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[Update, 7/20/12: This timeline of events has been superseded by the release of a great deal of discovery that was unavailable at the time that it was constructed.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”

  2. From PeterO:

    >A commentor on Jeralyn’s site said the following:

    “But did she consider that to be “her” money?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.<

    So who's money WAS it?!!!!!!

    I confess. It's my money. It's ALL MY MONEY! Send it right away. And don't forget to pay me back for what you spent on those credit card bills either!

    Unfortunately for Shellie though, I expect that she will plead guilty (or no contest). I feel sorry for her, but she did commit out-and-out perjury – or "flagrant perjury" (PO's terminology).

    Reply ↓

    • HP, you persistently keep misquoting as your method of argument. You make it appear as though I posted the above comment from Jeralyn’s site, when you know I didn’t.

      Here is the FULL text of the exchange (stated in a response to the comment you posted above that OMITTED the full text). I marked the section the State and the comment above deliberately omitted:

      Q. And 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 is correct.
      Q: Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
      A: I’m aware of that website.
      Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —
      A: Currently, I do not know.
      ************THE OMITTED PART BY THE STATE
      Q: Who would know that?
      A: That would be my brother-in-law.
      Q: And is he — I know he’s 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?
      A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.
      Q: Okay. So he’s not there now.
      A: No, he is not, sir.
      ************END OF OMITTED PART AND START OF WHAT THE STATE CONTINUED USING
      Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
      A: I do not.

      Moreover, not only should you read the complete testimony you should read the question also:

      “in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount,
      that you all had no money.”

      The money was clearly in some type of Trust that had to be properly accounted for and used within the confines of the law. Her doubts at the moment of her testimony is all that maters — no matter what she said FOUR DAYS EARLIER. You are giving HP’s legal opinion that the money could be used for bond and presume to know what actually occurred that could have raised doubts. Any colorable doubts at the time of the hearing could well have been a cloud over using the funds sufficiently for her to have doubts about its use FOR BOND.

      Reply ↓

    • For anyone who doesn’t understand the impact of removing the above section that was removed by the State, just remember the impact on NBC after it was caught editing the dispatcher tape to make it appear as though Zimmerman offered that the suspect was black when Zimmerman was only just responding to a question by the dispatcher to identify the race of the suspect.

      Reply ↓

  3. Sorry PO, my above post didn’t transfer correctly. It should say:

    From PeterO:

    >A commentor on Jeralyn’s site said the following:

    “But did she consider that to be ‘her’ money?”<

    That is FUNNY, because,according to Shellie's testimony, it wasn't her husband's money either:

    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.<

    So who's money WAS it?!!!!!!

    I confess. It's my money. It's ALL MY MONEY! Send it right away. And don't forget to pay me back for what you spent on those credit card bills either!

    Unfortunately for Shellie though, I expect that she will plead guilty (or no contest). I feel sorry for her, but she did commit out-and-out perjury – or "flagrant perjury" (PO's terminology).

    Reply ↓

    • HP, you persistently keep misquoting as your method of argument. You make it appear as though I posted the above comment from Jeralyn’s site, when you know I didn’t.

      Reply ↓

  4. Hi Gabrielle. I much appreciate your comment, but I don’t have any legal background (although my son is a hard-working attorney, and I’m very proud of him!). Gabrielle, in my opinion, your comments have shown as much or more understanding of the law as mine.

    I don’t think PeterO has any legal background either.

    As far as I know, Susan is the only real “pro” here. Thanks Susan for all of your great comments and for allowing us on your blog!

    Reply ↓

  6. More strong evidence that the State knew the amount raised on the website and was trying deliberately entrap Shellie. Look at the following questions the State asked:

    Q: How much money is in that website RIGHT NOW? How much money as a result of that website was –

    and later:

    Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?

    What was the question the State, who certainly knew exactly from the “coded” phone statements the approximate about four days earlier, did NOT ask? Here it is:

    Q: Do you know how much was raised from the website AS OF FOUR DAYS AGO?

    They don’t even ask the above question as a follow up question!

    They never, deliberately, asked the above question because they were trying to entrap Shellie by asking a question using the words “RIGHT NOW” knowing that technically (and correctly), she might say she did not know the current amount RIGHT NOW.

    Voila, perjury!

    Voila dirty tricks!

    These dirty tricks NEVER go over well with a jury, particularly when the “technical” answer if perfectly fine to avoid a perjury charge.

    Reply ↓

    • To carry this frame up one step further.

      What if Shellie had given a figure she remembered from 4 days ago? The question was deliberately worded to ask her for what was in the account “RIGHT NOW.”

      Voila, perjury again!

      Because in the intervening 4 days what if another 40-50k was raised? She then would have “lied” again!

      The State probably knew from the tapes that Shellie did NOT know the recent figures raised — remember, the polls were turning dramatically towards believing Zimmerman acted in self defense.

      So the had Shellie caught in a perjury “catch 22” trap and the ONLY CORRECT answer for her was that she didn’t know what the total raised as of RIGHT NOW.

      Reply ↓

  7. If Susan will indulge me reposting a number of links, it has been a few thousand posts back since these links were posted. I watched the questioning of Det. Gilbreath and it turned me from a Martin supporter to wondering if Angela Corey isn’t the second coming of Janet Reno (Florida has already met our Quota of Reno’s) My timeline is centered more around Det. Gilbreath’s testimony, but the fist hour is questioning of the Zimmerman Family. The video is complete from start to finish of the bond hearing, the CNN transcript has commercial breaks. I wish they would have kept the transcript going through their commercial breaks since they missed quite a few important pieces of information. I would recommend anyone commenting on the arrest of Ms. Zimmerman listen to the first hour of the video to verify what she and the other family members said, no matter what side you are on it is well worth it. As far as Zimmerman or his wife go, on what I consider separate charges, if they lied and there is proof of it burn them for it but again, it had better be IAW FL law. To me these separate charges do not affect the original case, I am still concerned about the probable cause document and what we can have our legislators do the prevent any Prosecutors from arresting someone in a self defense shooting without sufficient probable cause. Whether this is in fact the case with Corey or not. One thing we locally (here on the Panhandle) agree on is 776.032 Immunity should be modified to MANDATE a Grand Jury before an arrest in a self defense shooting due to the amount of damage an out of control prosecutor can do to an honest citizen by arresting them without sufficient probable cause. There was a case a few years ago where a Black gentleman was in a car near Tallahassee and was attacked by a white guy reaching in and attacking him through his window, he shot and killed the attacker from inside his car while the guy was climbing through the window IAW Florida’s Castle Doctrine. The prosecutor was hammered by FL 1st DCA for violating 776.032 Immunity.

    Bond Hearing (Full Video)
    http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815
    TIME: 8:20 to 18:30 Zimmerman’s Wife questioned by Zimmerman’s Lawyer Mark O’Mara.

    TIME: 18:30 to 28:25 Zimmerman’s wife questioned by the Prosecution.

    TIME: 28:25 to 34:00 Zimmerman’s wife questioned by O’Mara.

    TIME: 34:50 to 40:50 Zimmerman’s father questioned by O’Mara.

    TIME: 40:50 to 48:09 Zimmerman’s father questioned by Prosecution.

    TIME: 48:09 to 50:40 Zimmerman’s father questioned by O’Mara.

    TIME: 51:02 to 1:01:38 Zimmerman’s mother questioned by O’Mara.

    TIME: 1:01:38 to 1:03:21 Zimmerman’s mother questioned by Prosecution.

    TIME: 1:04:00 Phone Interviews Concluded

    TIME: 1:05:38 Officer Dale Gilbreath (Prosecution Lead Investigator) Called. Prosecution not prepared for questioning.

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

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

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgR7gCxXQYg

    Here is the PDF Transcript of the call

    Click to access full-transcript-zimmerman.pdf

    TIME: 1:17:07 Girlfriend interviewed by Det. Osteen about Conversation that night 5 weeks after shooting.

    TIME: 1:22:10 Officer Gilbreath admits that he has no evidence as to who started the face to face confrontation contrary to his Probable Cause Affidavit.

    TIME: 1:23:32 admits no official voice analysis completed on 911 call that had a person calling for “Help!”.

    TIME: 1:27:13 Admits that no one has officially identified the voice on the 911 call.

    TIME: 1:28:00 Det. Gilbreath questioned by Prosecution.

    TIME: 1:36:40 to 1:38:10 Det. Gilbreath admits that there is no evidence that Zimmerman continues to follow Zimmerman. Only a person that saw shadows outside her window.

    TIME: 1:38:42 to 1:44:48 Det. Gilbreath admits point blank under direct questioning that to this day 20 Apr 2012 , that there is no evidence of who started the flight and there is no evidence that he continued to follow after being told not to.

    TIME: 1:44:48 to 1:49:00 Prosecution questions Det. Gilbreath about who started fight.

    TIME: 1:46:40 Prosecutor: Did he, Mr. ahmm Zimmerman the defendant at one point claim to the police that he was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car?

    TIME: 1:48:35 Judge Lester asks Det. Gilbreath about Burn marks on Trevon Martin.

    TIME: 1:49:00 Det. Gilbreath asked Is evidence inconsistent with trauma to back of head followed by description of injuries to Zimmerman.

    TIME: 1:51:20 Det. Gilbreath says he has seen no medical reports of injuries to Zimmerman. O’Mara offers them to him.

    —–

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

    Reply ↓

    • “TIME: 1:51:20 Det. Gilbreath says he has seen no medical reports of injuries to Zimmerman. O’Mara offers them to him.”

      The Sanford Police received the medical reports from Zimmerman’s doctor within a couple of days.

      The FDLE had the cell phone picture of Zimmerman’s head a month before the bond hearing. An agent from the State Attorney’s office was present when those pictures were taken.

      Reply ↓

  8. PeterO, Do you honestly think Shellie will ever go before a jury on this charge?

    And what do you think about Zimmerman? Do you think Zimmerman won’t apologize to the judge during his bond hearing on June 29th? If Zimmerman apologizes to the judge for deceiving the court based on his silence during Shellie’s deceptive testimony, how do you think that will affect Shellie’s chances of entering a credible plea of “not guilty”?

    Do you think all this might have something to do with why O’Mara is not representing Shellie?

    I expect Shellie to plead “guilty”. Don’t you? Or maybe she could plead “not guilt”y on the grounds that she was afraid of her husband. I doubt it, but anything’s possible in this melodramatic mess.

    O’Mara’s website said, ““it will be a conflict for the O”Mara Law Group to represent Mrs. Zimmerman (and) she will retain independent counsel.”

    Reply ↓

    • HP

      Even if their interests were identical, an attorney could not presume that they would be, and might later encounter a conflict.

      Besides, a separate attorney can more aggressively defend Shellie, deposing employees of the state attorney’s office for their role in the selective presentation of evidence. “Is it true, Mr. De La Rionda, that Miss Corey said she would stop waxing your head unless you omitted material questioning”.

      Reply ↓

  9. PO said, “The money was clearly in some type of Trust”….(June 15, 2012 at 12:52 am)

    No, Peter, the money was not in a trust. Don’t you even read the facts? Who needs facts? Facts are in the way?

    FACT: The money was in PERSONAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS during Shellie’s testimony, including her own.

    Reply ↓

  10. Peter, do you think Shellie’s account was a trust?

    Or weren’t you paying attention when Susan corrected you about this on June 1?

    June 1, 9:42 pm, PeterO said: “…the money had been transferred into O’Mara’s control BEFORE THE BOND HEARING, the statement “The money still belongs to Defendant and he can demand it at any time” is NOT true. Once O’Mara, AN OFFICER OF THE COURT, took control of the funds BEFORE THE BOND HEARING, he effectively became trustee for the funds and his approval was needed.”

    June 1, 10:10 pm, Susan said: “PeterO, I’m going to be mean and ban you from commenting until you can promise you have actually read the State’s Motion to Revoke Bond.

    Because you obviously haven’t read it. Which makes this whole conversation pretty pointless.

    The bond hearing was on the 20th. O’Mara, at a separate hearing on the 27th, notified the court — as he was obligated to do by rules of professional conduct — that it had come to his attention that his client and the client’s family members had made misrepresentations to the court about the state of their finances.

    Only at that time did O’Mara take the funds into a trust.”
    .

    Reply ↓

    • HP, before you comment on trust law, talk to your son, the lawyer — people may otherwise think you know what you are talking about when you don’t.

      The original funds, when raised for whatever the purpose stated, can be viewed as a type of trust under the law. Indeed, to prevent tax and possibly criminal repercussions the funds should be formally treated as a trust, which is what O’Mara did. That does not change the fact that the original funds were raised as if in a trust and all O’Mara did was merge the new trust with the old funds to properly account for the original funds and newly raised funds collectively.

      TALK TO YOUR SON. Susan’s comment was about a date of the bond hearing that I had misread. And any error I had made at the time about that date has absolutely no significance to the debate above about Shellie’s trumped up perjury charges.

      I still stand by the statement: “”The money still belongs to Defendant and he can demand it at any time” is NOT true” with the minor correction as stated above that still shows the original funds were “trust” funds now merged into O’Mara’s formal structure. The use of the money is dictated by the permissible ways it can be used and the procedures that should be followed. That was the purpose of O’Mara setting up a proper structure for the trust funds and MERGING THE ORIGINAL FUNDS INTO THAT FORMAL STRUCTURE.

      As a side comment, I am amazed no one writes about the millions being raised in the name of the Martins — that are earmarked for what and going into who’s pocket?

      Reply ↓

    • Peter, if Shellie couldn’t access the funds, she would not have been able to use them for paying off bills. The money was in her own account at the time of the hearing. It’s really very simple. She had full access of the money except for what was transferred into Zimmerman’s sister’s account.

      There was no trust at the time of the bond hearing. I have no idea what you think a trust is, but if you’re confusing it with the PayPal account, the fact is, the money wasn’t in the PayPal account at the time of the bond hearing anyway, and Shellie was well aware of this – because it was in Shellie’s account. Shellie’s account was NOT a trust. Shellie had full access to her own account, just like anyone else does.

      Have you ever had a bank account? Were you able to access the money?

      I’m aware of what a trust is because although I’m not wealthy, I do have savings in a revokable trust account for the sake of my beneficiaries.

      I have no reason to ask my son ridiculous questions.

      Reply ↓

    • No, the funds cannot be viewed as a type of trust. They were not in a trust until O’Mara actually put them in a trust.

      Any further comments about the funds being “in a trust” will be deleted, in the interest of moving the discussion off of this dead end topic.

      Reply ↓

    • Susan, as one last comment, which I think you should keep on this site (and start deleting other references after hearing this comment if you choose) because, as I am sure you are aware, we (over the next year or so) will keep hearing the cry “Shellie, perjuror!” over and over as “part” of the “debate” on the criminal trial:

      The IRS, for tax purposes at least, will treat the trust O’Mara set up as being established nunc pro tunc (readers can look that term up — it means “as of” a previous date), that is, as though the trust was set up as of the date Zimmerman first received ANY funds.

      Trust law is complex and has been around for many centuries (and baffled many throughout that time, including lawyers).

      The key to perjury is what Shellie BELIEVED at the time of her testimony, any debate over calling the money raised a “trust” or not is a red herring (better left to trust lawyers) because the issue is the terms under which the money was raised, which, in turn, raises criminal, tax and civil issues concerning disputes over how the money is/was actually used. Any uncertainty, in Shellie’s mind, only solidifies her defense IF doubts arose BEFORE her testimony, even the morning before.

      Reply ↓

    • The important point Peter, is that Shellie and George had access to the funds at the time of the bond hearing, and they knew it because they had already spent much of it and because they were transferring the money around into different accounts.

      Calling the account by a different name is not only inaccurate. It’s irrelevant. People can access money in their own trusts, depending on how the trust is set up. Nothing in this instance prevented the Zimmerman’s from accessing these funds.

      Reply ↓

    • Peter, there’s just no way that you or anyone can twist this in the Zimmermans’ favor. The Zimmermans knew they had access to the money, because they were already spending it! There’s simply no way to successfully twist that fact. Even a tornado couldn’t twist that fact!

      Do you understand? They were already spending the money!

      Reply ↓

    • HP, I guess you will never understand what the charge of perjury is about under Florida law. You can repeat as much as you like that she had “access” but the law on perjury addresses whether or not, at the time of the testimony, she believed she had a right to “access” the money.

      However, the most important defense is simply that she answered the question correctly because the State asked her what she knew “RIGHT NOW” not what she knew FOUR DAYS AGO, in an obvious frame-up/perjury trap.

      Either Judge Lester is gullible, is turning a blind eye or knew in advance what was happening. His hearing was turned into a farce by the State, which, instead of just probing and eliciting the “oh so critical” 135k figure, hid that figure (even though they knew it) to create a combination “frame-up” and entrapment farce using Judge Lester’s courtroom and then went through the charade of “just discovering” the amount, in time for a trumped up perjury charge. If the purpose of the hearing was truly to give Judge Lester information, and the State had that information, then they were conducting a farce using the legal system.

      The reality is that the State knew at the time of the hearing the amount in the accounts AND withheld that information — EVEN at the end of the hearing, AFTER the purportedly “perjured” testimony was given. And the State conducted a charade by waiting days later to “call attention” to the funds by pretending they never knew all along how much was in the account.

      I find it very hard to believe any Florida jury will convict her of perjury once this frame-up is explained and they are told that “technically” (which BTW is not only perfectly fine in a testimony type situation, but recommended by most lawyers) she answered correctly that she did not know the amount “RIGHT NOW” and immediately said her brother-in-law could provide that information right at that time.

      Reply ↓

    • Peter, you’re either deliberately lying; or you don’t know what you’re talking about, but you’re talking about it anyway.

      Reply ↓

    • Peter, you said: “And the State conducted a charade by waiting days later to “call attention” to the funds by pretending they never knew all along how much was in the account.”

      Peter, it was Zimmerman’s attorney – not the state – who called attention to the funds by informing the court, as he was legally obligated to do. I remember Susan telling you that. Do you have memory issues?

      Reply ↓

      • No, I don’t think Peter O has memory problems. . .I think he has “allegiance issues!” In one way, I can almost sympathize with him for trying so hard to defend a ? (friend, family member, client?). In the other hand, I think it is ridiculous to go so far out on a limb and to spew so many delusional scenarios that only decrease his credibility and that of Zimmerman.

        And, if he truly is part of the legal system, it may pose ethical issues and be held against him!

        Reply ↓

    • HP, talk to your lawyer son before you post your comments.

      As soon as O’Mara learned of the matter, he worked on researching and acting on how to fix the problem. The State KNEW O’Mara would be doing that, yet they CONTINUED to sit back in order to also entrap O’Mara in an ethical matter.

      You ignore the KEY FACT THAT THE STATE KNEW OF THE AMOUNT (AND THE PROBLEMS ON HOW TO TREAT THE FUNDS) ON THE DAY OF THE BOND HEARING.

      So, for every day that passed, the State was STILL withholding the information from Judge Lester, that the Judge considered so critical to his decision — all in order to NOW ALSO ENTRAP O’Mara.

      Reply ↓

  11. I am curious about a matter that actually relates to the murder case not the bogus perjury charge that has nothing to do with the main case.

    The State said it has DeeDee’s phone records during its interview of her. We know that on Martin’s phone records DeeDee’s second call, after the previous call was dropped, began anywhere from 7:12:00 to 7:12:59. She testified that the first call was dropped about the time Martin was at the “shed”.

    What if her own phone records also show her second call began at 7:12:00 to 7:12:59?

    That would mean she lied during her interview when she said the second call began as Martin was walking towards the back path (towards Zimmerman’s car) before Martin ran. She swore to events she said were being told to her by Martin as they were happening. But, in reality, wasn’t on the phone with him at the time.

    Zimmerman, on the dispatcher tape, says Martin ran at about 2:08 in the dispatcher call which began at 7:09:34, meaning Martin ran before 7:11.42 … which is BEFORE the phone records show DeeDee’s second call even connected. So, if her phone records confirm what Martin’s records show, much of her testimony was a lie. Will she be prosecuted for perjury? Will she be sued by the Zimmermans? Look at other similar cases (hint: initials TB) to find out what happened as an aftermath … it is a real eye opener.

    Reply ↓

    • Go back to the top of this page where it says

      [Update, 4/29/12:

      and read what Susan has to say about her own experiments with T-Mobile time reporting.

      Then go down to where it says

      7:15 – 7:16pm, DeeDee’s version of events:

      and specifically take note of this part

      “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.”

      I don’t know who T-Mobile uses for a time base anymore than I know who the city of Sanford uses, but by the time the phone records become billing records (the ones they want to show as much length per call as possible because they make more money that way), we’re no longer talking about NIST level accuracy.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • unitron, that is why I said DeeDee’s records are important to confirm the times.

      Just because Susan ran an informal experiment does not mean the actual accurate times cannot be obtained or that the times on Martin’s records are not accurate. I note that even the Sanford police used a 7:12 time for DeeDee’s second call going through.

      I assume you would agree, that as a starting point, the actual time of the call is very important in a case were a man is facing life in prison for murder and the principal “eye (aka phone) witness” has made statements that may well been have been impossible to be true. Let’s get the records and check them and see if they are accurate.

      Reply ↓

    • One other point, call times are rounded down so Susan’s contention the call lasted 4 minutes is unlikely since it could have been anywhere from 3:01 to 4:00 minutes, raising the back time window issue of whether her call hung up before any possible confrontation could have happened. Let’s leave that issue for another day because the main issue is pinning down the START time of the call. There is enough leeway here that we are certainly NOT talking about a need for NIST time. Let’s see what the phone companies say.

      Reply ↓

    • “DeeDee” makes the claim that the phone also disconnected at the time Martin reached the “mail shed”, and that Martin went to the 7-11 to buy food and drink for his “little brother”. There is likely evidence that both are false or incomplete.

      The State will end up arguing that she can’t be expected to remember things that would implicate Martin, but we must believe beyond a reasonable doubt her recollections of the sound of grass, and being able to hear a “little bit”, and that Martin said the guy was “crazy” or “creepy” when he might have actually said “cracker” or “crumpy”.

      Reply ↓

    • “DeeDee” claims that the phone hung up three times and she called back twice, and unsuccessfully the third time.

      The phone bill only shows two calls from her. So according to her recollection Martin reached the mail shed about 6:54 and she called.

      Since the phone also “hung up” when Martin was outside the 7-11 (either transacting business, or having been bumped so violently by a crazy white guy that he was twisted around backward)

      It is quite possible that Martin deliberately disconnected in order that she wouldn’t hear certain things, or she is not willing to recall certain things, or can’t remember enough. There is simply too much editing.

      Reply ↓

  12. From Associated Press, June 13:

    “Records show that in the days before the bond hearing, Shellie Zimmerman transferred $74,000 in eight smaller amounts ranging from $7,500 to $9,990, from her husband’s credit union account to hers, according to an arrest affidavit….

    “Jeffrey Neiman, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice, said cash transactions in excess of $10,000 usually trigger a reporting requirement by the bank to multiple government agencies — including the IRS.

    ‘If Mrs. Zimmerman intentionally structured the financial transactions in a manner to keep the offense under $10,000, not only may she have committed perjury in the state case, but she also may have run afoul of several federal statutes and could face serious federal criminal charges,’ Neiman wrote in an email to The Associated Press.”

    Shellie is currently charged with 3rd Degree Perjury, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

    She probably won’t do that much time for perjury, since I’m guessing this is her first offense. But what if she’s also charged under the federal statutes? This young woman could be in a lot of trouble.

    Reply ↓

  13. Reading the posts about Shellie Zimmerman as being entrapped into perjury is just right out insane. Common sense to me says if a prosecutor or a defense attorney asks about any money my honest and the key word is honest, would be to answer, “well sir I don’t have an exact amount that I can tell you of the current amount today at this bond hearing , but three or four days ago I contacted my branch to transfer money in the amount of (insert dollar amt here) so I would be able to post bond for my husband. As far as I know we have gather as much as (insert dollar amount here). That would of been a honest answer. Having both attorneys ask several different variations of the same question which gave her many chances to disclose honestly. The mere fact that O’Mara is now trying to clean up this debacle by saying he was in fear, mistrust and confused is a weak arguement after he states George knew about the money. What was the fear about? The state and eveyone else finding out he knew about the money? Mistrust? His own attorney and now Judge Lester won’t trust what he says anymore. Confusion? He is so confused about all the lies he has presented will be check and rechecked. Iam glad that the state didn’t call Shellie and George on their lies right then and there. This case hinges on George’s version of events. If he can lie about tens of thousands dollars, it not a far stretch to assume he can lie about anything including self defense.

    Reply ↓

    • I agree that the perjury may have some consequences for Zimmerman down the road. I wonder how the defense will handle this at the new bond hearing.

      Does anyone have an idea of when Shellie goes back to court?

      Reply ↓

    • Defense attorney: “The State Attorney is badgering and leading the witness Miss Loree by asking discrete and specific questions. Clearly she has reached a higher state of consciousness and conscientious such that she can be depended on to give a total and free flowing narrative.”

      Reply ↓

    • “well sir I don’t have an exact amount that I can tell you of the current amount today at this bond hearing”

      STOP RIGHT THERE. THAT IS THE ONLY ANSWER ANY LAWYER WOULD HAVE YOU GIVE TO A HOSTILE QUESTIONER!

      It is even enough to say “I don’t know the current amount” or words to that effect, which is exactly what Shellie did.

      She even went further and offered the name of the person who had that information — her brother-in-law — and the information that he was immediately available to provide the requested information. But, that was the last information the State really wanted disclosed because they could not later pull their perjury stunt and have the staged “dramatic” bail revocation farce they actually went through.

      It was all a sham perjury trap. And they used Judge Lester’s court to pull it off — all while THEY WERE WITHHOLDING THE INFORMATION JUDGE LESTER SAID WAS SO CRITICAL TO HIS DECISION AT THE BOND HEARING AND THAT THEY HAD — THE FUNDS AMOUNT.

      Reply ↓

  14. Why the State, every pundit and Crump (who has already has) will throw DeeDee to the “wolves” once the Zimmerman walk-through is released … and at trial.

    THE PHONE RECORDS DOOM DEEDEE’S TESTIMONY AND THE STATE WILL GRAPHICALLY REPUDIATE HER STORY AT TRIAL BECAUSE OF THOSE PHONE RECORDS:

    In my post at : “PeterO on June 15, 2012 at 3:19 am said” I explained how the Martin phone record start time of the critical second call by DeeDee to Martin, dooms DeeDee because the records show it started AFTER Martin started running yet she extensively testified about how after the first phone call was dropped (while at the mail shed) she immediately called back and then HEARD Martin as he approached and passed Zimmerman’s truck and started running.

    Unitron mentioned a “saving grace” argument that Susan thought the T-Mobile time start could be 30 seconds earlier than stated on Martin’s records. That explanation, which I held open, subject to seeing DeeDee’s phone records and ultimate confirmation by the phone companies (and recognizing that starting call times are rounded down means the call could have still been anywhere between 7:12:00 and 7:12:59 — the later number also dooms DeeDee’s testimony).

    HOWEVER, DEEDED HAS A MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM — WHICH IS THE LENGTH OF THE CALL:

    The T-Mobile phone records show a 4 minute call. Which means a call lasting between 3:01 and 4:00 minutes. One thing we can be fairly certain of is that T-Mobile keeps accurate records of call length because there would be billions at stake in class action suits if T-Mobile was shortchanging customers on call length billing.

    What this means is that DeeDee’s testimony will be refuted by EVERYONE (including the State) once analyses begin on trying to destroy Zimmerman’s walk through scenario. This is because:

    The dispatcher call lasted 4 minutes and 30 seconds.

    The dispatcher tape, shows Zimmerman says Martin ran at about 2:08 into the dispatcher call which, assuming a 2-3 second delay in relaying that fact, means Martin ran at about 2:06 into the call.

    DeeDee testified that she re-connected with Martin as he was still heading towards the back path after leaving the “mail shed.” this reconnection, at best, would have had to have been at least 15 seconds BEFORE Martin began running — meaning the reconnection had to beginning at about 1:51 into the dispatcher call at the latest (2:06 (running start time) minus 15 seconds (call start time)).

    Because the dispatcher call was 4 minutes and 30 seconds long, and DeeDee’s call reconnected at 1:51 into the dispatcher call (if you believe DeeDee), that means that DeeDee was on the phone for 2 minutes and 39 seconds at the same time Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher.

    Because DeeDee’s call was anywhere from 3:01 to 4:00 minutes (from Martin’s T-Mobile records), the time window for her remaining on the phone AND HER HANGUP, AFTER ZIMMERMAN HAD HUNG UP, can only be between 22 seconds and 71 seconds! That is the only time window possible.

    So giving DeeDee the benefit of the doubt on the time the call started (which I don’t believe will ultimately work for her), and assuming the call lasted until the last second possible — at the 4 minute length mark — LEAVES HER ONLY A TIME WINDOW OF 22 TO 71 SECONDS for her ENTIRE multiple chase sequences she testified about.

    Obviously, based on the only possible time window, the multiple “out of breath” chases, “cornering” and attacking she described so graphically as hearing on the phone, could not have happened the way she says within the time window of 22 to 71 seconds. Also, at least 10 seconds has to be subtracted for Zimmerman to have at least spotted Martin and began the “chase.” This leaves the time window for the chase, now at 12 to 59 seconds!

    What happens now is the State (and pundits) must now try to destroy Zimmerman’s walk-through story, particularly what he did just after hanging up with the dispatcher.

    The State, to completely avoid destroying DeeDee, has to present a scenario that ties into DeeDee’s testimony of her chase within the only possible 12 second to 59 second time window that she was on the phone and the chase could have happened!

    Does anyone seriously believe the State, or any of the many pundits out to destroy Zimmerman, will tailor their stories to fit DeeDee’s story? Will they all have a new story that says that within 10 seconds of getting off the phone with the dispatcher Zimmerman immediately started his multiple “breathless” chases of Martin and show how and why everyone ended up near the path intersection under DeeDee’s story?

    Not a chance.

    Crump (and the State) had to have known of the DeeDee testimony dilemma before she was being placed in when she gave her statement under oath … they had her phone records.

    The State, at the beginning of the interview, even strongly hinted at the problem by telling her THEY HAD HER PHONE RECORDS. YET SHE STILL TESTIFIED TO HER IMPOSSIBLE STORY — UNDER THE “GUIDANCE” OF CRUMP, WHO THREW HER TO THE WOLVES AND LET HER TESTIFY.

    Reply ↓

    • Obviously, I meant “12 to 61 seconds” not “12 to 59” seconds above (so don’t accuse me of failing public school math).

      Reply ↓

    • What passed between Trayvon and the young lady in their last conversation together is a related but nevertheless separate issue from exactly when it started and exactly when it ended.

      You’ve added 2 seconds to Zimmerman’s likely reaction time and 25 seconds to his call to the police, and seem to refuse to accept that the young lady’s call could have begun at 7:11:30 PM regardless of what the phone company called it.

      If you add your 1:51 to Zimmerman’s start time of 7:09:34 PM, you get 7:11:25 PM

      Just because they’re accurate as to length does not guarantee that they are accurate as to the start time.

      I’ve listened to recordings of her recounting of the conversation, but trying to sort it out chronologically makes my brain hurt.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

  15. Loree is entitled to her opinion jimrtex, as are you. I happen to agree with Loree.

    As for “entrapment”, there’s no way, since the defense’s own attorney was the one who reported the misconduct.

    In my opinion, it’s possible that Shellie’s only conceivable defense might be that Zimmerman intimidated her to lie for him in court. Several websites are now reporting that when Shellie pressed him further about using the money for bond, Zimmerman replied, “Hell no”:

    Shellie: “You don’t want me to pay $100?”

    Zimmerman: “Hell no.”

    If for instance, Shellie said she was afraid of Zimmerman because of his violent past, or because of domestic abuse, or because he had told her more details about Trayvon, or for all three reasons, this might conceivably be a credible defense under the circumstances.

    Shellie’s facing a possible 5 years in prison plus possible federal penalties for IRS violations. She’ll probably get probation, but she’ll have this on her record if she pleads guilty. The charge of 3rd degree perjury is a felony. Shellie was just a month away from finishing nursing school, and I’m not sure that she would be allowed to finish if she were on probation for a felony or if she had a recent felony record. These days, it takes a tremendous amount of work and study to get as far as Shellie got through nursing school. She may have a lot to lose by pleading guilty.

    Zimmerman used her. He instructed her to lie, and then tried to save his own butt by telling his lawyer about it 5 days later.

    Zimmerman supporters better hope that Shellie will plead guilty, which I think she probably will. I have the impression she’s in love. But if Shellie pleads, “not guilty”, then it could indicate a future face-off between Zimmerman and his wife.

    Reply ↓

    • Are we to keep hearing this for the next year?

      We, and Shellie, BTW, know what she is facing. And what really happened.

      If ranting that “Shellie is a perjurer. Shellie is a perjurer” is the State’s case against Zimmerman, O’Mara is overjoyed.

      Reply ↓

      • Very silly comment! I think you’re losing it, Peter O! and I am more than ever convinced that you are in some way related to the Zimmermans or at the least to Zimmerman’s case.
        The fact that Shellie has perjured herself has not that much to do with the reason Zimmerman has been charged of killing Trayvon Martin, but it is related because both Shellie and George have demonstrated by lying about the funds available to them (even if George didn’t open his mouth. . ..it is obviously lying by omission!) and that they lied about the second passport simply means that they do not hesitate to lie to a judge and even to the attorney charged to defend George!

        I’m pretty sure O’Mara is NOT overjoyed by this. . .
        But, you have demonstrated before that you spin delusions in what you think is gold. . .and that very few people get fooled by that “fools’ gold!”

        Reply ↓

    • So what exactly IS “entrapment”. These legal terms have definitions.

      “Entrapment” requires the perpetrator to have committed the crime as a result of ENCOURAGEMENT or INDUCEMENT by a law enforcement officer or a person cooperating with a law enforcement officer.

      Was Shellie encouraged or induced by a law enforcement officer to lie to the court? No. She was under oath and asked to tell the truth. She was not “encouraged” or “induced” to lie.

      An example of “entrapment” might be if an undercover officer supplies drugs to a person and then talks the person into selling the drugs to someone else for a large sum of money.

      The Florida Statute can be accessed at this website:

      http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/777.201

      The Statute says:

      777.201 Entrapment.—
      (1) A law enforcement officer, a person engaged in cooperation with a law enforcement officer, or a person acting as an agent of a law enforcement officer perpetrates an entrapment if, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of a crime, he or she induces or encourages and, as a direct result, causes another person to engage in conduct constituting such crime by employing methods of persuasion or inducement which create a substantial risk that such crime will be committed by a person other than one who is ready to commit it.
      (2) A person prosecuted for a crime shall be acquitted if the person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her criminal conduct occurred as a result of an entrapment. The issue of entrapment shall be tried by the trier of fact.

      Reply ↓

  16. @ Peter O:
    RE your comment: ”
    PeterO on June 15, 2012 at 3:58 am said:
    HP, before you comment on trust law, talk to your son, the lawyer — people may otherwise think you know what you are talking about when you don’t.

    The original funds, when raised for whatever the purpose stated, can be viewed as a type of trust under the law. Indeed, to prevent tax and possibly criminal repercussions the funds should be formally treated as a trust, which is what O’Mara did. That does not change the fact that the original funds were raised as if in a trust and all O’Mara did was merge the new trust with the old funds to properly account for the original funds and newly raised funds collectively.”

    If that were true, (I believe it is NOT!), Shellie might be in even deeper problems. . .since she could be accused of FRAUD for transferring funds that didn’t belong to her or to George Zimmerman, but belong to a “trust” into her own account and using at least part of that money for paying personal credit card debts as well as paying for living expenses!

    O’Mara ONLY set up a trust days after the bond hearing, days after Zimmerman and Shellie discussed how much money was left (in total) among the different accounts they had set up, and whether or not to use that money for bond!. . .

    And, by the way, when O’Mara set up the trust with the money that had been collected in the paypal account. . .it was no longer there!
    Part of it had been (as we know from that conversation between Shellie and George while he was in jail) transfered to SEVERAL personal accounts (that money was successfully brought into an official trust by O’Mara, under a trustee. . .a former IRS agent), but. . some of the money had ALREADY BEEN SPENT, even BEFORE a trust was established, to pay personal expenses and credit card debts!

    Are you taking us for fools. . .or are you a fool yourself?

    Reply ↓

    • Weren’t we told that all mention of trust law was banned. Or is that only selective?

      Since you want to learn about trusts so much, start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law

      note the part about how a trust can be established: “simply by declaring that the property will henceforth be held for the benefit of the beneficiary.”

      And HP, learn about trusts, perjury, perjury defenses, entrapment and “frame-ups” and other areas of law from your son, the lawyer.

      Reply ↓

  17. You tell him Gabrielle! PeterO, you seem to be grabbing stuff out of thin air and presenting it as facts, even though you must know what you’re saying is not true. It’s really difficult to believe you believe what you say.

    I’m starting to think you might have a cognitive impairment, in which case I feel bad for disputing so much of what you say. But it’s difficult to sympathize with you when you’re consistently saying such mean stuff – not only about DeeDee, but to everyone here who disagrees with your total gibberish.

    Can’t you find a way to lighten up a little and tell the truth, while still conveying your OPINION?

    Reply ↓

    • Constructive Trust: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Constructive+Trust

      constructive trust n. when a person has title to property and/or takes possession of it under circumstances in which he/she is holding it for another, even though there is no formal trust document or agreement, the court may determine that the holder of the title holds it as constructive trustee for the benefit of the intended owner. This may occur through fraud, breach of faith, ignorance, or inadvertence.

      note the words: “or inadvertence.”

      If Shellie became aware, even minutes before the hearing began, of a potential for accusations of misuse of the funds raised, then, even if she doesn’t know the legal term, the issue of a constructive trust arose.

      Shellie may be able to use that as a good defense as to why she, by the time of her testimony, came to believe the raised funds were not “accessible” for bond, no matter if she had signatory power on an account, or not.

      As I said before, her main defense is that she answered the question as to the CURRENT funds correctly once the State set it’s perjury trap by asking for the amount of funds available “RIGHT NOW.” The State made a mockery of the hearing by withholding the information they had from the tapes (135k available FOUR DAYS PREVIOUSLY) when they knew Judge Lester viewed knowing that amount to be so important (if you can believe Judge Lester).

      At this point I think voters should look closely at Judge Lester when he comes up for re-election. I cannot believe he was so naive as to allow the State to make a mockery of his proceedings by pulling such a flagrant perjury entrapment scheme.

      Ignore the above if you want to. Do we have to keep repeating the trust issue?

      HP, talk to your son the lawyer. Please.

      Reply ↓

      • And if we believe that fairy tale. . .will you try to sell us the London Bridge or Big Ben?
        Why don’t you just give it up!
        You are somehow trying to establish another “you can’t prove she intended to perjure herself beyond reasonable doubt,” and I’m telling you. . .if anyone has “doubts” about Shellie’s perjury. . .it is in NO WAY “reasonable!”

        Why don’t you drop it? You are the one who was complaining about this perjury issue clouding the water of the true case for the next year. . .

        Then why are YOU keeping it going by your silly fantasies? Get over it!

        Reply ↓

    • PeterO, there is no friggin’ “trust issue.” The horse is dead already.

      In fact, I hereby promise to resign from the bar and never practice law again if there is in fact the tiniest shred of a possibility that the paypal funds were held in a “constructive trust” at the time of the bond hearing, thereby (somehow) making Shellie’s statements not lies. Also I will give you ten million dollars.

      Reply ↓

    • Susan, maybe I will get rich now? I certainly have not before this!

      I guess we can agree to differ … about trust law, perjury defenses (Shellie is, after all innocent until proven guilty) and other matters, such as DeeDee.

      Let’s hear Shellie’s defenses from her attorney.

      How this sideshow helps the State still escapes me, given the insurmountable problems they appear to have with their case.

      Reply ↓

    • DSS, I hate to encourage you … but, you said:

      “You are somehow trying to establish another “you can’t prove she intended to perjure herself beyond reasonable doubt,””

      I believe you meant to say:

      “You are somehow trying to establish another “you can’t prove she perjured herself beyond reasonable doubt,””

      The concept is “innocent until proven guilty” and it is her attorney who will say to a jury “the State can’t prove she perjured herself beyond reasonable doubt.”

      Reply ↓

    • Peter, I’m not going to ask my son. He’s not involved in our conversation. His work doesn’t pertain to this case. He’s not an estate attorney. He’s not a criminal attorney.

      If you’d like to pay for another attorney’s opinion (besides the one you’re already getting free from Susan), go find one yourself.

      Susan has informed you that the issue is dead.

      Reply ↓

    • HP, you said:

      “Peter, I’m not going to ask my son…. His work doesn’t pertain to this case. He’s not an estate attorney. He’s not a criminal attorney.”

      With all due respect to Susan (who can take it “on the chin” with the best of them), her background states:

      “Her interests include trade law, international tribunal procedure, feminist jurisprudence, and Judge Posner. She can beat you in Halo.”

      If your son is really an attorney, I am sure he certainly would help you. Why doesn’t he?

      The problem with your “comments” are that they are frequently abusive and they repeatedly misrepresent others’ comments so that you can (not so cleverly) “demolish” the argument never raised. Stick to your arguments alone and skip the abusive, snide comments such as “Thanks Susan. I think that means there wasn’t a trust,” which you know I never meant or said.

      Reply ↓

  18. During the bond hearing, did either the state or Mark O’Mara ask either George or Shellie if any of the money collected online could be used to post bond or be combined with other monies to cover it?

    (I really don’t want to sit through the horrible audio on the WRAL link again)

    unitron

    Reply ↓

  20. PeterO, I will try harder to not be abusive to you, and I apologize if I have been abusive to you in the past. I will continue to disagree when I think you are wrong.

    I will do my best to ignore any further comments you may have about my family.

    Unitron, thanks for the wake-up call.

    Reply ↓

    • HP, I do not mind debate on issues. It hones arguments. In reality, I hope both the prosecution and defense are reading this blog since there are good ideas on both sides. I only “tweaked” you a little to hopefully have you realize that it is better to debate issues through argument and counter-argument and to avoid misstating arguments as argument. Say hello to your son for me!

      Reply ↓

  21. Hi Peter. Thanks for your comments. I really didn’t intend to misstate your arguments, but it may be better for me to avoid addressing your arguments specifically in the future – other than to just say that I disagree, of course 😉

    Reply ↓

  22. I have a question for the lawyers that goes to the heart of this for me. Now that we have a lot of the discovery, and are about to have most of the remaining from the GZ interviews. Why is the oath taken by SZ interpreted differently that the oath taken but Det. Gilbreath, Det. O”Steen, and Prosecutor Corey for the Probable Cause Affidavit, and Det Gilbreath on the stand. Particularly in reference to injuries to Martin and Zimmerman now that we know they knew about injuries to both. Shouldn’t that have been included in the PC Affidavit if that is in fact the same standard, or Det. Gilbreath talking around the issue if injuries when questioned by O’Mara, in a similar manner as SZ did with the money when we now know he did have access to at least the pictures of GZ and the autopsy of Martin when he swore to the document and was questioned on the stand by O’Mara. If that is in fact the standard for one then why shouldn’t that be the standard for all.

    Reply ↓

    • There is no proof that Gilbrath was aware of the doctor’s report that a Zimmerman had a *LIKELY* broken nose. Zimmerman refused treatment (and by virtue of refusing treatment, an X-ray of his nose). Personally, I think Zimmerman’s nose was probably broken long before the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident. Previous pictures of George Zimmerman (like his linkedin page while working at the mortgage risk co) show a crooked nose. I also think Zimmerman’s head injuries were re-openings of previous scalp injuries in light of the paramedics statements that the blood on Zimmerman’s head was dried and painful as she treated them as she picked open the dried blood areas (scabs?).

      Reply ↓

    • Gilbreath and O’Steen prepared the affidavit of probable cause together. They only have to give half truths in order for the affidavit to form a whole truth. It is a simple matter of arithmetic.

      Reply ↓

  23. Response to: “You do realize that it was Lester that suggested they charge SZ with perjury. Right?”

    This response also relates to Inspector G’s (rhetorical, I think) question above — of course relative truths and lies are supposed to be measured and hopefully will be at trial by a jury.

    Reality check concerning Judge Lester:

    He knows far less about the case than most commentors on this site do.

    At the bond hearing the State was to present its arguments and witnesses in favor of reasons to not bond Zimmerman out. What happened? O’Mara turned the hearing into disclosure of the probable cause affidavit and questioned Gilbreath. That’s it as far as “evidence” on the merits of the case are concerned for that hearing and what Lester was supposed to base his bond decision on.

    Unfortunately, many place too much weight on the discerning ability of judges, who are human and make many mistakes including, sometimes, deliberate ones. Ask yourself does anyone believe that based on the show presented at the bond hearing, and with the outside knowledge they know now, that the State has a “strong” case based on that hearing alone? Most trained legal experts, and much of the public (as polls show), don’t believe that for a second.

    Judge Lester has two strikes against him in the fairness department already:

    1. In order to arbitrarily change the scope of his discretion (and give himself “powers” the law normally didn’t permit him to have under the “Arthur standards” for bond) he changed his ruling from what he said at the actual hearing to instead say the State had a “strong” case (based solely on the bond hearing evidence which, in effect, was the probable cause case). So his “ruling” the case was “strong” has to be taken with a large grain of salt. You, the reader probably know more about the case than he does!

    2. It is apparent that the State, at the time of the hearing, knew how much had been raised by the Zimmerman website from the tapes (they had “broken” the “code”). Yet, they concealed that amount from Judge Lester. The Judge never said a word about the State withholding the very information the State and Lester considered so “critical” to the bond decision. The State was as at least as “guilty” as the Zimmermans in terms of withholding “critical” information from the Judge. The State acted in a manner that shows they were more interested in entrapping Shellie Z, by using ambiguous questions stating “right now” instead of “four days ago” and it edited out a key part of her testimony from the transcript to charge her (note the similarity to the NBC scandal where NBC edited the dispatcher tape to portray Zimmerman as a racist).

    The bond process was misused by the State. And Judge Lester let the State get away with it. He should have said something. A jury will hear all sides, including that the State had the very information it contends was so important, yet concealed it at the hearing.

    Don’t place too much weight on Judge Lester’s recent judgement on the facts of the case because a jury will make the ultimate decision and you know more than he does about the full scope of the facts.

    One last point: many seem to think there is something O’Mara can do about biased actions by Judge Lester. The practical reality of our legal system is that O’Mara has to “grin and bear it.” There is not much he can do about bad decisions by the Judge at this point.

    From a practical point of view, O’Mara has to ‘cater’ to the whims of the Judge as much as he can — even if he disagrees strongly. At this stage, there is no practical way to fight bad rulings by appealing, which would take months, extensive extra effort, lengthen his client’s incarceration, and disrupt the normal steps to trial.

    All O’Mara can do now is just to keep a record of what happened; a “scorecard” that may or may not be later useful. Practically, O’Mara wants to get Zimmerman out of jail on bond as quickly as possible (which means giving Judge Lester a small “pound of Zimmerman’s flesh” by delaying his request for bond to appease the Judge). To try to fight the battle of the poor way the bond matter was handled, would only be counter-productive and keep Zimmerman in jail longer, a pyritic victory.

    If bail is denied, O’Mara will appeal. If bail is granted at a higher amount, O’Mara “grins and bears it” and Zimmerman pays the higher bond. Judge Lester then looks “vindicated.” O’Mara will not appeal higher bond and Judge Lester will have “punished” Zimmerman.

    Reply ↓

  24. Here is an interesting response by a Judge to a question in the Casey case about what is needed to convict for murder: http://www.wesh.com/news/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/Ask-The-Judge-Casey-s-Lunch-Hung-Jury/-/13479888/13133250/-/item/1/-/bovh1g/-/index.html

    “Dear Judge Eaton: Since this is a case based on circumstantial evidence, can the prosecution even get a murder conviction or is it simply a high-water mark so that the prosecution can accept a plea deal with a life sentence? — A.J., Melbourne, Fla.

    A conviction can be based upon circumstantial evidence. In a circumstantial evidence case, the jury will be instructed that the circumstances themselves must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that if the circumstances are capable of two constructions, one indicating guilt and one indicating innocence, the jury must select the construction indicating innocence. — Judge O.H. Eaton”

    Reply ↓

  25. I think Judge Lester has acted appropriately, justifiably, and according to the law in revoking Zimmerman’s bond. At the first bond hearing, the bond was determined from misinformation presented to the court.

    Florida statutes, Rule 3.131 Pretrial Release:
    (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 IN 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.
    (caps mine)

    I think the judge’s actions met all these conditions absolutely.

    Also, is there any evidence that the prosecution had possession of the jail tapes before the 1st bond hearing? I’m not aware of any. My understanding is that all of this was investigated after O’Mara informed the court of his own client’s failure to inform the court.

    Reply ↓

    • HP, my criticism about Judge Lester was how he handled the whole bond issue. I don’t disagree he has power to revoke bond.

      Here is the link you had posted earlier that has a good explanation of an Arthur hearing (I assume we agree that type of hearing is used for murder): http://www.ericmathenylaw.com/Criminal-Defense-Blog/2010/May/Arthur-Hearings.aspx

      Referring to the above site as a good layman’s description of the process, the issue of a judge saying a case is “strong” is sufficient for the Court to begin to look at other factors. My problem with Judge Lester, and as stated by Jeralyn

      “George Zimmerman: Written Order vs. Oral Ruling at Bail Hearing” http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/13/13212/2614e

      was that looking at the hearing Judge Lester never made the finding the case was “strong.” He could have had a hearing on raising bond or revocation without revising his order from the hearing and saying the case was now “strong.” It would have been appropriate to do so if it looked as though the State itself ALSO withheld the information from him.

      Moreover, the evidence presented at the bond hearing was basically the probable cause affidavit (and Gilbreath’s testimony on it). Obviously, it wasn’t a real trial at that stage, but there has been a lot of criticism that even the probable cause affidavit had serious problems. So the criticism that simply the issue of funds available for bond, when the State was told that the brother-in-law had the website totals and was available to give the numbers, and it was likely so did the State, seemed like a bogus issue concerning suddenly turning the case to a “strong” case, and thereby giving Judge Lester more “power.” That was the criticism.

      Regarding what the State knew about the tapes. Yes, there is no evidence the State knew. But, remember, there was no bond revocation hearing and no prior warning to O’Mara on the issue, so he had NO opportunity to question the State if they, in fact, knew the amount on the day of the hearing. That is an obvious reason why the State rushed the bond revocation issue to prevent them having to answer that key question. No one asked the State because O’Mara was not given a chance to ask them. You can be sure the State, at some point, will be asked it. It will be interesting to see if O’Mara asks the question at the upcoming bond hearing.

      How do I know the State knew? Simple common sense. The State routinely listens to jail house tapes for high profile cases. Indeed, it would have been negligent for a prosecutor NOT to have listened to the tapes to find a way to keep Zimmerman in jail — such surveillance is normal. The tapes were FOUR DAYS OLD, so even if they weren’t transcribed yet, someone had to have listened to them.

      I will go one step further, it is looks very suspicious that the only tapes they used were four days earlier, but nothing within the next four days. Was there information on the tapes in the four missing later days that was exonerating, such as concern about how the money could be used or a reason why control of the website was passed to the brother-in-law because of concerns? We have to wait to see. But I don’t trust the State at all.

      Reply ↓

  26. Hubris. I would like to know anyone’s take of the hubris George Zimmerman described in his rant against the police in 2011 when he claims he took a ride-along with a Sanford police officer. Did he really expect to be included in real police work? If he did, what were the official rules he was given by SPD to ensure he didn’t interfere with the SPD’s work? I doubt SPD would allow a civilian wannabe to ride-along unless the officer’s calendar was first filled with non-official police duty — like attending retirement ceremonies, doing PR work at neighborhood schools, etc, or as off-duty SPD personnel doing some sort of volunteer civic/community charity.

    Reply ↓

  27. I founf this to be a good question asked at another blog, but unanswered. Why would SFD officer Smith put in his report that he overheard Zimmerman telling the paramedics that he was screaming for help but all the paramedics say they never heard Zimmerman saying that?

    Reply ↓

    • Denied or didn’t remember? One of the paramedics said he wasn’t sure about some of the events that night, there were several paramedics there. They had multiple calls the same night. Grist for the jury mill.

      Reply ↓

    • It’s odd, but not necessarily significant. Firefighters are not necessarily trained to pay attention to a crime scene, or to recognize what might be significant to an investigation.

      Plus, while some of the firefighters/paramedics say Zimmerman didn’t make any statements at all, another says “Zimmerman was complaining of his injuries. He didn’t say a whole lot while she was there,” indicating he was talking at least a little.

      Then again, we know that cops were informing witnesses on the night of the shooting that “the one calling for help isn’t the one that died.” It’s hard to tell how else they would have come to that conclusion unless Zimmerman himself indicated something to that effect.

      Reply ↓

    • The paramedics and firefighters were interviewed about a month after the shooting by the FDLE. I got the distinct impression that they didn’t have much actual recollection. Their job is to get the patient to the hospital as soon as possible, which depends on them being highly trained in knowing what to do. A lot of their answers seemed to really being saying “that is what I’m trained to do, so that is what I did that night”. The closest to an independent recollection that they had was one firefighter remember removing a can from Martin’s sweatshirt (there is also a police officer report that said he had felt the can – but it doesn’t actually say he had removed it). And the police would have had the shirt up, because one had made a sort of valve out of a plastic bag so that air wouldn’t escape through the bullet hole during CPR. Perhaps the shirt was rolled back after Martin was declared dead (there was little or no blood from the entry wound).

      It doesn’t sound as if the paramedics or firefighters ever actually did any sort of resuscitation on Martin, but simply put the heart monitor on to confirm that he was dead (the police had attempted resuscitation and were doing so when the paramedics arrived).

      There were 5 firefighters/paramedics who arrived in a rescue unit (ambulance) and an engine. They had been returning from another call when they were diverted. At least where I live, the normal practice is to send an engine with an ambulance, at least if one is available. One of the 5 was a Lieutenant whose job was to supervise the whole scene – but mainly act as facilitator if they needed anything.

      3 of the others were involved with treating Zimmerman. One firefighter cleaned the head wounds; another said he put hydrogen peroxide on gauze and handed it to the other firefighter. The head medic in his treatment report made that night said that Zimmerman described the wounds. I get the impression that he would have been making any diagnoses and determining what treatment was necessary. He probably would be the one who determined that stitches were advised.

      The treatment report says “patient says that he was assaulted and his head was struck on the pavement”. It is not like that Zimmerman literally said, “I was assaulted and my head was struck on the pavement” There would be no reason to report the calls for help in a medical report, unless there was an injury to the larynx.

      The head medic, Michael Brandy, is the only one who reported that Zimmerman was in the back of the police car, and that he requested that he be allowed to swing his legs out. He is the only one to report that Zimmerman stood up to allow them to check for other injuries – including lifting his shirt. It is reasonable that they would have straightened his clothing, since he was handcuffed. The other two who treated Zimmerman only report that Zimmerman was sitting sideways in the back seat with his legs out, and that they had cleaned the blood off and cleaned up his head wounds (one simply handed gauze with H202 to the other).

      So it would appear that Michael Brandy did the actual medical evaluation – which would be his role – and then turned over cleaning to the others. He probably had to complete the medical reports for both Martin and Zimmerman.

      In his interview, Brandy says Zimmerman never said how he was injured, In his report the night of treatment, he wrote that Zimmerman had “stated he had been assaulted and his head had been struck on the pavement.”

      Brandy may simply have been asked a question in a way that caused him to blank out on something that happened a month earlier. If a patient is conscious, the first thing you would do is ask them how they sustained their injuries, and where are they hurting.

      One of the other firefighters said that Zimmerman had mentioned that he felt dizzy, but that his vision was not blurred, and his speech did not seem blurred. Brandy wrote in his report that there had been no loss of consciousness. This would depend on a verbal report from Zimmerman.

      Brandy was asked, “Did he make any statements as to how he received his injuries.” The word *statement* has certain connotations, particularly when asked by law enforcement agents as part of an investigation. The FDLE agents may interpret *statement* to mean anything said. “I’d like mayo on my burger” is a statement. They also asked whether Martin had made any statements. There was also an alarm going off at the fire station at this point in the interview.

      Police officer T Smith likely would have mirandized Zimmerman when he put the cuffs on him. Patrol officers are probably told not to interrogate witnesses, there is not a controlled situation, where the interview can be recorded, and others observe. But they would be told to observe and listen for any spontaneous statements.

      Whether or not Zimmerman called for help, would have no impact on his treatment, and could simply be considered extraneous information by the paramedics. It would be considered relevant information by the police.

      Reply ↓

    • Not only did Stacey Livingston report that Zimmerman had spoken, but that his speech was not slurred. She was the driver on the engine unit, and cleaned his head wounds. She reported that Zimmerman had indicated pain when she had to press harder to clean dried blood. The driver on the rescue unit Kevin O’Rourke, simply put H202 on gauze and handed it to her. They were performing first aid, almost certainly under the direction of Michael Brandy. While the others are likely trained well enough to do a preliminary evaluation (eg an instance of multiple severe injuries, they would not do so in a a case of serial treatment – and they spent about one minute with Martin’s body.

      Brandy made the report the night of the shooting. It says that the “patient states he was assaulted and his head was struck on the pavement”. This is likely a paraphrase. It would be irrelevant to treatment why Martin had assaulted Zimmerman, or what his reaction to that assault had been.

      Brandy is the only one who reported that Zimmerman was in the back of the police car, and that it was at his request that Zimmerman was permitted to swing his legs out. He is the only one to mention that Zimmerman had been stood up. He did not initially report this in the interview, but when he later did, the sequence was (1) have Zimmerman swing his legs out; (2) evaluate his head injuries; (3) Stand him up and lift his shirt up to check for other injuries; (4) Cleaned his head injuries,.

      “We evaluated”, likely means “I evaluated”
      “We cleaned him up” likely means “Livingston and O’Rourke cleaned him up”
      “We” is used because of their team effort.

      His evaluation may have begun while the others were stowing their equipment after returning from Martin’s body. Zimmerman was in police custody at that moment, so it would be quite likely that T Smith opened the door to his patrol car and directed Zimmerman to swing his legs out, and later to stand up.

      The treatment report also says that “Patient denies lost of consciousness, neck/back pain, and he has + PMS x 4 with – paresthesia”. So Zimmerman was asked whether he had been knocked out, whether he had any neck or back pain, and checked for pulse, motor, and sensation in all all 4 extremities. Sensation would be tested by having Zimmerman indicate whether he could feel being touched. Paresthesia would have had to been reported by Zimmerman.

      (1) So Brandy walks up and sees Zimmerman in back of patrol car.
      (2) Brandy asks T Smith if Zimmerman can swing his legs out.
      (3) T Smith opens door of his car, and directs person under his immediate custody to swing his legs out. Zimmerman complies.
      (4) Brandy begins to evaluate Zimmerman, notes head injuries, asks him how he got injuries, checks for any symptoms of concussion. He asks various questions – medical report includes Zimmerman’s birthdate, allergies, medication.
      (5) Zimmerman says he was attacked, the other man was beating his head into the concrete, I cried for help but no one answered.

      Brandy hears: Patient assaulted and his head beaten against pavement – and thinks I need to particularly evaluate for concussion.
      T Smith hears: Zimmerman was crying for help and no one answered. (he already knew that Zimmerman had injuries to the back of his head, from when he hand cuffed him).

      Note on the treatment report, Brandy is EMT-Paramedic; while O’Rourke is EMT-Basic. Livingston was the driver of the engine. She likely has some basic medical training, but is primarily a firefighter.

      Reply ↓

  28. Someone asked about whether or not Zimmerman was adopted. It was reported early on that Zimmerman’s mother remarried Robert Zimmerman and that Robert Zimmerman is George Zimmerman’s stepfather. Those reports have since dried up and/or been deleted. There is no proof either way that George Zimmerman is Robert Zimmerman’s natural born child or if he’s a Zimmerman based on his mother’s remarriage and name changes/adoption of her children.

    I don’t think it matters all that much, but I will bring it up every time someone tries to bring up Tracey Martin’s divorce, remarriage, fiance or Ms. Fulton’s parenting skills while raising of her son in a single-parent household.

    This is not a “one life to live” or “all my children” soap opera/drama. This is a real life minor being gunned down/executed by a neighborhood vigilante after going to the neighborhood candy store after buying snacks.

    Reply ↓

    • Reuters reported that Robert Zimmerman, Sr. and Gladys Meza met in 1975 in Virginia. She was visiting from Peru, and her brother knew Robert who spent the last 10 years or so of his military career working at the Pentagon. They were married “soon after”. I’m sure you could locate the marriage certificate if wanted to spend a little effort and perhaps money. George Zimmerman was born in 1983. He likely has a birth certificate, since he has (had) a passport.

      If you were to use a little common sense for a change, what you really mean by “no proof either way”, is that you may have read a rumor somewhere on the web, and since you can not locate them now.

      Reply ↓

    • You’re right. I read it online just as you read your information from Reuters — probably online. I concede that it was probably rumor.

      And before you go tripping down some credible sources path… ABC reported that Trayvon Martin may have made a 9-1-1 call himself. That story was picked up by other news sources. The story turned out to be false and instead of a retraction from ABC, the story disappeared. Unfortunately, that’s how it works in this day and age.

      As to the rest of your comment, I have no desire to poke my nose into other people’s bedrooms, so it wouldn’t be common sense for me to know a whole lot about the Zimmerman’s marriage, his parents’ marriage, his sisters marriage or any of them. I’m not interested.

      Now can you explain why you’re bringing up stuff like this or how it is relevant to discussion of this murder case?

      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?”

      jimrtex
      on June 3, 2012 at 7:24 pm said:
      “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 ↓

    • “Now can you explain why you’re bringing up stuff like this or how it is relevant to discussion of this murder case?”

      Sandbagger had suggested that it would be funny if all the money that had been contributed to Zimmerman’s defense ended up in Tracy Martin’s pockets.

      I responded that it would be even funnier if it went to Tracy Martin’s wife as part of the divorce settlement.

      HTH. HAND.

      Reply ↓

  29. @CommonSense,

    That’s the first I’d heard that about the paramedics’ statements. I don’t have time to listen to the audio right now, but thanks for this info!

    Just for anyone’s information, Shellie Zimmerman’s arraignment is July 31.

    Reply ↓

    • If Zimmerman apologizes to the judge and admits wrongdoing/deception at his bond hearing on June 29, doesn’t this affect Shellie’s case?

      .

      Reply ↓

    • No. The reality is that it is expected, and normal, for him not to testify at a bond proceedings so the State cannot get information for the main trial. It was surprising, and probably ill-advised — he was following his own advice — to even make a statement to the Martins at the bond hearing, since the results were predicable.

      Reply ↓

  31. One interesting twist is how the State handles the many criticisms raised against its own investigation. As one example, there has been much criticism that Zimmerman should have been tested for alcohol or drugs that night. But how does the State raise that issue when to raise it would undercut its own case by raising doubts about its competence concerning evidence and guilt theories? It doesn’t look like they can do this.

    The reality is that Zimmerman’s defense would likely raise the issue of criticizing the State’s handling of the case. For example, the defense could contend that Zimmerman, if tested that night, would have passed with flying colors (thereby helping his case) but wasn’t tested, to raise a reasonable doubt. Of course the State could bring up he didn’t want to go to the hospital, and so on.

    Probably, O’Mara will grab on to the issue of the State’s competence — given its extensive coverage in the media — and play up what the State didn’t do that would have exonerated Zimmerman, to raise doubt.

    Reply ↓

    • One other example that may be a big issue for Zimmerman is the State’s failure to test the hoodie for drug residue.

      I know the anti-Z persons will cry foul over this, but the reality is that drugs are a defense issue at trial, to explain why Zimmerman was suspicious based on erratic behavior and why Martin would have run — for fear the police may have been called while he was carrying weed, after he had been twice suspended from school for drugs.

      Reply ↓

  32. Am I missing something here? What weed? Did Trayvon have weed on his person that night, cause I’m not remembering nor finding that as a truth.

    Reply ↓

    • Hi HP.

      The defense will, for purposes of reasonable doubt, contend that Martin was using or had on him for later use, some weed.

      It will offer that situation as a reason for Martin running and acting suspiciously enough to call the dispatcher. At the same time the defense can raise other reasons, of course.

      Remember, these are just theories the defense is likely to raise in order to cause reasonable doubt. If you look at the Casey Anthony case or even the O.J. Simpson case you can see how defense lawyers operate.

      The defense will raise the theory that when Martin ran, he reached the Brandy unit and hid or dropped off anything incriminating and then, because he was angry with the short white guy on the phone for staring at him and possible snitching on him by calling the police, doubled back and the confrontation happened when he saw Zimmerman alone. It’s a theory that the defense will offer as enough to cause reasonable doubt.

      The defense will claim that the State screwed up the entire investigation by NOT testing the hoodie for drug residue either through carelessness or deliberately because they smelled or suspected weed, particularly after the State knew Martin had THC in his system when the hoodie should have been tested immediately.

      Remember HP, I am only raising theories the defense will raise to bring doubt to the jurors minds. I can see you disagree that the above scenario is likely. However, the defense is trying to raise doubt only and does not need to prove its theories by a preponderance of evidence. The jury will then decide.

      Reply ↓

    • HP, with all due respect, there is no law stopping the defense from advancing any theory they want, no matter how farfetched, since it their right to do so.

      Once advanced, the issue then becomes if the jurors believe the defense theory is reasonable enough to raise reasonable doubt. If they think it is too farfetched (as you so believe) then they will ignore it — and the defense theory didn’t work.

      Reply ↓

    • HP, with all due respect, there is no law stopping the defense from advancing any theory they want, no matter how farfetched, since it their right to do so.

      Wait — you mean I can just make up any old theory I feel like, and present it to the court as a possibility, no matter how prejudicial or scurrilous, even if I don’t actually have any evidence to support it?

      Damn, I’ve been doing it wrong all this time and didn’t even know it!

      Reply ↓

    • Susan,

      Why not, Anthony’s attorney did exactly that to her father, Myself and most people I know thought he was stupid to do it, then he he never mentioned it again during the trial. We were left scratching our heads when the verdict came out. In this case O’Mara has some THC is Martin’s blood, and a suspension for drug residue in his backpack, why wouldn’t O’Mara use it during the trial. If this were a Theoretical Martin trial, Martins lawyer claiming self defense would be using the medicines that Zimmerman was prescribed to paint him as paranoid, and it would probably work to bring reasonable doubt to the States case against Martin defending himself from Zimmerman and killing him in the process.

      For no one in particular,

      As I have said before if Martin had Killed Zimmerman by bashing his head in, in self defense, I would still be on the side of the person claiming self defense because I believe he would have just as much right to the protections of FL law that Zimmerman is supposed to have. I try to look at any issues involving race first by reversing the races and seeing if that passes the smell test before I decide anything. If all else were the same, Zimmerman were Black, and Martin were White (or White-Hispanic, or hispanically White to the third power, or Asian Australian, or whatever the latest made up racial name Zimmerman is now) it would not make a difference to me one way or another. Justice is supposed to be blind for a reason.

      Reply ↓

    • Susan, are you saying:

      a) The judge will PREVENT the defense from raising the above scenario to the jury; or

      b) The jury will not believe it and convict because the story is so farfetched?

      As you known, there is a HUGE difference. It is unclear from your response which of the above you believe is the case. Fortunately for Zimmerman, a jury will decide that.

      Many, consider the above scenario to be the way it happened. I guess we must be delusional, racists or bigots … or maybe quite rational.

      Incidentally, DeeDee stated Martin reached the Brandy unit, so he had plenty of time to quickly hide or ditch anything incriminating (but he kept the lighter … for campfires?).

      By the time of the trial, every rational person will be asking the question why the State didn’t just simply test the hoodie for drug residue, particularly after the autopsy. And most will assume why: someone smelled it and knew how the test would go.

      Reply ↓

    • You can’t introduce unsupported, prejudicial conjectures during trial as if they were possible fact.

      Sure, you can produce ambiguous evidence and hope the jury takes the bait, starts drawing the inferences you want them to. But you can’t say “Zimmerman left his house that night, perhaps after he got done beating his wife…”

      Trayvon’s tox screen did not show evidence that he had taken any illegal drugs in the hours before his death. Zimmerman’s assumption that Trayvon was on drug was based solely on his observation at the time, not any other external evidence. If Zimmerman takes the stand, he can describe what about Trayvon’s behavior made him suspicious, but that’s it.

      Reply ↓

    • Susan, you said: “You can’t introduce unsupported, prejudicial conjectures during trial as if they were possible fact.”

      Aren’t you talking about a civil trial? If so, I would agree.

      However, we are talking here about a criminal trial, where all the defense has to do is raise a “reasonable doubt.”

      It doesn’t need any “evidence.”

      It only needs to advance a “reasonable” theory to knock a hole in the prosecution’s case, as was done in the Anthony and O.J. Simpson cases (and many others).

      Reply ↓

    • Correction, I should have said:

      “It only needs to advance a theory a jury finds “reasonable” to knock a hole in the prosecution’s case.”

      instead of:

      “It only needs to advance a “reasonable” theory to knock a hole in the prosecution’s case.”

      Reply ↓

    • I guess we have reached an impasse and have to leave the debate to see if Judge Lester, ultimately, allows the above scenario to by offered by O’Mara as argument to the jury.

      As for: “Trayvon’s tox screen did not show evidence that he had taken any illegal drugs in the hours before his death.”

      The screen would not show if he intended to later smoke weed.

      And he was twice suspended from school for drugs, so the defense could assert he was a habitual user to support the theory he had weed on him that night.

      Even the “did not show evidence” part might be disputed by an expert who may say Martin “could have smoked weed earlier in the day,” for purposes of doubt. Or that the State had shoddy autopsy procedures. If I remember correctly, Martin’s mother said Trayvon was 6’3″ not the 5’11” the autopsy report showed (presumably without shoes).

      Reply ↓

  34. I know, I just wonder why its easier to make crap up, than to just accept Zimmerman screwed up. It baffles me to no end.

    Reply ↓

  35. If the defense does raise doubt that Trayvon ran because he weed….Zimmerman still had no right to find out if that was the case. NW is not real job. My understanding is that when you sign up for NW, you don’t get a certificate or badge or even a ceremony…..you just a little powerpoint presentation on how to look out and call the police. No one want’s Joe Blow to run around chasing our kids in our own neighborhoods. Your theory is not going to work for the defense, because it is still going to come down to he pursued. Zimmerman PURSUED. I really don’t think the defense is going to add a reason why he got out of his car and followed Trayvon, because he had no right to do it at all. Once he called the non emergency dispatch, he handed an imaginary situation over to them. At that point, his job was done, he watched, he called. Job over….it’s in the powerpoint presentation.

    Reply ↓

    • Jodi Ann,

      Trayvon Martin was behaving erratically in the 7-11. Remember the loop-d-loop and picking up the imaginary skittle off the floor. He attempted to make an illegal purchase at the store. He may have made a straw purchase. He was immediately adjacent to the store 5 minutes after he had left. Martin may have been going up to houses, just like Mr. Burgess had been observed doing.

      Martin had planned to run once he was behind Zimmerman’s truck and was in the darkened walkway. He put his hood (or at least reported to “DeeDee” that it was up) because he observed someone watching him. He ran so that he was tired, had lost Zimmerman, and had reached where he was staying.

      Zimmerman could not easily observe Martin from his truck. The dispatcher urgently requested to know which way that Martin had run. Zimmerman got out of the truck to observe Martin. Zimmerman did not start moving until 11 seconds after reporting that Martin has started running, so add another couple of seconds.

      The dispatcher was busily typing in the new information that Martin was running towards the back gate, so that he did not recognize immediately that Zimmerman was moving. Martin had longer legs, sneakers, and had hands free. Zimmerman had shorter legs, boots, and was carrying a cell phone and flashlight while talking on the phone, and slowing down after the dispatcher told him that the police didn’t need them to follow Martin.

      A 90 foot lead and 13 second head start does not make “pursuit”. It makes for continuing to observe the person who had all of the sudden started running after several minutes of observation. The time that Martin ran, plus his starting point gets him to where he was staying. The time that Zimmerman shuffled, plus his starting point gets him to the top of the T. They are 120 yards apart at this point.

      The dispatcher was comfortable with Zimmerman remaining in that location.

      Martin returned to an area he had run from 2 or more minutes earlier, and assaulted and battered Zimmerman.

      Reply ↓

  36. Did the 7-Eleven clerk call 911 on this erratic behavior? I mean he was face to face with Trayvon and actually speaking to him, soooooo….

    Reply ↓

    • Jodi Ann,

      The affidavit of probable cause claims that Martin walked to the 7-11 and purchased a can of ice tea and bag of skittles. Can they prove this? They definitely can not prove that he purchased a can of ice tea.

      Do you think they can only replay the portions of the video that support their claim? They will have to show the loop-d-loop and the attempt to purchase an illegal product. And that he was in the immediate vicinity of the store 5 minutes after he “left”.

      Reply ↓

  37. Now that everyone knows Shellie Z is guilty (I guess we don’t even need a trial for that, do we?) a big question is if the “coded” conversations were such devastating proof (of what?), then:

    Why wasn’t George Zimmerman also indicted for obstruction of justice ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice ) or spoliation of evidence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence )?

    Most have already realized that the State has no real case against Zimmerman — and what case it does have rests on DeeDee’s shoulders — so why not also charge Zimmerman with the “slam-dunk” charges to get BOTH him AND his wife? Isn’t this how they got Casey Anthony?

    Does anyone believe that the State was so foolish that it missed NOT prosecuting Zimmerman on the ONLY possible charge(s) that they could ever convict him on?

    After all, we “know” talking in “code” to pervert the bond process was a crime, don’t we? (Wasn’t the State even more guilty of the same “crime” by withholding from the Court the amount they already knew was raised from the website?)

    Or is Angela Corey REALLY so incompetent so as to NOT charge Zimmerman on the only “real” case it has — a “slam-dunk” if you listen to the pundits?

    Reply ↓

  38. I have a question for the Z supporters here. How exactly do you suggest the defense relay this story to the jury? in opening statements? in closing statements? in cross examination (off who exactly)? put Z on the stand? The problem is that the jury is hopefully going to be impartial. You guys are anything but impartial. So your far fetched ideas seem plausible to you. But one thing I have not seen from anyone on this blog do, is for a moment consider that Z is guilty and look at the evidence from the other side. One of the things I challenge the people on this site to do, if you really are interested in a honest discussion of this case is to flip sides and create just as strong case for the prosecution. I will join in and happily change sides and fight for the defense. Maybe then, if you really do this honestly, we can all realize the reality of this case a little better. By no means I am saying that MOM can’t present a possibly strong case of self defense under Fl law. But if I were on the jury and Z was presented to me with the defense that you all have presented here on this blog. Here is what I would see. A racist, gun toting guy with absolutely zero amount of self responsibility. Now I am not sure that is really true about Z, and right now I am not sure what to think of him. But from the way you present him here, I would lock him up for life.

    First off one of the things that has always left a bad taste in my mouth about this guy, and BTW about his supporters, and the case in Texas (he is going down for life), was his immediate use of self defense. There is a old rule, if a guy can sleep the first night in jail, he is guilty.

    Also, as a jury member I would find him guilty if, regardless of all the weed stuff, perusing stuff, on only one thing. If the evidence of the confrontation didn’t PERFECTLY match with Z original story I would convict him. I would not care about character, I would not care about the witness statements, I would not care about deedee or the 911 calls. If I found that the fight didn’t happen EXACTLY the way he described it, I would have absolutely no problem locking him up for life. Frankly I ask all the Z supporters here, if Z’s story is found to be a pack of lies, will you still support him?

    Now I know that you will ask me “if he is found to be telling the truth will I find him innocent?” Yes I will under the law, but I will then support the change of the law, much like what TM parents are doing now. Sorry I know this is a little unfair of an answer. But I, like many on my side don’t think this kind of confrontation should have ever happened. That is a whole other discussion. However I am NOT one of those people that simply because I don’t like a law think that he should go to jail. If he followed the law, and didn’t violate any current Fl law, he is innocent.

    Reply ↓

    • Simply put, if the physical evidence and all the rest perfectly fits with Z’s story that TM punched him and then started to smash his head on the cement and the fight took place in only one location. Then why would you care about the 711 tape? of the profiling, of any of the other stories that you are proselytizing here? All your ideas make it sound like you have a personal problem with black people and that “his type” should always be asked to explain themselves, it sounds like you are all trying to support self defense on racial profiling. I am not sure that is what you are all meaning to do, but that is defiantly what it smells of. And I guarantee that MOM will never present his client to the court like that.

      Reply ↓

    • Sandbagger, I agree that it’s quite possible that if Zimmerman’s story doesn’t match the evidence, he is toast.

      Personally, I think that whoever wins this case, the law needs to be changed. There should be some provision at least, that a person loses their claim of self-defense if there is evidence that the person went after the the victim, and that the victim tried to get away.

      Reply ↓

    • If you were on the jury and you said what you said: “If the evidence of the confrontation didn’t PERFECTLY match with Z original story I would convict him.”

      Any conviction would be reversed on appeal.

      Reply ↓

    • So if a jury said they found that Z had lied to police for 3 days and that nothing he said matched the evidence and that no other plausible story supporting reasonable doubt was presented you think that this is grounds for a appeal? That’s odd. I guess what you are saying is that unless the jury finds him not guilty they are wrong, no matter what the evidence is. Sounds like you have already decided on this case, makes me wonder why you are here, and not over at talkleft with the rest of the people that have already decided this case?

      But let me indulge you a little, because this is something that none of you will answer for me and maybe if you could I might just be swayed to your side of things. “IF” the testimony that Z gave as to the accounts of that night don’t add up to the evidence and his story is useless as a self defense strategy. How do you suggest that MOM can go about presenting an other version of the story without looking like hes just making it up, this situation CAN NOT create reasonable doubt in a jury. Though the burden is on the prosecution, the defense has to create a degree of believability in their case. You seem to think, or at least what I am hearing from you and correct me if I am wrong, that the defense can just keep coming up with different stories to the jury until they find a story that fits. I have never seen this happen before, can you site some case were this has been done? I have always been under the impression that the defense only has one shot to present a case to the jury and that if that case is full of provable lies and cant hold water then they are done and don’t get the chance to simply provide a second case. Am I wrong?

      Reply ↓

    • “In voir dire, you would be asked whether you had followed the case closely. how would you respond?”

      “You answer ALL my questions and I will answer yours, OK.”

      Your questions weren’t worth answering.

      Reply ↓

  39. I’m watching the video now….he puts some skittles and tea on the counter, the cashier scans them, then Trayvon is digging for change. There is some chit chat, and the cashier asks would you like that in a bag, Yes he would…..What is the suspense with this exactly? I don’t see any other merchandise on the counter or in Trayvons hand. Why so much imagination with this case? The cashier looks calm, cool and collected. No worries. Again, what am I missing?

    Reply ↓

  40. In the Casey Anthony case, the defense DID have evidence (not proof) that Caley Anthony drowned accidentally, because one witness told the defense attorney that she witnessed Caley’s body immediately after it was pulled from the pool. That witness was Casey Anthony, and she provided the evidence by claiming to be a witness.

    Claiming that Trayvon had drugs is a totally different situation, because there’s no witness or any other evidence that Trayvon had drugs on him that night. There is evidence that he DIDN’T have drugs on him, because his body was searched. I would guess that when the police learned about Trayvon’s destination, the surroundings were searched as well, which would provide MORE EVIDENCE that Trayvon didn’t stash anything there.

    I can see how the defense has to get over some big humps in their case, and they may attempt to imply a scenario to replace what we already KNOW from the evidence. We know that Trayvon ran AWAY from Zimmerman. We know that Zimmerman exited his vehicle and FOLLOWED Trayvon. We know that Zimmerman brought a loaded weapon with him. We know that Zimmerman thought Trayvon was an A-hole and didn’t have any problem repeating this to the dispatcher. We know Zimmerman called Trayvon an effing something while he went after Trayvon. We know that Trayvon was not committing any crime.

    Admissible evidence tells us all of the above. It might also be admissable that Zimmerman has a violent history (Trayvon did not), and Zimmerman doesn’t mind deceiving the court. Those are also FACTS.

    OK. We have all of those FACTS that provide a pretty simple image of an angry guy with a violent record and a loaded gun going after an innocent kid that’s trying to run away from him, and then the kid is killed, and the guy admits shooting him, but claims self-defense..

    People might conclude that somehow the defense has to come up with a story to compete with the FACTS that we already know. A competing image would be an angry Trayvon Martin, who attacked poor Zimmerman the victim.

    That’s a very tall order. I’m not sure the defense will even go that route. They might try. Even if they could do this, there was no reason for Trayvon to run from the police if he had drugs. The police couldn’t have DONE anything to him. They couldn’t have searched him or arrested him. Therefore, it’s not a logical reason for Trayvon to run.

    A logical reason for Trayvon to run was because he was legitimately afraid of Zimmerman. How do we know this fear was legitimate? Because Trayvon is dead.

    Reply ↓

    • I really don’t think “fear” is the word. I think” freaked” is more like it. How many freaky people do you see where you just cross the street to get away from them, but keep your eye on them, either for curiosity or just to make sure nothing odd happens? If only God would give us a play book, and let us know that the odd man, thinks we are an ass who he doesn’t want to get away…..then we at least have a heads up on what we would do next.

      Reply ↓

  41. And with “circumstantial evidence” the jury must decide if Zimmerman, who is the only true witness, is credible. So far, not so good.

    Reply ↓

  42. I don’t know whether or not the defense will present their own scenario of events leading up to Trayvon’s death.

    I do think the defense will try to focus on the point in time when Zimmerman pulled the trigger and why he did so. I think they will try to make the case that at that very moment in time, Zimmerman had to kill Trayvon. If the jury doesn’t believe the defense’s claims pertaining to that moment are possible, Zimmerman won’t win the case. If the jury believes the defense’s claims are possible – but not necessarily true – Zimmerman MIGHT win the case, or he might not.

    At that point, I think the decision will depend on the character of the jury, the other evidence presented in the case, Zimmerman’s established credibility, and deliberation instructions from the judge.

    Even if all of the evidence is circumstantial, this is legally enough – if the jury thinks it’s enough.

    I

    Reply ↓

    • I’m not sure, but I think that if the defense tries to bring evidence of Zimmerman’s credibility into the trial, then the prosecution can bring up evidence that Zimmerman is NOT credible. That evidence might include Zimmerman’s bond hearing.

      It seems to me that Zimmerman REALLY blew it with that bond hearing, because establishing credibility would have helped him so much at his trial. After all, it’s only HIS story that this was self-defense, and in the face all of the facts that we already know.

      Whatever else is true, Zimmerman is not the sharpest tool in the toolbox.

      And I can’t get over that now he’s taken his wife down with him, just so maybe he wouldn’t have to spend money that someone else gave him for free. What a guy.

      Reply ↓

  43. I think the magic words from O’Mara’s own mouth in regards to the bond hearing were “We feel the failure to disclose these funds was caused by fear, mistrust, and confusion”….if that’s his reply in regards to money, could it not also be a reaction in coming in contact with a teenager, in a dark back cut, whom he had created an illusion of criminal intent or harm in his neighborhood? Maybe even with the words that come out of his mouth in all his statements in a scary police station after killing an unarmed kid? “Fear, mistrust, and confusion” might be a pattern to show that Zimmerman is always covering his ass, thus creating more credibility issues for him.

    Reply ↓

    • Look at O’Mara’s words. He doesn’t admit anyone lied, only that someone [who?] didn’t go the extra mile to volunteer the information.

      Hardly, an admission to any crime — not that O’Mara could “confess” for SZ or GZ in any event.

      The State itself never “apologized” for not telling the Judge they already knew the amount raised from the tapes and disclosing it; nor for not simply asking the brother-in-law for the information at the hearing.

      Instead the State was just interested in entrapping a dubious perjury charge from Shellie Z. If the State had asked the brother in law for the amount raised — Shellie Z testified he had that information — there would be no perjury charge.

      Reply ↓

    • Detective O’Steen claims that he had “reviewed” the official transcript of the bond hearing.

      Did he type the affidavit of probable cause against Shellie Zimmerman? If not, how did O’steen indicate to the person who prepared the affidavit, which parts of the dialogue to include, and which to exclude?

      Question for Susan Simpson, or any other lawyers. Would work product be admissible as evidence, to show the selective editing of the transcript. Or is it OK to omit material portions of the questioning so long as you attach the full transcript on the back?

      Shellie Zimmerman did not know the amount of money in the web account on April 20. She is training to be a R.N. Her training would be to listen carefully to what was being said, and to repeat portions to make sure that she is understands. BDLR asked “right now”. SZ answered, “Currently, I do not know”.

      Did BDLR then ask for an estimate?

      NO. He asked if she did not know the current amount, who would know? She answered truthfully.

      O’Steen misrepresented the questioning. BDLR misrepresented the questioning in his motion for revocation of bond.

      Reply ↓

      • @ Jim and Peter:
        You guys are trying to spin this very clear case of perjury into something that it isn’t!
        The fact that Shellie Zimmerman (and it is a FACT, since we have both the phone records from jail and those from the bond hearing) DIDN’T tell the truth when asked about the amount of money that was in the paypal account or the money that they had at their disposition is NOT the fault of the prosecutor or of OMara. . .it is simply dishonesty from the Zimmermans.

        Shellie Zimmerman was not “framed.” She was given the opportunity to tell the truth, and (if she didn’t understand the “complexity” of the situation with the donation fund (which I don’t believe, as she didn’t seem to find it difficult to transfer money out of that account and into several of hers and even her sister’s!) she could have asked. If she HONESTLY didn’t know the amount of money from the paypal account on the day of the bond hearing, she could have said: “I am not certain what is in the account at this time, but a few days ago there was approximately $135,000 (which would already have been an understatement, since that was what REMAINED in total, in several accounts, AFTER she had already used some money to pay some credit cards and some “personal expenses.”). But if you need an exact figure, you can contact my brother in law who would know the exact amount.”
        But that would have been a lie also, wouldn’t it? Since that money was already split between the several accounts and was dissapearing FAST!.

        You can continue to spin silly “possibilities,” and at the same time try to tarnish the legal system, but it is certain that it will not keep that legal system to come to an appropriate judgement in this case.

        Reply ↓

    • Danielle.

      Are you a US citizen? Are you aware that in the United States that a court proceeding is not a collaborative process, but rather an adversarial process?

      Since you are fantasizing how you would have responded to one question. How would you have responded to these question:

      BDLR: You stated that you don’t believe your husband is a danger to the community, is that correct?

      BDLR: Ma’am would you not agree that your husband has a prior violent history?

      BDLR: You are not aware that he was arrested for a violent crime in Orange County?

      BDLR: Did that not in some way involve striking or battering a law enforcement officer?

      BDLR: Would you agree that incident in 2005 shows prior violence on the part of your husband, Mr. Zimmerman.

      Reply ↓

  44. I beg to differ, from O’Mara himself: “The audio recordings of Mr. Zimmerman’s phone conversations while in jail make it clear that Mr. Zimmerman knew a significant sum had been raised by his original fundraising website. We feel the failure to disclose these funds was caused by fear, mistrust, and confusion. The gravity of this mistake has been distinctly illustrated, and Mr. Zimmerman understands that this mistake has undermined his credibility, which he will have to work to repair.”

    Reply ↓

    • Jodi, look at what he says and what he doesn’t say.

      He doesn’t admit anyone lied, only that someone [who?] didn’t go the extra mile to volunteer the information.

      Note: he says “fear, mistrust, and confusion.” Which is it? By whom? It’s a very lawyerly statement that is carefully worded to not admit anything.

      Reply ↓

    • To add to the above:

      ““The audio recordings of Mr. Zimmerman’s phone conversations while in jail make it clear that Mr. Zimmerman knew a significant sum had been raised by his original fundraising website.”

      So what? So did the State from the tapes. It also knew the amount, probably a more up-to-date value than Shellie did at the time.

      Reply ↓

    • I think Jodi Ann makes a very good point. Is “fear, distrust, and confusion” a pattern with Zimmerman?

      I notice O’Mara doesn’t say “fear, distrust, OR confusion”. He says “fear, distrust, AND confusion”, so it’s not a question of “which” one he meant. He meant all three.

      My understanding is that the State didn’t know about the jail tapes until they investigated AFTER O’Mara told the court about his client’s deception. If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, please let us know.

      “Entrapment” is a legal term, with a legal definition that is not relevant to the the charges of perjury against Shellie or to sending Zimmerman back to jail.

      “Entrapment” requires a law enforcement officer to “encourage” or “induce” a person to commit a crime. This didn’t happen here. Shellie was under oath and required by law to tell the truth. No law enforcement officer – and no one with the State – encouraged or induced her to lie.

      Catching someone in the act of committing a crime – even if you predict they’ll commit the crime before they commit it – is not “entrapment”.

      777.201 Entrapment.—
      (1) A law enforcement officer, a person engaged in cooperation with a law enforcement officer, or a person acting as an agent of a law enforcement officer perpetrates an entrapment if, for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of a crime, he or she induces or encourages and, as a direct result, causes another person to engage in conduct constituting such crime by employing methods of persuasion or inducement which create a substantial risk that such crime will be committed by a person other than one who is ready to commit it.

      (2) A person prosecuted for a crime shall be acquitted if the person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her criminal conduct occurred as a result of an entrapment. The issue of entrapment shall be tried by the trier of fact.

      Reply ↓

    • “I notice O’Mara doesn’t say “fear, distrust, OR confusion”. He says “fear, distrust, AND confusion”, so it’s not a question of “which” one he meant. He meant all three.”

      What difference does it make?

      Fear. Of who or what? The State? Fear isn’t a crime.

      Distrust. Of who and why? Distrust isn’t a crime.

      Confusion. Very likely. So what? Confusion isn’t a crime … it sounds more like a valid defense.

      Reply ↓

  45. Misleading, deceiving, and not speaking out…..are all forms of lies. Mr. O’Mara states, that Zimmerman knows he made a mistake. Therefore there is no “twisting” what was stated. It is what it is as with everything in this case.

    Reply ↓

    • I only see the word “mistake.” And no admission by whom. Moreover, given the bias of this judge, O’Mara had no choice but to use the work “mistake.”

      I didn’t see Judge Lester chiding the State for withholding the amount, an amount that we are told was so “critical” to the bond decision.

      Or for not asking the brother-in-law for the amount.

      Or for misusing its failures to disclose the amount at the hearing or ask for it, so that, instead, it could pursue a trumped up perjury charge against Shellie Z.

      Reply ↓

    • Or for wasting the Court’s time with the need for another bond hearing that could have been avoided if the State disclosed what it knew and asked the questions it should have at the first hearing.

      Reply ↓

  46. . My bad, I did not realize I needed to paste the entire note from O’Mara. This IS the story of George Zimmerman, so I felt that was obvious that you would know to whom I speak, but to appease you, here is how the statement from O’Mara begins: “Zimmerman’s defense team will file a motion today for a second bond hearing. While Mr. Zimmerman acknowledges that he allowed his financial situation to be misstated in court, the defense will emphasize that in all other regards, Mr. Zimmerman has been forthright and cooperative.”

    Reply ↓

    • Again. So what?

      All O’Mara says is a MISTAKE was made, due to “fear, distrust and/or confusion.” That’s it.

      He said that to appease a biased Judge, so the Judge does not hurt his client any more than he has already.

      The Judge allowed the State to make a mockery of the bond hearing by using it to try to ensnare Shellie into a bogus perjury trap. And it did so by both withholding the amount they already knew of and refusing to ask for the amount from the brother-in-law. That was the only way they could create a bogus perjury charge and in doing so the State had to create the need for an otherwise unnecessary new bond hearing … all to the State’s advantage.

      That’s all.

      Reply ↓

  47. I also don’t think it’s the states responsibility to make sure the defendant tells the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth so help you God. I’m pretty sure you are on your own with that.

    Reply ↓

    • The defendant, Zimmerman didn’t testify.

      Shellie told the truth. When she was asked how much was raised “right now” and said she didn’t know the current amount and provided the name of the person who knew that amount, the brother in law.

      The State later complained the bond was too low because money had been raised. Yet, the State knew how much was in the account at the first hearing but never disclosed it to obtain a higher bond at the time.

      Now it is trying to use the amount that it already knew of originally, but REFUSED to disclose, to obtain higher bond. That is a fraud on the Court.

      Reply ↓

  48. I don’t think fear, distrust, and confusion is a valid defense. However, it could possibly be a pattern.

    As for the State being aware of the jail tapes before the bond hearing, I don’t think that’s true. If anyone has any evidence to support such claims, please let us know.

    Reply ↓

    • If the defense is going to use fear, distrust, and confusion for mistating his funding, thus his lying… It’s probable after killing an unarmed teen, you would feel the need to lie based on fear, mistrust and confusion as well. Thus my point in my previous comment.

      Reply ↓

    • You said: “As for the State being aware of the jail tapes before the bond hearing, I don’t think that’s true. If anyone has any evidence to support such claims”

      The state records those tapes live. The State admits that. So they had the tapes as soon as they were recorded.

      So it is now up to the State to prove they did NOT have the tapes before the hearing. If anyone has any evidence to support any claim that the State did NOT have the tapes they should post a link to it because it is proved they had the tapes.

      Reply ↓

      • I agree with Hapufern that the State was not aware of the jail tapes before the bond hearing, EVEN IF the jail had them in their possession. And, either way, Peter. . .one more time you are building a scenario that doesn’t exist: You appear to think that it is the STATE that is under investigation and has been charged with perjury (or anything else, for that matter).
        Well, just in case you have forgotten the reality of the case: It is Shellie Zimmerman who is accused of perjury. . .not the State, so why would they have to “prove” that they didn’t know about the tape? And even IF they had known about the tapes, what does that have to do with Shellie Zimmerman CHOOSING to answer the questions with lies? She was given the opportunity to come clean, she chose not to. The end!

        Reply ↓

    • Not much point in keeping up this debate. So consider this:

      Judge Lester and the State both knew money was raised on the website. They both knew who had the “current” amount raised “right now.” They both knew, from Shellie, who had that current amount. The State knew Shellie had an idea of an amount as of four days ago but did not ask her that question.

      She answered the question asked of her for the balance “right now,” correctly by saying she did not know the “current” amount but that amount was known by her brother-in-law, who was available to provide that information.

      What more is needed?

      Is Zimmerman, a non-lawyer, supposed to read the Judge’s mind AFTER it was made very clear at the hearing that no one was interested in the current amount raised on the website and they all knew of the website and that money had been raised?

      Zimmerman is not obligated to present the State’s case for it. The State had its opportunity to use the known amount raised, and it didn’t.

      O’Mara “apologized” to placate a biased judge who could, as he had already done, harm his client. He had no choice.

      Reply ↓

  50. Zimmerman was certainly not too smart in his attempt to deceive the court. This is not good for him.

    I think an ever bigger issue than this particular case is that this law really needs to be changed. If one person pursues another, they should not be entitled to claim self-defense.

    Reply ↓

  51. I don’t believe the State was aware of the jail tapes before the bond hearing. If anyone has any evidence to support such claims, please let us know.

    Reply ↓

    • They certainly knew of the jail tapes. Those tapes are regularly used by prosecutors in cases.

      Nobody wants to answer the question as to, if the State didn’t know the amount, why they simply didn’t just ask the brother-in-law as soon as Shellie testified that her brother-in-law had that information and was available to provide it?

      Can anyone answer why the State did not just ask the brother-in-law?

      Reply ↓

  52. I don’t believe there’s any requirement that the Prosecution must review all the defendant’s jail tapes before a bond hearing, and they simply don’t. I don’t see any reason at all to assume that they did in Zimmerman’s case. O’Mara certainly didn’t mention it.

    There are many different departments within the criminal legal system. Prosecution is one. Internment is another. Just like the jail doesn’t know what the prosecution is doing, the prosecution doesn’t know what the jail is doing – unless they have reason to ask. O’Mara’s notification gave the Prosecution reason to ask.

    If anyone can find any statute that requires the Prosecution to review all the defendants jail tapes before a bond hearing, please let us know.

    Again, O’Mara hasn’t mentioned that he considers this to be any kind of issue at all.

    Unless I read otherwise, I will take it then that we don’t have any evidence whatsoever that the Prosecution knew about the jail tapes before the 1st bond hearing.

    Reply ↓

    • Absolutely! I am very happy that you are keeping such a clear mind and that you manage to remain civil even when answering comments that continue to be so bias that they seem to come from another world!

      Reply ↓

  54. I also don’t believe there’s any evidence that the Prosecution or the judge knew how much money was in the account. All of this was investigated by the Prosecution AFTER O’Mara reported the money and requested a new bond hearing.

    Reply ↓

    • HP, my point it that the State has provided no information about when they knew. O’Mara never got the opportunity to ask the State and it was arranged that way by the State and Judge Lester.

      You can speculate, as does everyone else, but if you get a link that says what you say, please post it so we can check for ourselves.

      There should have been a bond revocation or review hearing first to allow O’Mara to ask the State when it knew. But Judge Lester and the State did not want that.

      I have little doubt we eventually will find out that the State prosecutor reviewed the tapes before the hearing because it would be normal for the State to review the tapes before a critical bond hearing on a high profile case. If the State wanted information on the Zimmerman finances in preparation for the bond hearing a first place to look would be the phone tapes.

      Reply ↓

    • I would think that besides the Zimmermans, O’Mara would be the first person responsible for having accurate information about his clients’ finances to present to the court.

      My impression is that the judge and the prosecution assumed O’Mara would know if his client had funds. O’Mara supported the Zimmermans’ claim that they had no funds, and the judge and the prosecution took O’Mara at his word.

      It seems to me that if the prosecution and/or the judge deliberately set things up for a bust, they would have busted Zimmerman and wife before O’Mara reported back to the court several days later. Otherwise, why would they set Zimmerman up? It was O’Mara and no one else that busted Zimmerman – because he had to.

      Reply ↓

  55. Nobody seems able to answer the following question I posted earlier:

    “Why wasn’t George Zimmerman also indicted for obstruction of justice ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice ) or spoliation of evidence ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence )?”

    According to many commentors and pundits it should be an open an shut case to also charge GZ.

    The feds regularly indict defendants who, on the phone work to cause false testimony, under obstruction of justice and related new charges. The State also does this. So why didn’t Angela Corey charge GZ on something so easy to convict, like they did with Casey Anthony?

    Reply ↓

    • To follow up on this theme.

      Why, if Zimmerman is lying in his statement about events that night (as everyone so adamantly believes) , is he not being charged with lying to the police? Casey Anthony was and she was convicted on those charges. Why not Zimmerman?

      If the State cannot convict him for lying, how can they convict him for murder?

      Reply ↓

      • That’s a really good question. We should start a petition to have a room made, where a person presides over it and 12 or so people listen to two different sides of the story. Then they can decide if a person is guilty or not. Is someone taking notes? This could be the start of somethig big I think.

        Reply ↓

  57. Transcripts of the jail telephone calls between Zimmerman and his wife have been released — the NYTimes makes them pretty easily available, if you’re looking for them.

    I am honestly curious to see how this can get spun in Zimmerman’s favor. I know people are going to try, but when you have Zimmerman directly Shellie to make daily transfers (and to set an alarm for every 24 hours to remind her to make transfers) to various accounts, with one transfer to each account per a day, in amounts just under $10,000…. Well. That’s kind of damning, isn’t it?

    Reply ↓

    • Have not listened to the recordings yet, but it occurs to me that perhaps they were trying to get the money out of PayPal and spread around to FDIC insured accounts as quickly as possible before PayPal suddenly decided to invent some infraction on their part and freeze the money.

      Anyone who googles pay pal sucks is going to be inundated with stories of them doing just that.

      I don’t know if PayPal has a 10K at a time withdrawal limit or not, but perhaps they thought if they moved 10K or more at a time they’d have to fill out all sorts of paperwork.

      I wonder if their money is going to get arrested by the feds before this is all over.

      What, if anything, George is or is not guilty of having done or not done on the night of February 26th is a separate question from whether he’s being f***ed over by “the system” or not, or how much of his subsequent troubles are strictly of his own making.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

      • You know what. . .
        Why don’t you listen to the phone conversations. . .everyone of them!
        I think any reasonable person will loose any “reasonable doubt” about Shellie Zimmerman (and her husband) “innocence” re: the perjury.

        And many reasonable persons will also lose every bit of “respect” they may have had for that family! It is all about how to screw the system. . .not how the system screw them!

        But. .don’t take my word for it! LISTEN to the phone conversations. I believe LISTENING is a lot more “telling” than reading the transcripts!

        Reply ↓

    • here is another site that also has the bank statementshttp://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/New-evidence-released-in-Zimmerman-case/-/14266478/15142862/-/item/1/-/slk4rnz/-/index.html

      Reply ↓

    • Susan, I am interested on your take on all the new evidence presented so far. We all know you have been out of town, btw congrats! When can we expect an updated version?

      Reply ↓

    • If it was “damning” GZ would have been charged with obstruction.

      O’Mara’s explanation of “fear, distrust, and confusion” probably is very accurate. At the time, it was the Zimmermans against a world. Where bounties were being placed on their heads and an unrelenting media campaign had been underway. The only question is if their actions were illegal — I think not.

      Eventually it will come out that:

      1. the State, at the hearing, already knew how much was in the accounts and had already listened to the tapes and “broken” the silly “code”;

      2. the reason the State didn’t ask the brother in law for the amounts because it already knew those amounts;

      3. the reason the State didn’t want the amounts disclosed (whether by the State or the brother-in-law) was because there would then be no “perjury” charges;

      4. the other prison tapes, for the four days before the hearing, has many exonerating snippets including doubts about how the money should be treated.

      Shellie will never be convicted on the sham “perjury” charges as the above comes out and it is shown she answered truthfully to the question of the balances “right now. She testified she didn’t know the current balances but her brother-in-law did and was available to give that information. And the State made ot perfectly clear it never wanted those amounts in the first place.

      Reply ↓

    • My understanding of jail house recordings are that they don’t listento them unless they feel a need too. I don’t think they have time to sit and listen to every single call made, unless something comes up where they might feel as if there is “evidence” to hold against the person in the jail. In this case, there sure was. Again, it’s not the states place to make sure a defendant tells the truth and follows the rules. It’s there place to find guilt, and it looks like they have in regards to the funds.

      Reply ↓

  59. Sorry don t know what happened there but the above is the link where the phone calls and bank statements can be viewed.

    Reply ↓

  61. Where is Dershowitz when you need him?

    Particularly, after the State COMPLETELY removed from Shellie’s testimony the key part where, in response to the question about balances “right now,” she testified she didn’t know the “current” balances but her brother-in-law had them and was available to provide those figures.

    The odds against Angela Corey surviving this fiasco have dropped dramatically from the already low figures, after the sham affidavit to charge Shellie Z was created and filed.

    Reply ↓

    • Peter, you’re really delusional!
      Maybe at one time, the brother in law knew what was in the paypal account, and he was the one who had access to the fonds. . .That is until April 15, when Zimmerman directed his wife to get all that information from the brother and to gain access (through setting up a new password, change the e-mail destination, set up security questions that SHE would remember, etc. . )
      Then, on April 16, it is clear through the conversation that Zimmerman guided Shellie (with the help of his sister, Suzie) through the process of SHELLIE becoming the main receiver for that Paypal account, and to begin transferring money (under $10,000 each transfer. . .clear attempt to avoid detection by the IRS) into her own account, his sister’s account, and in a “box.” The next day, April 17, Shellie gave Zimmerman a thorough report of what had been done with a good portion of the money (including paying utility bills and a loan from Zimmerman’s mother, and Wallmart credit card, . . .etc. ) and a minimum of 4 additional transfers to two additional accounts. Shellie explained to Zimmerman that the site (paypal) didn’t put limit on how many transfers she could make, and she was planning on EMPTYING that paypal account, transferring only (under) $10,000 in Zimmerman’s account, as he asked her. . .she even commented that the money was still “trickling into” the paypal account!
      So. . .It is VERY OBVIOUS that the brother in law was no longer in charge of the paypal account, but that SHELLIE was, and that she knew very well how much money she had already transferred into personal accounts and safety deposit boxes (one of which also contained the VALID passport!

      And then, Zimmerman had the bad taste to make a joke about “hoodies!”
      How low can people get!

      Obviously, you are one of those “helpers” who surround the Zimmermans. You may even have stayed in that 5 bedroom house that they had rented for a month (only, as precised in the phone conversation!).

      OMarra also sound quite mysterious in those phone calls, and his “plans” seem to set everything up seemed to make the whole zimmerman family (especially Shellie and Suzie) “Celebrate!”

      I wonder if they are still “celebrating” today. . .?

      Reply ↓

      • @Danielle, You have clarified for me how the brother in law was not in charge of the paypal account after a certin time. Also in the phone calls they never mention his brother to gain access only Ken’s name. I agree with you Peter is delusional.

        Reply ↓

      • I’m not certain that remark about the hoodie was a joke, because it was in the context of how to get out of jail and out of public view without getting shot. Earlier he’s even talking about a bulletproof vest not just for himself but for others that would be around, including O’Mara.

        That noise after he said it might have been a laugh or chuckle but sounded to me a lot more like a cough or accidentally banging the phone against something.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

        • Unitron, I think you are a very kind person, and I admire your willingness to go to any extreme to give the Zimmermans the benefit of the doubt on EVERYTHING!

          But, there is a time when one realizes that giving the benefit of the doubts to some people is actually inviting them to continue their fraud and make a fool of others.

          There are also people whom I find it very difficult to give the benefit of the doubt (at least past a certain numbers of evidences to the contrary!): those who have demonstrated that, contrary to give the benefit of the doubt to others, they cultivate an aura of suspicion and paranoid behavior that is potentially destructive to others.

          I think George Zimmerman certainly fill that definition. . .and, no matter how you want to look at it, no matter if you want to believe that he really was “scared” of the unarmed teenager, not matter how you want to believe he acted in “self-defense,” it is clear that, IF HE HAD GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THAT TEENAGER HE SAW IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD, that teenager would be alive today!

          And Zimmerman and his wife would still have their $80,000 worse of debt and “living expenses” to be concerned about, instead of having a sudden windfall from all the people who gave them “the benefit of the doubt!”

          Reply ↓

    • Danielle, it sounds like you have described an excellent case for obstruction of justice! Against both Zimmermans!

      Doesn’t it?

      Ask yourself why they haven’t been charged in such an “open and shut” case that you just described.

      The reason is no matter how you paint the “crime” there was none.

      The perjury charges, and how they were gotten, are a disgrace and there is no change Shellie Z will ever be convicted.

      Reply ↓

    • “I guess it all depends on how the trust was set up.” It also depends on the bases represented to the public for raising the fund on the websites — so as not to be guilty of fraud..

      Which explains why Shellie may very well, within the four days before the hearing (after the tapes were made), had doubts about whether or not, and how, the funds could be used.

      Reply ↓

  62. Is there a Shellie Zimmerman defense fund? Or can Shellie use funds from George’s defense fund for her own defense? Anyone know?

    Reply ↓

    • As far as I know no defense fund for Shellie. As to using his defense funds for her defense, I don’t see why not. She used it to pay Target, KFC, Sam’s Club, Capital One Auto, T-Mobile, Progress Energy, Wendy Cummins (think that is a landlord) Gladys Zimmerman, and many other bills. Omara got a check for trust on april 25 in the amount of $122,393.04.

      Reply ↓

    • Maybe the money could have been used for whatever they liked before the trust was set up, but now that it’s in a trust, it might be more restrictive, i.e., set up for Zimmerman’s defense only, plus living expenses?

      George and Shellie will not have the same lawyer, because O’Mara cited a possible conflict. So would it be a conflict for both parties to be withdrawing money from the same trust fund?

      Suppose Shellie pleads “not guilty” on the grounds that she felt intimidated by George. Far-fetched, I know, but Shellie did suggest to George that they use the money for paying the bond. Would she still be able to access the money?

      I guess it all depends on how the trust was set up.

      Reply ↓

    • “Maybe the money could have been used for whatever they liked before the trust”

      MAYBE is the key word since it could well explain why — in the four days before the hearing and after the tapes were made — Shellie had second thoughts about how and for what the funds could be used for.

      Reply ↓

  63. I hope for their sake they’ve been talking to a really good tax attorney to hopefully avoid any possible IRS fraud charges, and to make sure they keep good records of expenses and retain whatever they need for taxes.

    Reply ↓

    • @Hapufern In one of the phone calls (call Six) she (Shellie states if there is trouble they will pay the piper later down the road. To me it just show that they are aware of what they are doing is wrong and or illegal. Not that bull that O”mara is trying to spin out there.

      Reply ↓

      • If you to O’Mara’s website there is a clear explanation that the funds are taxable and who is managing the fund.

        Reply ↓

    • HP said: “I hope for their sake they’ve been talking to a really good tax attorney to hopefully avoid any possible IRS fraud charges”

      So there was more good reason why, in the four days before the bond hearing (after the tapes were made), Shellie could have come to doubt her right to access the funds without input from a good tax lawyer.

      Reply ↓

    • I looked at the tax angle a little more, and it appears that a monetary gift is taxable to the donor – but only if it’s more thatn $13,000. It’s not taxable to the donee (Zimmerman).

      However, if it’s earning interest anywhere, I’m thinking the interest would be taxable. It wouldn’t add up to much though. I think their big problem is transferring the money in amounts less than $10,000, if it can be shown they did that to avoid detection of the funds by either the court or the IRS.

      Reply ↓

    • The tax angle certainly doesn’t appear to excuse the fact that Shellie made more than one statement to the effect that she and Zimmerman had NO money for contributing to the bond.

      Reply ↓

  64. To Loree
    You mean to tell us that the Zimmermans spent over $80,000 in just about 10 days? Does anyone without a job have that much credit card debt accumulated? I wonder how much that 5 bedroom house they rented for one month cost them!

    Reply ↓

    • Yes! What I find fascinating is they are like two kids in a candy store talking about all that money. Bank Statements don’t lie!

      Reply ↓

  65. Peter O:
    I think I’m done listening to your attempts to spin!
    You are so far off the deep end, and I bet you don’t even believe half of what you are spewing!

    Sorry. . .but I am even more convinced that you are from within the Zimmerman’s inner circle!
    No one else can be that obsessively blind and willing to make fools of themselves!

    Have a nice life! . . .

    Reply ↓

  67. What is the duty of a law enforcement officer upon discovering a death?
    Florida Statutes 406.14 governs the role of a law enforcement officer when he or she discovers a death. The medical examiner has jurisdiction over the body and any objects in contact with the body. Upon arrival at the death scene, it is the duty of the officer to immediately establish contact with the Medical Examiner’s Office and follow the direction of the medical examiner during the investigation into the cause of death. In addition, any evidence material to the determination of the cause of death in possession of the law enforcement officers assigned to the investigation of the death shall be made available to the medical examiner.
    “…It is the duty of the law enforcement officer assigned to and investigating the death to immediately establish and maintain liaison with the medical examiner during the investigation into the cause of death.” (Florida Statute 406.14)

    http://volusia.org/medicalexaminer/faq.htm

    I copied that from above site.

    On page 137 of 183 of discovery dump, Medical Examiner case Summary report page 2 of 2 says: At approx 1910 hrs on 2/26/2012 911 dispatcher rec’d a call from a resident of the complex. The resident advised of a B/M who was at the complex between the townhouses. The caller stated that the male should not have been in the area and he observed the male walking his neighborhood watch. Shortly after call the resident confronted the male and the two began to physically fight.

    I have a couple of questions for the lawyers since I am not one, or anybody with common sense.

    One: If the case summary is information provided by cop or investigator on the case to the ME, would it be a fair assumption that this information was provided by George Zimmerman on 2/26?

    The report was completed on 2/27/12 1030 am.

    Two: If the case summary states he confronted Martin while on neighborhood watch? Wouldn’t that make his brother and father liars? They have stated he was on a personal errand (father). Brother says he never followed or confronted. Would the case summary information be the closest to George Zimmerman statement since it was relayed that night by him?

    Three: If the case summary is information provided from case officer from George on the night of the shooting, wouldn’t that be the most accurate information?

    Four: How can George claim Self-defense, when the case summary says he observed a black male that should not be in the complex and then confronted him? Wouldn’t that make George the initial aggressor?

    I thank you in advance to your responses. Please be reasonable responses, no spin.

    Reply ↓

  68. What is the duty of a law enforcement officer upon discovering a death?
    Florida Statutes 406.14 governs the role of a law enforcement officer when he or she discovers a death. The medical examiner has jurisdiction over the body and any objects in contact with the body. Upon arrival at the death scene, it is the duty of the officer to immediately establish contact with the Medical Examiner’s Office and follow the direction of the medical examiner during the investigation into the cause of death. In addition, any evidence material to the determination of the cause of death in possession of the law enforcement officers assigned to the investigation of the death shall be made available to the medical examiner.
    “…It is the duty of the law enforcement officer assigned to and investigating the death to immediately establish and maintain liaison with the medical examiner during the investigation into the cause of death.” (Florida Statute 406.14)

    Reply ↓

  69. I copied the above text from http://volusia.org/medicalexaminer/faq.htm

    I was looking at the discovery page 137 of 183. Medical Examiner case summary. dated 2/27/12 1030am. It states: At approx 1910 hrs on 2/26/2012 911 dispatcher rec’d a call from a resident of the complex. The resident advised of a B/M who was at the complex between the townhouses. The caller stated that the male should not have been in the area and he observed the male walking his neighborhood watch. Shortly after call the resident confronted the male and the two began to physically fight.

    I have a couple of questions for the reasonable people and or lawyers.

    One: In the case summary if information is provided by the officer in charge, would it be a fair assumption that he got the information from GZ ? I don’t think the ME can assume all that information.

    Two: In the case summary, it states he confronted Martin, how can he claim self defense?

    Three: In the case summary it states he observed him while on his neighborhood watch, how does that balance with his Father saying he was on his way to target? It also doesn’t match to what his brother said on Piers Morgan that he never followed or confronted TM.

    Four: Would the case summary be the most accurate, as far as time and date of information provided by law officers? Since it was produced by 2/27/12 1030am

    Five: Could the case summary report be viewed as a statement provided by GZ ?

    I thank you in advance for your reasonable responses.

    Reply ↓

    • The 2/27 10:30 am is the time of the autopsy. The autopsy determined that the cause of death was a gunshot wound of the chest, by handgun. Other evidence determined it was a homicide (as opposed to a suicide or an accidental shooting).

      The first paragraph is that a death by shooting had occurred, which automatically brings the ME into the case. The person of contact (POC) was Investigator Chris Serino of the Sanford Police Department. Note the last line of the first paragraph is “POC Stated the Following:”

      Serino arrived on scene at 8:00 and talked to the ME FI Tara Clark (who prepared the report) at around 8:20. See Serino’s narrative begining of page 37 of 183.

      Zimmerman was gone by the time Serino arrived, and Serino would have at most preliminary information.

      The body was between two townhouses and that is where the shooting apparently occurred and where an arrest had been made. The medical examiner was directed to the location of the body.

      T Smith had originally been dispatched in response to Zimmerman’s call to police, and had then been redirected. He was the first officer on the scene, and arrested Zimmerman, and transported him to the police station. We know what Zimmerman told the dispatcher. We don’t know what the dispatcher told Smith. Serino said that he interviewed T Smith. If he did, it would have been by phone.

      Serino also talked to Officer Ayala, who was the 2nd officer on the scene, and had also been dispatched in response to Zimmerman’s call. After performing the initial CPR, he turned that over to other officers and took over the crime scene until senior officers arrived. He likely would have talked to T Smith, and he reports hearing T Smith report the arrest of Zimmerman as he was arriving (about 2 minutes after T Smith).

      There was another officer who knew Zimmerman from neighborhood watch.

      Serino simply conflated a number of events in his he report over the phone to the medical examiner.

      Reply ↓

      • Conflated is a strong word to use against Serino when we don’t have the written statements, audio from officers responding and other information regarding the shooting on 2/26/12. Officer Smith responded to two previous incidents regarding 911 call placed by GZ in the prior two weeks of 2/26/12. its fair to assume he knew george from N/W.

        Reply ↓

    • Conflate has no implication of wrong doing. And this may have been a group effort. Serino contacted the ME by phone. There is the handwritten notes by the ME (page 139) that consist of single words. The rendition that found its way into the ME report may not be a transcription of what Serino actually reported.

      Why does Serino call the ME? He has a dead body with an apparent gunshot wound. He is required by law to call them.

      It is true that 911 dispatchers received a call from a resident (Zimmerman) of the complex around 7:10. Seminole County uses centralized dispatching, so it can reasonably be seen as “911 dispatchers”, even though it was not a 911 call.

      Zimmerman did advise of a black male. Zimmerman did not advise that Martin was between two townhouses. Martin’s body was found between two townhouses. Serino conflated what Zimmerman said and the final location.

      Zimmerman did not state that Martin should not be in the area. One may infer from what Zimmerman said, that he did not believe Martin should not be in the area. But he did not state it. And going from Zimmerman to dispatcher to officer to Serino to ME, details are going to get mangled.

      Zimmerman (the caller) certainly never stated that he observed Martin (the male) while walking his neighborhood watch.

      Shortly (2-1/2 minutes) after the call there was an encounter between Zimmerman and Martin. No evidence supports characterization of Zimmerman confronting Martin.

      Zimmerman has claimed that Martin assaulted him. If Zimmerman began to “fight” it was in defense. Witnesses did observe the two fighting. Zimmerman did fire a gun at Martin. The bullet did strike Martin in the chest.

      Martin’s knees were probably on the ground. Serino’s statement implies that he was standing.

      The rest is true, though Serino would have said that the identity of the male is unknown.

      Reply ↓

  71. Wayne, I couldn’t find anything about the defense fund being taxable on O’Mara’s website. I went to http://www.gzlegalcase.com/. Could you give some directions to the info and/or a quote? Thanks.

    I’m pretty sure that interest on the fund would be taxable. Interesting website.

    Reply ↓

  72. Looking at the discovery page 137 of 183. Medical Examiner Case Summary page 2of 2. It states: At approx. 1910 hrs on 2/26/2012 911 dispatcher rec’d a call from a resident of the complex. The resident advised of a black male who was at the complex between the townhouses. The caller stated that the male should not have been in the area and he observed the male walking his neighborhood watch. Shortly after call the resident confronted the male and the two began to physically fight.

    Reply ↓

    • That’s the ME’s version of what they were told by the police and/or the EMTs, neither of whom heard Zimmerman’s conversation with the dispatcher, and a good illustration of the reason for the reluctance to admit hearsay into the courtroom, ’cause it’s like a game of telephone.

      If the info had gone through one more layer of people, they’d have probably had Zimmerman reporting the victim as an Al Qaeda agent.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • That brings us to the same question that was asked of Det. Gilbreath. When asked how he determined that Zimmerman attacked Martin his answer was that there was a confrontation. The question for the ME is how he determined that Zimmerman confronted Martin and not the other way around, Witness statements, Police statements, overhearing Zimmerman, or was it an assumption?

      Reply ↓

      • In addition, any evidence material to the determination of the cause of death in possession of the law enforcement officers assigned to the investigation of the death shall be made available to the medical examiner
        Any evidence such as statements given by GZ would have to be given to the ME to help in making a determination of how and what led up to Taryvon’s death.

        Reply ↓

    • Inspector Gadget,

      Some of the affidavit of probable cause is directly from what the medical examiner was told by Investigator Serino when he arrived just after 8:00. He had interviewed no witnesses at that point. It is erroneous and hearsay.

      Reply ↓

    • Cause of death of Travon Martin was gunshot wound of the chest.

      See page 143 of 183 page PDF.

      The medical examiner had available information about the presumed weapon.

      Reply ↓

  73. Have a couple of questions, since I am not a lawyer I would like some reasonable responses.
    In the case summary report it states that GZ saw Trayvon between the townhouses.
    Would that change his point of entry into the complex and timeline?
    How can he know he was between the townhouses if he wasn’t following him?

    In the case summary provided by ME it states he observed the male while on neighborhood watch.
    So far his Father stated on TV that he was not on N/W but on a personal errand to Target.
    Can this be used to discredit fathers account?
    Case summary states that he confronted the male. His brother said he never followed or confronted Trayvon.
    Can this be used to discredit brothers account?
    The case summary states shortly after call the resident confronted the male and the two began to physically fight.

    How can SYG or self defense be used if the case summary says GZ confronted Martin?
    It would seem to be that GZ was the initial aggressor if he confronted Martin. How is it possible that Martin snuck up on him then punch him if he confronted him first?

    If the case summary is the information provided by law enforcement as it is the law cited in the above post would it be fair to say that information was given by GZ ? The report was dated 2/27/12 1030 am. Wouldn’t that information be as close to a statement that we have to date from GZ even though it was relayed by an officer asking him questions?

    I thank you in advance for your reasonable responses.

    Reply ↓

    • IANAL, I am not sure the ME had any direct contact with Zimmerman at the scene, and the Officers at the scene in their reports made a point of not asking him detailed questions. Zimmerman’s questioning was primarily done at the station with recorders and possibly video cameras that should be released within the next 10-12 days under FL sunshine laws. Det. Gilbreath said the had no Contrary evidence to Zimmerman’s story that Martin attacked him other than those contained in Zimmerman’s statements. It is unknown to us at this point if those are minor variances to be expected, or major changes in his story since we do not have his actual statements.

      Considering the location of Zimmerman’s townhouse, and the alternate entry to the west he may have seen him initially as he came through that entrance and then proceeded around while calling the police, but at this point we do not know. I am looking forward to seeing Zimmerman’s walk through of the evening taken the next day that should she a lot of light on the timeline related questions.

      As far as SYG goes, what we have heard so far sounds more like Justifiable use of deadly force vs SYG. In my personal opinion with the evidence we have heard so far, no matter which one survived the fight, I do not believe they have reached Probable Cause to arrest the survivor weather it was Zimmerman or Martin that had survived.

      Here are a few links to the self defense and gun laws.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Reply ↓

    • Investigator Serino arrived on the scene at 8:00. He talked to other police officers including T Smith who had arrested Zimmerman. He may have seen some written witness statements. He had yet to interview any witnesses. But he had determined that there was possibility of self defense and ordered that Zimmerman’s restraints be removed before he was interviewed.

      Serino called the medical examiner at 8:20 (or 8:32). And so what you see is what he told them at that time – or what they interpreted him as saying. There are some hand-written notes on the bottom of page 139. I’m guessing that the PDF production chopped the margins of that page, alternatively, someone was using carbon paper. Seminole County contracts with Volusia County for medical examiner services, so the medical examiner has to come from Daytona Beach and arrived at 9:40. Serino may have given a somewhat neutral assessment in order that the ME be as objective as possible. If you read the rest of the ME narrative it occurs after 9:40.

      The body was between townhouses, and Zimmerman was arrested while standing between townhouses. Serino extrapolated based on what little he knew when he contacted the ME.

      One of the officers (Jonathan Mead) recognized Zimmerman from his neighborhood watch activities. See page 15 of 183. Serino may have known of the 911 call from Zimmerman (officer Ayala had been responding to that call, and was the 2nd officer on scene. After his initial CPR efforts, he took more of a command position as other officers arrived). However, Serino had not listened to Zimmerman’s call or the 911 calls until the next day.

      Zimmerman might have told T Smith that he was walking back to his truck, when he was jumped by Martin. He might have said he was a member of the neighborhood watch. T Smith had also been originally dispatched to respond to Zimmerman’s police call. There would be no reason to interrogate Zimmerman in depth at the point, and would have likely been in violation of Zimmerman’s Miranda rights.

      Zimmerman’s back was to Martin as Martin came up to accost him. Zimmerman may have turned to respond. “confront” means to meet face-to-face. “confront” may be mutual, or it may imply instigation of conflict, but not necessarily:

      “Clinton confronts Russia for arming Syria”

      Is Hillary Clinton instigating conflict? Or is she challenging Russia for exacerbating conflict. Is the USA a busy-body self-appointed world watch country? Or did we volunteer? If not us, who?

      If the Russian ambassador attack Clinton, she or her bodyguards can’t respond?

      According to “DeeDee” Martin said “why are you following me.” According to Zimmerman he also added a “Holmes” or “Homie”. Zimmerman asked “what are you doing here” and turned to call police when Martin sucker punched him.

      The medical examiner report is not dated 2/27 10:30 am. The medical examiner report notes that the autopsy occurred at 2/27 10:30 am. The medical examiner edited the report on 2/28 after receiving the fax with identification of Martin, so was likely completed on 2/27. I don’t see anything to indicate when it was composed.

      In a trial, when it was unwound when the medical examiner received the call and she made her notes, what Serino knew when he called, and that some of it may have been based on what T Smith knew from the dispatcher and talked to Serino over the phone after he had arrested Zimmerman, it won’t amount to anything.

      You have what Zimmerman told the dispatcher who told T Smith who told Serino who told the medical examiner (4 layers of phone calls).

      Reply ↓

    • The medical examiner is reporting what Investigator Serino “stated” when he contacted them roughly around 8:20 pm.

      Serino arrived on scene at 8:00 pm. Zimmerman was gone by then.

      Officers T Smith and Ayala had been dispatched in response to Zimmerman’s call, and then were redirected. So they had indirect contact with Zimmerman through the dispatcher.

      T Smith was first on the scene and arrested Zimmerman. It doesn’t appear that T Smith interrogated Zimmerman (he reported overhearing Zimmerman telling an EMT that he had called out for help). T Smith did observe Zimmerman’s injuries, as well as grass on the back of his jacket, and Zimmerman was in T Smith’s squad car as he was being treated – standing nearby for security. Serino took Zimmerman to the police station. Serino says he interviewed T Smith – so it must have been by phone. T Smith in his report does not mention anything beyond Zimmerman telling him he shot Martin, and that he was armed. If Serino had asked, he would have been told that Zimmerman was totally cooperative.

      Ayala was second on scene, and reported hearing over the radio that T Smith had arrested Zimmerman and had him at gunpoint. Ayala initially went over to Martin’s body, and after initial CPR attempts was relieved by others. It appears that he took command of the crime scene. He might have gone over to check with T Smith and Zimmerman or maybe not. One 911 caller reported Zimmerman being taken from the area about 3 minutes after his arrest, and Ayala arrived about 2 minutes after T Smith.

      So T Smith and Ayala would have reported why they had originally been dispatched, and this could easily have been conflated with the location of the shooting.

      Reply ↓

  74. @Gadget, thanks for the links and your response. I respectfully disagree with probable cause statement. A judge signed it, it has done its job. Done deal. Its no longer relevant to the case. I think you may be right on SYG. It would seem more of justifiable use of deadly force defense. I respectfully disagree that GZ had cause to use it, my personal opinion.

    http://volusia.org/medicalexaminer/faq.htm

    What is the normal process of a forensic death investigation?
    In many cases when there is a death, at least two jurisdictions are involved. The police or law enforcement agencies involved have jurisdiction over the crime scene and it’s associated physical evidence. The medical examiner is responsible for the body of the deceased and any physical evidence in direct contact with the body. With the exception of life-saving efforts that may be attempted by fire/ rescue officials, the body may not be touched or moved by anyone (including law enforcement officials) without the permission of the medical examiner. Therefore, forensic investigators from the Medical Examiner’s Office typically respond to every non-natural death scene before the body is removed from the scene. Forensic investigators will document the pertinent details and collect information about the circumstances of death. The body will then be transported to the Medical Examiner’s Office, where it will be placed in refrigeration until examination

    Forensic investigators will document the pertinent details and collect information about the circumstances of death.
    page 139 of 183 POC(person of contact) Inv Serino.
    pertinent info. notes
    face down
    confronted by resident, fought, then shot, to ground, 911
    called 911, then shot

    Inv. Serino had to get that specfic information from the only one left standing in my opinion. But I could be wrong. I just don’t see how. Anywho, it will be interesting to see the walk through and his statements as you stated.

    Reply ↓

  75. @Gadget thanks. From what I am reading from the discovery Investigator Doris Singleton is the one who interviewed GZ per Serino’s request. He was out in the field while he was in the station. Serino was at the crime scene and doing interviews. So it would be possible what Jimtrex says about the layer of calls. I guess we will know more when the statements are released. What are your thoughts on witness 9? Who is it?

    Reply ↓

  76. I have a general question for the Braintrust on both sides. This is going to sound weird but it has been reported all over the media since this began that GZ is claiming SYG. My Google-Fu may not be up to par today but does anyone have a reference where SYG even started in this case. At one point Zimmerman’s previous lawyers said it was not a SYG case, I agree. I doubt that early on a lawyer would have made the mistake of claiming SYG with even with only a passing knowledge of self defense laws. The first place anyone looking into self defense laws in FL would have gone would have been 776.012 (Use of force in defense of person.) I am curious to see if this was a claim made in the GZ interviews, or was it latched onto by the media as a emotion gripping Headline. I am just curious where the who SYG question actually started.

    Reply ↓

    • If I’m not mistaken, when SYG was passed in Florida it also contained the “if there is not immediate disproof of a self-defense claim, you can’t arrest” clause or section, and that seems to be the part of the law that was applied to Zimmerman that night (or in the pre-dawn hours of Monday)

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • SYG is subsection (3) of the parent law 776.013 (Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.) commonly known as Castle Doctrine. Both laws 776.012 (Use of force in defense of person.) and 776.013 (Castle Doctrine) cross reference to 776.032 (Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.) Subsection (2) specifically:

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

      I can present a defense for both parties under 776.012 Subsection (1) and easily cross reference the Immunity clause with what we know so far:

      776.012 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;

      These laws are what bring the primary question back to the question that is not able to be proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt for or against either party according to Det. Gibreath. Who Initiated the actual confrontation? Det. Gilbreaths answer was that there was a confrontation so Zimmerman had to initiate it, but he has no evidence as to who started the actual confrontation.

      And according to the jury instructions:

      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.

      Reply ↓

    • I vaguely remember the SPD alluding to SYG after the shooting hit the news.

      This Orlando Sentinel article of 3/8/12 mentions self-defense. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-08/news/os-teen-shooting-killed-sanford-police-20120308_1_shooting-police-headquarters-investigation-next-week

      This NYT article of 3/16/12 discusses Florida’s self defense law and refers to it as SYG:

      “The police maintain that under state law they cannot arrest George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old neighborhood watch volunteer who was licensed to carry a concealed weapon, without probable cause. “

      Reply ↓

    • Investigator Serino says that “I was also informed that statements made by Zimmerman on scene to Officer T Smith were corroborated by several witnesses, and led to the possibility to this shooting having been self defense.”
      …
      “I contacted Inv. Singleton, informed her of the apparent nature of this matter, and advised her to remove Zimmerman’s restraint devices prior to conducting her interview.”

      SB 436 was passed in 2005, see Florida Senate web site http://www.flsenate.gov/
      Click on Session, then Bills at top to get to http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bills
      Click on Florida Senate Website Archive
      Under Jump to Bill on left, select “2005” session and bi” “436”, no prefix. GO
      Under Bills select “S 0436ER” and web version. “ER” is the enrolled version, the one actually entered into statute. It is marked up to show new sections and amended sections.

      It is probably also worth reading the WHEREAS sections.

      SB 436 added 776.013 which is SYG. It also added 776.032 which is immunity from prosecution, and applies not only to SYG, but conventional self defense (776.012) and defense of others (776.031). If also amended 776.012 and 776.031 removing the requirement to retreat.

      776.032 includes the language, “as used in this subsection, the term ‘criminal prosecution’ includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.”

      BTW 776.032 subsection (3) is of particular interest in this case.

      So Zimmerman was released under 776.032 which was added as part of SYG and applies to conventional self defense.

      Here is a press release from the City of Sanford (“prior to March 16”). While the release is from City Manager Bonaparte, the FAQs are from Chief Bill Lee.

      Click to access Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

      Chief Lee may have cited “Stand Your Ground” in a press conference, There are lots of references to him having done so, but I can’t find the original press conference. And from a police perspective, 776.032 might be seen as the key element of SB 436, the SYG law.

      Reply ↓

    • The SYG issue started when whoever was acting on Wolfinger’s behalf told SPD they couldn’t arrest because they felt they couldn’t prosecute. Of course that decision was made based on what SPF told Wolfinger’s office.

      So technically, the SYG, imo, was first put forth by SPD. That is EXACTLY the problem with the law. A trial by jury is a constitutional right. The police are not a jury and Wolfinger’s office ain’t the judge.

      Reply ↓

    • SB 436 was passed in 2005, see Florida Senate web site, and you can see the language that changed.

      It added 776.013 (SYG)

      and 776.032 (immunity from prosecution) and states for purpose of that subsection “‘criminal prosecution’ includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.”

      776.032 applies not only to 776.013 (SYG), but also 776.012 (self defense), and 776.31 (defense of others).

      SB 436 also amended 776.012 and 776.031 (no duty to retreat).

      If you read the WHEREAS clauses to SB 436, you can see that it would be called the SYG bill.

      The City of Sanford before March 16 issued a press-release which included a FAQ from Police Chief Bill Lee, in which he cited 776.032 as the reason for not detaining Zimmerman.

      The State did not (and arguably does not) have probable cause that Zimmerman used unlawful force,

      776.032(3) also applies to civil action. It is unclear whether if a criminal action find Zimmerman immune from from prosecution, it would also provide immunity from action in a civil case. You can see why certain persons would want criminal prosecution.

      Reply ↓

    • jimtrex,

      Thanks interesting history on SB 436.

      I have posted this before but for the new people here is the reasoning behind Sanford PD’s actions.

      Click to access Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

      Fellow Citizens:
      There has been a lot of media attention to the recent incident where George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. This is indeed a tragic situation and has caused a flood of questions and strong emotions from within our community, the region and nation. On behalf of the employees of the City of Sanford, Our deepest sympathy and prayers go out to the family and friends of Trayvon Martin. As a father, I can only image the pain Trayvon’s family must be going through. The City of Sanford is committed to insuring that justice is served and, therefore, the City of Sanford has contacted the United States Attorney General’s Office for assistance in this matter.

      In an effort to continue to be as responsive as possible to the public seeking information on the incident, I have asked Chief Lee to provide answers to some of the most frequently asked questions regarding this matter. Below are his responses. Please understand that since this is still an ongoing investigation, the Police Department is limited in what information it can publicly release.

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

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

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

      According to Florida Statute 776.032 :
      776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
      (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

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

      Why weren’t the 911 tapes initially released?

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

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

      Mr. Zimmerman holds a concealed weapon permit issued from the State of Florida. He is authorized to carry the weapon in a concealed manner wherever Florida Statute dictates. Neighborhood Watch programs are designed for members of a neighborhood to be “eyes and ears” for police and to watch out for their neighbors. They are not members of the Police Department nor are they vigilantes. Training provided by law enforcement agencies to Neighborhood Watch organizations stresses non-contact surveillance of suspicious situations and notifying police of those situations so that law enforcement can respond and take control of the situation. Mr. Zimmerman was not acting outside the legal boundaries of Florida Statute by carrying his weapon when this incident occurred. He was in fact on a personal errand in his vehicle when he observed Mr. Martin in the community and called the Sanford Police Department.

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

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

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

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

      What about media reenactments of the shooting incident?

      Any media reenactments of the shooting incident are purely speculation. To date the Sanford Police Department has not released any rendition of the events of the evening to anyone other than the Office of the State Attorney. The renditions we have seen are not consistent with the evidence in this case. The Sanford Police Department has conducted a complete and fair investigation of this incident. We have provided the results of our investigation to the Office of the State Attorney for their review and consideration for possible criminal prosecution. Although the Police Department is the target of the troubling questions, let me assure you we too feel the pain of this senseless tragedy that has dramatically affected our community. Therefore, as we move forward and strive to answer the questions that are a point of controversy in the community, we ask for your patience, understanding and assistance in getting the correct information to the community We trust that this information is helpful to you.

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

      Reply ↓

  77. The big puzzle of this whole case is the implications of:

    1. Zimmerman’s statement, which, at this point even without yet seeing, we can be sure presents a solid self-defense claim;

    2. as for the issue of who was the “aggressor,” the State has already stated they don’t know. So even if “new” evidence comes up (not “ace-in-the-hole” evidence already known) there will always be reasonable doubt. If, somehow, the State turns Zimmerman into the fight “aggressor” (which would mean he lied in his statements) then 776.041 applies:

    “776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
    …
    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
    (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or”;

    Note: just unsuccessfully struggling to get up would meet the burden of “exhausted every reasonable means to escape,” so self-defense would still apply even if he was the “aggressor.”

    3. To overcome Zimmerman’s defense, the State has to show he lied in his statements to the police on the actual details of the fight and shooting. The “profiling” and all the extraneous other matters have nothing to do with the actual start of the fight and shooting for self-defense purposes.

    Zimmerman has not been charged with lying to the police. Proving he lied in those of his statements that concerned the fight and shooting, beyond a reasonable doubt, is needed at minimum to defeat his defense.

    If the State charged him with lying to the police, the State would at least have a chance for a conviction even if he is found innocent in the shooting. For example, if he didn’t lie in his statements about the fight and shooting only on other matters or his lies still did not overcome reasonable doubt. This happened in the Casey Anthony case when she was convicted for lying but not for murder.

    Obviously, if the State doesn’t believe it has the evidence to even convict Zimmerman for lying to the police, how can the State possibly convict for murder?

    Reply ↓

    • The last eyewitness that saw anything before the shot saw George Zimmerman on top and no struggle.

      Witness #3 is adamant about the white tee-shirt guy being on top as the color of his shirt popped against all the darkness. George Zimmerman had on a light-colored tee shirt with his red jacket opened to expose the tee shirt.

      I think this is going to be a slam-dunk for the prosecution.

      Reply ↓

    • CSFC, then back to the big question as to why Zimmerman was not charged with lying?

      It would be much easier to convict Zimmerman of lying, even without convicting him of murder. I must assume that in his statement, Zimmerman said he was being hit while Martin was on top.

      Reply ↓

      • Why wasn’t Zimmerman also charged for plotting to conceal his true financial status and wasn’t charged for perjury?
        Kind of a silly question from someone who PRETENDS to know anything about the law!

        Very simple: The 5th amendment! NO ONE could force Zimmerman to incriminate himself. So he didn’t have the obligation to reveal tht he had received all that money and had plotted with his wife to fool the legal system.

        Reply ↓

    • Danielle, before you respond why don’t you read the top post which clearly refers to Zimmerman’s statements to the police and, in particular, his statements about the confrontation, fight and shooting.

      Reply ↓

      • Read my post just above this one.

        I do not believe Zimmerman’s statement. It is just NOT POSSIBLE for any human being to do EVERYTHING Zimmerman has stated (either directly or through his father and brother) was done to him by a 17 year old kid, 42 lbs ligher than him!

        And it is not possible for a person who is being beaten to an inch of his life (close to losing consciousness and to wear diapers for the rest of his life!) to grab a gun from UNDER Martin’s groin, and bring that gun up to the EXACT spot where he can shoot in a STRAIGHT, DIRECT trajectory from FRONT TO BACK into the kid’s heart!

        It is precisely the extreme nature of his rendering of what happened that makes his whole statement at the very least, a huge exageration of the severity of the “beating,” and probably most of it a LIE.

        And, it is getting more obvious every day that Zimmerman is certainly not the most trustworthy person and is certainly NOT exempt of lying if he can get some advantage from it!

        Reply ↓

    • Once again. . .you’re full of delusion!

      How can you believe that Zimmerman could show that
      “(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or”;

      Note: just unsuccessfully struggling to get up would meet the burden of “exhausted every reasonable means to escape,” so self-defense would still apply even if he was the “aggressor.”

      Reply ↓

    • Zimmerman had a long sleeve gray shirt. Martin a white T-shirt. Several witness though Martin had long shorts because his calves were exposed.

      Witness 3 peeked out under her blinds and saw white. She could not see fighting, heads, or arms.

      Reply ↓

      • Jim. . .Zimmerman’s long sleeve t-shirt was LIGHT GREY. . .which againt the dark of the other clothes, and in the dark, rainy night, could easily appear “white.”

        I am not sure where you go the information that Trayvon Martin’s shirt was white. I find NO listing in the police report and the inventory list of a “white t-shirt” from the victim. . .only a “dark grey hoodie” and a shirt. . .

        No matter what one wants to believe, it is clear that, very soon after Zimmerman’s head hit the ground (no matter HOW it hit the ground and for what reason, whether he was pushed, whether he fell, or whether he was hit and fell) and the back of his head started bleeding (minor bleeding, especailly considering that head wounds generally bleed a LOT), Zimmerman was in a position where his FACE was looking DOWN, since the blood on the picture CLEARLY runs from the back of his head toward his face, behind his ears, NOT down toward his collar. If, at that time he had REMAINED laying flat on his back, the blood would have smeared on the back of his head,, it would NOT have ran down and CERTAINLY not ran FORWARD toward his ears!
        Unless you know something about gravity that no one else knows?

        For Zimmerman to grab his gun from his waistband, would have been almost impossible if he had been pinned down, as Trayvon’s crotch would have been pressing just about at the level of Zimmerman’s waist, and Zimmerman would NOT have been able to go between Trayvon’s legs to grab that gun!
        It is MUCH more likely that, either Zimmerman ALREADY had his gun in his hand (and in that case, it is OBVIOUS that Trayvon had ever reason to try to disarm him since his life was CLEARLY in danger!) or tthat Zimmerman was ON TOP, or STANDING UP when he pulled his gun out of his waistband.

        By the way, to go back to one of your (very stupid) question from a previous post: I am not certain what my nationality has to do with this case. . .but I am certain that it is none of your business and it is an intrusive question. . .bordering on prejudice or. . .worthy of a “birther’s” delusions!
        But, since I don’t care. . .YES, I AM an US Citizen.
        Why?. . .did you think I was born in Kenya? Or do I have to prove that I am a “natural born citizen” in order to post my opinions?

        Please stick to the purpose of this forum!

        Reply ↓

    • Danielle,

      The legal system works differently in different countries. You had mentioned that you were not born in the USA, and that English was not your first language. Based on your facebook page, I presume your first language was French, though there is a possibility it was Dutch (Flemish).

      Perhaps Susan can help us out, since she seems to have a particular interest in international law, but my understanding is that under the Napoleonic Code, the judge has a more active role in seeking the truth.

      Under the US system, the jury determines the truth based on the evidence presented by two adversarial attorneys. They will present evidence in a matter that would lead a jury to come to a conclusion favorable to them.

      While lawyers might not be able to get away with something so blatant, consider how Trayvon Martin was presented as a 12 YO boy, and how NBC edited Zimmerman’s police call. Zimmerman was asked what race Martin was, and initially there was some hesitancy, since Martin was some distance away, had his hood up, and perhaps his hands in his front pocket. The dispatcher then asked for the description of his clothing.

      If you read the Neighborhood Watch training material, great emphasis is placed on observational skills, including exercises where an image is shown for a short time, and then watch members are asked simple questions such as whether there were cars were parked along the street. In terms of observing persons, watch members are taught to focus on the most obvious – race and clothing, and then progress toward details such as facial features, tattoos, etc. Zimmerman noticed the button when Martin was closer, and also was able to estimate Martin’s age.

      But the state attorney did present the transcript of the bond hearing in a way that omitted a sequence of questions. They should have at least included an ellipsis – to indicate that questions they felt were immaterial had been omitted.

      Back to why I asked the question. You suggested that if you were Shellie Zimmerman you would have answered the question differently. “I don’t know the amount right now like you asked, but I think I can help you out.” Remember, BDLR had just got through implying that her husband was a wife beater.

      Shellie Zimmerman is training to be a registered nurse. She is likely trained to view question and answers differently than a lawyer. She repeats parts of questions to make sure she understood what was being asked. If a patient were reporting something like “he was going to run from the back”, you would ask what that meant, and whether that indicated something that was being planned (he was going to).

      BDLR was not a truth seeker. He was seeking information that would bolster the position he was charged with advocating.

      Reply ↓

      • Jim. . .You are correct: I was born and raised in Belgium (French speaking). However, I wasn’t born yesterday! In fact, I have been living in the US probably longer than most of the posters on this site. . .41 years! I also obtained 2 bachelors degrees and 1 Master degree from US Universities, and I am also Phi Beta Kappa. And, to answer your question once again. . .I AM an US citizen. . .After being a “permanent resident Alien” for almost 41 years, after raising two children in this country, one a former Marine, I decided to apply for citizenship in November 2011, and received my citizenship on March 26, 2012. Since you seem to have gone to my facebook page, this shouldn’t be news to you!

        I am NOT stupid, and I do know the differences between legal systems. . .I also know (and have stated several times) that I am NOT pretending to be a legal wizkid. . .I have even asked that people consider my opinion as being more that of a lay person, much more like that of a member of the jury. And, while I respect and appreciate the comments made by TRUE legal wizkids in this forum, I am not fooled by the “fake legal jargon” used by some who are obviously much too happy and too quick to “create scenarios” that often do not hold water to believe that those “legal experts” know anymore than I do! Either that, or they are not very bright in their stated field!

        You misquoted my comment about what Shellie Zimmerman could have said (if she was honest) when asked the question about how much money was in the paypal fund. I didn’t say she should “offer to help,” I said she should have said that, she didn’t know EXACTLY that day, but that 3 days prior to that day, $155,000 had been deposited in that account, and that to get an update, her brother in law could be contacted (which would have been a lie anywya, since she had full access to the account on the day of the bon hearing!).

        There has been too much “jumping” on potential negative information about Trayvon, and too much “creative interpretation” of evidences by Zimmerman’s supporters.
        One example, is the recent comment about “Trayvon was wearing a white t-shirt!” DUMB and WRONG.
        Or, and I am paraphrasing: “The proof that Trayvon had a chance to go back home is that he changed from wearing pants to wearing shorts!” Again. . .DUMB and WRONG!

        No. ..I do not have respect for such far reaching and obviously biased stupid comments.
        I do have respect for true legal knowledge, but. . .I am CERTAINLY NOT intimidated by it. . .and I will ALWAYS check for myself rather than take someone else’s word for it!

        Now. . .If you wish to know anything more about me. ..feel free to visit (again apparently, based on your comments) my facebook page. I have NOTHING to hide, and I do not take crap from anyone!

        Reply ↓

        • Danielle, Love it.

          And to all the people here that are wondering what kind of people are going to be on the jury, They are almost all going to resemble Danielle’s general listening, social, cognitive skills, and impartial ability to understand what is being said, and to make fair and concise decisions. Both the defense and the prosecution are going to want people like this. So if you can’t convince her of something, you may want to rethink if MOM would be willing to use your line of logic in court. Just saying a good litmus test for your crazy ideas, because I have yet to hear even one idea supporting Z on here that someone like this would even consider to create reasonable doubt. Just saying.

          Reply ↓

    • Danielle,

      I ddin’t get past Liege. Since you said English was your 2nd language (and not 3rd), I had assumed French.

      Page 140 of 183 of the evidence PDF says that Martin had a “T-shirt” on in addition to his hoodie. I had assumed it was white. When he is at the 7-11, you can see a light color between his dark sweatshirt and his tan pants. In some views it looks like his sweatshirt has ridden up a bit. And in others as if his pants have sagged down. Where there is the most material exposed, it appears that there is a label showing on the pants (about 2 inches x 4 inches) right at the top rear, so I think it may actually be 6 or 8 inches of white undershorts rather than 6 or 8 inches of exposed white T-shirt. Most of the witness descriptions of Martins seemed to indicating the exposed legs. One witness thought he had long shorts (knee length or so). Wrestling, his undergarments may have been exposed. The women who reported a white T-shirt looked over the top of her window-sill, below the blinds. On her 911 call she wasn’t even sure whether the person on top was on top of anything. And in her interview she could not remember anything other than white, no arms or heads. Since her next door neighbor reports that Zimmerman’s head was generally away from them – toward the side walk, the person on top would have had their back to her leaning forward, away from her. This would be a position where a t-shirt or underpants would easily be exposed.

      She has two offices, and reported going into her inner office and locking the door and calling other people and can’t remember exactly where she was when she called 911.

      Reply ↓

      • Jim, face it! I saw ONE INCH of what looks like light grey . . .something (either shirt or underpants, I don’t care). I asked you to provide a link where YOU identified a “6 to 8 inch shirt or underpants showing between the hoodie and the pants.” You haven’t been able (or willing) to provide such a link. . .I believe it doesn’t exist!

        In the other hand, Zimmerman’s LIGHT GREY (long sleeve or not, I don’t care) shirt WAS SHOWING, since HIS jacket had a zipper that WASN’T zipped up. So, the likelihoold of a “White” or “light colored” shirt showing is much more in favor of ZIMMERMAN than Martin.

        If you cannot even admit such logic, I don’t know what can be done for you!

        I do not believe you are as blind and ridiculously spinning as Peter. But if you can’t even admit what is CLEARLY logical and is supported by ME report, and videos, and pictures. .. . you have lost me as an “interested” reader!

        Get real, get truthful, think with your head instead of your emotions, and we may still have a chance to have a healthy debate. If you choose to continue buying into (or working for) the Zimmerman propaganda machine. . .I’m not interested. . EVEN IF you visited my chidlhood town, even if you were stationned someplace in Western Germany.

        Sorry dude, If you want to continue to spread silliness, I can direct you to a half dozen forums who thrive on ridiculous exteme views, with no regard for facts and reason.
        But this doesn’t seem to be one of them. So. . .it’s your decision. Stop spreading stupid “scenarios” that do not hold water, or . . .you will continue your delusional commentaries with NO ONE to read them!

        Take care.

        Reply ↓

    • Danielle,

      I forgot to finish my thought about the bond hearing and SZ testimony.

      http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815

      Is the video of the bond hearing. BDLR and MOM’s examination of SZ is from 18:20 to 34:36. BDLR first tries to get SZ to admit that Zimmerman is a menace to society. He probably knows that is not true – and just wanted to get it into the record.

      But it simply is not going to lead to SZ answering his specific question other than with a specific answer. BDLR is not the Zimmerman’s friend.

      Reply ↓

      • Obviously he wasn’t a “friend of Zimmerman!” and he shouldn’t be!
        And, it is OBVIOUS that he wanted that “violent streak” in Zimmerman’s history to be on record!
        But he also OBVIOUSLY knew that, as Zimmerman’s wife, she couldn’t be forced to testify against her husband!

        So. ..what was your point?

        Are you trying to say that this is the reason she lied about their finance?. . .because the prosecutor wan’t “friendly?”

        Give me a break!

        Reply ↓

    • Danielle,

      CSFC had written:

      “The last eyewitness that saw anything before the shot saw George Zimmerman on top and no struggle.

      Witness #3 is adamant about the white tee-shirt guy being on top as the color of his shirt popped against all the darkness. George Zimmerman had on a light-colored tee shirt with his red jacket opened to expose the tee shirt.

      I think this is going to be a slam-dunk for the prosecution.”

      Witness 3 actually said that she heard calls for help, went into her back room upstairs and peeked out her window, underneath the blinds, and saw a person on top with a white T-shirt. She couldn’t see anything else, including heads, arms, actions. It wasn’t that she saw a non-struggle. It was she didn’t see anything.

      During her 911 call, even with prompting, she could not confirm that the person “on top” was actually on top of anything. In her FDLE interview she said that the person who was on top had his back to her.

      After peeking out, she went into an interior office and called 911. I think the gunshot is actually on her call (very faint),

      George Zimmerman did not have a white T-shirt. If his fleece was open, his grey long-sleeved shirt would not be visible from the rear,

      Trayvon Martin did have a T-shirt (which appears to be white, unless those were his undershorts) hanging out. At the 7-11, even with moderate leaning the white was exposed in the back. Most witnesses definitely saw exposed calves on Martin, such that some even thought he had shorts on.

      The witness (13) who was the first one to actually come out said that Martin had long jean shorts, dark blue hoodie, and white T-shirt. He also took a picture.

      PS The FDLE did a test firing into material cut out of the back of Martin’s hoodie and “One light grey Nike sweatshirt” (page 122 of 183). The medical examiner said “T-Shirt”, but possibly they chose that because the alternative was undershirt (page 140). The DNA tests (beginning page 104) refer to *cuffs* of Martin’s shirt (as distinguished) from his hoodie. There is Zimmerman’s DNA on the shirt (apparently in the cuff area). So it sounds like the hoodie sleeves also rode up so that Zimmerman’s DNA was on the the cuffs of the light grey sweatshirt.

      So both Zimmerman and Martin had grey long sleeved shirts. Martin’s was characterized as “light grey”.

      From what we know, it is more likely that Witness 3 saw Martin on top with his white T shirt and underpants exposed as a result of the struggle.

      It is certainly not a slam-dunk case that CSFC claimed.

      Reply ↓

  78. @Peter O: I hit the wrong key and didn’t have an opportunity to continue my train of thought.
    What I was saying is: how can your reasonably believe that Zimmerman can demonstrate that he had “exhausted every reasonable means to escape” when first, he didn’t go back to his truck as he was told. and second, once the confrontation happened, he may have been the one throwing the first punch, or pushing the teenager (most likely as his phone fell at that time), but he CERTAINLY didn’t use ANY reasonable means of escape or reasonable force since he didn’t even try to throw a punch, or to kick Trayvon in the groin, or push him off. . .because of the lack of traces on Trayvon’s body. So. . .if what he says is true, he just laid there, letting Trayvon “bash his face in,” while at the same time letting him “smash his head repeatedly on concrete” and “cover his mouth with his hand” and. . .pin him down!. . .and Trayvon Martin, the kid who was 42 lbs lighter than Zimmerman, and had NEVER had a violent temperament noted by anyone, was supposed to have done ALL THOSE THINGS with only TWO HANDS? And all in the space of 90 seconds?
    OBVIOUSLY Zimmerman didn’t “try to get away,” or “use reasonable force to get the kid off hm!”
    He was probably too busy holding his gun with both of HIS hands and pulling the trigger straight through the skin, through the lung, into the heart. . .in a STRAIGHT, DIRECT, Trajectory from front to back. . .and ALL this while “struggling?” and “having his head smashed repeatedly in concrete” and “having his face bashed in?” and “being pinned down?” with his “aggressor holding his hand against his mouth?” while he was still able to “scream for help” loud enough to be heard through a telephone 30 feet away?

    Am I the only one who think that the only person who could possibly have accomplished such feat (on an adversary 42 lbs heavier!) would be a Ninja?

    And how can ANYONE shoot that precisely (1″ from the median of the chest, 17 1/2″ from the top of the head, 1 1/2″ from the left nipple, through the skin, through the lower left lung, into the heart in a DIRECT, front to back trajectory. . .with NO angle, no deviation) while being “shaken” by all those “assaults” and being rendered “almost unconscious and close to wearing diapers for the rest of his life” ?

    I would love to hear how credible that seems to people!

    Reply ↓

    • Danielle,

      When was George Zimmerman told to go back to his truck?

      A “direct trajectory” means without deflection. The bullet went through the heart into the right lower lobe of the lung.

      The entry wound was *measured* with that precision.

      Reply ↓

    • I have been actively staying out of these fights you guys are having, quite frankly because I just don’t care about your fights. My concerns are centered around the rights of FL citizens, but as a point of clarification I want to put some information out from a gentleman named DeadMeat2. This is kind of old but as someone that has had to carry a 9mm as a backup weapon in combat, I agree with him completely and this is also the reason why we (The Average Joe on the Battlefield) want to carry the .45s again. What you are looking at is a COM (Center Of Mass) shot. It is what Military, Police, and civilians are trained to do. The mythological Shoot to Wound doesn’t exist outside TV, and unless your a SEAL, Ranger or Swat Sniper you are going to be able to surgically place a round through a nerve in the arm to render it useless or some such nonsense, you shoot at the single biggest target, the center of the chest. You will not hit arms or legs or a head-shot because they are moving rather quickly. As far as the reference to a Straight Trajectory goes it is referring to the actual path of the bullet through the body, 9mm’s and smaller have a nasty habit of changing course when they hit bone, If I place a perfect shot with a 9mm to the center of the chest the first thing it is going to hit is the body’s own body armor, the sternum or the ribs, and is as likely as not to be redirected away from the heart or lungs into another part of the chest. more importantly to me is the bad guy can still trip his IED vest, return fire to take me with him, or just generally cause mayhem in the few minutes it will take for him to bleed to death. In the case of a civilian self defense shooting, a few weeks ago just down the street from me the owner of a grocery store (a nice lady just trying to protect her family) shot the bad guy with a 9mm, the bad guy returned fire and killed the owner, the bad guy died a few minutes later on the street from blood loss. This brings me back to DeadMeat2, this is a good primer if you are planning to buy a self defense weapon of any type, he explains what happens when a round enters the body, although it is rather long I would rather have people read and make up their own minds about DM2’s information.

      Terminal Ballistics as viewed in a Morgue
      http://www.gunthorp.com/Terminal%20Ballistics%20as%20viewed%20in%20a%20morgue.htm

      Now back to the regularly scheduled nonsense until the next round of discovery, or the 29 Jun Bond hearing.

      Reply ↓

  79. Is the next really any surprise? As reported on talkleft.com: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/18/225020/679

    “Mark O’Mara told Piers Morgan tonight he will introduce another conversation at the June 29 bail hearing. In it, George and Shellie discuss her testifying at the April 20 hearing. George tells her, “Before you testify, pray first and tell the truth.” [More…]”

    Imagine how many more exonerating conversations there are in those tapes … as I observed in earlier posts!

    Apparently, the bail bondman will also testify that Shellie was very concerned that the money raised could NOT be used for bond.

    The “sandcastles” in the sky being built up about the “Zimmerman conspiracy” is rapidly turning to dust; as will the Shellie Z perjury case.

    Here is the link to legalinsurrection.com where the Shellie Z actual testimony and questions are legally dissected … and found to be legally wanting for any perjury charges.

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/perjury-charge-against-shellie-zimmerman-raises-more-questions-of-prosecutorial-overreaching/

    Reply ↓

  80. Interesting stuff here.

    If Zimmerman was on top, that would explain why the blood on his head flows towards his face, and why it’s not all smeared on the back of his head.

    Danielle, I never heard of Trayvon wearing a white T shirt either. Jimrtex, can you give us a reference for that?

    Was Trayvon’s hoodie a pullover or a zip-up? I can’t tell from the 711 video. By the way, the U-tube video is not slowed-down, which gives a better depiction of Trayvon’s real actions at the 711 than the slowed-down versions.

    Reply ↓

    • To Jimrtex, If Trayvon’s calves were exposed, then his pants must have ripped, because he’s wearing pants in the 711 video.

      Reply ↓

    • This has always been the problem with the picture evidence. It shows that George Zimmerman was on top.

      It also opens the door to self-inflicted woulds since the injuries are on the top of the head instead of the back.

      In addition, George Zimmerman sought confirmation of blood on himself from one of the witnesses just before telling the witness that Trayvon Martin beat him up so he had to shoot him.

      Reply ↓

  81. One thing that’s always struck me is that the calls for help are NOT INTERRUPTED like they would be from someone getting hit, or from someone hitting someone else. It seems to me that since the caller is obviously having difficulty retreating from the scene without assistance (which is why he’s calling for help), either the caller is being restrained – not hit – or the caller is trying to restrain someone else. Both of those scenarios detract from Zimmerman’s claim of having to pull the trigger due to fear of imminent death or severe injury.

    Except of course that the last call for help IS interrupted – by the gunshot.

    Reply ↓

    • According to experts:

      – Trayvon Martin screamed “I’m begging you”
      – Trayvon Martin screamed “help”

      IANAVE, but…

      When I originally listened to the calls, I heard Trayvon Martin screaming something like “mama” on the 9-1-1 call made by the HoA lady.

      The entire call was disturbing because you could hear the boy trying to get away from the crazy guy.

      Reply ↓

  82. A discrepancy that proves Martin reached Brandy’s unit, went inside and changed from long pants to shorts before going out again:

    The discovery document page 16, the “Offense Report” by Anthony Raimondo. says: “Martin was wearing a grey sweatshirt and light colored shorts and white Jennie shoes.”

    The 7/11 video shows Martin was wearing long pants. So he had to have either changed to shorts or had shorts underneath and dropped them off at Brandy’s unit before going out again just before the shooting.

    Reply ↓

    • The report by Officer Raimondo was his at the scene report written in more detail. Officer Raimondo wrote his report from his first hand account at the scene of the shooting.

      It may well be that the pants were “hiked up” and looked like shorts, but there is a discrepancy here.

      Reply ↓

  83. Here’s another thing: If someone intended to attack someone else, wouldn’t they first remove a bulky can of Arizona tea from their sweatshirt pocket? Especially true if the pocket was a front pouch.

    Page 16, as the officer lifted Trayvon’s shirt, he “felt a large cold can in the center pocket”.

    Only pullovers have center pockets, which means that Trayvon’s shirt was never showing, because it was under the pullover. So the “white shirt” seen by the witness was not Trayvon’s.

    Reply ↓

    • @hapufern –

      “Only pullovers have center pockets, which means that Trayvon’s shirt was never showing, because it was under the pullover. So the “white shirt” seen by the witness was not Trayvon’s.”

      Exactly! Additionally, the bullet went through both the hoodie and through the shirt underneath. That means only the hoodie would have been seen by the witness 3, not the shirt underneath.

      In the 7-11 video, no undershirt is visible. When George Zimmerman called the police, he made no mention of a tee-shirt or undershirt. George Zimmerman’s jacket was unzipped and the light colored tee-shirt he wore underneath was exposed as we saw on the police surveillance video.

      Reply ↓

    • Lastly, even the word “incorrectly” was not incorrect because you were implying that the paramedics rolled up the pants BEFORE Ofc. Raimondo saw Martin to explain why he said in his report that Martin was wearing “light colored shorts” could be a mistake.

      Reply ↓

      • Once again, you’re full of BS! Hapufern didn’t “IMPLY” anything. . .he merely suggested a possible explanation for the mistake made by that ONE officer who “thought” he saw the body of Trayvon Martin wearing shorts!

        Contrary to your usual spin and bias, Hapufern has NEVER been anything but straight forward in expressing common sense and factual statements, and pre-empting his “opinions” with clear indications that those were “opinions” or “possibilities!”

        Look at the 7/11 video, and look at the inventory of Trayvon Martin’s belonging in the ME report. . .Do you think that the ME would LIE? Or that he would make that mistake?

        Get over it. . .one of your “wishfull thinking” attempt, one of your spin has failed. . .move on to “imagine” another way to “prove” that Martin was responsible for his own death!

        Reply ↓

    • Take a look at the 7-11 video when Martin was standing at the counter. I suppose you are going to tell me that isn’t his T-shirt.

      Reply ↓

      • You mean. . .that ONE INCH of white material that shows ABOVE the pull on hoodie?
        So. . .you really think that, when Trayvon was confronted by Zimmerman, he asked him to wait 10 seconds before the beginning of the struggle so that he could take his hoodie off, so that his white shirt would show, and then, Zimmerman with all the “consideration in the world,” put Zimmerman’s hoodie back on AFTER he killed the kid?

        How can a hoodie without a zipper be showing a “white shirt?” And how does someone wearing a “white shirt” end up getting a bullet hole through his HOODIE?

        Reply ↓

    • The paramedics who treated Zimmerman lifted up his shirt to see if he had any other injuries besides the wounds inflicted by Martin to his head. He was handcuffed, but was permitted to stand up, They might have unzipped his fleece so that they could lift his long sleeve shirt.

      Reply ↓

      • Okay, Jim. . .please explain to me (see, I may be dense after all!): What does your comment about Zimmerman’s LIGHT GRAY long sleeve (I don’t see the “significance of long sleeve” by the way) that was “lifted to see if he had any other injuries” has to do with Martin wearing a hoodie that didn’t have a zipper, so couldn’t possibly show his shirt (except, maybe 1″ around the neck!)?

        Inquiring minds want to know. It is becoming increasingly difficult to follow all the spin you and Peter O are making on pretty straight forward disclosures!

        Reply ↓

    • Danielle,
      Below the hoodie and above the pants. There are 6 or 8 inches of exposed white. I can’t tell for sure whether it is the T-shirt or his underpants. As he keeps reaching deeper into his pockets, more and more is exposed.

      Reply ↓

      • Really? I guess we must not have been watching the same 7/11 video!
        I watched 3 different versions. . .the MOST I saw of a “white” anything (whether a t-shirt or underwear) was about ONE INCH, while Trayvon was digging in his pockets. Then he jacked up his pants, and the ONE INCH of a lighter (grey or white) fabric disappeared.

        Here is the link to one of the video I watched. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvwhGVWAdjI&feature=related

        Could you please provide a link to a video at 7/11 that provides a view of SIX INCHES of white material? Thank you.

        Reply ↓

    • @jimtrex –

      blood was on zimmerman’s tee-shirt (probably his own blood — self-inflicted wounds covered elsewhere). The z-blood on z’s shirt indicates that his orange coat was open.

      Reply ↓

    • Danielle. About 3:16 in this video.

      Notice it is when he is leaning over and asking for the cigar that the clerk won’t sell him without an ID.

      Martin would have been leaning forward even more as he was attacking Zimmerman, than he was in the 7-11.

      The 911 caller specified “white T-shirt”

      Reply ↓

  84. PeterO. Please read page 10 and page 24. “PANTS collected from the victim during the autopsy.” PANTS!!! Not shorts. Same as in the 711 video.

    They were probably hiked up from the fight to appear as shorts, or they were rolled up during CPR.

    Reply ↓

    • Oh, sorry Peter. I just read your comment at 4:18 where you said there’s a discrepancy. Yes, there is. I came to the same conclusion as you that the pants may have hiked up. Also, I think they might have been rolled up during an inspection of the body for other wounds.

      Reply ↓

    • Or they may be shorts.

      I notice the ME report lists Martin as wearing “shoes” but he was wearing “tennis shoes” so the ME could just as easily treated “shorts” as “pants” leaving the police department to the task of more detailed identification.

      It is just another discrepancy that must be accounted for.

      Reply ↓

    • Sandbagger incorrectly said: “I think the paramedics rolled them up.”

      Officer Raimondo was on the scene BEFORE rescue arrived.

      This is from Officer Raimondo’s report (in which he says he arrived at “1920 hours”):

      “Sgt. McCoy relieved Ofc. Ayala from chest compressions and she and I performed CPR for approxirrrntely six minutes before rescue arrived. Once rescue took over, I stood by and watched until they pronounced the male deceased.”

      So the police officer who did the original CPR for at least 6 minutes, BEFORE RESCUE ARRIVED, stated Martin was wearing “light colored shorts.” He had plenty of time to see what Martin was wearing. He also said “tennis shoes” while the ME said “shoes.” This issue is an open issue that should be resolved.

      Reply ↓

      • PeterO You have done this several times now and it’s getting irritating. You keep saying that I said things I didn’t. Please start quoting the correct people.

        “Sandbagger incorrectly said: “I think the paramedics rolled them up.”

        Please correct this, and from now on I am going to start asking you to correct ALL of these mistakes from now on. It really shows disrespect to the facts of this page and to your total inability to read anything without a bias view. It speaks loads to your inability to read stuff and get a proper understanding of it due to you preconceived desperate notions to grab at credulous concepts that lack reasonable logic. It shows that you are always trying to read things to your favor, and it is starting to show so badly I can’t imagine that anyone on this blog other than jimrtex is taking anything you say with any seriousness.

        Thank you

        Reply ↓

    • Sandbagger, you are correct. I didn’t catch my error until after I hit the button (but the import of my comment remains the same). So here is my correction:

      Sandbagger MISLEADINGLY said: “I think the paramedics rolled them up.”

      You knew the issue was what Ofc. Raimondo saw and wrote in his report. So you were trying to imply that rescue rolling up Martin’s pants explains his report when, in reality, Ofc. Raimondo was there BEFORE rescue arrived. And he was in close contact with the victim including giving CPR for at least 6 minutes BEFORE rescue arrived.

      I do not see you correcting your post. If you do so, I have no problems retracting the word “misleadingly.”

      Reply ↓

      • PeterO, I am going to email Susan and ask her to remove you from this blog. You seem to not understand, I never commented on this subject, it was someone else that made the comment “I think the paramedics rolled them up.” you need to read back thru this blog and find out who made that comment, it was not me. Again this shows you total lack of thought and respect to the people here. FIX IT OR LEAVE!!!!!

        Reply ↓

    • Sorry, the following hit the wrong thread so I repeat it here in the correct thread:

      Lastly, even the word “incorrectly” was not incorrect because you were implying that the paramedics rolled up the pants BEFORE Ofc. Raimondo saw Martin to explain why he said in his report that Martin was wearing “light colored shorts” could be a mistake.

      Reply ↓

    • You are correct, sandbagger.

      It was “CommonSenseForChange” who made the misleading comment. Everyone, please ignore the name Sandbagger and substitute “CommonSenseForChange” in this thread. Sandbagger, thank you for calling my attention to the error in name.

      Reply ↓

    • PeterO said:

      “You are correct, sandbagger.
      It was “CommonSenseForChange” who made the misleading comment. Everyone, please ignore the name Sandbagger and substitute “CommonSenseForChange” in this thread. Sandbagger, thank you for calling my attention to the error in name.”

      ***I didn’t say anything misleading. ****

      Read the evidence, listen to the witness statements and deduce. In some statements, deducing is not even necessary since the statements are plain.

      My comment stands as is. If you have a question about it and need clarification, it’s ok to ask.

      Reply ↓

  85. Nobody has commented on reports that O’Mara told Piers Morgan he will introduce another conversation at the June 29 bail hearing. In the tape, George and Shellie discuss her testifying at the April 20 hearing. George tells her, “Before you testify, pray first and tell the truth.” [More…]”

    There are probably many more exonerating conversations in those tapes!

    It is also reported that the Zimmerman bail bondman will also testify at the bail hearing that Shellie was very concerned that the money raised could NOT be used for bond.

    If these reports are true an already weak perjury case just got a lot weaker.

    Reply ↓

    • This will not help SZ, if anything that will hurt her and that is a whole other case. This is to help GZ, it is to show the judge that he did not intend to mislead the court. However I have a good idea what Lester will say. “I don’t care” “He does not get to sit there like a potted plant”

      Reply ↓

        • Yes he he did. I was writing from memory. I should have looked it up, however I don’t feel that I misstated his intended meaning. Thanks for pointing it out 😉

          Reply ↓

    • You ignore the point of the bail bondsman’s testimony (if it is as reported).

      If, just before the hearing, the Zimmermans did not believe the money could be used for bond then it had no value for bond. What good is the money for bond if it couldn’t be used for that purpose?

      Importantly, it is clear from the tapes that the opportunities for Zimmerman and O’Mara to speak in person — and not over the phone — were virtually non-existent. Zimmerman expressed frustration and doubts about O’Mara over this very issue. However, O’Mara knows the calls are taped, which is why he was always vague over the phone and details were not discussed. There are also Constitutional issues in listening in on attorney-client phone calls but that is another matter.

      Keeping a defendant in jail is the “gold standard” for a prosecutor because attorney-client communications effectively ceases when compared to when a client is free on bond.

      O’Mara was speaking the truth when he said the “mistake” was due to “fear, distrust, and confusion.” He had virtually no contact with his client before the hearing.

      Anyone who thinks Zimmerman’s telling Shellie to “tell the truth” has no value is simply kidding themselves.

      Reply ↓

      • PeterO said.

        “You ignore the point of the bail bondsman’s testimony (if it is as reported). If, just before the hearing, the Zimmermans did not believe the money could be used for bond then it had no value for bond.”

        This shows how totally lost and deluded you are. The judge could care less what she thought it could or couldn’t be used for. She was ask what her financial worth was and what was in the account that came from paypal. Even if they could not use it for bond, that would not matter, it was still money that they had access to, especially the cash they had taken out and some of it that had been put in “the box”, and being that the judge was kindly giving them a reduced bail it was totally their responsibility to disclose this, and no one else. At this point, if she wants to use this defense she would have to show medical reports that she is so mentally handicapped that she can’t understand simple questions like this. It is not the responsibility of the prosecution or the judge to explain these things to her, it is her responsibility to ensure that she understands them and to then answer them correctly. period. If there is any doubt that she does not understand the question the judge will nicely remind her that this is why she had counsel. Also choosing “bad” counsel is not a defense either. Your legal arguments are just insane! and no self respecting lawyer would ever try and use them in open court. They would be laughed at so bad that even the loser Alan Dershowitz would laugh out loud.

        Reply ↓

    • sandbagger said: “Even if they could not use it for bond, that would not matter, it was still money that they had access to”

      If Zimmerman cannot use the money for bond (which would include paying a bail bondsman) and she truthfully disclosed all other funds that were available for that purpose, then how can Zimmerman post bond based if Judge Lester includes the website funds as available for bond?

      Reply ↓

      • The judge granting someone reduced bond is not about how much they can afford to pay to a bail bondsman, but rather that they are impoverished and that their impoverishment should not be use against them to undermined their fair chance at a defense, as in, using it to create a difficult time for the defendant to gain access to their lawyer due to a lack of financial means to make bail. The Judge takes into account many aspects, including the fact that MOM was doing this on a pro bono. They also stated that the family was poor and could not afford much, not sure how much truth to this there is, but the judge excepted it. For instance if the judge knew they had $100,000 in the bank, he may have looked at the living and legal expenses that are up and coming and chose on a $200,000 bond, knowing that it would have cost him $20,000 to release himself, or he would have realized that his money was for lawyer fees and living expenses only, and taken a look at how the trust was to be set up and still set a low bail of $150,000

        Now, it is my personal wish, unlike many, that GZ get a second chance at bail. It will be substantially more, but I think it is better for him to enable he and his lawyer be able to present a better defense. I personally want Z to have every chance at putting on the very best defense he possibly can, because I personally feel that the evidence is contrary and problematic to a not-guilty verdict, so if he is to be found guilty, I want to personally feel that he was granted access to the very best chance of a defense. Also if he is let out and runs, he will be hunted down and killed or spend the rest of his life in jail when found. His family will live the rest of their lives in danger of death threats or worse. I doubt he would do this. His best chance is having a jury find him not guilty on grounds of self defense or second, plea down to involuntary manslaughter and spending a couple years in jail and being a very young 30 year old man when he gets out with the rest of his life in front of him, and in hindsight this is not much to ask for the dumb choices he has made. I think that for his own sanity, spending a couple of years in jail would allow him to feel that he had paid his price for what he had taken away from TM and be able to more peacefully and free of a hysterical public, move on with his life. 🙂

        Reply ↓

    • BTW, even if the zimmermans had put the money into a trust with their lawyer BEFORE the bond hearing and then stated that they had no money, they would still be in the same trouble. This money is considered by the court as “financial means” (especially being that the money was always and still is set up for legal and living means) and is relevant to the judges decision ONLY when considering a lower that usual bail for a defendant that GZ was benefiting from and so had the sole responsibility to show all his ducks in a roe, not the judge or prosecutions responsibility. Now, if the trust was unavailable to them as in a college trust, so money that could only be used or gain access to if they were in college, then “maybe” they could have gotten away with it. But to the contrary, this trust (at the time we all know there was no trust set up, but even his website stated it) was explicitly designated for the primary use of legal and living expenses.

      If these things don’t make sense to you, I don’t see how you think you have a right to make any judgment on this matter. Though I can guess, you have been reading and listening to too many people over at talkleft and other blogs who are making lavishly convoluted legal arguments about trust and “word usage” and so forth you have allowed yourself to be convinced by people that are purposely trying to confuse others in Z’s favor. A lot of the people over at talkleft know they are doing this and are doing on purpose to confuse people. Even Jeralyn hasn’t taken any sides on this matter, and given her bias in this case that should give you the wisdom to give these trolls over there a wide berth. 😉

      In all these blogs you are going to find 3 kinds of people, the Z’s supporters, the TM supporters, and the people who are deeply curious about the legal aspects of the case. I suggest you listen to the latter. They are more fun anyway 🙂 Now you may find that some of these “legal” people are leaning towards Z’s guilt, be patience, that could change greatly in a short while after all the evidence comes out.

      Cheers

      Reply ↓

  86. One more point about the Shellie Z perjury. 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․”

    When Shellie answered, she used the word “currently” and immediately said her brother had the current amount and was available to provide it. So the prosecutor KNEW AT THE TIME she answered that she believed the question dealt with current amounts and that was the question she was answering — the question used the words “right now.” So I see no way she can be convicted for perjury when, by her very own qualification explaining her answer, she show her belief that the question was for a “current” amount.

    If the prosecutor asked for an amount four days ago that might be a different story; but he did not, after he heard from her that she believed the question to be for a “current” amount.

    Reply ↓

    • This is just silly. You are the perfect example of why people should never represent themselves in court. If you started “word games” with a judge in open court he would find you in contempt of court before you could finish the sentence. It is a court of law and in these issues the only person that is allowed to decide on what a “word” means is the judge.

      If you want to get her off of perjury there is only one way to do it, and that’s to convince the judge that she suffered some kind of massive memory loss of the past 5-6 days.

      That being said, this is her first offense and any judge is going to take into consideration the predicament she is in. She will get off with a fine or something very insignificant, and it will be dropped to a misdemeanor and then erased from her record.

      I also doubt that the feds will be interested in money laundering or any other crime, is was clear that they were trying to get the money out of paypal to their banks where it was accessible so that they could use it to get him out and pay off bills. I really don’t think there is enough there to charge either one with any other crimes. The most suspicious part is that they were taking $10,000 in cash and putting it in a safety deposit box, now Lester may find that interesting and ask that the box be looked at before releasing GZ again.

      GZ can not be charged with any crime as he did not testify and thus did not purger himself. His punishment for this as Lester put it “he can’t sit there like a potted plant” “and benefit from a lower bail” is his bond revocation. Legally that is the only thing that can be done to him.

      Typically in a murder charge bail would be set at around a million. When I was 19 I was charges with a felony assault and my bail was set ant $500,000. You must remember, GZ was asking a special favor from the judge to lower it considerably on “good faith” that GZ had be honest and compliant in every step of the investigation thus far. Lester agreed with GZ and against what the prosecution wanted he was amazingly kind to GZ, Lester went out on a limb for him. Even if they had disclosed all that money I still think Lester would have helped GZ in this matter. I think that is why Lester is so pissed off about them lying. NOT because he is being manipulated by the media or anyone else.

      So to wrap up PeterO, anyone that would be inept enough to try and go into court and plea not guilty to perjury charges in the SZ case would be a fool on such a level that they may get the book thrown at them and end up spending 5 years in prison. Don’t be that guy 🙂

      Reply ↓

    • Sandbagger said: “It is a court of law and in these issues the only person that is allowed to decide on what a “word” means is the judge.”

      It is a jury in a perjury trial.

      Shellie truthfully answered the question it is clear she believed she was being asked. The prosecutor heard that answer. The prosecutor did not follow-up her clear response with a question to explain what he did want, such as: “do you know how much was raised as of four days ago?” or “from what you know has the amount raised up to today exceeded 100,000? etc.). The prosecutor was more interested in a trumped up perjury charge then getting the information which, I believe will eventually come out, he already had from the tapes.

      Kid yourself if you want, claim you know the law if you want, pray for a perjury conviction if you want. It will not happen based on the questions asked.

      Reply ↓

    • I guess we’ll see if Shellie is convicted or not. In my opinion, some of her statements were more incriminating than others and cannot be excused away.

      If GZ’s attorney admits to wrongdoing in the new bond hearing, it may be more difficult for Shellie to deny a perjury charge, even if she wanted to. So far, the Zimmermans have not publicly denied that Shellie committed perjury.

      Does Shellie have an attorney yet?

      Reply ↓

    • HP, O’Mara NEVER admitted to any “wrongdoing” in a criminal sense.

      And he will not do so at the hearing. This is clearly evidenced by his use of the George-Shellie conversation, in which George urges Shellie to tell the truth, and the testimony of the bail bondsman.

      Reply ↓

      • I listened to all 6 phone converstations from jailed that were released to the public, and I never heard Zimmerman telling Shellie to “tell the truth” at the bond hearing! Please provide a specific link where I can hear him give that advice. . .which would be weird, as he spend most of those 6 X 16 minures on the phone making sure that Shellie could “hide” the funds in different accounts, and remain totally in charge of the money!

        And, the bailman ONLY had “Shellie’s statements” as a basis for what he found out!. . .I do not doubt that Shellie told the bailman that they didn’t have money. . .But why would she be more honest with bailman than UNDER OATH with the JUDGE?

        Duh. . again!

        Reply ↓

        • Danielle, that statement was made on a yet to be disclosed tape. MOM said he would show it at court. However we must remember that he is representing GZ not SZ, So all he wants to show is that GZ had no intent on lying to the judge and he will use this statement to try and persuade the judge into believing that his client had the best intentions and to grant him bail again. Also remember that GZ didn’t speak during the bond hearing so he could not pujure himself. GZ can not be charged with perjury, Lester stated that “he cannot sit there like a potted palm and get the benifit of a reduced bail as the result of a lie” so he did the only thing he could, he revoked bond and lester, was the one that suggested to the prosecution that he expected them to charge SZ with perjury.

          Reply ↓

          • Thank you for the concise summeray, sandbagger. Yes, I do realize that Omara was talking about a “not yet released” phone call. . .and one could wonder why he asked that not all phone calls be released. . .since (according to Peter,) so many would be to Zimmerman’s advantage!

            Although I am a believer in God, I personally do not find “religious references” to be convincing arguments, as it is soooo easy to make them and there are so many hypocritical statements made “in the name of God!”

            I am convinced that George and Shellie do care deeply for each other. I do not see them as very “Godly” or interested in the truth, however! And, I wonder if that statement was made. . .before or after the April 20 bond hearing? Before or after what was left of the Paypal account money was delivered to O’mara for safe keeping.

            I found plenty of information about those two characters in the 6 phone calls that we have been allowed to hear. In fact, this is why I decided to LISTEN to them (in spite of the difficulty that Zimmerman’s whispering created for the listener) instead of merely reading the transcripts! And I must say that, based on those phone calls, I actually have a higher regard for Shellie’s honesty than for George! I do not think that an occasional reference to God or to honesty. . .especially if it was made AFTER being caught in a lie, would significantly change my mind!

            In fact, after listening to the first of the 6 calls, and the reference Shellie made to “celebrating” after she and Suzie were told of O’mara’s “plan” didn’t really inspire trust in O’Mara’s. In fact, it kind of gave me a slightly nauseauting feeling about his ethics.

            But I am willing to wait and see.

            By the way. . .OBVIOUSLY George couldn’t be charged with perjury! He could just have pleaded “the 5th” and NO ONE could have forced him to a testimony that would incriminate him in any way in that perjury!

    • I agree that O’Mara has not said GZ has committed any crime, but the bail can stay revoked if Judge Lester is not convinced that GZ has learned to respect the court. The judge said the main reason he was revoking bond was because Zimmerman “does not properly respect the law”.

      Having a new bond set will probably require some kind of apology or at least admission by the defense – in court – of wrongdoing (not criminal activity) by the defendant for allowing the court to be deceived.

      It’s one thing for O’Mara to bring stuff up on TV, and quite another to tell it to the judge in court.

      Reply ↓

    • PeterO Said,

      “Sandbagger said: “It is a court of law and in these issues the only person that is allowed to decide on what a “word” means is the judge.”

      It is a jury in a perjury trial. ”

      No, a judge is the only one in a court that has the final say on what the meaning of something is. He will instruct the jury on what his understanding is and that they are required by law to make a decision based on what his version of what “words” mean. That is why anyone who is out there trying to play word games to avoid the reality of SZ guilt either has no understanding of how a court works, or, even worse, and I have been seeing this a lot lately, they know exactly how a court works, but they are trying to confuse the gullible public so as to create a hysterical group of people to sway public opinion. Frankly I feel that the code of professional conduct of attorneys should add a canon to include disbarment for lawyers that purposefully mislead the public for political or other dishonest sway. Such as Alan Dershowitz has done, he knowingly and very carefully, so as to not be legally liable, misguided the public as to what Fl law requires in a probable cause affidavit. He know that what he was saying is that in any other state Corry would be in trouble, however he know dam well that in Fl she had no legal requirement to include exculpatory evidence. His doing such dishonest things creates a public that is already clueless to the law, and then worse makes them think the law is something it is not. Frankly the rules already say that you are responsible for legal advice you give, and I feel that the law is of such great importance that protecting it from being used in such ways dishonestly should be a crime. And this crap of free speech is a joke. As a paralegal it was illegal for me to give any legal opinion or advice on anything. The ethical codes of conduct are LAWS and by becoming a representative of the law you give up your right to free speech in this matter. I only wish it were prosecuted more and that the language was stronger in this matter, there is nothing more dangerous than a misinformed public.

      Reply ↓

    • I pretty much doubt that Shellie’s case will have a jury, because I don’t think she’ll plead “not guilty” unless she claims she was intimidated by George.

      Reply ↓

      • Yes. . . her “only” viable defense! And even then. . . it would be soooo fake, in view of the phone conversations that clearly demonstrated the intention to “hide” the money from both the court and the IRS!

        I don’t think she has a “viable defense!” Unless the judge decides to play dumb!

        Reply ↓

  87. CommonSense, thanks for your note about the bullet and the hoodie. I guess that about clinches it. There does not seem to have been any visible white shirt on Trayvon.

    Reply ↓

    • That’s my take on things as presented by the evidence. The other thing that is really, really messed up in this case is that O’Mara took a case without knowing the facts — seems like he did it for the publicity just like Sonner and co.

      Reply ↓

  88. @ Peter O.
    Enough with your delusions and attempt to spin everything!

    You state: “So the police officer who did the original CPR for at least 6 minutes, BEFORE RESCUE ARRIVED, stated Martin was wearing “light colored shorts.” He had plenty of time to see what Martin was wearing. He also said “tennis shoes” while the ME said “shoes.” This issue is an open issue that should be resolved.”

    If you were at all honest (or smart!) you would KNOW that that issue has been resolved! It was resolved when the inventory of Trayvon’s personal items was written, and it stated that they collected PANTS from the victim. . .NOT SHORTS!

    No matter how that ONE police officer made the mistake to believe Martin was wearing shorts, it is clear that he was wearing pants at the 7/11 and PANTS, not shorts, were taken off his dead body!

    So many of your comments are so biased and reflect such “spin,” that they are outright ridiculous! Do you have any pride at all? Stop making a fool of yourself!
    Spreading lies and “wishful thinking” doesn’t make you look very “knowledgeable” or “credible,” and it does NOTHING to shed a positive light on Zimmerman’s defense!

    Reply ↓

  89. @ Peter O:

    You mean. . .in your book, Tennis shoes are NOT shoes?
    What are they? Should the ME have called them “sandals,” or “boots,” or “flip flops?”

    They were SHOES. . .Once again, you are trying to split hair. . ONLY WHEN YOU THINK IT MIGHT help your biased view and your “creative” scenarios!

    Yes, there is a discrepancy between the ONE “shorts” comment and the facts that both the video and the ME inventory shows that Trayvon was wearing PANTS! In fact, I believe that, even in Zimmerman call to 911 he stated Trayvon was wearing sweats or jeans. . .NO shorts!

    Face it. . .the “discrepancy” is NOT going to prove your “creative assertion” that Martin went home to change pants! Why would he, anyway? In a “cold, rainy night” decide to suddenly change into shorts?

    Duh!

    Reply ↓

      • Not sure what this is in response to? I think you may have posted it to the wrong comment. Got to say, wordprss kinda sucks

        Reply ↓

    • Sandbagger –

      You’re right. I was directing that at Danielle, althouth at the time I was attempting to reply to your response to PeterO’s wrongly attributed quote. I had to laugh because he’s always claiming hapufern is misquoting him.

      Yes, wordpress needs work. But, don’t let the misquotes upset you too much. If you do, you’ll end up sounding like PeterO and since I enjoy reading your take on things, I don’t want to start scrolling past your comments like I do to his.

      Reply ↓

      • Oh, I was not upset at all by your comment or that it was in the wrong place, LOL. Totally understand. As far as PeterO goes I think it is time I stop responding to him at all, I have already stopped reading or responding to jimrtex for much of the same reason. Though I feel that the evidence and testimony is leaning towards a guilty verdict on some level for Z, there is still so much we don’t know and the trial is a year away. So to make a sound judgment yet is preposterous. But when I listen to a lot of the arguments made by some Z supporters it sounds like they are just trolling. And it is a shame that they are here when there are so many other places for them. It would be nice if there were just one place to discuss this without the trolls.

        Reply ↓

        • I totally agree! I do not know how this case will end up. And I believe that the second degree murder may be an overreach. But I do not understand why Peter and Jim are so intent in spinning evidences that are so obvious to everyone!

          I am certain that this case is too complicated to make a firm judgement at this time, with the sparse release of evidence, but if the case for Zimmerman self-defense was so easy to prove, why do his supporters feel the need to INVENTE scenarios that are absolutely ridiculous and spin information in a way that is totally illogical and refers to NON-EXISTENT “facts” (i.e., the 6 to 8 inches of white shirt showing between Trayvon’s hoodie and his pants!. . .that is information that is SO easy to verify. . .why bother lying about it?)

          Reply ↓

  90. Apparently, Danielle is incapable of reading [a post] before her viperous tongue (or is it fingers) begins wagging, foaming and clattering (or the other way around). I said:

    “Nobody has commented on reports that O’Mara told Piers Morgan he will introduce another conversation at the June 29 bail hearing. In the tape, George and Shellie discuss her testifying at the April 20 hearing. George tells her, “Before you testify, pray first and tell the truth.” [More…]”

    There are probably many more exonerating conversations in those tapes!

    It is also reported that the Zimmerman bail bondman will also testify at the bail hearing that Shellie was very concerned that the money raised could NOT be used for bond.

    If these reports are true an already weak perjury case just got a lot weaker.”

    Reply ↓

    • So. . .you are calling me a vipere?
      How sweet. . and so flattering, coming from you!

      I must admit. . .I have had my fill of your spinning, and I only suffer through just enough of your “fairy tales” to keep up with what the OTHER posters, who seem to have a much more sensible approach have to say.

      You really are not that important, you know! When I do read your comments it is basically to see what the Zimmerman camp is plotting as a defense. . .and I’m not impressed!

      Reply ↓

    • Only your tongue. Quite frankly I rarely read your posts since they are inchoate on top of being uncivil. Better for readers to just skip them over as they would spam.

      Reply ↓

      • You are so funny! Obviously your comment is the model of “civility!” LOL!
        And, if my comments can be considered as “spam” by some, I would say that your comments fall more under the label of “propaganda.”

        So . . .please feel free to ignore my comments. . .but I will continue making them when ever I feel the need to bring some well needed “reality check” in your fairy tale!

        Reply ↓

    • @Danielle –

      Just consider yourself lucky your “tone” was not attacked. Basically, my take on some of the posters here is that we’re at a tea-party where minorities, girls and newbies must extend the pinky and curtsy/bow before making any comments — in their minds.

      The hostility escalates if you feed them. Herd mentality.

      However, I see that most of them have stopped posting and new information is now allowed in for discussion.

      Reply ↓

  91. Re: sandbagger said: “GZ can not be charged with perjury, Lester stated that “he cannot sit there like a potted palm and get the benifit of a reduced bail as the result of a lie” so he did the only thing he could, he revoked bond and lester, was the one that suggested to the prosecution that he expected them to charge SZ with perjury.”

    ***GZ could have been charged with obstruction of justice. But, obviously, the prosecutor hid the tape(s) where, according to O’Mara, he told her to tell the truth. I have no doubt the prosecutor hid a lot more that was in those tapes.

    ***Judge Lester did not do the “only thing he could.” He should have called a bond revocation hearing so he could hear GZ’s side of the story. And maybe ask the prosecutor the question why he didn’t just ask the brother-in-law how much had been “currently” raised if it was that important. Or ask himself why he didn’t ask for the brother-in-law to be questioned himself — if he is so blithely saying “prosecute” as you say. Please provide the quoted language where Lester said to “prosecute” that we can later embarrass him when the perjury charge quickly disappears in a “not guilty” verdict, but only after squandering scarce public funds and the scarce court resources of a court system that has, to a large extent, broken down for lack of funding.

    ***You refuse to acknowledge that if the funds raised could NOT be used for bail, then bond could only then have to be based on that funds that could be used for that purpose assuming no “substitution” was possible. In this case there were no “substitution” funds because the Zimmermans were basically “broke” and in debt.

    Reply ↓

    • Your inability to show that you have even the slightest amount of intelligence is getting irritating, I feel like I am talking to a child, how old are you PeterO, I only ask because if you are 15 or something then it makes sense that much of what you say is so off. I if that is the case then what I am going to say is rude.

      ***GZ could have been charged with obstruction of justice. But, obviously, the prosecutor hid the tape(s) where, according to O’Mara, he told her to tell the truth. I have no doubt the prosecutor hid a lot more that was in those tapes.

      No dude he couldn’t have been charged with obstruction, he is, first, covered by the 5th, and to charge they would have to show that he made an action. he did neither. this is just dumb as hell.

      The prosecutor hid nothing, again this is so dumb I just can believe it. WOW!

      “He should have called a bond revocation hearing ”

      Why? I think Lester viewed it the only way he could have responsibly. MOM asked for a hearing and Lester replied that this was a simple matter that could be taken care of now. Lester had more than enough proof in front of him to feel in necessary to immediately revoke bond. You know what else Lester could do, deny any further bond hearing (I will have to double check this, but I am pretty sure of it). But he is being nice and people like you should be goddam thankful that he is even considering another bond hearing.

      “ask for the brother-in-law to be questioned himself ”

      Even if the brother in law was questioned, SZ had already perjured herself, Deal with it, don’t lie to a judge. It is nobody’s responsibility but SZ to tell the truth, Stop being a goddam troll and trying to blame everyone else with you stupid crap.

      “Lester said to “prosecute” ”

      Unlike you, I was watching the trial live, I saw everything. I would have to go find a link to the full hearing, and I am sure you could do the same. look it up.

      ***You refuse to acknowledge that if the funds raised could NOT be used for bail, then bond could only then have to be based on that funds that could be used for that purpose assuming no “substitution” was possible. In this case there were no “substitution” funds because the Zimmermans were basically “broke” and in debt.

      If you repost this I again I swear I am going to get all the people on this blog to email Susan and ask her to have you removed.

      SZ is heard saying that “this is what it’s for” there is so much overwhelming evidence that they goddam knew they could use the money for bond that you would have to be dumb, deaf and blind to even say something as dumb as this. Second they have taken full possession of the money into their bank accounts, legally it was theirs to do with as they wished, so you are wrong on the legal level too. Lastly I have already answered you twice before you twit. Even if it was in a trust, that was set up for living and legal expenses as it is now, that would mean bail. It would also me they were not’ indigent.

      Reply ↓

    • @sandbagger –

      “No dude he couldn’t have been charged with obstruction, he is, first, covered by the 5th, and to charge they would have to show that he made an action. he did neither. this is just dumb as hell.”

      LOLing again because coincidentally, I was going to start a post with “dude”, too, but didn’t bother.

      and

      “The prosecutor hid nothing, again this is so dumb I just can believe it. WOW!”

      This is the part that’s annoying. The Z-camp says silly stuff like the prosecutor is hiding stuff while it is widely reported in the news that O’Mara is the one asking the judge to suppress all the other calls (149 of them I think) because he states they are private and shouldn’t expose Z’s friends, family and supporters. How does O’Mara’s request get turned into the prosecution is the one trying to hide anything?

      This turnaround of factual events happens far too often, imo. I don’t call it spin, either. I call it blatant lies pushed/propagated by bought and paid for media moguls plus the hysteria caused by the minions of gullables that don’t yet know that the press has long since left the building and is in it for only the click-gen.

      Reply ↓

      • “This turnaround of factual events happens far too often, imo. I don’t call it spin, either. I call it blatant lies pushed/propagated by bought and paid for media moguls plus the hysteria caused by the minions of gullables that don’t yet know that the press has long since left the building and is in it for only the click-gen.”

        No doubt! It’s sad, and it would be funny, if they didn’t actually believe it, but they do, so it’s just kinda scary, but mostly sad.

        Reply ↓

    • sandbagger said:

      “No dude he couldn’t have been charged with obstruction, he is, first, covered by the 5th, and to charge they would have to show that he made an action. he did neither. this is just dumb as hell.”

      ***What does the “5th” have to do with obstruction of justice? Nothing.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

      ***I don’t know what “he made an action” means? I assume you meant the accusations made so many times, by the same commentors, about the Zimmermans’ wrongdoing. Or are you now admitting GZ did nothing wrong concerning the bond hearing that he could be prosecuted for?

      ***SZ perjury? Obviously we disagree.

      As for the rest, it is strange that so many commentors “proved” the Zimmermans were in big trouble with the IRS, the FBI etc. for their handling of the funds. But, when someone says that may well be a reason that just before the hearing SZ came to believe the funds should not be used for bail, at least until proper legal advice was gotten … suddenly, it turns out that everyone “knows” she had no fear whatsoever. You can’t have it both ways.

      Reply ↓

  92. @Sandbagger.
    Thanks for a thorough and concise rebuttal of the fallacies in Peter’s constant spinning of evidences.

    I do enjoy your clear view, and I must say I envy your ability to tell it as it is without falling into my own weakness. . .of badgering the idiots!

    Reply ↓

    • Danielle, no problem. I wouldn’t even call it spinning. It’s just a dumb lonely kid trolling to get people to talk to him online. It’s sad, and I suggest that we all start completely ignoring PeterO and jimrtex, they both have shown no interest in the truth, the law, or anyone on this blog.

      Reply ↓

    • You just beat me to this. LOL. Yeah it says a lot that they refused his resignation and then fired him. It begs the question of what is so bad that they don’t want a cover up. I have always wondered if there was something to Robert Zimmerman and the Chief. But that is pure speculation. lol

      Reply ↓

    • He will be picked up by another city/town quickly, will have a good severance package and a lawsuit if he wants it. The losers, the citizens of Sanford.

      Recent Sanford headlines: Sanford police officer gunned down, courtesy of the media:

      http://www.myfoxorlando.com/video?clipId=7245427&autoStart=true

      Crump, of course, is counting the millions in “civil rights” lawsuit proceeds. The biggest losers: the poor, as the costs of Crump’s lawsuits will come out of social services and police budgets. Watch the crime rate soar in Sanford, services decline and the tax base leave!

      Reply ↓

      • “Recent Sanford headlines: Sanford police officer gunned down…”

        So 2 years ago is a recent headline?

        “…, courtesy of the media:”

        And what did the media have to do with Brandon Worrall getting shot in June of 2010?

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • Unitron,

      Curiously, there was another shooting on April 16, 2012 at the complex where the police officer was shot.

      The person who has been charged in the 2010 shooting was 16 at the time, and it happened right after the Supreme Court ruled that you can’t give a life sentence to someone under 16. He hasn’t been tried yet, but has managed to pick up an additional charge and conviction of battery while in custody in 2011.

      Reply ↓

  94. Sandbagger, thanks for your reminder of Shellie’s statement: “That’s what it’s for”. And “hello no” from Zimmerman when Shellie asked him about using the money for the bond.

    That’s about as clear as we can get that they knew the money could be used for the bond, and they intended not to use it for the bond.

    Could anything have happened between then and the hearing where they suddenly believed they were actually legitimately restricted from using the money for bond? The money didn’t go into a trust. We know that, because so much of it was in Shellie’s bank account. But what if someone that she trusted did tell her she suddenly couldn’t use the money for anything – no matter where it was?

    Who is this guy Ken? He seems to have had something to do with this money. And why did he meet with O’Mara before the bond hearing? Is he someone who ventured into this scene with his own eye out for the money?

    We know that both Zimmerman’s attorney and the prosecution knew about the fund, but neither pursued further information on it. Why? The best I can come up with is that Ken may have lied to O’Mara about the money (told him it was spent?), and the prosecution took O’Mara at his word.

    If the prosecution intended to bust the Zimmerman’s for lying about it, then why didn’t they? It was O’Mara who told.

    And if O’Mara was intending to conceal the money, then why did he tell?

    Reply ↓

    • Maybe, just maybe, Ken told O’Mara that the money was gone from the paypal account (which it was. . .since Shellie had transferred it to several of her own accounts, to safety deposit boxes and to her sister in law’s accounts). ..and O’mara didn’t look any further?

      Doesn’t sound very professional or smart. . .but there is no man more blind than one who doesn’t want to see!

      I guess we might find out on June 29. ..or never!

      Reply ↓

    • First Hapufern, I have to say you are the most moderate and respectful voice on this blog. Thank you.

      I have been wondering who Ken is. Z and SZ used code for the sister, Grace, by calling her Suzi in the jail calls, I have wondered if “ken” is his father. Pure speculation, I am just guessing.

      Reply ↓

      • Good questions! I was wondering also who that “Ken” character was, until I read somwhere (I can’t provide the link, so I certainly am not saying that this is accurate!) that the administrator in charge of the Zimmerman Paypal account was “ken.”

        As long at it’s not Judge Kenneth Lester!. . .we’re okay, right? LOL

        Reply ↓

      • I forgot to say! I second your comment about Hapufern! He truly seems like a prince of a fellow!
        I think Hapufern is on his way to deserve his angel’s wings!

        And I may be kidding, but I really do appreciate him!

        Reply ↓

      • Chances are, Ken is George Zimmerman’s sister’s husband, which would make him the brother-in-law referenced by Shellie in the part of the transcript that mysteriously vanished so thoroughly as to not even leave ellipses behind.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • Sandbagger, that’s an interesting possibility that I hadn’t considered previously at all!

      I think PeterO and I have made peace, and I’m happier that way. I give him credit for being willing to tone things down – at least with me.

      I think we might as well accept that PeterO is going to come up with some outlandish stuff. At least he’s thinking for himself. We don’t have to go for any of it. What the heck! He certainly does keep us on our toes around here!

      Reply ↓

      • I think what upsets me about PeterO and jimrtex is that I have tried with both of them to respect their views and to try and help them understand that if they want to support the defense that there are many good arguments that can be made to support Z’s chance of a not guilty verdict. But they are not really interested in talking about the sound legal arguments that could actually get Z off. They both seem to be tracking in the despicable dirt from the crazy blogs out there and simply coming here to regurgitate it for attention. I wish they would both show a little more respect and thought and fight for the defense with more thoughtful and honest candor. I was almost thinking about joining their camp to help them develop a more sound idea of how to present a solid defense for Z. Because the one thing other than talkleft that I have not seen is a solid and sound argument for the defense being made by rational people. And from a legal aspect MOM is one hell of a good lawyer and is going to give the prosecution a run for their money. I just don’t believe he gets there by all these ridiculous arguments and attacking TM character. And the way he does get their is something that nobody’s seems to be talking about. All of us seem to be just sitting here making really strong arguments for the prosecution and not really realizing what or how the defense is going to challenge them. And I think we may all be in for a big surprise once we see MOM at work.

        Reply ↓

    • I thought it was established that “Ken” was Zimmerman’s brother, but now I can’t figure out where that came from. Hmm.

      But just to add to the listed resources in this thread — the bank account records are available here.

      Reply ↓

      • A grandma! Well, another thing we have in common! I have four grand sons. . .wish I had a grand daughter too, but I’m not sure it will ever be!

        But that explain why you are so sensitive and kind! I guess I’m just a tough old bird! LOL

        Reply ↓

    • Thank you Susan for the link to the bank accounts!

      You may be right Sandbagger about the Defense’s approach. I personally think they’re not going to focus on scenarios leading up to the struggle, because it just puts the focus on what we already know – that Zimmerman reported Trayvon for nothing and called him names, that Trayvon ran away, and that Zimmerman followed with a gun.

      I think they’re more likely to focus on the area where we still may have doubt – the struggle itself, and who initiated it. The prosecution may or may not have sufficient evidence to address these doubts

      Reply ↓

    • hapufern,

      You are pretty much dead on about O’Mara’s focus as far as I can tell, here is the tail end of the questioning between O’Mara and Gilbreath.

      —–

      O’MARA: That statement that he had given you — sorry, law enforcement that day, that we just talked about, turning around and that he was assaulted, do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that specifically contradicts either of those two pieces of evidence that were in his statement given several hours after the event?

      GILBREATH: Which two?

      O’MARA: That he turned back to his car. We’ll start with that one.

      GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that.

      O’MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?

      GILBREATH: No.

      O’MARA: No evidence. Correct?

      GILBREATH: Understanding — are you talking about at that point in time?

      O’MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?

      GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.

      O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.

      UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.

      O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?

      GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no.

      O’MARA: Ok. Now, you know as one of the chief investigators that is the primary focus in this case, is it not?

      GILBREATH: There are many focuses in this case.

      O’MARA: That would be considered the primary, would it not, in your opinion, 35 years experience?

      GILBREATH: I don’t know that it’s primary. It’s one of the concerns, yes.

      O’MARA: Nothing further.

      Reply ↓

  95. @ Jimtrex:

    I forgot to answer a couple of your earlier questions: You asked: “when was Z told to return to his truck?” Silly question, another attempt to “split hair and spin!”

    Z was told by the dispatcher he didn’t need to follow the kid. . .and what else should he have done but return to his truck? He obviously had no intention of doing that, since he asked the dispatcher to give his cell phone number to the police, instead of giving his truck’s location!
    And. . .Serino did state in the police report that if Zimmerman had STAYED IN HIS TRUCK the terrible incident would have been avoided all together. Isn’t that enough?

    The second point you try to make are about the bullet trajectory: you think that a “direct, front to back” shot straight into the exact point in the lungs and heart that would do the most damage only means that the trajectory was not deviated by a foreign object or something like that!

    I don’t believe that is what it means! I believe that there was NO ANGLE to the trajectory. . .that it went STRAIGHT, DIRECTLY from FRONT TO BACK (no side ways, no up or down. . .directly, perpendicular to Trayvon’s chest, by the shortest way possible between the gun and the heart.

    Which is, in my OPINION, close to impossible if TWO PEOPLE are struggling (therefore moving) and if the gun is kept in a waist band that is situated (logicaly, once again, if you believe that Trayvon was “straddling” and pinning down Zimmerman) just about directly under the groin of Trayvon, while he “straddles and pins Zimmerman down.”

    I guess we will have to wait for the court hearing when the forensic expert will surely describe the entry and trajectory of the bullet. . .but if you just picture two men fighting, one straddling the other. . .. how likely is it that the bullet would take the SHORTEST way to the most vulnerable area of the chest: the lung and the heart?

    Why don’t you try drawing stick figures in different positions, and a gun in one of the two men’s hand. . .and see how many possibilities exist for a DIRECT, FRONT TO BACK shot to the heart.

    Reply ↓

    • Danielle,

      “Follow” in this case means to put one foot in front of the other so as move one’s body forward in the direction of another person who had some time previously gone in the same direction.

      Upon advice of the dispatcher, Zimmerman discontinued following Martin. According to “DeeDee” Martin was 120 yards away, apparently sitting on the back porch of Brandy Green’s townhouse.

      A “direct” shot is one that is not deflected and goes from the front of the torso to the rear, as opposed to back to front, or left to right. The bullet started from one inch to the left of the centerline, apparently just outside the sternum (breatbone), went through the right ventricle, which is generally in the center of the body (you feel your left ventricle because it is pumping to your body, while the right ventricle is pumping to the lungs and needs less force.), and ended up in the lower part of the right lung. The shot had also had a left to right direction, (right to left from Zimmerman’s perspective, and was a contact shot, – based on fiber analysis.

      The barrel of the gun was in the center of the body pointed somewhat towards Martin’s right, Zimmerman’s left, just as you would expect for someone who is right handed.

      Bullet trajectories are also specified in terms of a normal standing position. If Martin is leading forward over Zimmerman, a front to back shot has a vertical component when your coordinate space is earth based.

      http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1975428-overview#a1

      Click to access fbi-hwfe.pdf

      This indicates that a body can function for about 15 seconds after the heart is destroyed based on blood in the brain. Martin did not die because of a wound to his lung. He died because his heart was non-functional and could not pump blood to his lungs, which meant no oxygenated blood returning to the left ventricle, and to the rest of the body.

      Reply ↓

  96. 911 tape of Tracy Martin call to police next morning:

    http://www.myfoxorlando.com/story/18840120/call-made-by-trayvon-martins-father-to-police-to-report-him-missing-released

    Tracy says Trayvon was wearing “shorts.”

    So the mystery about if Martin was wearing shorts, as reported Ofc. Raimondo (who did CPR on Martin for at least 6 minutes before rescue came) also reported, deepens.

    At the 7/11, the store video shows Martin clearly wearing long pants. This issue should be resolved since, if Martin was wearing shorts at the time of the shooting, he had to have changed clothes at Brandy’s apt. once he returned to the complex

    Reply ↓

    • The mystery also deepens because Tracy also says in the 911 call that Trayvon was last seen about 8pm. Yet Trayvon went to the store before 6pm.

      The 8pm time, implies that Chad may have seen Tracy when he returned to Brandy’s unit a little after 7 pm (a lot closer to 8pm then 6pm is). DeeDee said Martin reached the unit after he started running. Eventually Chad will be deposed so we can get to the bottom of whether or not Martin actually went into Brandy’s unit (to change into shorts?).

      Reply ↓

      • Actually, Tracy said his son was last seen around 8:30 and when asked what he was wearing he hesitated and said “probably” shorts and tennis shoes.
        So. . .EVERYTHING he said was wrong. . .since he was absent and didn’t see his son when he left Brandy’s home for the 7/11!

        Get over it, will you?

        Reply ↓

    • There was another witness who thought Martin had long shorts (knee length), and at the 7-11 his pants were sagging exposing a lot of either white T shirt or white underpants. Look at the 7-11 video and notice how bunched up the legs of his pants are. His calves were probably exposed.

      And Mary Cutcher said that Martin was quite light skinned, almost olive skinned. She was probably looking at his tan pants and couldn’t see his lower legs and his white shirt or undershorts probably looked like shorts.

      Reply ↓

  97. Trayvon probably changed into pants after Tracy left to go out to dinner. The 711 videotape showed pants, The autopsy said “pants”. Therefore, Trayvon didn’t go home and change into shorts.

    In my opinion, the autopsy report is more reliable than what Raimondo thought he saw in the dark.

    Reply ↓

    • However, he also said Trayvon was last seen about 8pm meaning he only could have got that information from Chad. So we still have to:

      a) see what Chad says; and

      b) find out if Ofc. Raimondo is correct when he said Martin was wearing “shorts” (not “pants”) where he accurately said Martin was wearing “tennis shoes” a fact the ME did not pick up on (the ME’s office only said “shoes”).

      If the ME undressed Martin first, someone (who?) his office could easily have mistaken long shorts for “pants.” Ofc. Raimondo himself saw Martin fully dressed so he is clearly could distinguish between shorts and pants.

      We need to see the above issues resolved.

      Reply ↓

    • Nonsense.

      After being shot dead, Trayvon had the coroner’s wagon swing by Brandy’s back porch so that he could change back out of his “quick-change custom made for assaulting Peruvian-Americans shorts” into his long pants again so as to be more presentable on the formal occasion of his autopsy.

      Your corpse only gets one chance to make a good first impression on the medical examiner, you know.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • “Trayvon probably changed into pants after Tracy left to go out to dinner.”

      Chad would have that information also.

      Reply ↓

    • Chad’s testimony wouldn’t be necessary for determining if Trayvon were wearing pants or shorts, since the pants are already part of the evidence collected.

      Reply ↓

    • unitron, I guess you were at the ME’s office then. You also must know which clerk wrote the report and that he took the time to check if it was [long?] shorts or pants. You also know that Tracy fibbed in his statement that Martin was last seen about 8pm wearing “SHORTS. You also must know that Tracy did NOT get the information about Martin wearing “shorts” at about 8pm from Chad. You clearly know a lot that no one else knows.

      Why would Tracy make up a story about Martin last being seen at 8pm wearing shorts when an accurate description of Trayvon’s clothing is probably the best way to identify his missing child?

      Why don’t your want to wait to see what comes out, particularly from a deposition of Chad or from a clearer statement reconciling the discrepancy between what Ofc. Raimondo says he saw firsthand and some unidentified clerk at the ME’s office?

      Reply ↓

      • Are you responding to me or hapufern?

        With this screwy WordPress software it’s hard to keep things straight.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

      • I can’t believe you are so foolish as to continue to hang on to those ridiculous “assumptions!”
        Tracy may have seen his son EARLIER IN THE DAY wearing short. . .before he left for dinner with his fiance, and before it started raining and got cold, and before Trayvon left for the 7/11. . .but he SURE didn’t see him at 8:00 pm ANYWAY. . .NO ONE saw him at 8:00 pm, with the exception of the Medical examiner and the police!

        Remember? Trayvon was DEAD by 7: 16!

        Reply ↓

    • HP said: “Chad’s testimony wouldn’t be necessary for determining if Trayvon were wearing pants or shorts, since the pants are already part of the evidence collected.”

      That statement, of course is correct. So I don’t understand why unitron has already “decided” that issue without wanting to resolve the discrepancy with Ofc. Raimondo’s first hand report.

      However, a deposition of Chad will resolve if Martin actually entered Brandy’s unit regardless of whether he changed his pants or not.

      Remember, the “softball” “interview” with DeeDee had some big surprises. Surprises not good for the State. Let’s see what Chad’s deposition uncovers.

      Reply ↓

    • The 8pm time stated by Tracy, implies that Chad may have seen Tracy when he returned to Brandy’s unit a little after 7 pm.

      7pm is a lot closer to 8pm then 6pm is, and Chad would then have been slightly off on the exact time told Tracy he last saw Trayvon. DeeDee said Martin reached the unit after he started running which was after 7 pm.

      Reply ↓

    • Peter O,

      There is another interview where Tracy Martin said that the last time he talked to Trayvon was between 2:30 and 3:00 when he made sure that Trayvon had enough money left to buy pizza. It sounded like that was by telephone.

      Tracy Martin didn’t like to admit he was at his girlfriend’s. Which is understandable if he is indeed still married.

      Reply ↓

  98. I really don’t know why it’s of importance if Trayvon were wearing shorts or a skirt at this point, it still does not show proof any any “intent” that Trayvon had to jump Zimmerman. I’ve never seen people try so hard to justify a person for imagining a crime, pursuing a teenager with a gun and killing him. The fight has no bearing on this case. WE know what Zimmermans intent was; he told us in his phone call. He did not want an ahole to get away as he jumped out of his car and pursued him. That pretty much explains the whole situation does it not? What do we know for a fact was Trayvon’s reason to start a fight? Nothing, because if anything, he was fighting to get away, not fighting “just for the hell of it.” There is no proof of “rage” in Trayvon that night, and he sure as hell didn’t show it in that 7-Eleven video. But, we know for a fac Zimmerman was hellbent to stop crime, criminals, and he knew exactly what they looked like; TRAYVON…..This case is going to boil down to Zimmermans frame of mind. Because it was his mind that killed Trayvon, not his gun. There just really is no way to spin this without appearing to be a complete moron.

    Reply ↓

    • You are right if it was shorts, pants, or a pink and purple polkadoted dress it is irrelevant. As far as intent goes, there are no thought crimes (yet). Neither side committed a crime under either FL or Federal statutes until the first contact either shove or punch. Getting out of his vehicle was not a crime, following someone in your neighborhood while talking to police is not a crime, and even if he had ignored the dispatchers recommendation not to follow it is not a crime, he was a Telephone Call Taker that according to the city of Sanford could not give orders. He could have been thinking every racial comment you or I have ever heard and it is still not a crime. That first physical contact was the first crime committed, and according to Det Gilbreath who had studied all of the prosecutions evidence, they have no evidence as to who initiated the assault.

      —–

      O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?

      GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no.

      —–

      According to the law and reinforced by standard jury instructions from the FL Supreme Court, unless they can overcome the lack of evidence and witnesses and Prove to a Jury “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” that Zimmerman attacked Martin as they stated in their Probable Cause Affidavit the jury has to find him not guilty.

      —–

      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.

      Reply ↓

    • “because if anything, he was fighting to get away, not fighting “just for the hell of it.””

      ***If Martin was wearing shorts it is a very important piece of evidence for the defense. The prosecution’s wants to convince a jury to not believe self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Because no one can “read” Zimmerman’s mind, circumstantial evidence and playing on the jury’s emotions is the only way to convict. Juries can easily ignore jury instructions — so to count on a hypothetical theory that a jury instruction really will be followed by the jury, is an unreliable real-life strategy when a man’s life is in balance.

      If Martin was wearing shorts that means he got home, changed, and went out again! The prosecutor is trying to paint a picture of an innocent child just trying to get home. That image is shattered by evidence showing he reached “home” and went out again. The defense theory is to hammer home that Martin WENT OUT AGAIN to see if he could find the short pudgy guy who was staring at him and was probably on the phone trying to get him in trouble with the police, and punish him. That is how the defense plants the seeds of reasonable doubt. This can be the difference between a life in prison and freedom.

      Moreover, if Martin was wearing shorts, after the 7/11 video shows he had long pants on before returning to the complex, then it is even more evidence that DeeDee lied by falsely implying all Martin was trying to do was get home, and there were multiple chases of Martin by a crazy white man who finally caught up with, cornered and killed him. The jury will now know Martin really reached home and went out again, likely looking for Zimmerman, and not fleeing in fear from him. So another underpinning of the “DeeDee” and prosecutor stories vanishes.

      Reply ↓

    • Jodi Ann,

      “I really don’t know why it’s of importance if Trayvon were wearing shorts or a skirt at this point, it still does not show proof any any “intent” that Trayvon had to jump Zimmerman.”

      CSFC had claimed that Witness 3 had seen a person on top in a “White T-Shirt” that there was no fighting going on, and then she heard a gunshot.

      CSFC had claimed that since Zimmerman had a white T-shirt that it was a slam dunk case because Zimmerman had gained the upper hand. There was no fighting, and then a gunshot.

      CSFC was WRONG about ZImmerman having a white T-shirt. As it turns out both individuals had white long sleeved shirts on.

      CSFC was WRONG about what Witness 3 saw. On her 911 call, she was not even sure that there was a person underneath the person “on top”. She could see nothing else. It was that she saw that there was no fighting. It was that she could not see anything else. Witness 3 heard a male voice yelling, peeked over her window, below the blind and saw a “white T-shirt” and went into an interior room to call 911 when she heard the gunshot.

      Witness 3 in her interview with FDLE said that she saw the back of the person with the white T-shirt.

      If Zimmerman’s fleece was unzipped, it would have been the front that was exposed. But we don’t even know whether Zimmerman’s fleece was unzipped. We know that the paramedics lifted up his shirt to check for injuries to his body. Since he was handcuffed at the time, and if his fleece was zipped up, it would have been unzipped in order to permit the shirt to be lifted up.

      We know that based on her neighbor’s testimony (who actually came out on his patio) and was closer anyway, that she would have seen Martin’s back. We know that Martin’s hoodie tended to ride up when he merely leaned forward, and that his pants sagged. Almost all the witnesses thought that Martin had long shorts on, or at least his calves were exposed. He wasn’t wearing skinny jeans. We know that the cuffs of his light grey shirt had Zimmerman’s DNA, so his hoodie sleeves may have ridden up on his arms.as well.

      It is much more likely that Witness 3 saw Martin’s exposed shirt and underpants in her quick peek over the edge of the window and below the blinds.

      Reply ↓

  99. There is no self defense. There is only the reason behind the intent to stop an imaginary crime. No matter what happened on that sidewalk that night, it boils down to what the hell was George Zimmerman thinking. When he made the choice to NOT speak to Trayvon in the street, and instead decided it was a better idea to chase him in the dark, this is the ONLY thing that jury has to decide on. Because reasonable people, just don’t do that. From what we know of George Zimmerman thus far, he is beyond reasonable.

    Reply ↓

    • From what I understand from post trial interviews most of the Casey Anthony jurors actually thought she was guilty of murder, but they had to follow the law and since the state didn’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt they had to find her Not Guilty.

      Reply ↓

    • It’s funny when you read a page like this about blood splatter and DNA evidence, it sounds so rational compared to the lunatics on the other side. Great page Loree, and thanks for posting it. Yet more evidence that the defense is going to have to explain away. And if it doesn’t fall in line with Z testimony to the police MOM is going to have a hard time with it unless he can get the Judge to find all of this evidence inadmissible. Good luck!

      Reply ↓

        • Loree, reading your posts is a real pleasure. It is reassuring to have someone who demonstrates logic and doesn’t hesitate to get links and provide the background for her statement.
          I’ll see you in the next thread.

          Reply ↓

          • Danielle, thank you very much for your post! I so much enjoy your posts as well. Your posts are written right out of my head! Thank you for your insight and very well thought out posts.

Leave a reply to sandbagger Cancel reply