out the extensive damage to Zimmerman. Here, the State gave the strong impression there is a first hand witness who can prove Martin was in great fear of Zimmerman. Yet, in reality, all DeeDee did was to give her “expert” type opinion that a “low voice” meant Martin was in great fear. This is a type of “half truth” misrepresentation where the State withheld that the basis for the “fear” claim was just a sixteen year old girl, acting as an expert witness, by claiming Martin’s fear because he spoke in a low voice.

      Moreover, your focus on the word “believe” is getting silly. Perjury, or any other allegation of law or fact, is always based on an assertion (in this case that perjury was committed by DeeDee) and evidence supporting that assertion. It is for others, including a Court or jury, to make their own determination based on those issues. Your insistence on using the word “believe,” chiding others who do not do so, and then, grandly, “proving” another point you want to make, is silly. The word “believe” is optional … and unnecessary by commentors since everyone knows what is meant.

      I would also like to point out that any assertion is defective or weak ONLY by the failure to support it with evidence. Obviously, conjecture (or fantasy as you keep stating you are asserting) is the weakest form of “proving” an issue, whether “perjury” or any “fact.”

      Reply ↓

    • Sorry, in my post above, I meant to say: “The witness says her claim can be verified by the fact that te first caller came from the south end of the rows.”

      Reply ↓

    • People act like you are supposed to know what to do if someone thinks you are an ass who someone does not want to get away as you are just minding your own business trying to walk home. How was Tryvon suppose to know exactly? Either Zimmerman is doing everything right and had every right to do what he did and find and approach this kid, or he’s a creepy guy that Trayvon had to get away from real fast and take safetly. Which is it really? Trayvon in either scenerio has no chance at doing anything right. If Zimmerman is a hero who watches the neighborhood and is not creepy, why do you assume Trayvon had to run right home and stay away from him? If he was not, then why did he not just ask the kid a simple question in the street. “Hey, I’m George the nieghborhood watch, are you lost or sumtin? OH, you are just here visiting your dad, cool, have a nice night.”

      Reply ↓

    • HP,

      The first 911 call came from the north end. They called because they were aware of the neighborhood watch program. They also have a screened porch so the patio door was open. It also partially faces towards the east-west sidewalk. They reported the sound moving away from them.

      The other neighbors on the north end also heard it, looked out the window and decided it wasn’t their problem. But after the shot, they were the first to arrive.

      The 2nd unit was where the neighbor came out to see what was happening, told them to stop and he was going to call 911, and went back inside to do so. There are 5 witness who saw or heard him. He said the noise came towards them, but could not tell direction – but was based on volume.

      The third units both heard and barely saw the fighting. One thought it was kids wrestling and a cranky neighbor calling police, one peeked over lip of her upstairs window and believes she saw someone in a white T-shirt on top.

      The two southmost witnesses were outside with their dogs. One had stepped out the door, thought they heard an elderly neighbor having a heart attack, and heard another neighbor say something about 911, and went inside to call. The other was the boy whose dog ran away.

      Reply ↓

    • Jodi Ann,

      “DeeDee” says that Martin planned to run when he was behind Zimmerman’s truck, that he ran so long that he was winded, had “lost” Zimmerman and he was right by his “dad’s place”. “DeeDee” could not know that he was behind the truck or that his plan was to run when he was behind the truck, that he had lost Zimmerman, or that he was right by Brandy Green’s house. So Martin must have told her all that. Brandy Green and Tracy Martin have both claimed that Martin was sitting on her back porch.

      When she says Martin was “by his da[d]’s house”, BDLR, interrupts and asks “when you say ‘he’s by his ass’, you mean that the man was behind him”

      She immediately corrects him and goes through the whole story again.

      Reply ↓

  56. A question in general.

    The young lady who was, according to phone records, talking with Martin in the minutes and hours before his death.

    Is everything she recounts about those conversations a complete fabrication, the absolute truth as best she remembers and understands, or does her veracity vary depending on whether particular parts at particular times support or oppose one’s own opinion about Martin and Zimmerman and what happened that night?

    And if there’s any intentional telling of non-truths on her part, was it something she decided on herself, or was she lead astray by others, and if so, which others, and for what reason?

    unitron

    Reply ↓

    • Everything she reports depends on what Martin says. He might not have told her everything. He might have put her on hold. There are at least four non-DeeDee calls that night. Did he mention what the other calls were about. , or tell her it must be a bad cell?

      Do we know whether he stood under the mail roof for 18 minutes? Was the conversation about whether the weather was letting up and she worried that he would catching pneumonia, and telling him to put his hoodie up? Is it still raining? How could she tell? Maybe he told her it was still dripping a little bit, and she told him to put his hood up.

      Did Martin refer to Brandy’s place as his dad’s place, and Chad as his little brother? Could she hear the clerk at the 7-11?

      Was it possible for Martin to see someone in a car 200 feet away in the dark and rain? Remember, that people couldn’t really see 30 feet outside their back windows. Could he tell that it was a white person? That it was a white male person? Or a white male person talking on the phone?

      Reply ↓

    • Unitron, to properly rephrase your lead-in statement:

      The young lady who was, according to phone records, possibly connected with Martin in the minutes and hours before an incident where it is claimed he viciously attacked a local resident and was shot in self defense.

      As for the two(?) questions in the next 2 paragraphs:

      1. A loaded question giving only the alternative answers YOU want to hear. Otherwise, just read the many previous comments on the parts of her “testimony” that are challenged and why. You might want to do some research on the legal issue of “admissions against interest” which are many times afforded greater weight — DeeDee “blurted” out many interesting statements (see comments above).

      Support for DeeDee’s accuracy, or lack thereof, of her “testimony” — “testimony” that depends on which contradictory media interview you listen to — comes from evaluating relevant evidence. Feel free to let your own prejudices dominate, if that is how you view this case … but others take offense to that insinuation, even if framed as loaded questions.

      2. beyond the scope of this blog. You can start a blog on the topic of nationwide frauds and how persons get involved … or you can do some research on the Twana Brawley hoax case, the Duke lacrosse rape case (Crystal Gail Mangum) and other similar media hoax cases to see who benefits, how they benefit, and the psychology of the principal liars in those cases irrespective of age.

      Reply ↓

      • “1. A loaded question giving only the alternative answers YOU want to hear.” says the man who just had to rewrite my absolutely neutral “talking with Martin in the minutes and hours before his death.” into a slam at Martin.

        As for the rest, or at least the part that actually has something to do with this case, are you positing a fourth alternative, that some of what she said was true and some of it wasn’t, but there’s no pattern to which is which?

        Reply ↓

    • unitron, “absolutely neutral” means INCLUDING RELEVANT INFORMATION (no matter how much you don’t want to hear it). The following is neutral. Excluding the self-defense issue and its basis is not neutral:

      “before an incident where it is claimed he viciously attacked a local resident and was shot in self defense.”

      Reply ↓

      • If I say “The young lady who was, according to phone records, talking with Martin in the minutes and hours before his death.”, but leave out mention of “he allegedly attacked someone who shot him in self-defense”, does that mean–

        The reader will be confused about whether he actually died, that for some reason I’m talking about some other Trayvon Martin?

        The reader will be confused about when he died?

        The reader will be confused about with which young lady he was speaking only a minute or so before getting shot?

        I do believe that one of us is convinced that one party is totally innocent and the other party is completely guilty and that anyone who even considers anything else is somehow automatically someone convinced that it’s exactly the other way around, and I believe that the other one of us thinks we do not yet have enough evidence to know for certain just how the two parties came into conflict and that until we do there is more than one plausible explanation of what happened in that time for which we do not yet have enough evidence.

        And as long as we’re dragging in other cases, I wonder if there might not be one of us who was bitterly disappointed when it was discovered that the black man who carjacked Susan Smith never actually existed.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • unitron, I am totally confused, why did you insert the first paragraph in the first place? If you wanted “neutrality,” all you just had to do was substitute “DeeDee” for “she” in the next paragraph and skip the first paragraph. You must have had some conscious or unconscious reason for including it.

      As for your fourth, new, and still loaded alternative question. That should suffice as an answer.

      Reply ↓

      • As I do not know the young lady’s name for a fact and as Susan has indicated a preference that the personal details of minors not be discussed, I have always only referred to her as “the young lady” and for the forseeable future intend to do so.

        As we are all discussing the same Trayvon Martin, and are all already aware of the allegations against him, I fail to see why they need to be included my reference to him anymore than anything else about him.

        Reply ↓

    • Sure.

      But in an attempt to get my question answered and in deference to your preferred terminology, I will substitute the following:

      unitron, why did you insert the first paragraph in the first place? If you wanted “neutrality,” all you just had to do was substitute “the young lady” for “she” in the next paragraph and skip the first paragraph. You must have had some conscious or unconscious reason for including it.

      As for your fourth, new, and still loaded alternative question. That should suffice as an answer.

      Also, isn’t using the words “young” and “minor” personal details that you are trying to avoid disclosing? I am sure everyone, by now, knows “DeeDee” is a pseudonym.

      Reply ↓

      • PeterO. . .it seems that Deedee’s testimony is REALLY increasing your level of anxiety and must therefore be very meaningful and. .. . potentially damaging to the man you continue to present as a “victim” although (and this is not open to arguments) he killed an innocent teenager because of his own paranoid tendencies!

        Any other reason you would obsess about the testimony of a 15 year old girl, friend of the victim since early childhood?
        Once you commented that (and his is not a literal quote, just a paraphrasing of your statement): “Deedee never provided a reason for her saying that Trayvon was scared of Zimmerman. . .she just said that she thought he was scared because his voice became very low.” Well. . .obviously if she had met Trayvon two weeks before the shooting, she probably would not have known the difference! But, she has known him since kindergarten I believe.. . she probably has seen him (and heard him) in many stressful situations, and she KNOWS the pattern and can recognize his emotions in his voice.
        This may be beyond your understanding of human nature. . .but I can’t think of a better person (except probably his mother) who would KNOW Trayvon’s emotion better through the sound of his voice!

        Reply ↓

        • “…although (and this is not open to arguments) he killed an innocent teenager because of his own paranoid tendencies!”

          You are mistaken.

          It most certainly is open to arguments.

          And by that I mean that we do not yet know enough to know who first laid hands upon whom and exactly what were the circumstances, but it’s not impossible that it was a justifiable homicide in self-defense as those terms are defined in the law.

          I lean towards the theory that, for whatever reason, they “bumped into” each other in the dark and then a struggle ensued, but that we do not know if Martin struck first, either out of anger or because he felt the need to defend himself, or if perhaps Zimmerman, without explanation, grabbed him to hold him for the police and Martin struck back in self-defense.

          I suppose it’s not impossible that the above scenario occurred with Zimmerman, for reasons of fear or anger, actually striking first, rather than grabbing, although I include that very, to me, long shot only for reasons of completeness.

          Less likely than the accidental encounter, but not impossible, is that Zimmerman actively continues to search for Martin and one of the two struggle beginnings I mention above occur, or that Martin hides until he thinks he can safely ambush Zimmerman and then does so, or gets far enough away from him to be safe but decides to go back and attack him.

          I think that last one is a bit of a stretch, but having been a 17 year old boy myself I know that they are capable of poorly thought out actions and impulses.

          All of the above are theories based on both what is known and the gaps therein. I don’t necessarily “believe” in any of them, but there’s not enough evidence yet known to us computer chair sleuths to positively rule any of them out.

          And if you yourself are not open to argument, boy, are you ever in the wrong place.

          unitron

          Reply ↓

  57. In my opinion unitron, DeeDee’s testimony is just as good as anyone else’s until someone comes up with a verifiable reason why it’s not. And I think you are absolutely correct that DeeDee was not at all gleeful during her testimony. In fact, it sounded to me as if there were moments at the beginning and end of the tape where she was struggling to not break down.

    She knew this boy since kindergarten. One part that affected me was where the guy asked her if she were yelling at Trayvon to run. She said “I would never yell at Trayvon”. ow.

    PO, I was really thinking that maybe we were making progress in our ability to get along and discuss our differences calmly, and here you’ve gone and totally burst my little bubble!

    Apart from that, I couldn’t make heads nor tails of anything you most recently posted.

    1. What exactly is the “strong supporting evidence showing perjury” that you refer to? If it’s in your post somewhere, I missed it. Could you repeat it please in a simple format like, LIE:….., EVIDENCE OF LIE:………..?

    2. Can you or can you NOT provide one single example of ANY specific lie that DeeDee told? And, if you DO know of a specific example, then WHAT IS IT, and what is the specific evidence that it’s a lie?

    3. You said previously: “The dispatcher tape and physical time and distance facts alone are enough to discredit that story” HOW SO?.

    These are very simple questions. I’m quickly coming to the conclusion that you have nothing whatsoever to hang your hat on.

    I

    Reply ↓

    • Is DeeDee’s testimony more reliable than that of the dispatcher, where we have the full dispatcher tape?

      Or the “time clock” measurements that document the time window lengths between the end of the dispatcher’s call (and ultimate testimony) and the 911 calls?

      And, after all of DeeDee’s sworn testimony, at the end of her interview, she finally blurts out: “I ain’t know about it.” How reliable can her testimony be with that admission?

      Reply ↓

      • “And, after all of DeeDee’s sworn testimony, at the end of her interview, she finally blurts out: “I ain’t know about it.” How reliable can her testimony be with that admission?”

        What, specifically, is it that you think she is confessing that she “ain’t know about it.”?

        I was under the impression that that was a reference to not knowing until later that Martin had been shot and had died.

        Reply ↓

    • Really? I guess you didn’t hear the previous 22 minutes and her contradictory ABC interviews where she described an effective “life and death” chase of Martin to avoid a “crazy,” “creepy” madman, Zimmerman — it turns out Martin said that only because Zimmerman had looked at him (right out of “taxi driver” and the first lesson every male learns in an urban high school).

      According to DeeDee, the chase was so extreme and repeatedly occurring that both Martin and Zimmerman were constantly “out of breath” and (a pudgy overweight 5.7″ 185lb who lost his breach after jogging a few seconds from his caer) Zimmerman was so fit and agile that he ran Martin down (in the next county?) and “cornered” him. And then attacked him … so DeeDee says she heard.

      Yet, after ALL THAT she blurts out: “I ain’t know about it.”

      The American public has already heard all of the ABC and Crump nonsense. They just don’t believe it. They don’t believe DeeDee. I don’t believe DeeDee. You shouldn’t believe DeeDee. And, yes, a 16 year old can lie … regularly.

      Reply ↓

      • Once again, you are lying. . .or totally speaking from ignorance!
        Zimmerman was NOT 5/7 and 185lbs. . .he is 5’9 and he WAS 200 lbs. . .as per the official police report!
        And, if I should notice ANYONE, Black, White, or Hispanic, sitting in a SUV for 10 minutes, in the dark, on a rainy night, WATCHING ME. . .I would be concerned also, and I would find that guy either CREEPY, or CRAZY. . .or both!
        And now. . .. you have decided to attack Trayvon’s younger brother (or step-brother)!
        How sick can you be!
        Once again. . .what is your beef in all this? Because you are obviously desperate to find a way to demonize EVERYONE who surrounded the victim!

        Reply ↓

    • As reported in Wikipedia, the Seminole Booking statement said 5’8″ and 185 lbs, but that is measured with shoes (and presumably fully clothed). Martin’s autopsy says 5’11” without shoes and 158lbc without clothes.

      Reply ↓

      • I doubt if Zimmerman’s height changed any between the night of the shooting and his later arrest, but he does seem somewhat slimmer at the bond hearing than in the police department pictures and videos, so he might have been up somewhere between 190 and 200 that night.

        Pretty sure it wasn’t all muscle, though, so I don’t know how much, if any, advantage it might have given him, especially if he was on the ground with Martin on top of him.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • From Wikipedia:

      “Zimmerman’s height is shown as 5’8″ and his weight as 185 pounds on his Seminole County Sheriff’s Office Inmate Booking Information dated 4/11/2012.[50] Zimmerman’s height is shown as 5’7″ and his weight at 200 pounds on the Sanford Police Department Offense Report for 2/26/2012.[51]”

      Reply ↓

    • Chad was the son of Tracy Martin’s mistress.

      It was unlikely that Zimmerman watched Martin for 8 minutes before calling police.

      Reply ↓

    • @jimtrex

      “Chad was the son of Tracy Martin’s mistress.”

      Robert Zimmerman is George Zimmerman’s stepfather, right? Do you know who George Zimmerman’s biological father is?

      Reply ↓

    • You’re not making any sense, not that is uncommon, or likely to change.

      Robert and Gladys Zimmerman were married in 1975, and George Zimmerman was born in 1983.

      Reply ↓

  58. Jodi Ann makes a very good point.

    I’m kind of under the impression from the affadavit calling Zimmerman an “unknown male” that Zimmerman actually NEVER told Trayvon he was with Neighborhood Watch, and that he may have even stated this to the police. If so, in my opinion, that’s a big mark against his case for self-defense, because Trayvon would have been given no reason to think Zimmerman had any legitimate cause to chase him.

    Or maybe the affadavit was referring only to the chase scene?

    Hey unitron. Thanks for your correction about “potted palm”. The judge asked Zimmerman’s attorney if his client (Zimmerman) was a potted palm (not “potted plant”).

    Reply ↓

  59. The more I read comments and chat about this case, the more I realize that Zimmerman just had no reason to be in the cut at all. IMO, he lost his right when he handed an imaginary situation over to the Sanford Police by making his call to them. If he could not speak to Trayvon in the street as a normal person would do, and especially if he “considered” that Trayvon might be armed or even a threat in the least (which is why he made the call) then he especially had no right to be in the cut, thus provoking any situation that might happen; Simply because HE placed himself in the cut. With that in mind, I just don’t see how the fight has any bearing in this case. I think this is going to a trail of mental issues, based on the need to catch a criminal, one that was already caught on the 6th of February that lead to the paranoia of the night of the murder of Trayvon. The man appears at this point to have “social issues”. Even if they did speak in the cut, Trayvon asking “why are you following me”, that appears to be a question that is easy to answer. “I’m NW, my name is George Zimmerman, I’m just doing my nightly patrol ect…..now if Zimmerman then replied with another question “why are you here”, not so easy to answer. Why is anyone where they are? It’s a hostile question, and one that would appear to put someone on defense, especially if they felt “threatened” by a man who appears to be following them. I know I would be on defense…especially if I am doing nothing but walking home or staying. Once again, this is showing Zimmerman had no social skills, and a good reason why it’s not wise to pick out, watch, chase and “attempt” to apprehend a person, IF that was his motive for being in the cut. A place where IMO, he lost his right to be, by placing a call and handing the imaginary situation over to the Sanford Police.

    Reply ↓

    • Burgess was in the company of three other persons when he was arrested, and that was on February 7. February 6 was when another burglary was committed and some roofers reported seeing two black males loitering that day. One of the roofers saw him again on the 7th, which is what led to the arrest.

      And you are assuming that the police would have informed Zimmerman of all these details. The previous summer/fall, Zimmerman had inquired about whether another person had been arrested, and the police either couldn’t or wouldn’t tell him.

      And there were two persons who were trying to steal the TV set as the woman hid upstairs trying to keep her infant from making any noise.

      It sounds like Zimmerman is not the one with the imagination.

      Reply ↓

    • Indeed! Zimmermn’s story as relayed to the world by his family and friends is so easy to defeat because he had NO BUSINESS DOWN THE CUT THROUGH OR THE SIDEWALK. He cannot achieve that location unless he was hunting for Trayvon from whatever location he ended up at after he uttered “OK” to dispatch.

      Reply ↓

  60. Whether or not Zimmerman knew about this arrest, Jodi Ann makes some very good points that really address the crux of the entire case as far as what most of us are aware of.

    Jimrtex, thanks for your info on who called when. I’ll have to go back to my previous scenario of Zimmerman hanging out by his truck but then seeing Trayvon when Trayvon headed back toward Brandy’s house (AGAIN) from the north T. The rest is the same.

    Trayvon bipassed Brandy’s house because he didn’t have a key and didn’t want to be caught by the “crazy” Zimmerman guy while knocking on the door. Trayvon ran east around the south end of the rows, then north up Retreat View Circle, because there was really no other place to go. WAS there? Once he got back up to the T, he didn’t see Zimmerman, who was standing around by his truck, but Zimmerman saw Trayvon. Trayvon thought the coast was clear and “started walking back again”. Zimmerman made his appearance, and much of the rest is unknown history.

    Reply ↓

    • HP,

      “DeeDee” said that Martin was right by his Dad’s house (where he was staying). Martin must have told her that.

      If the rest of your story is true, then:
      (1) Martin didn’t tell “DeeDee” everything, in which case her testimony is not reliable about what happened.
      (2) Martin did tell “DeeDee” everything, and she either forgot about it or failed to mention it.

      Why wouldn’t Martin call Chad or ring the doorbell? And you can’t see the door entries looking down the street, because the garages stick out.

      Reply ↓

  61. There has been very little discussion about “Chad,” the purported ultimate recipient of the skittles and iced tea. It appears likely that he will, at some point, be deposed by OM. Notably, the State has made no mention of any interview with Chad. Has Crump blocked any such attempted interview, as he did with DeeDee? The 13 year old african-american witness gave a statement, why didn’t Chad? Why didn’t the police interview him that night since Martin’s returning to the apt was such a critical event? The State says Martin was going straight to the apt, yet it never took a statement from the prime witness that could confirm if and when that happened and other key facts.

    Why no interview of Chad???

    Chad, potentially, has very useful information. Did he know Martin had come back to the apt? Why didn’t Martin give him the skittles and iced tea? Maybe they weren’t bought for Chad after all? Did Martin, when he returned, leave anything in the apt? Was he smoking weed that night? Did you ever see him smoking weed? Did he have a stash in the apt … which would explain why he ran at first after seeing Zimmerman on the phone (in case the police were being called)?

    There have been many interesting cases where children, after giving statements, have made it very uncomfortable for elders, including a recent case where Dodger fans brutally attacked an opposing fan and the son of one attacker implicated his father when interviewed.

    In Florida there has been some debate on deposing minor witnesses. Here is a link:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6367/is_10_72/ai_n28721624/

    In this case, it is a virtual certainty a deposition of Chad will be allowed.

    And, most notably, there was nothing to prevent the police from interviewing the 13 year old witness in this case. So why hasn’t Chad been interviewed yet?????

    Reply ↓

    • Martin had been at the unit for at least 7 days and there was THC in his system meaning he, almost certainly, had been smoking weed during that time and most likely had some at the apt. Chad may have relevant information on this.

      This would explain a lot about the delay in Tracy contacting the police and why Chad is being shielded from any police interview. The apt could have been “cleaned” up and Tracy might have, at first, thought a drug deal went bad.

      As in the case of DeeDee, Chad is being nationally paraded in media interviews (so “shyness” is not an issue), where none of the tough questions are asked — and, apparently, as part of a nationwide “roadshow” type campaign that is raising huge sums of money; money that remains unaccounted for, at least in the media.

      Reply ↓

    • First, the State never claimed anything about any apartment. Second, there was no apt. This is a townhouse community. What evidence are you reading, if any?

      Reply ↓

  62. I agree with PeterO that Chad’s testimony is important, but I don’t think we know if he’s been interviewed or not.

    In my opinion, one of the “key facts” might be what arrangement Trayvon had with Chad for returning to the house without a KEY. FACT: We know that Trayvon didn’t have a key, because it’s not on the evidence list. If Trayvon had to knock and wait at the door for Chad to answer, then this is a very good reason for Trayvon to bipass the house when being chased by Zimmerman.

    I don’t believe that Trayvon started running in response to seeing Zimmerman on the phone. Trayvon saw Zimmerman on the phone long before he started running. He saw Zimmerman on the phone all the way from the mail shed, according to DeeDee.

    And this seems pretty obvious, because certainly, if Zimmerman could see Trayvon AT the mail shed, then Trayvon could also see Zimmerman FROM the mail shed. And if Trayvon could see Zimmerman from the mail shed, there’s no reason to assume Trayvon couldn’t see Zimmerman using his phone (come on, duh!)

    At this point in time, no one has come up with any evidence whatsoever that anything Dee Dee said in her statement was untrue. If she’s a liar, she’s a darn smart one.

    Reply ↓

    • I think Chad is only going to be asked if he requested Skittles. If there’s anything more he testifies to, it will probably be as a character witness. Who knows, though, he may have heard a knock or something else that he disregarded as nothing until he found out Trayvon Martin was killed out back.

      Reply ↓

    • Disagree on the when Trayvon Martin first ran thing. We KNOW that Trayvon Martin ran because both DeeDee and Zimmerman said so. The police report prepared by Serino said that Trayvon Martin entered the community using the alternate shortcut instead of the gate. That would have been the only time George Zimmerman had the opportunity to see Trayvon Martin “walking about, looking at houses”. This is evidence that George Zimmerman had the opportunity to follow Trayvon Martin BEFORE he ever reached the mailshed/clubhouse. So then Zimmerman parks and watches. This is a follow, watch, chase and shoot scenario and George Zimmerman thinks he’s smarter than a… Trayvon Martin apparently picked up on the fact that the guy following him down Retreat View Circle by car has now parked and is watching him. He HAS to walk past Zimmerman’s car to get home, so he walks first, but runs oncore he’s in front of the vehicle as a safety measure. Most shooters aren’t going to shoot you through their back window, so you start running/ducking/dodging once you’re past the safe zone.

      Reply ↓

    • HP There is a streetlight closer to Martin is. It is easier to see out from a vehicle than into a vehicle, and why would Zimmerman be holding his phone while he was in the truck. He was only an “old man” in “DeeDee”s mind.

      Reply ↓

  63. I find it unconscionable how very hard you reach to try to show Deedee, (a 15 year old!) in the worst possible light. . .digging into other cases, making false equivalencies, and all together being on an ego trip that means that anyone standing in your way to defend Zimmerman gets demonized.
    In my opinion, you are obsessed with this case, and you are so far off the deep end that you have lost all credibility! Everyone of your post is more extreme than the other.

    I would really be interested in knowing what drives that obsessive desire to attack anyone close to providing Trayvon with positive defensse. . .but I realize I’ll never know.

    However, it seems to me that it is a lot more than just “participating” in a discussion. It seems more like trying to convince and railroad people who can’t think for themselves!

    Reply ↓

    • I think I know to whom you are replying, but the WordPress software is so clunky that you have to learn the tricks to make it work.
      If you have the “Notify me of follow-up comments via email.” box checked, there will be a link in the email that you can use to launch a new instance of this page and at the bottom will be a reply box which, when used, will append your reply to the bottom of the post to which you are replying, rather than merely placing it at the bottom of the page.

      Told you it was clunky.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

      • Thank you Unitron! Yes, you probably guest it, I was replying to PeterO’s constant attempt to vilify the young Deedee. I just cannot believe that any one person can go that far out of focus, just to find (false) equivalencies to demonize the victim and anyone who could potentially bring a positive testimony for the victim.

        I will try to be more careful next time I post (right now!) LOL

        Reply ↓

    • DeeDee, according to ABC News, is 16 years old.

      Yes, teenagers lie … as much as adults.

      DeeDee is trying to put an apparently innocent man away in jail for life because he defended himself from a thug, no matter what his age. Just look at police statistics and you will see teenage violence is rampant in urban communities and even in schools.

      Danielle, if you don’t want to accept the real possibility that Martin, unprovoked, viciously attacked Zimmerman — as evidenced by the brutal pictures of damage to Zimmerman taken by the police on the night of the attack and the non-existent marks on Martin — as confirmed by his mortician — that show Zimmerman was so overpowered he could not even defend himself, except through the desperation single shot he fired while in fear of his life —, you have a perfect right to do so.

      Others don’t believe your [blind] faith belief that Zimmerman is a murderer and was not defending himself in a life and death struggle. His attorney doesn’t believe it. And most of the American public don’t believe it, as recent polls show (AFTER the distorted media pictures were exposed as frauds).

      Reply ↓

      • Peter O. . .you’re engaging in a lot of drama. . .but you are totally in your own reality!
        Zimmerman’s injuries were not “vicious and unprovoked!” NO one knows who initiated the first physical contact, but EVERYONE knows that Zimmerman was the stalker and pursuer, and that if he had just stayed in his SUV, or gone back to his SUV (after his ridiculous excuse to get out of it to “look for an address” in a community where he had lived for the last 3 years, where he was a “neighborhood watch” guy, and a community that had ONLY THREE STREETS.. . .even a complete dummy would remember 3 streets!) NOTHING would have happened.

        Zimmerman was not “so overpowered!” If he was, he had no business being a bouncer, and he should have spent more time practicing some martial art or self-defense strategy than abusing women! Zimmerman was 2 inches shorter and 42 lbs heavier than Trayvon Martin. . .and he was the one who CHOSE to follow the kid!

        By the way, I NEVER state Zimmerman was a “murderer,” not in the sense of “planning to shoot Trayvon!” But he was the killer of an innocent young man who, AT THE MOST, defended himself from that “creepy” guy by running away, and, when he was confronted, by asking him a question that Zimmerman had the opportunity to answer to de-escalate the situation by TELLING Trayvon that he was the neighborhood watch person, and asking him if he needed help finding an address. This would have resolved the whole story. . .but Zimmerman chose to be an ASS HOLE and to get aggressive (either physically, or at the least verbally!). I don’t care if Trayvon hit him on the nose, after Zimmerman pushed him and provoked Trayvon’s phone to fall!. . .Trayvon had MORE REASON to be afraid of that guy than Zimmerman did! After all, Trayvon may have thought that Zimmerman was a pervert, a child molester, or a gang member! There certainly was NOTHING about Zimmerman that would make people guess that he was “official!”

        No matter what happened during the struggle, it is obviouse that the use of deadly force was NOT warranted! So. . .Zimmerman may not have committed “premeditated murder,” but there is NO DOUBT that Trayvon is dead, that there was NO GOOD REASON for his death, and that Zimmerman is the one who killed him.

        Whether or not he gets aggravated manslaugher with use of uneccessary force, Zimmerman IS GUILTY of stupidity and of being a coward. Maybe if he had not been on mood altering drugs, he would not have engaged in profiling based on drug induced paranoia. Maybe if he hadn’t been on mood altering drugs, he would have reacted LOGICALLY to Trayvon’s question about “why are you following me for?” and Trayvon would have told him where he was going and Trayvon’s right to be there would have been clear to EVERYONE. . .and by then the police would have arrived and just concluded the encounter with an apology to TRAYVON!

        Again, I’m not sure who you are, or what your “special interest” is in this case, but you are spinning a web that is absolutely illogical, extremely bias, and you are insulting and demonizing EVERYONE who doesn’t agree with your “Zimmerman is innocent and is the victim” delusion!

        I have no respect for you, and do not wish to hear from you.

        Reply ↓

    • I agree. But in PeterO’s defense, he has made ONE valid argument on this blog, imo. He said “Yes, teenagers lie … as much as adults.”

      Zimmerman, the adult, is fully capable of lying and maybe PeterO will acknowledge this. I believe DeeDee’s story maps accurately to the evidence and Zimmerman’s does not.

      Reply ↓

    • Danielle,

      Zimmerman was neither a stalker nor a pursuer.

      All the buildings in the neighborhood look alike. There would be no reason to memorize street addresses, when they are on the front of every building.

      Zimmerman followed in the direct that Martin had run. “DeeDee” says that Martin had planned to run once he was behind the car, and on the sidewalk area. He ran until he was tired, told “DeeDee” he had lost Zimmerman, and that he was “right by” where he was staying. Do you think that Martin was not capable of running 150 yards in 30 seconds?

      She said “he [Martin] was by his da[d]’s house”. Martin must have told her that. BDLR thought she had said “he [Zimmerman] was by his [Martin’s] ass” meaning that Zimmerman was behind him. She emphatically said NO. Not “nuuhh” or “unhuh” but NO. She then when through the sequence again. He ran from behind Zimmerman’s car, he lost Zimmerman, and he was by his Dad’s house.

      If the police dispatcher thought that it was a good idea for Zimmerman to walk up and ask Martin whether he was lost, I am sure he would have suggested it.

      How do you know that Martin’s phone fell? Because “DeeDee” could hear the grass? Did someone push Martin the other 6 times a call ended over the previous 45 minutes? And how did the phone end up 40 feet from where the push would have occurred, and why would a push dislodge a phone that was in a pocket?

      “DeeDee” didn’t say that Martin thought Zimmerman was a child molester.

      Reply ↓

  64. jimrtex, my understanding is that the headset was in Trayvon’s pocket, which means that Trayvon probably wasn’t using the headset when he was talking to DeeDee at the time he met up with Zim.

    What were you saying about the phone being found 40 feet away? Do you mean it was found 40 feet away from where Trayvon was shot? Can you clarify please?

    In my opinion you seem to be assuming too much from your interpretation of DeeDee’s statement, and then cherry-picking those assumptions out of her statement while discarding other statements that you don’t choose to believe.

    As for Trayvon being capable of running so far in so many seconds: Obviously, Trayvon was capable of making it to the house ahead of Zimmerman. But he DIDN’T HAVE A KEY.

    Please think about this: Trayvon didn’t have a key. This means only one of 2 things: The door had been left open for him, or the door was locked and the plan was for Trayvon to knock when he returned. There’s at least a 50% chance that the door was locked, since Trayvon had left his little brother alone in a house in a complex where there had been recent burglaries.

    So we have a good possibility that the door is locked. You are Trayvon. (just for a few seconds). Some unknown guy is chasing you. You get to your house, but you know the door is locked. What do you do? Do you stand at the door and knock while the unknown guy gets closer and closer? Do you?? Heck no! You don’t even stop. For all you know, Chad could be taking a shower. Are you really going to stand there and knock while the unknown guy chasing you catches up????????????

    Reply ↓

    • According the Tracy and as shown in the 7/11 video, Martin was ALWAYS using a headphone. There is no reason whatsoever for Martin to switch from his headphone (particularly if it was raining since the phone could then get wet — the headphone keeps dry under the hoodie).

      So what most likely happened was that Martin had already hung up on DeeDee … just before he ran up behind Zimmerman, confronted him and attacked him.

      DeeDee never heard anything because she was never on the phone at the time of the attack. Remember, she blurted out at the end of her sworn interview “I ain’t know about it.”

      Brandy, in interviews, said she did not know of ANY break-ins or burglaries in the complex.

      Left door open; knock on (or bang on) front or back door or window; call Chad or Tracy; ring doorbell. No wonder Crump has never stated Martin was unable to get into Brandy’s unit because of a ‘missing key’ … it is such a silly assertion to make.

      Reply ↓

    • Also, jimrtex, you say “Zimmerman was neither a stalker nor a pursuer.”

      But then you say, “Zimmerman followed in the direct that Martin had run.”

      I can see there being a difference between being a “pursuer” and “following in the direct(ion) that Martin had run” if Zimmerman had “followed” Trayvon a week later. But that’s not the case. Zimmerman left his car to pursue Trayvon the moment he saw Trayvon starting to run.

      Reply ↓

    • This goes back to the theoretical Martin Trial/Does’t Martin have a right to self defense. If Martin were on trial for the Murder of George Zimmerman, this would make a difference and yes assuming he didn’t make it back home and then turned around to confront the guy himself after the fact he would have every right to self defense and all of it’s protections. I am not actually on either side, I am on the side of the law and Corey had better follow it with all of it’s protections for the citizens of FL. Having a vested interest in the laws of FL, and not giving a (Censored) about the race of either person, the theoretical prosecutor had better give theoretical Martin all of the rights of self defense from immunity if they have no contradictory evidence, to the protections from civil liability from Zimmerman’s family and if he were over 21 (not in the military) or 18 (in the military) the right to carry a firearm for self defense IAW FL Licensing through DOA.

      I can see two different cases here where both parties believed their lives were in Mortal danger, one from physically having his head beat in, and another from defending himself from a man he believed was a danger to him. If Martin had survived the gunshot wound and they were trying to prosecute him I could back both of their self defense claims without evidence to the contrary for either one of them. Martin did not know Zimmerman was talking to the cops, Zimmerman did not know Martin was living there (I would argue that the dad’s girlfriend should have told the HOA/Neighborhood Watch since there was a neighborhood watch in a gated community.) It still comes down to who started the Physical Attack the rest are Mitigating Circumstances (Martin) and Aggravating Circumstances (Zimmerman).

      Reply ↓

    • “my understanding is that the headset was in Trayvon’s pocket, which means that Trayvon probably wasn’t using the headset when he was talking to DeeDee at the time he met up with Zim.”

      There are three descriptions of the collection of personal effects from the body. The Medical Examiner forensic investigator (FI) says that after she took a look at the body, the Sanford police took personal effects – no specifics, and that they then removed the body.

      Two people from the Sanford Police report after the ME investigator came, they took the personal effects, and then after the body was removed they hunted for the cartridge casing, using a metal detector. I don’t know whether that was underneath the body, or they just didn’t want to be traipsing around, and perhaps have to go check a second time if they hadn’t found it.

      The two people who gather the personal effects reported the same items – $40.15 cash; the bag of skittles; the 7-11 lighter; the button pin; and the headphones. They reported them differently. One listed all of them, and reported they were in the pockets or on the body. The other was more specific, specifying which items came from the pockets: $40.15, skittles, and lighter. The button pin was on the sweatshirt and the headphones were near the body. I suspect the more precise description is more accurate. The other looks more like awkward sentence structure. It would like someone wrote the mattress and book were on the floor or table. We would infer that the book was on the table, but it might not actually be true. They may have more specific notes.

      They also reported that the juice can had been taken out during the resuscitation efforts – and there are separate reports of that happening. The can probably got photographed on top of the yellow body blanket to indicate that it had originally been on Martin.

      If the headphones had been in the way of resuscitation, they would have been removed. There might be one second to make visual or aural contact before starting CPR. Mask to mouth resuscitation was attempted. And a plastic shopping bag was used by the police officer to form a seal over the chest – so air wouldn’t leak from the entry wound. If the headphones were removed, it could have been done without being remembered. The body was rolled over to apply CPR, which could have pooled headphones out. It might be knowable what happened. But it is pretty unlikely that they were in the pockets.

      Those who heard the most, reported the altercation moved north to south, from around the T, where Zimmerman’s keys were found, to where the shooting happened. Martin’s phone was pretty near the body (closer to the sidewalk). If it was knocked out by an initial shove, it was picked up and moved 40 feet, or it bounced,

      BDLR was not trying to figure out what actually happened. He was trying to gather evidence that would help him prosecute. An investigator would have forced her to say Yes and No, and not nuhuhunuh, and would have had her provide a clear sequence of events. If “DeeDee” says Martin was “going to run from the back”, and later that “he ran from the back”, I infer this was planning and execution. You think she was talking about the back door, or perhaps she confuses “from” and “for”

      We have video and audio from 7-11 of Martin attempting to purchase something that he needed an ID for. “DeeDee” just recalls food and drink for his “little brother”. Either Martin put her on hold or she somehow forgot why he went to the store, or she told a half truth. Why would she refer to Chad as Martin’s little brother. She knew Martin from kindergarten. She could have been asked more about the place Martin was staying.

      Brandy Green said she was unaware of any burglaries in the neighborhood. If they were going to be gone, they might have put a bar in the door track. Otherwise they might have just closed the door. Maybe Martin just took off for the store. He could have also used the doorbell on the front.

      If your version is true, it means that he didn’t mention it to “DeeDee”, she forgot about it, or she decided not to mention it. In any case, she is then not a reliable witness of Martin’s actions.

      Reply ↓

    • HP,

      Zimmerman most likely exited his truck to maintain visual contact on someone who was behind his truck, going into a darkened area. You simply can’t track someone with your rear view mirrors at night. All you can see are headlights.

      Zimmerman reported Martin running. The dispatcher then asked which way. The truck door then came open. It was 11 seconds before Zimmerman started moving. Martin had longer legs, was wearing sneakers, and had his hands free. Zimmerman had shorter legs, was wearing boots, and was carrying a flashlight and a phone which he was talking on.

      Martin was probably very close to the corner before Zimmerman started shuffling along. “DeeDee” says that Martin told her that he was “right by” where he was staying and that he had lost the man.

      Reply ↓

    • One more observation about DeeDee’s testimony. She referred to a “mail shed,” yet the surveillance tapes seem to show Martin sitting a long time by the pool, a fact DeeDee never mentioned. The whole premise that — while on the phone for 6 hours that day (and all the other times they were on the phone) — Martin always kept telling DeeDee exactly where he physically was, all the times he kept putting his hoodie up and down, and other such details, makes no sense. I believe she was just fed that information and kept repeating it. For example, does she know how many streets Martin crossed to get to the 7/11? How many times he put his hoodie up and down that day and why and where? How many times and where he exactly stopped walking or actually was over the 6 hours?

      When the events were occurring, they were just normal conversations. So why would Martin, conveniently, be feeding her all this information at the time, that he normally would never be telling her? It makes no sense except that DeeDee was fed the information in the five weeks before the prosecutor was finally able to pressure her to give a statement.

      Reply ↓

    • @HP –

      The headphones were found on the ground near Trayvon Martin’s dead body according to the police report.

      Reply ↓

    • InspectorGadget –

      Brandy had no obligation to disclose her guests to George Zimmerman as George Zimmerman was not even a homeowner within the community. Zimmerman was a renter there — a paying “guest”.

      Reply ↓

  65. How Zimmerman was turned into a “murderer/killer” through a deliberate, slippery misuse of the English language in 2 steps:

    Zimmerman is first portrayed as a “pursuer” of Martin. The word ‘pursue’ normally has 2 elements, a ‘chase’ of some sort with the implication of an intent to actually catch up with the target ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pursue ):

    “pursue … 1. to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.”

    And there it is! The first trick to convict Zimmerman! Simply repeat using a word (pursue) that usually has 2 elements, including the second critical element of an intent to “overtake, capture, kill, etc.” This establishes that Zimmerman actually had the intent to “overtake, capture, kill, etc” … without any evidence of that intent (and strong evidence to the contrary).

    There was never any evidence that Zimmerman intended to actually “overtake, capture, kill, etc.” Martin. All Zimmerman ever did was sit in his car and call the police to have them check out a suspect. He never got out of his car while the suspect was in sight. He never tried to even talk to the suspect as he walked by and even rolled up his window to avoid contact (the idea is to NEVER attempt to confront a suspect — as the dispatcher will certainly testify to) — in fact he is now accused of murder because HE NEVER SAID ANYTHING TO MARTIN. He was told by the dispatcher twice, just before he exited his car, to keep reporting on the actions of the suspect. When the suspect disappeared, Zimmerman, following the instructions given a few seconds earlier by the dispatcher, exited his car and started following IN THE DIRECTION the suspect went to catch sight of him. The dispatcher (realizing Zimmerman could be exposing himself to danger in following a fleeing suspect and to protect Zimmerman) then advised him not to follow further. Zimmerman says ‘OK’ and stops and he takes 10-15 seconds to catch his breath (he was that pudgy, overweight and out of shape at 5’7″ and about 200lbs (from the police report)).

    SO THERE WAS NEVER ANY EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT BY ZIMMERMAN TO “overtake, capture, kill, etc.” Martin. In fact, the evidence was that Zimmerman never intended to effect the second element of a pursuit, that is, to “overtake, capture, kill, etc.”

    So, simply by continually repeating the words “pursue” and “chase” it was “proven” — by abusing the English language — that Zimmerman really had an intent to “overtake, capture, kill, etc.” Martin.

    The second slippery use of English words was then the jump to “stalker,” (from “pursuer”) a word everyone knows infers the “stalker” intends to harm the victim. Thereby, Zimmerman has been magically transformed in two connected steps from a “pursuer” to a “stalker” and the critical element of showing an intent to “overtake, capture, kill, etc.” has been “proven” all without any evidence (and with evidence to the contrary) by deliberate, slippery misuse of the English language.

    Reply ↓

    • Just goes to show, you can’t rely on some of those online dictionaries (as if everyone reads PeterO’s choice of online dictionaries before they use the word “pursuer”.)

      Webster’s definition of “pursue”: “1: to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, OR defeat.”

      By replacing “or” with “etc.”, we’re not informed by the online definition that “kill” is just one of several intentions implied by the use of the word “pursue”.

      But, carry on.

      Reply ↓

    • Oh, and what exactly is the “evidence” that “Zimmerman never intended to effect the second element….”

      Seems you’re pretty fast and loose with referring to “evidence” that you never seem to be able to cite.

      Reply ↓

    • HP, spinning and misrepresenting into the fray … again. Why not, instead of misrepresenting what I said, read it correctly.

      I said: “The word ‘pursue’ NORMALLY has 2 elements, a ‘chase’ of some sort with the IMPLICATION of an intent to actually catch up with the target” and “USUALLY has 2 elements, including the second critical element of an intent to “overtake, capture, kill, etc.””

      Moreover, the similar Webster’s definition, that you use, has the word “OR.” Obviously, you either don’t know the meaning of the word OR … OR you know it, and deliberately misrepresent.

      As for my evidence, again, read what I said. I stated the evidence that Zimmerman never had any intent to “overtake, capture, kill, etc.” in the fifth paragraph.

      It is interesting that in your earlier reply to jimtrex you said: “I can see there being a difference between being a “pursuer” and “following in the direct(ion) that Martin had run” if Zimmerman had “followed” Trayvon a week later. But that’s not the case. Zimmerman left his car to pursue Trayvon the moment he saw Trayvon starting to run.”

      Clearly, “following in the direct(ion) that Martin had run” also can mean to “get Martin in sight again to report that information to the dispatcher to relay to the police” and NOT to “overtake, capture, kill, etc.” as you are trying, repeatedly, to convince people — people who may not have your sophisticated “grasp” on how to misuse the English language.

      Reply ↓

    • And another HP slippery tactic. You said: “By replacing “or” with “etc.”

      WHO did the replacing? You know very well that what I quoted was the exact language in the dictionary link I provided … which you fail to mention in order to make it appear that I somehow misrepresented the link’s definition.

      While we are on the subject of the definition of “pursue” are you also saying that the correct interpretation to be used, whenever you use the word “pursue,” is really “defeat?” Just how was Zimmerman following Martin to “defeat” him? That is a nonsensical interpretation of the definition of “pursue” in the context of this case.

      Reply ↓

    • @hapufern –

      I KNOW what you’re attempting to do (use normal English). 🙂

      It won’t fly with those that find that the murdered child deserved it (for reasons they can’t use English to explain).

      Reply ↓

    • Peter O, as usual, I disagree.
      Zimmerman’s comment to the dispatcher “they always get away,” is a strong indication that, this time, he intended to do anything in his power so that “they wouldn’t get away!”

      Reply ↓

  66. I guess we interpret things differently PO. In any case, at some point, Zimmerman went after Trayvon – deliberately (evidence: Zimmerman’s tape). During this time, Zimmerman called Trayvon a f—- something (evidence: Zimmerman’s tape).

    We also know that Trayvon ran AWAY from Zimmerman (Zimmerman’s tape). And we know Zimmerman had a loaded gun and shot Trayvon (evidence: a dead boy and a grieving family).

    Ain’t no dictionary gonna define that away.

    Reply ↓

    • Went after a suspect for a few seconds, to keep him in sight after he disappeared and not to “overtake, capture, kill, etc.” him.

      Martin ran in a direction AWAY from Zimmerman because, having seen Zimmerman on the phone, was concerned the police were being called and he might be busted again — as he was at school — for drugs (he had THC in his system after staying at Brandy’s unit for 7 days already) or even for loitering. This would be the last thing he needed, particularly if he was keeping weed at Brandy’s unit (where did he get the THC?).

      Zimmerman had a lawfully licensed loaded gun, that he had for a while and had never once used in any manner.

      Ain’t no misuse of the dictionary that can be used to convict Zimmerman of murder.

      Reply ↓

      • Every one of your statements is presented as “evidence” or “fact” and they are actully ONLY speculation. . but ALWAYS speculations that attenpt to demonize the victim in favor of the killer!.

        We all speculate in this debate. . I as well as others. But most of us do not take an arrogant stand trying to present pure speculations as “facts” or trying to demonize the killer. Most of us want to have a thorough investigation and a trial by jury and a fair penalty for killing an INNOCENT (at least. . .on the day of the killing!) teenager because of a paranoid tendency, a system that gave a gun permit to someone on mood altering prescription drugs, and the actions of a coward who couldn’t fight in a fist fight with his fists, but had to resort to the unnecessary deadly force of a gun.

        I am repulse by your absolutely biased stand.
        And I am NOT impressed by your arrogance!

        Reply ↓

        • “Most of us want to have a thorough investigation and a trial by jury and a fair penalty for killing an INNOCENT (at least. . .on the day of the killing!) teenager because of a paranoid tendency, a system that gave a gun permit to someone on mood altering prescription drugs, and the actions of a coward who couldn’t fight in a fist fight with his fists, but had to resort to the unnecessary deadly force of a gun.”

          Seems it’s not just the Z-team turning speculations into facts.

          Have you seen a professional evaluation of Zimmerman’s MMPI?

          Did you witness the fight?

          Do you understand that a jury trial might find him “not guilty”?

          unitron

          Reply ↓

          • @Unitron:
            An MMPI would not in any way demonstrate how much prescription drugs were in Zimmerman’s blood on February 26. Unfortunately that information is for ever lost, thanks to shody police work.
            An MMPI could certainly determine the “dishonest” tendencies of Zimmerman, and his general character make up, but if you know anything about the MMPI, you know that, even if Zimmerman was require to take the test (which is very unlikely!) the results would remain confidential!
            So. . .what are you asking? Whether I know about the MMPI? Yes I do. I’ve worked with it before.

            If you are trying to make a somewhat subtle accusation that I am biased in the way I see the case, I have never tried to deny that. . . what I am saying is that “others” do not have the honesty to recognize their bias and insist in putting THEIR opinion forward as “evidences!”

            @ PeterO.
            I have never hidden the fact that I believe in Zimmerman’s guilt. But I have also stated before that I do not believe he is guilty of premeditating the killing of the teenager, but that he as too stupid and too much of a coward to do anything but to use the “big gun” rather than fight like a man. . .after he pushed for the confrontation with the kid by pursuing him.

            What I have stated is that, although “I” know that I have my opinion made, you especially (and a couple of others here) insist in presenting THEIR biased opinions as “EVIDENCE!”

            And, re: my opinion that Zimmerman was acting under some influence (side effects) of the pshychotropic drugs he was taking, I based that opinion on his slurred speech during the 911 call, the type of drugs he has been taking (obviously for an extended period), the fact that I believe he refused to go to the emergency room for one of two reasons (or a combination of both!): the fact that he was only lightly injured, and the fact he didn’t want to risk having a blood test that would reveal the quantity of those drugs in his system at the time.
            I believe that his words during the 911 call do express paranoia (not clinical paranoia, but clear paranoid and obsessive thinking) and that without that obsessive, paranoid drive, he would not have left his truck, and would have waited for the police as he was told to do.

            I, obviously, have not interviewed Zimmerman. but my assessment is based on a little more than a lay person’s impression.

          • So your diagnosis of Zimmerman as paranoid is strictly the opinion of a lay person, and not a Doctor of Psychology or Psychiatry with any sort of access to him or something like MMPI results from which to make a judgement?

            Were you able to check his pulse, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels from that phone call recording as well? Were his pupils equal and reactive?

            unitron

          • @Unitron:
            You may not have noticed, but I never pretended to provide an “EXPERT” opinion, just my OWN opinion, as I said in a previous post, this may not be as “educated” an opinion as that of a legal expert. . .but I believe it may match more closely that of other “lay persons,” like those on the jury!

            Also, I never pretended to be a PhD., Pshychologist or a M.D. in Psychiatry. And I have stated in a previous post that, although my assessment of Zimmerman as having paranoid tendencies was not a an assessment of “medical paranoia,” but situational paranoia that may have it’s source in the side effects from the psychotropic medication GZ has been taking.

            Now, I wouldn’t call myself (and my NON-MEDICAL) assessment that of a LAY person, but that of a Mental Health professional, with a degree in Psychology (which doesn’t mean that much), but also a Master degree in Social Work with an emphasis in the field of mental health. I have worked for 10 years with people with mental health issues and drug addictions and, during that time, I worked for 2 years in a day program for People with mental illness. I have also facilitated work groups for the family of people with mental illness, and participated in MANY multi-disciplinary meetings both at the day program, the sheltered workshops, the group homes, and in the Mental Health ward of the local hospital.

            I find your post to be a petty attempt to discredit my opinion and ridicule me. If this is what you choose to do, fine. I hope you enjoy it.

            By the way, it is precisely because I wanted to limit my comments to being taken as “opinions” that I have never mentionned my credentials before.

            I do agree that, due to the many loopholes in the judicial system, especially in FL, Zimmerman has a good chance to get off. That will not mean that he is not guilty of taking the life of a young man whom, without Zimmerman’s PARANOID tendencies, would have gotten home that night to watch the game. That will just mean that more people will realize that they can fool the system, just by claiming “self-defense,” and that it pays for people like Peter O to throw thrash on the memory of the victim and anyone who dares to disagree with his (as he states) “evidences,” although they are no more than “opinions” and often very skewed opinions!

            And, if my ability to express myself in writing falls short of your expectations and is another cause for “ridicule,” I guess I should inform you also that I was born and raised speaking a different language, and that English is my second language (although it didn’t seem to affect my ability to get 2 Bachelors degrees and a Master degree, as well as Phi Beta Kappa.

    • “my opinion that Zimmerman was acting under some influence (side effects) of the pshychotropic drugs he was taking,”

      ***whatever “side effects” there may or may not have been, they are rare, there is no evidence Zimmerman suffered from them, and even if he had bouts of suffering from them (which I doubt) that still does not make him guilty of anything.

      “I based that opinion on his slurred speech during the 911 call”

      ***He didn’t have any slurred speech. He sounded perfectly normal and his statements were normal and, for a person in his position, very concise. The dispatcher, who he was actually talking to, will be deposed for his thoughts on the conversation. As for the minor parts of frustration with crime in his area, who wouldn’t feel that way if in his position. BTW, your tone in many of your comments are far worse, in terms of aggression (but without swear words) than anything I heard Zimmerman say.

      “I believe he refused to go to the emergency room for one of two reasons (or a combination of both!): the fact that he was only lightly injured, and the fact he didn’t want to risk having a blood test that would reveal the quantity of those drugs in his system at the time”

      ***See my posts at PeterO on May 30, 2012 at 9:25 pm said:
      It was strongly to Zimmerman’s disadvantage (health wise and legally) to foolishly not go to a hospital immediately. See the rest of my comment and next few above.

      “having a blood test that would reveal the quantity of those drugs in his system at the time”

      ***Lets assume he had his normal dose. So what? The drugs are overwhelmingly safe. See my note above.

      Reply ↓

    • BTW, I made an error. You did use the same swear word Zimmerman used, above, when you said “but Zimmerman chose to be an ASS HOLE” and called evidence you didn’t like, “crap”.

      Does that make you a murderer, a sign you are capable of murder … or really just someone expressing regular angst in a perfectly normal way?

      Reply ↓

  67. Sorry jimrtex, I got sidetracked and didn’t see your post.

    What did you mean by this?

    “Those who heard the most, reported the altercation moved north to south, from around the T, where Zimmerman’s keys were found, to where the shooting happened. Martin’s phone was pretty near the body (closer to the sidewalk). If it was knocked out by an initial shove, it was picked up and moved 40 feet, or it bounced,”

    Did you mean you think the initial confrontation occurred closer to the north T and then moved 40 feet south where Trayvon was found? If so, couldn’t Trayvon have picked up his phone after it dropped and brought it with him as the altercation moved south?

    I don’t agree that DeeDee should be expected to convey enough detail to completely piece together events as they unfolded on the ground. She would have had to go to the complex enough times herself to understand the layout of the townhouses. She may never have been there at all.

    Reply ↓

    • It never ceases to amaze me all the scenarios people come up with what Trayvon could’a/should’a done that night. Now Brandy was at fault for not “checking in” her visitors to the HOA? I have never in my life had to do this, nor been expected too. It’s insane….or maybe it’s “my bad”, and I’ve been visiting people all wrong my entire life and have not been following proper protocol with my own visitors all this time. After listening to the witness interviews, the majority didn’t even know who Zimmerman was, therefore he was the one “misplaced” in the cut considering his home was down the street and east of the area, blocks away. He so obviously did not even know those who he was “protecting”, or “watching” over based on the witnesses and what they had to say in regards to Zimmerman. The only person who could’a/should’a done something different that night was Zimmerman himself, since after all he initiated the entire ordeal with his lack of effort to speak to Trayvon in the street to ease his own paranoia…as if he needed to anyway. WHICH HE DID NOT. My question; what could Trayvon possibly have done different after he walked up that cut from 7-Eleven and entered that neighborhood, exactly? I think as people who do this kind of thing on a daily basis; who travel by foot to and fro, or who are just out and about in general, well……we need to know ASAP so we don’t interrupt those who feel that this is “out of the norm” in neighborhoods or everyday life in general .

      Reply ↓

    • Seconded! Additionally, if bigots don’t see the error in their logic, race riots are the last thing they will need to worry about.

      There are more “minorities” (when brown-raced people are combined) in the world and in the U.S. than “majorities”. Surely the U.S. “majority” race doesn’t want all the brown “minorities” to start buying guns and popping of folks and claiming “fear” for their life.

      Riots would be nothing compared to an all out race-war if all races were armed. The U.S. is a civilized society and I just don’t understand why those fearful of other races aren’t taught to think things all the way through.

      Reply ↓

  69. HP

    Maybe the FBI has run some tests and you can always tell who pushed who.

    “DeeDee” should be able to give some idea of the place where Martin was staying. She talked to him 6 hours that day, and who knows how much the previous week.

    Reply ↓

    • I agree jimrtex, but I don’t think DeeDee had enough of a picture to be able to know exactly was during the entire episode. For example, is there any evidence to date that she knew there were 2 rows of buildings? Or the layout of the T’s? Or that Brandy’s house was at the end of the second row? I don’t think we know.

      If she did know any of this though, would she have had the sophistication at her age to think that any of it might matter enough to even talk about it during her description of events? It’s not like she was asked any specifics about what route she thought Trayvon took. If the interviewer didn’t think it was important enought to ask about, why would DeeDee think it was important enough to talk about?

      Reply ↓

    • She could not have known that Martin was “right by” his Dad’s house unless Martin told her.

      Why do you think BDLR pretended to hear “he was by his ass” and his
      explanation that it mean that Zimmerman was behind Martin.

      Listen to that part of the tape. NO, you are not understanding and she goes through the sequence he ran from the back, he lost him and was by his dad’s place,

      Reply ↓

  70. I think it’s OK for Danielle to express her opinion. Everyone else around here does.

    I think she has a point about Zimmerman’s use of prescription drugs. Since we’re speculating about EVERYTHING – even that Trayvon’s father had to clean up the house for drugs – why not speculate about this too?

    Adderall does have some nasty side effects. It’s also very addictive, and people are known to start increasing their intake above their prescribed dose. If it’s true that Zimmerman was taking a downer to go to bed and an upper (adderall) during the day, then this guy was drug-fueled. If he was increasing his dose, then his risk for side effects go up too.

    Of course it IS speculation, but since we’re speculating about EVERYTHING, I do think Danielle makes an interesting point that maybe the prospect of taking a blood test or detection by some other means could be a reason why Zimmerman refused to see a doctor that night.

    Reply ↓

    • I only object to opinion presented as established fact.

      Stuff like

      “It’s a fact that (insert opinion here).”

      “It’s obvious that (insert opinion here).”

      “Everybody knows that (insert opinion here).”

      “If X hadn’t (insert opinion), then Y wouldn’t have (insert opinion).”

      When people use words like “if”, “perhaps”, “it seems to me”, I’ve got no problem with them offering various alternative theories of what might have happened.

      I think the more you notice someone deifying one individual or “side” and demonizing the other, the more likely they are to not be appending those qualifiers and the less willing they are to considering alternative points of view.

      They make up their minds how they feel and bend reality to support that.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • He could also have taken his nightly heroin dose … as long as you are speculating.

      If you believe the prosecution will waste his efforts on finding an “expert” to convict Zimmerman of murder based on his ADD medicine, you may as well set Zimmerman free now. He was perfectly rational, clear, and in control of his senses on the dispatcher tape, both in his speech and his actions and he has no known history of ADD medicine side effects — which, even if he did, would not prove guilt.

      As for the issue of Martin and drugs. You seem to forget Martin had THC in his system. He had been at Brandy’s unit for at least 7 days, he had been suspended from school for, among other things, having drugs in his possession. So he was using drugs while staying at Brandy’s unit.

      Where do you SPECULATE he a) got the drugs from that were in his system; and b) kept the drugs?

      It is quite reasonable to assume he kept his drugs in Brandy’s unit — where else could he have kept the drugs? If there were drugs in Brandy’s unit, then who cleared them out? Who knew they were there? These are not only reasonable questions but, for certain, a good defense attorney will want answers because Martin’s drug use explains why he was acting erratically night and why Zimmerman called the police to check a suspect out. And it explains why Martin ran so quickly when he saw Zimmerman was on the phone and watching him after he left an area of the complex that might at least arise suspicion enough for him to be questioned.

      When Martin was busted at school, he was similarly profiled. And look at what the school officer found, drugs. You can deny the implications of the facts mentioned above and call anyone who brings the issues up names. These issues will be central issues at trial, like it or not, head in sand or not.

      Reply ↓

    • Making an issue of Zimmerman’s prescription drug use is really a nonstarter. The fact that Zimmerman was on medicine that can potentially have extremely unusual side effects is not really a relevant bit of evidence, absent some other reason to believe he did in fact have bad reactions to it.

      Zimmerman chose to grab a loaded gun and follow after a teenager, for no reason other than his unfounded suspicions. The drugs didn’t make him do that.

      Same goes for the theorizing about Trayvon’s marijuana use. We know he’d used marijuana in the weeks or months prior to his death, but his tells us nothing remarkable or useful about the case. Lots of teenagers use marijuana, but 99.9999% of them don’t randomly try to kill a neighbor with their bare hands, simply because the neighbor looked at them funny. There is no inference that can be drawn about Trayvon’s propensity for violence based on the drug test.

      Reply ↓

  71. I completely agree unitron!

    PeterO, Dee Dee testified that Trayvon knew Zimmerman was on the phone all the way from the mail shed. This makes sense to me because if Zimmerman could see Trayvon, then Trayvon could see Zimmerman.

    As for Zimmerman’s drug use, you’re probably correct that it won’t be brought up at trial unless perhaps there’s evidence of drug ABUSE, or evidence of former undesirable behavior associated with drugs.

    I agree that Trayvon’s THC level may be brought up at trial (with a rebuttal witness to quickly testify that the level doesn’t confirm that Trayvon was impaired). However, there’s no evidence that Trayvon’s father ever cleaned the house for drugs. Even more importantly, there’s no relevance, since we already KNOW Trayvon’s THC level. Attempts to smear Trayvon’s relatives serve no purpose, and wouldn’t be allowed in court.

    Reply ↓

    • The issue is not “smearing.” It has to do with explaining Martin running. DeeDee already admitted Martin never told her he was afraid of Zimmerman (and that should be clear from how he brazenly took the long way around Zimmerman’s car). So the defense will try to show Martin ran for another reason … concern about being busted again. If there were drugs at Brandy’s apt and that evidence was destroyed when it was clearly relevant to a murder investigation (to show a reason why Martin ran) that could constitute obstruction of justice. Also, the Martins have been claiming that the police were somehow negligent in not contacting Tracy sooner so the other issue becomes why Tracy did not act quicker in calling the police when he saw Martin was not home for the NBA game? A reason could easily be that there was the risk the apt could be searched if Martin was involved in drugs.

      Tracy also is now claiming the voice on the tape is Martin’s, even though he said otherwise originally. Cleaning up the apartment is important impeachment material that would show Tracy is capable of concealing evidence and not telling the truth about Martin’s voice and his real activities while staying at Brandy’s.

      Tracy could also be concerned about the drug angle and how it might involve the family. Does anyone seriously believe that disclosure that drugs were in Brandy’s apt would not hurt donations, media impressions affecting the jury pool and the public, and the results at trial since it would explain why Zimmerman’s ‘profiling’ was legitimate?

      Reply ↓

    • I neglected to also mention the clear connection to finding out what Martin did once he reached Brandy’s apt after running.

      Did he have a stash or a joint on him at the time (explaining a reason to run) and drop it off at Brandy’s apt before trying to find Zimmerman, who caused him such problems and was staring at him?

      Remember, Martin was still using drugs even after he was caught at school (the suspension). The THC in his system shows that. So given the amount of time he expected to stay at Brandy’s it makes perfect sense for him to bring along a supply if he never gave the habit up.

      The length of time THC can stay in the system means little if it was long enough after being caught to show he still used drugs, even after being caught, thereby indicating a regular habit.

      Reply ↓

  72. PeterO – Drugs 101, Marijuana can stay in one’s system for over a month depending on the regularity of prior usage and the invidual’s personal physiological makeup. So your assertion that “he was using drugs while staying at Brandy’s unit” is taking a large leap of assumption.

    Reply ↓

    • Not large leap at all. Particularly given the importance of the issue. Both sides can argue the merits of the issue, but it will be argued, like it or not because it could be a very important factor in explaining the reason for “profiling” and why Martin ran.

      The 7/11 tape supports that Martin was high that night since his movements were exaggerated on the surveillance tape in manner that suggests being high (it was only 6:30 in the evening). The 7/11 clerk will be deposed and possibly other witnesses who may have seen Martin.

      There will also be a drug residue test of the hoodie. The fact it hasn’t already been done leads to the strong suspicion that the prosecutor already smelled it and believes it will test positive.

      Even if it is argued that THC could be in the system longer, it was long enough after Martin was originally busted at school, that he didn’t take the suspension seriously and was still using drugs after he was caught. That alone would influence jurors into believing Martin never gave the habit up and to assume he could have been using that night. This is important to Zimmerman’s profiling defense because the issue is disproving that assumption BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

      Reply ↓

    • Lisa, Time’s take on the issue is that THC doesn’t lead to violence is a red herring. The real THC issues are:

      1) if Martin was somewhat high that night, that would aid Zimmerman’s defense in the ‘profiling’ claim as a reason to call the police to check a suspect out for looking high or intoxicated (note: I don’t believe ‘profiling’ is even relevant … but the prosecutor seems to think so);

      2) it Martin was high or had a joint on him that night, that would explain his running. Instead, we are told Martin was in great fear of Zimmerman (read my other posts to show that claim is ridiculous … but that is the claim). Martin wouldn’t want to be busted again so soon after being suspended for drugs at school;

      3) it provides Martin extra motivation to stalk Zimmerman and beat him up besides for just “staring at him” since he could be angry with the pudgy white guy because he was a possible ‘snitch’ who may have tried to cause him trouble by calling the police.

      NONE of these reasons have anything to do with an effect of THC to induce violent behavior.

      The media, including Time, has consistently put forth red herrings and ‘facts’ to damage Zimmerman, facts that have been disproved time and time again.

      Ask yourself, why the reporters for Time did not mention the three points I make above.

      Reply ↓

      • The part of the article that I thought you might be interested in was the amount of THC by-products in Martin’s system, they were too low for recent marijuana intoxication.

        Reply ↓

    • Thanks Lisa for the reference. I saw the comment by the professor at John Jay (where he says he believes the THC level may not be admitted). But the context of the question presented to him is unclear. Was it just in the context of physical actions such as aggressiveness as appears to be in the article? And what is the extent of his knowledge of the case and possible defenses that don’t depend on arguing THC as a cause of aggressivenss? That remains unclear.

      As for the significance of the level itself (not the critical issue), it is unclear as to the time window of use. Could it still have been that day? Will O’Mara question the findings and present an expert witness to challenge them and say use that day was possible? These are questions too early to answer but are not critical as to how O’Mara will use the results, which will be to raise doubts as to the prosecutor’s case. Just look at the Casey Anthony case to see how such doubts can be used in defense of murder.

      Martin had a lighter in his possession at the time (he doesn’t smoke as far as we know anything except weed). And his actions at the 7/11 are still to be explored by O’Mara, including deposing the clerk and finding out what happened outside the store. O’Mara will certainly raise the doubt that Martin may have just purchased something and was about to use weed later that evening or the next day (to explain the running).

      The state, at the onset, has a deep hole to climb out of. It’s theory revolves around “intent” — Zimmerman’s intent to profile, pursue and maliciously attack; Martin’s intent to simply get home. There is no doubt in my mind that the very existence of THC in Martin’s system will play a substantial role at trial and if disallowed would be good grounds to overturn any conviction.

      Reply ↓

  73. I don’t think so PeterO. I think you’re completely wrong about everything you just said, but maybe we could both agree that it’s certainly a shame you’re not Zimmerman attorney.

    In my view, you’d lose the case for him. I’m guessing that in your view you’d win it.

    Reply ↓

    • HP, I am not sure you, and many other commentors realize that the arguments I raise are straightforward defense arguments that any decent criminal defense attorney would raise.

      I can easily predict that 90% of what I say will be done by O’Mara because the arguments I make are obvious arguments for a defense. You are so intent on turning a blind eye and “knocking down” Zimmerman’s defenses any way you can that you overlook the fact that O’Mara will not only not be dissuaded from the arguments but will use them very effectively to obtain “not guilty.”

      Reply ↓

  74. People are still talking as if O’Mara “Has To Prove”, O’Mara does not have to prove anything, as shown by Casey Anathony’s attorney when he made the most outlandish defense possible in his opening, and gave nothing to prove that defense at all. We are talking about the laws in FL on the day of the shooting, not what the laws are in your state, not what anyone thinks the law should be in FL (i.e. the open hearing on SYG today) but the laws on the books in FL on that day. Here are some excerpts from Standard Jury Instructions from the Florida Supreme Court that will be given in this case. (I recommend you read all of 3.6(f) starting on page 62 for yourself from the PDF file)

    Click to access onlinejurryinstructions.pdf

    3.6(f) JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE

    …

    A person is justified in using deadly force if [he] [she] reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent

    1. imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] or another, or

    2. the imminent commission of (applicable forcible felony) against [himself] [herself] or another.

    Insert and define applicable forcible felony that defendant alleges victim was about to commit. Forcible felonies are listed in § 776.08, Fla. Stat.

    …

    Read in all cases.

    In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

    No duty to retreat. § 776.013(3), Fla. Stat. See Novak v. State 974 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) regarding unlawful activity. There is no duty to retreat where the defendant was not engaged in any unlawful activity other than the crime(s) for which the defendant asserts the justification.

    If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    Define applicable forcible felony from list in § 776.08, Fla. Stat. that defendant alleges victim was about to commit.

    …

    Physical abilities. Read in all cases.

    In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).

    Read in all cases.

    If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

    However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

    —–

    In case anyone missed it “If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.” That is as clear as it can possibly get. Angela Corey has to Prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that it was not a Self Defense Shooting. O’Mara doesn’t even have to bring up Stand Your Ground he just has to raise doubt’s, and if those doubts werent there Susan’s comments page wouldn’t be however many thousands of comments long, Angela Corey has a long way to go assuming this even makes it to a full trial.

    Reply ↓

    • Having said all of that, “Sitting in your truck” is not illegal. “Following someone” is not illegal (Corey would have had an additional charge of stalking that just wasn’t there under the law for that to even be an issue). Even if he ignored the “Telephone Call Taker” according to the dispatchers boss it is not illegal since the Call Taker can not give orders. The first Illegal act by either party would have been when contact was physically made between the two, the first punch/shove. Zimmerman says it was Martin, Det. Gilbreath says it was Zimmerman “Because there was a confrontation”. The reality is that regardless of who actually made first contact, Corey has to Prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that it was in fact Zimmerman that made first contact that resulted in him getting his (Censored) beat to the point he had to shoot Martin to stop him. According to Det. Gilbreath they do not have any evidence to the contrary and O’Mara has no reason to put Zimmerman on the stand to risk him saying otherwise. Just like the Anthony Case the jury is forced, weather they like it or not, to find Not Guilty with all of the legal protections from Civil Suits that brings.

      IANAL but I have just given you my legal reasoning why this case can not end in guilty, so flame away.

      Reply ↓

    • When Serino called the medical examiner to come get Martin’s body, he gave a preliminary assessment that said that Zimmerman “confronted” Martin, that Zimmerman shot Martin who then fell to the ground.

      Serino had not interviewed any witnesses at that point, and Zimmerman had already gone to the police station. Almost everything that Serino told the ME was wrong, other than Martin had been shot, and the shooter was Zimmerman.

      Is the affidavit of probable cause based on that?

      Reply ↓

    • I am beginning to suspect that the reason Corey bypassed a grand jury was the very real chance the grand jury could have thrown this case out after asking some tough questions, as was done in the Twana Brawley case.

      Corey would have needed more for a grand jury than just a dubious affidavit. She would have had to put DeeDee on the stand in a grand jury setting and jurors would likely have asked DeeDee some very tough questions about her incredible chase story and what she really heard, if anything, since the State’s case hinges almost entirely on DeeDee as a witness.

      Corey would also have had to do more ‘homework.’ There was no rush to arrest Zimmerman because there were years left under any statute of limitations.

      This case should have gone to a grand jury.

      Reply ↓

      • The way I read it, Wolfinger announced that he was going to take the case to the grand jury and 2 days later he’s out and she’s in, so I suspect the governor rigged it that way, making sure Corey understood to keep it away from the grand jury and to unload hard enough on Zimmerman to get him to plea bargain in front of a judge but no jury, and I further suspect it’s to keep the investigation from being investigated.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • If she had gone to a Grand Jury with this I would have no problem if they decided there was probable cause had went ahead with prosecution. I would love to see for the protection for the citizens of FL a change to 776.036 to make any case where there may be probable cause it Must be reviewed by a Grand Jury.

      Reply ↓

  75. Your comment is right to the point. O’Mara only has to raise doubts in jurors minds.

    The State is trying to argue that Zimmerman’s brief “following” Martin (following could be to either to follow with intent to keeping a suspect in sight or “to follow with intent to overtake, capture, kill, etc.”) should be found by the jury to mean Zimmerman was “pursuing” or “stalking” Martin (both of which concepts presume only a following “with intent overtake, capture, kill, etc.”) won’t work. The State MUST prove Zimmerman followed Martin “with intent overtake, capture, kill etc.” with evidence not simple word play assertions. O’Mara will simply argue the alternative following intent (to keep a suspect in sight) to raise reasonable doubt.

    In addition, as the Inspector says, the State must prove all the elements needed to convict for murder or manslaughter (the lesser included offense). And it must disprove Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. And it must do all this beyond a reasonable doubt in favor of Zimmerman.

    Reply ↓

  76. I think everyone is correct who says a guilty verdict will be difficult to obtain.

    However, Det. Gilbreath implied in his testimony that Zimmerman’s statements contradicted the evidence. We don’t know yet to what extent this is true, but those statements may significantly effect the outcome of the case.

    Reply ↓

    • Unless there is an outright statement by Zimmerman that he initially attacked Martin then lost control of the situation I don’t see how it overcomes reasonable doubt. If such a statement were in there it would have been in the probable cause document, and O’Mara may need to put him on the stand which could throw the whole case.

      BTW this goes back to a statement I have made before, if you have to defend yourself no matter how sure you are of your own innocence – GET A FRICKING LAWYER !!!!! before you sit down for interviews.

      Reply ↓

  77. George Zimmerman’s wife charged with perjury

    Lester also noted that the evidence against George Zimmerman “is strong.”

    “Most importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process,” Lester wrote.

    Reply ↓

    • I was wondering the same thing Inspector Gadget. Do me a favor, if you do find the video could you post a link to it. So far I have not been able to find it, It’s just been one of those days.

      However if Lester was referring to the murder trial, that would shed a little light onto this for us. It would also make me wonder if it is smart and ethical to make such a statement.

      Reply ↓

    • sandbagger, on this (unfortunately) rare occasion, we are in agreement.

      If Lester made that comment about Zimmerman and the upcoming trial, he was way out of order. Zimmerman didn’t testify at the bond hearing, the bond issue has nothing to do with the trial and he is supposed to be “neutral.”

      Many may not be aware, but when Dershowitz criticized Angela Corey, he was indirectly criticizing Judge Lester for going along with the farcical probable cause “affidavit.” Does anyone seriously think the signer of that affidavit did less than what Zimmerman and his wife are now accused of?

      If this case ultimately devolves into the fiasco Dershowitz and many others believe it will, Lester is not looking good in his very own “potted plant” reaction to the probable cause “show” put on by the prosecutor’s office at the probable cause hearing.

      How can he possibly say the State has a “strong case” when he saw not an iota if contrary argument? Reality: it was an ethical breach for him to say that when all he has heard in the way of “evidence” (really just distorted accusations and half-truths) was at the probable cause hearing. He was not acting as a neutral judge but as a partisan.

      Reply ↓

    • I am still looking for a video, but I am not sure one exists.

      Here are the 18th Circuits press releases on the case:

      http://www.flcourts18.org/presspublic.html

      This one is specifically about this hearing:

      Click to access order%20revoking%20bond.pdf

      The next Bond Hearing is still scheduled 9:30AM EST on Jun 29th

      —–

      I am reading the Revocation notice and it does say the Evidence against him is Strong. It appears to be Judge Lester is saying the evidence for 2nd Murder is strong. I honestly hope that a sitting Judge in my state would not make a determination in an official document before the trial. This is at the limits of my legal knowledge on this question, but wouldn’t that show bias on the part of the Judge and be grounds for appeal? The rest of that paragraph I have no problem with but that one statement bothers me and makes me wonder if O’Mara should be considering asking him to Recuse himself for bias? I expect him to be completely neutral on guilt or innocence and keep all parties honest, if he shows any bias at all it could affect a fair trial by jury.

      Reply ↓

      • That sort of touches on something I’ve been wondering about.

        Should the same judge who decides if you’re a flight risk or not be expected to do so without any consideration of your possible guilt and then be expected to preside in a completely impartial manner at the trial itself?

        Reply ↓

      • How could any judge assess whether or not to grant bond, and to what amount, without considering the evidence that have been presented to that day? I believe that Judge Lester describe thoroughly in his statement what criteria entered into his decision, 1st, to allow a bond of only $15,000 cash, and second to revoke that bond based on new evidences (i.e., the dishonesty of both Zimmerman and his wife re: their then current financial situation and the possession of a second, valid passport. . both elements which obviously RAISE the risk of the Zimmerman fleeing the country).

        I wonder if people would have found anything to criticize about Judge Lester’s comment if, instead of finding the evidences available through that date “strong,” he had stated that the case against Zimmerman was “weak.”

        Either way, it seems perfectly logical that a judge doesn’t make a decision to grant bond (of any amount) based solely on the “cuteness” of the people being charged!

        Reply ↓

        • You appear to be confusing the amount of the bond with the (non-refundable) fee charged by the bondsman.

          unitron

          Reply ↓

          • Once again, you seem to have decided that I was nothing but a “half-brain,” and that I deserve to be put down for most of my comments.
            No, dear, I do realize that the $15,000 are only the 10% non-refundable part of the bond. . . and that the $150,000 bond is posted by a third party, who loses it if Zimmerman skips town!

            Maybe you should ask yourself why my comments are so offensive to you, that you can’t restrain from attempts to belittle me.

            Please get over it!

          • What I find offensive are misstatements of facts.

            The Zimmermans needed $15,000 to pay a bondsman’s fee if they could find one willing to post bond for them, and that would have meant providing them with some sort of collateral, so it was either try to raise the entire $150,000 by mortgaging the house and other sources or find a bondsman that would accept a lien on the house and maybe other property.

            So it wasn’t as simple as just come up with the $15,000

            Having that 10% doesn’t guarantee finding a bondsman willing to risk getting stuck for 10 times that.

            unitron

          • So.. .the problem issues if, and only if, Zimmerman should run away!
            And, he certainly had a choice not to request the services of a bondsman. . .he KNEW he had money in the bank, and chose to play games.
            Funny how you take offense to MY “miisleading statements,” but you don’t seem to bat an eye when the misleading statements of false “evidences” come from other sources.

            And when I do answer directly to your belittling and accusations. ..you pass over it.

            No problem. I would just suggest you do not read what I post. Simple, isn’t it?

    • I don’t think Judge Lester’s statement that “the evidence against [Zimmerman] is strong” is significant. Under Florida law, “the weight of the evidence against the defendant” is a specified factor to be considered when determining whether or not to grant bond, and if so what it should be set at. Judge Lester mentioned the strength of the evidence because he was citing all of the relevant factors that he was required to consider, in the same order that they are listed Rule 3.131(b)(3) of the Florida Crim Pro Rules.

      And in making a bond determination, the only evidence judges necessarily have to go on is the evidence given in the very initial proceedings. He has not considered the evidence of any affirmative defenses yet — he may think that evidence is just as strong or stronger, but it doesn’t matter at this point.

      And PeterO: no more random accusations of attorney misconduct from you, unless you can provide specific support for making such a claim.

      Reply ↓

    • I have no problem with the rest of the document, him using past events, financial status etc… balanced against the sentence he will receive if found guilty to make this determination. This one statement shows his beliefs on the guilt of Zimmerman prior to presenting evidence in court, the only evidence presented so far was during the Bond Hearing we have dissected here many times from the family on finances, and from Det. Gilbreath in the discussion of the Probable Cause Affidavit. He can have an opinion but he should never show it so as not to taint a jury. It isn’t just him making this statement, it is the speed at which it has spread to a probable jury pool prior to jury selection that makes this problematic. Crump’s spin machine is necessitating the recusal of Judge Lester so any possible jury sees a neutral judge directing them to make a decision based solely on the law – period (Blind Justice vs. Social Justice) If there is any indication that the jury is determining Zimmerman’s guilt based on anything other than the laws of the state of FL as the laws stood on the day of the incident then any guilty verdict should be thrown out as well. This is why the Jury Instructions have been standardized by the FL supreme court.

      —–

      If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

      However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.

      Reply ↓

    • “no more random accusations of attorney misconduct from you, unless you can provide specific support for making such a claim.”

      State Attorney BDLR excluding a series of questions from the bond hearing in his motion for revocation of bond.

      Investigator O’Steen in his affidavit of probable cause for perjury by Shellie Zimmerman omitting the same lines.

      Reply ↓

  78. By now, the world has probably heard of the arrest of Shellie Zimmerman for perjury. Holding aside that this just a sideshow here is a reality check:

    Angela Corey, in her hysterical attack on the Harvard Law School and Dershowitz, has “gone off the deep end.” The charges Dershowitz has hinted at that will be leveled against her are very real and she has gone into panic mode. The world has seen her incredibly stupid reaction. The prosecution of Zimmerman’s wife is simply ‘payback.’

    The reality of this case is that when you strip the rhetoric you are left with a single person effectively accusing Zimmerman of murder, DeeDee. The dispatcher tape (forget what the media says only look at the tape itself) completely supports Zimmerman. The witnesses, overwhelmingly on balance, support Zimmerman (“John” in particular). The Martin autopsy and Martin’s own mortician (no damage except on the striking area of his fist) and the pictures and reports of the extensive damage to Zimmerman, supports Zimmerman. The police, the night of the shooting, heard Zimmerman’s account and believe self-defense (so there is no “admission” to hunting an killing Martin there).

    Whats left??? DeeDee.

    She was dragged out of the obscurity by a group of _____ (you fill in the blanks) who presented her as the “connector” of “dots.” Her “chase, hunt, and attack” story is more than incredible, it is impossible. Without her, there is no case. There is little doubt in my mind that this is a replay of the Twana Brawley case except that DeeDee was put up to her story rather than initiating it on her own. Instead of a story of being attacked rapists, DeeDee tells a story of an innocent black being hunted and murdered by Zimmerman. Angela Corey has to be smart enough to know what the final repercussions will be.

    DeeDee, should immediately get her own attorney and get as far away as possible from Crump and those who have been using her for their own gain — she gets nothing out of it except possibly a ruined life. And it may already be too late to protect herself from some damage.

    Reply ↓

    • And the spin master continues to weave his house of cards!
      Have you had a look at Zimmerman’s “My Space” blog from August 2005? He brags about having TWO FELONIES reduced to ONE misdemeanor. . .

      He also calls his former girl friend his “ex-hoe” and brags about still being free after hitting her.

      I guess Judge Lester has made recent comments about how Zimmerman doesn’t seem to have much respect for the court and the legal process. ..

      Maybe he looked at “Joe G’s” “My space blog also?

      I am just sooooo touched by your “sudden” concern about Deedee. .. . The same teenage girl you call a liar and a fake and uneducated jall along your posts!

      If you are an attorney (which I don’t believe!) you are not very good at it! You take too many people for dummies, believing that, if you repeat your fairy tale often enough, they will take it for the truth!

      Reply ↓

    • The sideshow is Fox’s bought and paid for host, Dershowitz. Don’t get it twisted. There’s also a witness that saw Zimmerman’s gun while someone was screaming for help — at least 15 seconds before the gunshot was heard.

      Corey is right. Crump is right. DeeDee is right. Martin’s family is right. The witnesses are right. Dershowitz is wrong.

      As Susan has said, Dershowitz didn’t even provide a cite for his opinion.

      Reply ↓

  82. From Peter O, June 5, 2012:

    “Zimmerman didn’t testify at the bond hearing and I do not see the State going after his wife.”

    Do you see it now PO?

    Hey, that’s “potted PALM”. Judge Lester called Zimmerman a “potted PALM”. And the affadavit stands for one reason: Dershowitz was WRONG.

    Reply ↓

    • All I see is what I stated above. Angela Corey launched an hysterical attack on the Harvard Law School and Dershowitz. If you had asked me if I ever thought she would do that I would have also said I didn’t also.

      The Shellie Zimmerman prosecution is “payback” and petty vindictiveness — something bad (and in this case desperate) prosecutors, unfortunately, have been known to do.

      Angela Corey has made a fool of herself and (I haven’t read his order) if Judge Lester made comments about the main case he should immediately recuse himself … he would have been way out of line.

      Reply ↓

    • I had a look at the order and saw the following inserted by Judge Lester, referring to the bond hearing: “based upon the information presented.”

      That “information” implicitly includes the prior record on the probable cause affidavit and hearing, along with its extensive baggage of half-truths and omissions so roundly criticized by Dershowitz and many others. It was very strange wording for Judge Lester to only say “information PRESENTED” knowing the prior information that was presented to the Court at the probable cause hearing had tried to “prove” Zimmerman was guilty of murder.

      But Susan believes a prosecutor is free to tell half-truths and to withhold relevant exculpatory evidence at a bond hearing — so there were no “potted plants” representing the State recognized by Judge Lester.

      The State, in its probable cause affidavit (some of the “evidence” presented to Judge Lester earlier), included the representation to the Court that the state had a strong “eyewitness” who can prove Zimmerman murdered Martin who fled in fear Zimmerman (the “strong evidence”). We all know who that witness is, DeeDee.

      Judge Lester, without raising any questions about the State’s assertions of guilt or the quality of its “evidence” (with its glaring omissions), said that based on the State’s bare assertions “the evidence against [Zimmerman] is strong.”

      Judge Lester should recuse himself for bias.

      Reply ↓

  83. For the little I know about the legal processings, I can’t tell.
    But based on human intuition and and a long history of working with people. . .I would say YES, Susan has been right since the beginning, and Dershowitz is just a paid talking head for Fox!

    Reply ↓

  84. I agree Danielle, and now we’re supposed to take Dershowitz’s (and PO’s) word for it AGAIN that Corey made an “hysterical” phone call. She probably called the school to lodge a complaint against Dershowitz’s false (and very public) claims. Dershowitz’s claims were also unfair, since Corey could not publicly respond, since she is a prosecuting attorney in the middle of a case. It’s all very typical.

    Back to Shellie, I kind of feel sorry for her. She suggested at one point to Zimmerman to use the donated money for his bond. This is from ABC:

    >George Zimmerman: “If the bond is more than 15, pay the 15. If more than 15 pay 10 percent to the bondsman.”

    Shellie Zimmerman: “You don’t want me to pay $100.”

    George Zimmerman: “I don’t know.”

    Shellie Zimmerman: “All right, just think about it.”

    George Zimmerman: “I will.”

    Shellie Zimmerman: “That’s what it’s for.” <

    So Shellie said, "That's what it's for". Does anyone have a valid link that Zimmerman's parents and grandparents mortgaged their homes?

    Reply ↓

    • I feel a little sorry for Shellie too. . .poor girl, she doesn’t have much going for her at all!
      But I never believed that story about the parents (and grandparents?) having to mortgage their house to find a mere $15,000! After all, Robert Zimmerman was a magistrat, and he also has a military pension. His wife is still working (I believe. . .in the legal system too!) and their house value is only about $150,000 if the reports are correct! They are not exactly poor! And a magistrat in Virginia makes a pretty good salary. . .in addition to his military pension and his wife’s salary!
      This kind of middle or upper middle class people, if nothing else, should have access to at least that much credit just on a credit card! And, actually I would be VERY surprise if they don’t have AT LEAST that much in 401K or in savings of one kind or another.
      But. . . I never really cared about this part of the issue because I don’t think it should have been the parents (and even less, the grand parents) responsibility to get their black sheep son out of trouble . . again! I’m sure it wasn’t the first time they had to help him!

      Reply ↓

    • http://valawyersweekly.com/2008/04/07/magistrate-system-is-upgraded-pay-is-not/

      This article from 2008 says that magistrates were paid between $34,000 and $58,000. Under the terms of a bill that was passed in 2008, new magistrates were required to have a bachelor’s degree. That is not a “pretty good” salary in the Washington suburbs.

      His wife was employed as a translator in Virigina. Imagine that! Knowing a language other than English, you must be impressed. George Zimmerman’s maternal grandmother has lived with his parents since before George was born. One reason for buying the retirement home in Florida, was a warmer climate for her arthritis. I don’t know whether his paternal grandparents are living, maybe you could tweet Spike Lee and find out.

      Reply ↓

  85. I wonder how consistently some Z-team folks will blame the judge for everything that happens to the poor Zimmermans.

    It’s ironic as well that Shellie was arrested after all those unfounded accusations against DeeDee for perjury,

    I feel like G. Zimmerman used her. Just like he may have used his parents and granparents to pay the bond while sitting on his own money. He also used the people who sent donations for the purpose of being spent on his legal costs, although they probably don’t care. Gluttons for punishment.

    Reply ↓

  86. A correction to my post: “June 12, 2012 at 10:38 pm said:”

    I had forgotten that the probable cause affidavit questioning was at the actual bond hearing. That makes Judge Lester’s statement ““the evidence against [Zimmerman] is strong.” all the more incredible.

    In my post: “June 12, 2012 at 7:58 pm said:” I pointed out that every piece of “evidence” — the dispatcher tape, the witnesses on balance, the respective damage to Zimmerman and Martin from the fight part of the confrontation, and the police acceptance of self-defense after hearing Zimmerman’s statement — all not only were in Zimmerman’s favor under the beyond reasonable doubt standard also under a preponderance of evidence standard.

    So what is the State’s entire case? DeeDee!

    The fundamental foundation of the State’s probable cause case was DeeDee, the “eyewitness” who “saw” it all: the hunt, the wild breathless chases, the “cornering” of Martin (who was in abject fear) by the “crazy” white guy, and the ultimate attack of Martin by the “crazy” guy.

    Without DeeDee, the State has no case … or real evidence.

    So Judge Lester, to make his statement, had to accept as true the testimony of DeeDee, a person he never knew the name of and where no one had even seen her statement at the time! Judge Lester had put his stamp of “veracity” on DeeDee (since otherwise there was no case)!

    Judge Lester has set himself up for considerable later embarrassment and should recuse himself immediately. He never should have made that statement.

    As a side note, up until the Lester statement, the worst “finding” of guilt by a judge I have seen was during the notorious Amanda Knox murder trial in Italy. A magistrate found Amanda and her boy friend guilty because the admitted perpetrator could not have gotten through a window by himself. Soon after, every yahoo in town was taking a ladder lying nearby and climbing through the window and it was happening so ofter that a guard had to be placed to stop it. Judge’s can, and do make fools of themselves.

    Reply ↓

    • So. . .you are t elling us that YOU are right, and that the whole legal world (except that talking head at Fox News) is wrong.

      You are placing yourself in parallel with Judge Lester and finding him less than reliable and ethical. . .because. .. from the LIMITED information you have, and from the SPECULATION you have drawn from that limited information, and from your obsessive need to blame the victim for, not only his own death, but also for the “trouble” the poor George Zimmerman is going through, you have decided that YOU are RIGHT, and HE is WRONG!

      Well, I already had detected some arrogance in many of your posts. . .with many of your speculation bordering on delusions, and your inability to recognize that the “speculation” brought forward by yourself, where not different in terms of credibility that the speculation brought forward by many others. . .including myself.

      This last post actually is so outlandish and so arrogant that I can only laugh at your lack of insight when you say:” Judges can, and do make fools of themselves!”

      Thank you for allowing me to go to sleep tonight with a smile on my face!

      Reply ↓

    • Here is a recent posting on recusal standards in Florida:

      http://www.floridalegalblog.org/2009/04/judge-should-recuse-himself-if-party.html

      Judge Lester made finding about the merits of a case based on a probable cause affidavit and argument that, itself, was based on evidence the defendant never had a chance even see, let alone dispute. Yet, he accepted as proven, enough of the probable cause affidavit to make a pronouncement on the merits of the case. He ruled: “the evidence against [Zimmerman] is strong.”

      Zimmerman’s clearly would have a well grounded fear of bias on the part of Judge Lester after the Judge made that statement and that is a basis for recusal.

      Moreover, that finding could provide grounds for a sufficient Constitutional violation to overturn any guilty verdict on appeal. Judge Lester never should have made that statement.

      Reply ↓

  88. Hi Danielle. I think you’re probably correct about the mortgages. There are many references about mortgages in comments on blogs, but I could’t find anything valid.

    unitron, it may be possible that the adoption thing is not real either. According to one biography, GZ is third of 4 children in the family:

    http://theweek.com/article/index/226131/george-zimmerman-what-we-know-about-trayvon-martins-killer

    I appears to me that the judge’s statement about evidence being strong was simply entered as rationale for revoking the bail. Saying “evidence is strong” is very different from declaring guilt.

    Reply ↓

    • I’m just wondering if the adoption thing was just something somebody made up out of thin air (although I don’t see the point unless it was one of those people desperate to believe that Zimmerman is Mexican, the point of which I also fail to see), or if there was actually some evidence or something that might have been mistaken for evidence.

      Maybe I should start a rumor that Shellie Zimmerman is part Seminole and Martin had to be silenced because he’d learned something about casino kickbacks.

      Now if I could just figure out how to work in the Masons and the Templars and the Illuminati.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

      • “Tracy Martin is supposedly a member of a black Masonic group.”

        But only because that lodge has a great dance band. : – )

        And that still doesn’t account for the UFO that disabled the main gate camera that night.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

      • @ Jimrtex: What does that have to do with his son being shot?
        Aren’t you stretching a little far there? Do you REALLY believe that this “information’ (with no link, by the way) is going to have a major impact on whether or not Zimmerman killed the kid in self-defense?
        How about sticking to the facts that are relevant to this case!
        Enough of the demonizing of the victim and his family!

        Reply ↓

    • “And that still doesn’t account for the UFO that disabled the main gate camera that night.”

      You mean the one that saturated the video with its light for a few seconds?

      Which is more likely – “assembling a coffee table” or “building a model of Devil’s Tower out of mashed potatoes”? Obviously if it was the latter, you wouldn’t tell anyone not associated with the Illuminati.

      Reply ↓

    • DSS writes: “What does that have to do with his son being shot?”

      I don’t know if you have noticed, but there are light gray boxes connecting threads. Unitron had written:

      “Now if I could just figure out how to work in the Masons and the Templars and the Illuminati.”

      I responded to that.

      HTH. HAND.

      Reply ↓

  89. Here is an link explaining in great detail the standards for bail and the strange order Judge Lester issued that differs substantially from his rulings at the bond hearing. It was posted by Jeralyn at talkleft.com:

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/13/13212/2614

    Jeralyn too, notes that the Shellie Z issue is a red herring. The most important aspect of the hearing was Judge Lester’s blind acceptance of the probable cause affidavit as the “strong evidence” of guilt. Jeralyn too, is quite skeptical on how Lester could possibly reach that “finding” based on the probable cause affidavit. She observes that the entire thrust of the affidavit doesn’t even meet the standard for murder 2 — even if you blindly accept its allegations as true.

    Reality check 1: the affidavit depends in almost its entirety on DeeDee’s statement (unseen by the defense at the time and never seen by Lester). Gilbreath admitted he had (deliberately?) never even read DeeDee’s statement!

    Reality check 2: sooner or later (in fact it has already begun) the forest through the trees will be seen. Angela Corey has dragged the State into a murder prosecution that ENTIRELY RESTS ON THE SHOULDERS OF A STILL UNIDENTIFIED ‘DEEDEE.’

    Based on DeeDee’s phantasmagorical media stories and divergent sworn statement, this is rapidly beginning to look like another Twana Brawley case — where, instead of a rape allegation (instigated by Brawley) you have a murder allegation (instigated by Crump and crew — a situation worse than the Brawley case).

    Unlike Corey, NY had the good sense to call a grand jury and conduct a real investigation in the Brawley case. Instead, Corey accepted DeeDee’s impossible “chase” story as “truth,” massaged and manipulated it, and then submit it to the court in the form of a distorted probable cause affidavit that reeks of misinformation and misleading half truths and ultimately, depends in its almost entirety on the single witness, DeeDee.

    The final proof will be the eventual exposure of DeeDee’s impossible “breathless chases in fear of life” story (that had to entirely occur within the 60-90 seconds after Zimmerman got off the phone with the dispatcher).

    No wonder Angela Corey has been acting in such an irrational and hysterical manner.

    Reply ↓

  90. The judge made his bond determination based on the following case law from from Stansel v. State, 297 So. 2d 63, 66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974) (included in the document):

    “Factors to be considered in determining the amount of bail include the nature of the offense and the penalty for it, THE CHARACTER AND STRENGTH OF THE EVIDENCE OR PROBABILITY OF GUILT, the probability of the accused appearing at trial, his accessibility to means of flight, his family ties and employment, the length and stability of his residence in the community, the prior record of the accused in responding to process, whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested, whether the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other case, his respect for the law, the accused’s character and reputation, and the state of his health.”

    (caps mine to show where Judge Lester’s legal rationale came from in citing the strength of the evidence)

    This is Judge Lester’s statement in response to the case law cited above:

    “Among these factors, the only ones that heavily weigh in his favor are that he turned himself in upon the issuance of the original warrant and has kept authorities abreast of his current location. There are several factors that weigh against his release: this is a serious charge for which life may be imposed; the evidence against him is strong; he has been charged with one prior crime, for which he went through a pre-trial diversion program, and has had an injunction lodged against him. Most importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process. Based upon these factors, this Court finds that revocation of the bond is appropriate.”

    In other words, for those who read this, Judge Lester’s statement about the evidence is the legal standard for determining bond.

    Reply ↓

    • And in other words, the new thing here was the part where “Most importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly repect the law or the integrity of the judicial process”.

      That comes directly from the case law: “his respect for the law”, being one of the determining factors.

      Reply ↓

    • Regarding the comments by Jeralyn cited by PeterO, Jeralyn totally missed the point that the new thing since the April bond hearing is the undisputed evidence of Zimmerman’s lack of respect for the law when misleading the court about his funds. This is the major grounds (“most importantly”, according to Judge Lester) and the stated reason for revoking the bond.

      Reply ↓

      • I think you hit the nail right on the head!
        It is ludicrous to question the ruling of Judge Lester, as he knows the law better than any of us, and he has access to a lot more factual information than we have.

        And still. . .based on the very limited information that transpired, it seems LOGICAL that Zimmerman’s credibility and whether or not he is worthy to be released on a “cheap bond,” as he was before should enter into de decision of how much and when to allow for posting a bond!

        and, if not Judge Lester (who probably has more access factual information than ANYONE else, who should be making the decision to trust Zimmerman or not?

        Reply ↓

    • HP, you didn’t read or ignored Jeralyn’s main point ( http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/13/13212/2614 ) which is that Judge Lester changed his rulings and didn’t follow the “Arthur standard” for bail in Florida, which requires the State to “establish[] at the hearing that “the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption great.””

      Jeralyn pointed out that at the hearing, no such findings were made and the State never even approached that standard. In short, what Judge Lester said in the order was revisionist and substantially changed the “guilt” findings, that had to be shown through evidence at the hearing, to deny bail entirely. Everyone should read Jeralyn’s entire piece before accepting HP’s legal interpretation of bail standards in Florida no matter what Judge Lester — by substantially changing his hearing findings — now tries to use to justify his strange order.

      The only real issue should be the amount of bail, not whether Zimmerman was entitled to it.

      Reply ↓

      • Come on, Peter! Because you found ONE PERSON on an other site that agrees with you you think that we should all jump on the band wagon?

        You know what. . .why don’t you give it a break! You’ve tried your best to convince everyone of us that the real victim is Zimmerman and that Trayvon deserved to die. . .and that ANY ONE in the legal system who doesn’t see that should be disbarred or at the least thrown off the case!

        And you failed!

        Now. . .why don’t we all wait for June 29th? I think Zimmerman is exactly where he should be, and his wife has posted bail.

        Face it, you may see yourself as a big fish in the Florida legal system, but there are MUCH bigger fish. . Including Judge Lester!

        Give it a rest, will you? It’s embarrassing to see a grown man make a fool of himself!

        Reply ↓

  91. But hey, I guess if the judge thinks the “evidence is strong”, then maybe it is. And maybe he’s more familiar with all of the evidence than we are. For one thing, he may have read Zimmerman’s statement to police.

    Reply ↓

    • When told he would see the statements as exculpatory O’Mara said “I haven’t said anything yet” but the judge said he would see them as exculpatory and the prosecution would see them as inculpatory.

      You can read it all for yourself shortly

      Reply ↓

      • I watched the hearing live, and when Lester commented to the prosecution and MOM about this he was not stating his opinion of the evidence but rather more of a question to them both on the issue of releasing the tapes to the media. It was more of him saying, hey guys, the way I see this is the prosecution will see this evidence as one way and the defense will see it another, therefore is it fair for me (the judge) to view this as neither of you viewing this as a confession? he was getting conformation from both sides that they did not view this evidence as a confession. Based on that he concluded that if it were not a confession then there was no legal discourse to redact it.

        Reply ↓

    • Sandbagger, my reaction was to HP’s bald statement “I guess if the judge thinks the “evidence is strong”, then maybe it is.” implying Judge Lester ruled “the evidence is strong” for Zimmerman being guilty.

      The whole point is that for Lester to ignore the Arthur standard for bail he had to create a ruling that “the evidence is strong” because the Arthur standard first requires the State to provide evidence and witnesses to “establish[] at the hearing that “the proof of guilt is evident and the presumption great.”” (cited from HP’s own link: http://www.ericmathenylaw.com/Criminal-Defense-Blog/2010/May/Arthur-Hearings.aspx )

      So Judge Lester, to manipulate the law for his own purposes, contradicted his own findings at the bond hearing and ruled the evidence presented at hearing (the probable cause affidavit and Gilbreath’s testimony) “proved” such a high standard of guilt. This thereby became his excuse bypass the Arthur standard and to issue his order that contradicted what happened at the hearing.

      And now HP (and others) gleefully “run with that” “finding” by loudly proclaiming Lester found the evidence against Zimmerman was “strong.” In reality, the world saw what took place at that bond hearing fiasco for the State and the evidence was anything but “strong” under any possible standard and certainly under the Arthur standard. Judge Lester cavalierly dismissed his own findings and what anyone could see happened at the hearing and plucked a contradictory “strong evidence” ruling out of thin air weeks after the hearing.

      If Judge Lester wanted to conduct a new bond hearing he certainly could have done so without the preposterous and prejudicial “strong evidence” ruling based on the bond hearing fiasco.

      Reply ↓

  92. From PO: “The only real issue should be the amount of bail, not whether Zimmerman was entitled to it.”

    Dear PO, That will be determined at the bond hearing on June 29. The judge did not deny the request for a new bond hearing. He revoked the previous bond.

    Reply ↓

    • I haven’t heard of any response from O’Mara on the judge’s “Order Revoking Bond”. Has anyone? I guess if O’Mara has no objection, then that might be a pretty good indication that there isn’t much of a legal problem with the judge’s order.

      Reply ↓

    • HP said: “that might be a pretty good indication that there isn’t much of a legal problem with the judge’s order.”

      Response: ???????????

      O’Mara filed a new motion for bond.

      Reply ↓

      • Yep. . .so what?
        NOBODY, including Judge Lester, ever said that he would deny another bond!. . .I just hope it will be a lot higher!

        You’re really looking for trouble, aren’t you?

        Relax. . . . a lot of people know better than you!

        Reply ↓

  93. This is on Arthur Hearings, from http://www.ericmathenylaw.com/Criminal-Defense-Blog/2010/May/Arthur-Hearings.aspx

    >”IF THE JUDGE FINDS THE CASE TO BE STRONG, or that it meets the standard of “proof evident, presumption great,” then he or she must address whether the accused is a danger to the community.

    To assess whether an accused person is a danger to the community, the court must look at all the background factors. Does the accused work? Does he or she go to school? Does he or she have a criminal past? How old is the accused? Who does the accused live with? Does the accused have supportive family?

    Those are just a few factors the court will assess in determining whether to give a person accused of a non-bondable crime a bond. It is possible for the judge to find that the facts of the case are strong, but still give a bond to the accused.”b. (3) In determining whether to release a defendant on bail or other conditions, and what that bail or those conditions may be, the court may consider the nature and circumstances of the offense charged and the penalty provided by law; THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDENT; the defendant’s family ties, length of residence in the community, employment history, financial resources, need for substance abuse evaluation and/or treatment, and mental condition; the defendant’s past and present conduct, including any record of convictions, previous flight to avoid prosecution, or failure to appear at court proceedings; the nature and probability of danger that the defendant’s release poses to the community; the source of funds used to post bail; whether the defendant is already on release pending resolution of another criminal proceeding or is on probation, parole, or other release pending completion of sentence; AND ANY OTHER FACTS THE COURT CONSIDERS RELEVANT.” (g) Arrest and Commitment by Court. The court in which the cause is pending may direct the arrest and commitment of the defendant who is at large on bail when:
    (1) there has been a breach of the undertaking;
    (2) it appears that the defendant’s sureties or any of them are dead or cannot be found or are insufficient or have ceased to be residents of the state; or
    (3) the court is satisfied that the bail should be increased or new or additional security required. The order for the commitment of the defendant shall recite generally the facts on which it is based and shall direct that the defendant be arrested by any official authorized to make arrests and that the defendant be committed to the official in whose custody he or she would be if he or she had not been given bail, to be detained by such official until legally discharged. The defendant shall be arrested pursuant to such order on a certified copy thereof, in any county, in the same manner as on a warrant of arrest. If the order provided for is made because of the failure of the defendant to appear for judgment, the defendant shall be committed. If the order is made for any other cause, the court may determine the conditions of release, if any.
    (h) Bail after Recommitment. If the defendant applies to be admitted to bail after recommitment, the court that recommitted the defendant shall determine conditions of release, if any, subject to the limitations of (b) above.”<

    Reply ↓

    • In other words, the judge may use his own discretion on whether or not to revoke the bail, and the judge may also use his own discretion on determining the strength of the evidence. (He is certainly not required to consult PeterO on either of these decisions.)

      The judge may have felt that the strength of the evidence became more relevant to the bond after Zimmerman lied about his passport and the money. I.e., a greater indication of flight risk.

      Reply ↓

      • Actually he’s not required to consult any of us, and I for one find that extremely annoying.

        Doesn’t he realize how important I am, and what an expert on this case I’ve become sitting here on the sidelines?

        : – )

        unitron

        Reply ↓

  94. I goofed up in my post on the Arthur Hearings above. The second part of the post is the actual Florida statute and begins at (b):

    RULE 3.131. PRETRIAL RELEASE

    >b. (3) In determining whether to release a defendant on bail or other conditions, and what that bail or those conditions may be, the court may consider the nature and circumstances of the offense charged and the penalty provided by law; THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE DEFENDENT; the defendant’s family ties, length of residence in the community, employment history, financial resources, need for substance abuse evaluation and/or treatment, and mental condition; the defendant’s past and present conduct, including any record of convictions, previous flight to avoid prosecution, or failure to appear at court proceedings; the nature and probability of danger that the defendant’s release poses to the community; the source of funds used to post bail; whether the defendant is already on release pending resolution of another criminal proceeding or is on probation, parole, or other release pending completion of sentence; AND ANY OTHER FACTS THE COURT CONSIDERS RELEVANT.f) Revocation of Bail. The court in its discretion for good cause, any time after a defendant who is at large on bail appears for trial, may commit the defendant to the custody of the proper official to abide by the judgment, sentence, and any further order of the court.
    (g) Arrest and Commitment by Court. The court in which the cause is pending may direct the arrest and commitment of the defendant who is at large on bail when:
    (1) there has been a breach of the undertaking;
    (2) it appears that the defendant’s sureties or any of them are dead or cannot be found or are insufficient or have ceased to be residents of the state; or
    (3) the court is satisfied that the bail should be increased or new or additional security required. The order for the commitment of the defendant shall recite generally the facts on which it is based and shall direct that the defendant be arrested by any official authorized to make arrests and that the defendant be committed to the official in whose custody he or she would be if he or she had not been given bail, to be detained by such official until legally discharged. The defendant shall be arrested pursuant to such order on a certified copy thereof, in any county, in the same manner as on a warrant of arrest. If the order provided for is made because of the failure of the defendant to appear for judgment, the defendant shall be committed. If the order is made for any other cause, the court may determine the conditions of release, if any.
    (h) Bail after Recommitment. If the defendant applies to be admitted to bail after recommitment, the court that recommitted the defendant shall determine conditions of release, if any, subject to the limitations of (b) above.<

    Reply ↓

    • HP, you “goofed” (or more?) completely: Here is the full context of what was said on the blog you linked to:

      “At the Arthur Hearing, the State must prove the case to the judge by a standard known as “proof evident, presumption great.” This is a very high standard. In fact, it is a higher standard than “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

      The State must bring in witnesses, or at least witness affidavits, alleging the facts of the case. If the judge finds the case to be strong, or that it meets the standard of “proof evident, presumption great,” then he or she must address whether the accused is a danger to the community.”

      You left out the first, most critical part of the blog: “the State must prove the case to the judge by a standard known as “proof evident, presumption great.” This is a very high standard. In fact, it is a higher standard than “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”” Are you really contending that the probable cause case presented by the State at the hearing, came even close to that standard?

      As Jeralyn pointed out ( http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/13/13212/2614 ), Lester’s order was revisionist in that it completely changed his findings made at the hearing … in order to then apply a different standard in his belated bond order. To do this he created out of thin air the wholly unsupportable finding of “the evidence against [Zimmerman] is strong” based only on the probable cause affidavit and after opposite findings at the hearing. Obviously, as the blog you linked to before shows it is a very high standard to deny a right to bail under Arthur standards. So Lester concocted his new finding to meet that extremely high standard by contending the State proved “guilt” under that high standard, in order to make is order “fit” his ruling.

      As I said before, Judge Lester should immediately recuse himself for bias. No wonder the public trusts juries twice as much as they trust judges.

      Reply ↓

      • Peter O, one more time, I TOTALLY disagree with your assessment!

        Judge Lester didn’t revoke the bond based on a “change of mind” about the evidences. . .he revoked the bond based on new information about the character and the amount of RESPECT and HONESTY the court can expect from this unsavoury character!

        Once again, I am not a legal wiz kid, but it seems pretty clear to me that the BIG difference since the first bond hearing is the realization (and the proof) that Zimmerman and his wife where taking the court and the judge for fools. ..and therefore were not to be trusted.

        And, as I mentionned yesterday, if the judge became awere of Zimmerman’s previous attitude toward the law and the courts (based on his TWO 2005 felony charges, and the way he gloated about getting away with it with only ONE misdemeanor in his “MY SPACE BLOG” (I posted that link yesterday). . .OBVIOUSLY it makes the difference on whether or not the court can trust the guy!

        Reply ↓

    • “Peter O, one more time, I TOTALLY disagree with your assessment!”

      The problem is, Danielle, that you don’t even take the time (or maybe cannot) understand what the assessment is.

      Why don’t you read the two links provided to understand what the Arthur standard is and means before you issue pronouncements on how it should be interpreted in bail proceedings.

      Or at least pretend to understand what the standard is before you argue so unpersuasively on something you admit you don’t know anything about?

      And in such an insulting manner that you only reflect on your own character and intolerance for disagreement with what you believe you know.

      Ignorance may be bliss but in law it means nothing.

      Reply ↓

      • Peter O, you have constantly insulted anyone who could possibly offer a positive side for the victim, including a 15 year old girl!
        Your arrogance is without limit and I do not trust in anything you say.
        I have NEVER pretended to be versed in the legal field, especially in Florida. And I apparently am not the only one (and I am not talking about just in this forum!) who disagree with your interpretation of the law and the “creative” and bias speculation that you insist in calling “evidences.”
        To get insulted by you is a badge of honor for me.
        So. . .if you wish to continue to try to silence me from expressing MY OPINION by resorting to insults and attempts to intimidate, you are a fool.

        I am not impressed, I am not intimidated, and I know myself enough to not be “hurt” or “impressed” by the arrogance you direct toward me.

        In the end, your opinion will have as much value in this case as my opinion: NONE!
        But, at least I realize that. . .you apparently don’t!

        Reply ↓

    • Danielle said: “you have constantly insulted anyone who could possibly offer a positive side for the victim, including a 15 year old girl!”

      1. DeeDee is 16 based on ABC’s dramatic and highly fictionalized nation and worldwide “interviews.” Please show a link that says she is 15.

      2. DeeDee is, effectively, the State’s entire case to convict Zimmerman of murder. She has, on national TV, accused Zimmerman of: hunting Martin down continually through “breathless” (her words) multiple chases; of being a “crazy” “creepy” madman type character; of being capable of outrunning Martin and finally “cornering” him; of then attacking Martin (she even says she heard the attack).

      3. You seem to view any challenge to DeeDee’s preposterous story as an “insult” to someone (is it DeeDee that is being insulted? Who is being insulted?). I don’t insult anyone, I state my position and support it with facts. You seem to confuse any challenge to DeeDee’s story or challenge to any other “proof” cited by some other commentors or in the media as “insulting.” You are wrong.

      4. Please feel free to ignore anything I say, that is your prerogative. But please don’t confuse positions that differ from the way you feel the story should be told with “insulting” anyone.

      5. I see glaring holes in DeeDee’s stories. Ultimately, it is not me that will be criticizing DeeDee and her “handlers” but the world when she is finally placed on the stand and in a real deposition to get to the bottom of her phantasmagorical “chase” stories.

      DeeDee put herself forward to the world on national TV and told incredible and damaging stories and is effectively the single person accusing a man of murder based on her “eyewitness” account. So it is she who made herself an object of scrutiny, as did Brawley before her.

      Reply ↓

  96. Danielle said: “Judge Lester didn’t revoke the bond based on a “change of mind” about the evidences. . .he revoked the bond based on new information about the character and the amount of RESPECT and HONESTY the court can expect…”

    I agree completely.

    Also, the hearing where the judge revoked the bond was possibly not even an “Arthur Hearing”.

    From that same link: http://www.ericmathenylaw.com/Criminal-Defense-Blog/2010/May/Arthur-Hearings.aspx

    >In Florida, an “Arthur Hearing” is a specialized court procedure whereby a criminal defense attorney requests that his or her client receive a bond.<

    This hearing was not the defense attorney requesting "that his or her client receive a bond." That request will come on June 29. This particular hearing was about REVOKING the bond.

    Judge Lester thinks the evidence is strong. He may even think that the prosecution's case meets a higher standard than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". If so, Zimmerman is in big doodoo!!!!!

    Whatever the case, the Florida statute doesn't include a requirement of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

    http://www.notguiltyfl.com/practice/bondHearings.php

    [See (b)(3) for determining bond. See (f), (g), and (h) for revoking bail, arrest, and bail after recommitment]

    Judge Lester is entitled to state "the evidence is strong" as part of his legal rationale for revoking bond. PeterO may disagree, but PeterO is not the judge, and PeterO's personal opinion on how the judge came to his conclusion is irrelevant to the judge's decision.

    In addition, I'm not aware of any previous statement by Judge Lester that contradicts his recent statement that "the evidence is strong". Does anyone know of any previous contradicting statement? Judge Lester may have included the statement for the first time on his Revoke Order because he felt like it became more relevant after Zimmerman misled the court about the passport and the money.

    Definitely though, if O'Mara doesn't see a problem with the judge's Order to Revoke, then everybody's else's huhu means nothing.

    At least until June 29, Zimmerman's is in the tank.

    Reply ↓

    • HP, regarding Lester’s revisionist findings, I will not repeat the extensive analysis of the actual hearing done by Jeralyn at talkleft.com in her article titled “George Zimmerman: Written Order vs. Oral Ruling at Bail Hearing”

      http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/13/13212/2614

      You are free to ignore and deny what she says. And yes, she refers to the record of the hearing itself to back up her analysis.

      Reply ↓

    • Thanks PeterO for not repeating it. And thanks for allowing me to be free to ignore and deny what what’s-her-name says. You’re a prince!

      Do you think O’Mara will appeal Judge Lester’s decision on revoking the bond? Do you think Zimmerman will testify at his next bond hearing?

      Reply ↓

    • You would think that when Zimmerman’s own attorney has been forced to admit that his client engaged in deceptive, credibility-damaging behaviour, Zimmerman’s fans would be willing to concede that Zimmerman has done something at least slightly wrong.

      Apparently not. Zimmerman’s lies are excusable, because how could he not lie, when faced with a racist, hysterical prosecutor and a unethical judge?

      Reply ↓

      • The other one I love, not so much here but maybe soon, is the Z supporters who think it was Corry’s idea to arrest SZ. I watched the media/bond revocation live, and it was judge lester who suggested that charges be brought against SZ. I also remember all the Z supporters in the beginning saying they liked Lester because he was a good judge. The one thing I have noticed is that the Z supporters can not stand it when the rules don’t work in their favor. If GZ gets a not guilty verdict I will be fine with that. I will support the people who are trying to change the rules so that future GZ wont get off but I think the rules are what they are and like it or not that is what we live by.

        Reply ↓

        • Everyone is guilty of something somehow except any of the Zimmerman’s…

          Shellie lied…period…evidence points strongly to that fact…but no…the judge, Corey, Obama, those 5 angry hoodrats who make up the NBPP, they are the reason she was arrested.

          Reply ↓

    • Posted by a Zimmerman supporter on FreeRepublic:

      “Seriously. Since when is it a crime to lie? What happened to ‘freedom of speech’?”

      Reply ↓

      • Thanks for that comic relief moment!
        Maybe zimmerman should be given some leniancy for having so many brainless supporters!

        Yep. . .that’s really what it’s all about! “freedom of speech to lie under oath to the judge in charge of a criminal case!”

        So funny!

        Reply ↓

  98. For anyone who thinks a perjury charge against Shellie Z is a slam-dunk for Corey, they should read Jeralyn’s analysis at talkleft.com: “Shellie Zimmerman Arrested, Charged With Perjury” http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/12/193621/590 .

    She not only has an exhaustive analysis of the issues and defenses but has a very interesting link to Cornell law professor William Jacobson who believes the state overreached in the Shellie Z case, yet again.

    Just a few points, everyone, including the State left out that when Shellie was asked about the amounts on the website at the time of the testimony, she said George Zimmerman had that information. This was at least 4 days after the phone tapes. Another point is that there is no law against speaking in “code” at a jail house since the funds were perfectly legal (no drug dealers here), raised under full disclosure, the talkers knew the State would use any information from their private conversations (an unstated reason why the State likes to have defendants in jail; another it that it becomes very difficult to communicate with their attorneys — another fact overlooked here) to “by hook or crook” hurt the Zimmermans and their family. For example, by selectively leaking information to damage them. Imagine the negative headlines once the amounts raised were know, despite the fact that projected legal fees and defense costs will run well into 7 figures and the Zimmerman were insolvent. How much has the Martin nationwide road show raised? And where is that money really going to? No code needed there, only a tacit media agreement to never make an inquiry.

    Moreover, as Jeralyn correctly points out, the last thing an inmate would do on jail house phones — that can be overheard by other inmates or underpaid guards — is talking about large sums of money due to the real risks of kidnapping, ransom and more (think Spike Lee and his tweets and the black panther “bounties”).

    The reality is the perjury charge is the ultimate red herring. Rather than face the reality of a trumped up murder charge — that effectively depends almost completely in a fictional “tall tale” story by a still unidentified witness — will eventually be exposed.

    It is interesting that in nationwide polls the public already believes Zimmerman acted in self-defense — even after seeing blasted across nationwide TV screens, DeeDee’s phantasmagorical tale of a hunt to the death, multiple “breathless” chases, a cornering and attacking by a “crazy” “creepy” madman who (at 5’7″ and 200lbs, was pudgy, overweight and out-of-shape, and panting after jogging a few seconds after leaving his car) could, superman style, outrun and overpower Martin.

    What this means is that, overwhelming, the country doesn’t believe DeeDee’s story anymore. Indeed, how could it ever have happened in the 60-90 seconds after the dispatcher call ended and we know Zimmerman didn’t even see Martin in the last 2 1/2 minutes of that call?

    One thing to look for in the new discovery is DeeDee’s phone records. Martin’s phone records show he was re-connected to DeeDee after the first disconnection (if it was her) anywhere from 7:12-7-13 (the start times are rounded down). Martin started running before 7:12 on the dispatcher tape. Yet, DeeDee testified that after the first call was disconnected she was re-connected to Martin while he was walking towards Zimmerman BEFORE HE STARTED TO RUN. If her phone records also confirm the 7:12 call start time, that alone creates a very serious problem for her. The reconnect time could only have been, at the earliest, at about the time Martin, AFTER running, had reached Brandy’s apt (about 20-30 seconds running/jogging).

    In addition, anyone who looked at the probable cause affidavit and its deliberate half-truth fictions would find the State overwhelmingly more guilty then Shellie ever was in term of facts, motivation (the Zimmermans were insolvent by any measure at the time), and relevance to a trumped up murder charge.

    Commentors, pundits, and the media can continue to play up “Shellie Z, perjuror” to deflect from the trumped up murder case (virtually all of which rest on the shoulders of DeeDee) but such focus only shows the State has no real case.

    Reply ↓

    • O’MARA: Another condition or another concern the court would have is a bond amount. I would ask you then realizing that one option is for the court to grant a monetary bond, if you could advise the court of your financial circumstances so I’ll ask you a couple of questions.
      Are you working presently?
      S. ZIMMERMAN: No, I’m not.
      O’MARA: And how do you — what do you do with your time?
      S. ZIMMERMAN: I am a nursing student.
      O’MARA: OK. Is that a full-time endeavor presently?
      S. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, it is.
      O’MARA: OK. How long have you been doing that?
      S. ZIMMERMAN: Well, I am four weeks away from my graduation.
      O’MARA: OK. So you’re not earning any income presently?
      S. ZIMMERMAN: Correct.
      O’MARA: Do you own the home that you live or lived in?
      S. ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
      O’MARA: Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?
      S. ZIMMERMAN: None that I know of.
      O’MARA: I discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband, George, declared indigent for cost, have I not?
      S. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, you have.
      O’MARA: Are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs?
      S. ZIMMERMAN: Not that I’m aware of.

      —-

      Q: You mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount,
      that you all had no money, is that correct?
      A: To my knowledge, that’s correct.

      —-

      A review of bank records by prosecutors revealed that Shellie Zimmerman moved $74,000 from her husband’s account to her own account between April 16 and 19, only days before the hearing, according to court documents. The money was moved in eight separate transfers, the largest of which totals $9,999.

      —-
      This is not complicated. Spin does not change the fact that (1) Shellie knew exactly why she was being asked about her and Zimmerman’s finances, (2) Shellie stated that she and Zimmerman had no access to cash with which they could pay a bond, when (3) Shellie knew she had just transferred $74,000.00 to bank accounts that she had control over and had access too.

      Give up on this issue, PeterO. You’re deluding yourself.

      Reply ↓

    • Because if its clear relevance to untangling the uninformed comments that seem to believe the Shellie Z perjury charge proves Zimmerman didn’t act in self defense, here is Jeralyn’s impressive summary of Cornell Professor Jacobson’s observations on the Shellie Z perjury case http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/12/193621/590 :

      “Update: Legal Inssurrection, a blog by Cornell Law Prof William Jacobson ( http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/perjury-charge-against-shellie-zimmerman-raises-more-questions-of-prosecutorial-overreaching/ ), has an extensive post concluding the state’s attorney is overreaching. He points out,

      So it is fair to ask, having charged perjury, what is the specific false statement made by Shellie Zimmerman? The Criminal Information (embedded at the bottom of this post) does not say. Instead, the accompanying Affidavit recites testimony, phone call transcripts, and evidence of money received and transferred. Again, that all is relevant to whether George deceived the Court at the bond hearing.

      But nowhere in the criminal Information or Affidavit of Probable Cause is a specific sentence or set of words identified as false with an explanation of why it was false.

      Prof. Jacobson cites a Florida case on perjury, Cohen v. State, 985 So.2d 1207 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 2008):

      This Court has held that statements alleged to be perjurious must be of “empirical fact” and not of opinion, belief or perception…. One of the essential elements of perjury in official proceedings is that the person making the statement does not believe it to be true… The questions posed to elicit perjured testimony must be asked with the appropriate specificity necessary to result in an equally specific statement of fact.

      He also points out, as does a commenter on his site, that the state’s attorney truncated the transcript of Shellie Z’s testimony in the affidavit for her charge omitting that she said her brother-in-law would know and he was available. I brought this up in the context of the hearing to revoke George Zimmerman’s bond:

      The judge based his June 1 ruling on the state’s motion, which didn’t even accurately describe the wife’s testimony. It left out the part about her brother-in-law knowing how much money was in the account. The exhibit to its motion was three pages of the transcript, pages 15, 26 and 27. One page did have the language omitted from the motion, but who knows if the judge even bothered to read the exhibit — he probably wouldn’t think he needed to fact-check the state’s attorney. The judge hadn’t reviewed all the tapes, there were over 150 of them, and the state evidently didn’t provide transcripts except as to the portions it cherry-picked.

      In his closing argument on April 20, O’Mara said he (O-Mara) didn’t know how much money was in the website account. The Judge didn’t say “Well, find out and get back to me”, he said O’Mara’s motion for bond “was well taken.” The Judge knew there was a fund on April 20 because the Prosecutor had cross-examined Shellie on it. The judge heard her say her brother-in-law was available by phone and could answer the question. If it was so important to the Judge, why didn’t he say, “let’s get him on the phone, I need to know that.”

      My new word for the day: ellipsis. I wish I knew that was what it was when writing about the NBC mis-edits, I could have been so much more succinct.

      Note that in the Affidavit of Probable Cause the prosecution did not use an ellipsis or any other indication to show that words were omitted.

      As Prof. Jacobson’s commenter notes, the misleading truncation in Shellie’s affidavit is reminiscent of what the state did in George’s affidavit, when it left out that George sustained injuries and claimed Trayvon attacked him. It’s presenting the judge with half-truths. If this is how the state tells the truth when sworn under oath, it may have more credibility problems than George or Shellie. Maybe we’ll hear more from Dershowitz on this soon.”

      Reply ↓

    • Susan, you should post that comment on Jeralyn’s and Cornell Professor Jacobson’s website … and read what she and Professor Jacobson say on perjury … and look at the cited case Cohen v. State, 985 So.2d 1207 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 2008). If you believe they are delusional, you should tell them so on their websites so they can respond. I will not respond for them and anyone can go to their websites and post your comments on their positions and then let’s see what the responses are!

      Reply ↓

    • What a bunch of BS! The fact is this: Shellie lied to Judge Lester. That is perjury.
      All the rest is “noise,” and I’m not talking about “music!”
      Amazing that you are so intent in defending Zimmerman’s actions that you jump into a cesspool of lies and try to explain them as “the other guy’s fault!

      For what I am concerned. . .(and I know it doesn’t matter to you), you have ZERO credibility!
      I picture you as a racist student of the law. . .nothing more!

      And you keep on trying to tel others, who seem to have a much broader knowledge of the law, associated with a much broader sense of ethic, sensitivity and commons sense (like Susan and Hapufern. ..to name just a couple) that they are wrong!

      What a joke!

      Reply ↓

    • Susan, though I really believe you (or someone) should debate Jeralyn and Professor Jacobson on the “delusional” issue of a defense to perjury. I will note the following:

      “(1) Shellie knew exactly why she was being asked about her and Zimmerman’s finances”

      ***You of all people, as an attorney, knows a witness never answer a question under oath based on what the witness may (may not know) believe the ultimate purpose of the question is. She testified that George Zimmerman had all of that information the prosecutor wanted (a fact you omit). And [Robert] Zimmerman [Jr.] was available immediately to give that testimony on the phone at that hearing. The State and Judge Lester KNEW Zimmerman had a website (and must have raised money). Yet, neither the prosecutor nor Judge Lester even suggested that George, the person with the information the prosecutor wanted was able to immediately provide that information — or did the prosecutor EVER REALLY WANT THAT INFORMATION FROM SHELLIE SINCE IT IS A VIRTUAL CERTAINTY HE ALREADY HAD THAT INFORMATION AND WAS BOTH WITHHOLDING IT FROM JUDGE LESTER AND WAS ONLY INTERESTED IN THE ENTRAPMENT OF SHELLIE).

      Proof that what was really going on was entrapment was that the prosecutor never asked George Zimmerman for the Information that we now hear was so critical to the bond decision. If it was so critical, why wasn’t George Z called as a witness by either the prosecutor or even asked by Judge Lester?

      “(2) Shellie stated that she and Zimmerman had no access to cash with which they could pay a bond, when (3) Shellie knew she had just transferred $74,000.00 to bank accounts that she had control over and had access too.”

      *** A commentor on Jeralyn’s site said the following:

      “But did she consider that to be “her” money?

      Would she not be guilty of some sort of conversion crime if she did and used it as such (like for her own defense, now…), instead of holding it in informal trust prior to transferring it to the official trust that was later established?”

      Does anyone know for a fact that in the critical days before the hearing an attorney or someone she trusted, told her that use of the money, without a proper trust setup, might have serious legal consequences (including tax consequences) for her and her husband? It’s a good thing everyone “knows” this did not occur. Let’s instead, wait for her defense to find out instead of assuming.

      Anyway, this, as everyone knows, is a sideshow that has NO BEARING ON THE MURDER CASE. So let’s debate it endlessly … while Zimmerman’s defense team demolishes the State’s case and we all will then wonder why the State lost so overwhelmingly.

      Reply ↓

      • I believe you meant that Robert, Jr., and not George, was available by phone to testify about the website revenues.

        Reply ↓

    • unitron, you are right. Technically substitute “brother-in-law” (the language Shellie used) for where I mention George above. I think the meaning is clear otherwise and in the quotes I used, the correct words were there since I quoted them verbatim.

      Reply ↓

    • One more thought on the perjury charge. Here is a quote from an older case on perjury under Florida law:

      “However, Florida cases have acknowledged that materiality is an element of the crime of perjury, e.g., Hirsch v. State, 279 So.2d 866 (Fla.1973), and section 837.02(1) expressly provides that:

      Whoever makes a false statement, which he does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter shall be guilty of a felony․”

      Shellie has a strong colorable defense based the materiality element of her testimony. It is a virtual certainty that Judge Lester will ask for higher bail, thereby implying that Shellie’s testimony was the difference.

      But the reality is that at the hearing:

      1) if the State already had an idea of the amount raised — it acted as though it did by not calling the brother-in-law to the stand if they really needed that information — a defense would be that by not mentioning the amount the State knew of (even approximately) or by not calling the brother-in-law who they knew had the information (which Shellie testified to) — how can the State argue the information was material if they themselves didn’t bring it up (even by asking Shellie, would about 135k refresh your memory, or something to that effect).

      Moreover the state had the phone tapes and knew the Zimmermans were speaking in ‘code.’ So they knew the approximate amounts before the hearing. How can they say they didn’t know?

      2) the Judge himself, after hearing who had that information said nothing and he was aware money was raised at the website yet made no inquiry as to the amount.

      A jury might have a hard time concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the issue really was material, a necessary element to the crime of perjury in Florida — no matter what Judge Lester says. Remember, the public doesn’t think much of judges these days and polls show the public trusts juries twice as much as they trust judges.

      The second defense would be entrapment. I haven’t done any research on this issue but I have a strong feeling it is a valid defense here.

      Reply ↓

    • I brought up Shellie’s knowledge of why she was asked about her finances for exact reason you cited — materiality.

      But instead, you’re going to sit here and argue that, for an accused murderer, the existence of $135,000.00 in ready cash and a second, unsurrendered passport are “immaterial”? Seriously?

      And the state didn’t know about the cash at the time of the hearing. O’Mara didn’t know about it until four years later. Your claim that it doesn’t matter that Shellie lied because “everyone already knew the truth” is just weird and desperate. If everyone already knew, why did she try and disguise it?

      [1] Shellie had extensive familiarity with the PayPal funds, and had half the remaining liquid cash in her own bank accounts. Shellie made eight transfers of funds from Zimmerman’s bank account to her own. Transfers in amounts like $9,990 — in a failed attempt to be clever and avoid bank reporting laws.

      [2] Shellie knew the funds belonged to her and her husband, and could be used however they saw fit. She used some of the Pay Pal funds to pay off a Sam’s Club credit card, and their American Express. If she thought she and Zimmerman couldn’t use the money, why on earth was she spending it on paying debts they accrued prior to Trayvon’s death? Additionally, Shellie also tried to convince Zimmerman, in the recorded jail phone convos, that he should use the PayPal money to pay for his bond, because “that’s what it’s there for.” How do you possibly claim Shellie lacked knowledge that those funds could be used to pay a bond, in light of that conversation?

      O’MARA: Are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs?
      SHELLIE: ZIMMERMAN: Not that I’m aware of.

      At the time that she made this statement, she had at least $74K in her control. Four days after the hearing, she transferred all of it back to Zimmerman. There simply isn’t an innocent explanation for this, which is why O’Mara hasn’t tried to give one. Again, here is his description of the events:

      “Mr. Zimmerman acknowledges that he allowed his financial situation to be misstated in court.”

      Also, TalkLeft and Legal Insurrection both acknowledge that the Zimmermans screwed up, and they understand why the judge feels he was lied to. They are only questioning the strength’s of a perjury prosection — not whether or not Shellie was trying to deceive the court. Because it is obvious that she was.

      Legal Insurrection just tries to argue that the perjury charge may not be as strong as it looks, because apparently if you read the transcripts to be completely literal in some places and to be figurative in others, Shellie never directly told an untruth, just gave answers that provided false information to the court. So that it’s okay for Shellie to say she did not have any major assets that could be used to pay the bond — even though she had $75K in her bank account — because “[w]hat are ‘major assets’? Isn’t that a matter of opinion?” What a lame argument.

      Reply ↓

    • Susan, I think you miss the point. We don’t know what Shellie was told in the days before the hearing. She turned over some (or maybe all) control of the website to her brother-in-law. You are presuming no one, not her brother-in-law, father-in-law or any other person she might have placed faith in did NOT raise doubts about how the money could be used, including by her, in the days before the hearing and even on the morning of the hearing.

      It makes no difference if previously, before she may have had doubts about the status of the trust funds, used the money willy-nilly. Her doubts would be heightened if she learned she may have exposure for using the funds improperly before. Even if on the morning of the hearing her doubts arose that is sufficient and a factual issue for trial and jury.

      You have implicitly given your own legal opinion that she had nothing to worry about if she, on her own, used the funds in an unrestricted manner. Your legal opinion is not sufficient if she was advised otherwise and believed that at the time of her testimony that she could potentially have serious consequences (including tax wise) about how the funds were raised, HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN USED and were now being handled. Notably, this includes that there could be problems with her PREVIOUS use of the funds which might cause her and her family major problems in the future. Her concerns would also have been heightened because she was now expected to give testimony in court at a hearing that was about to begin.

      You cannot seriously contend that if she used the money, under any sort of false pretenses, she would not have been indicted by Corey. We do NOT know what she believed at the time of the hearing. You are guessing based on presumptions you know nothing about, including what she was told during the few days before the hearing.

      The reality is that the “technicality” that she did not know the exact amount “currently” in the account and that she IMMEDIATELY gave the name of the person, her brother-in-law, WHO HAD THAT INFORMATION and who could quickly give an accurate answer at the hearing may well be sufficient to dismiss a perjury charge. Such “technicalities” and her beliefs can be the difference between “guilty” and “not guilty” in a perjury charge.

      I also find it hard to believe that there was no entrapment intended by Corey.

      The State had to have listened to the tapes and “broken” the “code” before the hearing because a bond hearing was coming up and they would have wanted to hear what was said BEFORE the hearing to keep Zimmerman in jail. So, reasonably, the State knew the amounts involved BEFORE the hearing and WITHHELD that information from Judge Lester … just to try to entrap Shellie.

      Also she had turned over control of the website to the brother-in-law before the hearing.And she clearly said he had the information they wanted and he was available by phone to immediately provide that information. The State deliberately omitted that exculpatory statement when quoting the transcripts — a DELIBERATE OMISSION DESIGNED TO MISLEAD. There are many other tapes to go through to see what also they didn’t disclose.

      It seems strange that the latest tape they use is FOUR DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING. What else was said in the next four days? Do you know? No one knows except the State, which already deliberately and misleadingly purged the exculpatory testimony from the transcript that the her brother-in-law had the current balance and could provide that information immediately.

      So the State artfully asked questions that they knew could entrap her — while already having the information they contend they needed and were withholding it from Judge Lester. Who was REALLY withholding critical information here? How will a jury react to dirty tricks like that?

      The State may even have known that she may very well have doubts, just as the hearing was coming up, about whether she legally could “access” the funds that were simply in the form of a trust, without breaking the law. Just having signatory power on an account doesn’t mean she, by herself, could not get in trouble by using the funds on her own say so without first getting authority from a “trustee” and advice from a good lawyer — even if she had done so in the past. You are assuming a lot and giving the State too much “credibility” when they have, so far, shown they are not to be trusted in any manner.

      Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Aren’t they?

      Reply ↓

      • I believe YOU are assuming a lot! And once again, ONLY in favor of the Zimmermans! Are you related by any chance?

        If Shellie didn’t know she could dispose of the money. . .why did she take the liberty to transfer so much money in different accounts in HER name?

        And, if she or George had questions about the legality of what she could do with that money, why did they not reach out to OMarra and ask him for advise BEFORE the bond hearing. . .when Shellie actually mentionned to her husband the possibility of using that money for bond (her comment was something like “that’s what it’s for!”)

        I feel bad that you are so desperate to see only the “possibilities” for the Zimmermans, but that makes you look REALLY gullible!

        Reply ↓

    • Susan Simpson says:

      “And the state didn’t know about the cash at the time of the hearing.”

      Baloney.

      Watch the video and read the transcript of the bail hearing.

      BDLR: Okay. Were you aware of the website Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created.
      SZ: I’m aware of that website.
      BDLR: How much money is in that website right now? [… incomplete question …]
      SZ: Currently, I do not know,
      BDLR: Who would know that?
      SZ: That would be my brother-in-law.
      BDLR: And is he- I know he is not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?
      SZ: I’m sure that we can probably get him on the phone.
      BDLR: OK. So he is not there now.
      SZ: No he is not, sir.
      BDLR (Makes a dramatic gesture with arms extended directed toward Judge Lester and where the phone speaker is situated, so as if to appear that he was addressing a witness in the witness box). Do you have any estimate how much money has already been obtained or collected.
      SZ: I do not.

      Read the motion to revoke bail, and the affidavit of probable cause for the perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman, just to make sure that I didn’t add anything other than BDLR’s animated gesture toward the phone.

      Did I?

      Hapufern, Danielle, Sandbagger, and CSFC can play too. Peter O, Inspector G, and OIAMU buzzers are disabled.

      Reply ↓

  99. “Why is the burden not on them to come here to Susan’s website to tell her that they disagree with her?”

    All I did was repeat and link to Jeralyn’s and Professor Jacobson’s views. So Susan, effectively said to them “you’re deluding yourself.” Why not say something as strong as that to them directly … so they can have a chance to respond.

    I am not, nor am I capable of, providing their responses to a claim that they are delusional in their views. It would be common courtesy that a posting like that, on a public website like this, at least is relayed to the actual targets so they can be afforded a chance to answer such a pejoratively stated comment.

    Reply ↓

    • @PeterO –

      “All I did was repeat and link to Jeralyn’s and Professor Jacobson’s views. So Susan, effectively said to them “you’re deluding yourself.” Why not say something as strong as that to them directly … so they can have a chance to respond.”

      For starters, those other sites you mention delete dissenting views. Why would Susan waste her time? Susan’s apparently a real attorney working real client cases and doesn’t have time to invent contortions of the truth 24/7 at a pace of 3 or more blogs a day and night like some of the other sites do.

      Reply ↓

      • exactly…I made a few comments on ConservativeTreeHouse and they deleted every other post i made…it was at that point that I realized they cannot be reasoned with.

        I was on a blog post about how IF those 3 young men who walked in after Trayvon and bought black and milds bought a black and mild for Trayvon then he MUST’VE smoked weed with it…as opposed to the far more common use of actually smoking it…and that’s IF they actually bought it for him.

        The level of conclusion jumping and the desire to paint ANYONE who doesn’t agree Zimmerman is a saint as a devil, con-artist, etc…is despicable.

        I try and maintain a high regard for all humanity but this case is making that really hard to do…sincerely.

        Reply ↓

  100. First, I just gotta say… Right on, Susan. I have a newfound respect for lawyers given your common sense reasoning on this matter.

    I thank you much!

    Reply ↓

Leave a reply to Tristan Cancel reply