1,129 thoughts on “Zimmerman’s Police Statements Are Not Consistent With Established Facts”

1. A lot of comments seem to not see the forest through the trees. The central issue is, obviously, self-defense and what a jury will be making its decision on. I have plagiarized the following from Jeralyn’s site because I could not do it better and it gets to the central issue of guilty or not and the herculean task the prosecutor has in this case :

   “Once George Zimmerman introduces some evidence of self-defense and is entitled to a jury instruction, he has no other burden of proof. The state must disprove self-defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

   From Stieh v. State(2011):

   It was the State’s burden to overcome Stieh’s theory of self-defense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stieh was not acting lawfully when he stabbed the victim. See Behanna, 985 So. 2d at 555. As noted by this court in Jenkins, HN7″self-defense cases are intensely fact-specific.” 942 So. 2d at 916. But where the evidence ” ‘leaves room for two or more inferences of fact, at least one of which is consistent with the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence, [it] is not legally sufficient to make a case for the jury.’ ” Fowler, 921 So. 2d at 712 (quoting Fowler v. State, 492 So. 2d 1344, 1348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)).

   From Falwell v. State(2012)

   Defendant [is] not required to prove self-defense claim beyond reasonable doubt or by preponderance of evidence; rather, self-defense evidence needed merely leave jury with reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force)… The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense, ever shifts from the State to the defendant

   Montijo v. State(2011)

   When a defendant claims self-defense, the State maintains the burden of proving the defendant committed the crime and did not act in self-defense. See id.; Mosansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756, 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). The burden never shifts to the defendant to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, he must simply present enough evidence to support giving the instruction.”

   Reply ↓

2. Yep, I agree Peter that the state has a tall order. However, so far it appears that Zimmerman is doing his best to help them out.

   Reply ↓

   • LOL! So true, so true.

     Reply ↓

3. A challenge, for everyone who believes Zimmerman has an accurate and truthful recollection of how the fight occurred:

   Mark out a distance of 45 feet. Start at one side, and pretend you have been pushed. Now stumble and fall for 45 feet.

   Now, describe your stumble. Was it possible to have an uncontrolled fall that took you 45 feet? Or was there something that resembled walking or running in there? Does that 45 foot walk/run feel like something that you might remember as being knocked down to the ground in one punch?

   (Ignore, for now, the fact that Zimmerman claims he was punched and fell backwards in the opposite direction from where Trayvon was shot. I’ll let y’all explain that one later.)

   Reply ↓

   • Speaking of strawmen? Who here thinks Zimmerman’s description is accurate? More important is whether Witnesses #8, #11, #13 are accurate. A clue to what really happened could be that the witnesses heard shouting starting from slightly west of the T and then migrating around the T to John’s lawn. The shouting seems to have lasted a while before the screaming started so it is possible that Zimmerman went down on John’s lawn after a pushing shoving, shouting match,. So what? We will never know for sure. The problem, Susan, with making a catalog of Zimmerman’s false statements is that they don’t seem to accompany a compelling narrative of Zimmerman’s guilt. On the other hand, I have no trouble imagining that while on the ground he reasonably feared for his life and couldn’t have escaped. A jury doesn’t have to worry about the minutiae.

     Reply ↓

   • Wrong. Zimmerman is not entitled to self-defense simply because it is possible he was in fear for his life while in a fight.

     Zimmerman is only entitled to self-defense is he did not provoke that encounter, and also if a reasonable person in Zimmerman’s position would have objectively feared for their life.

     The only living person who saw how the fight started is Zimmerman, and so Zimmerman is the only witness who can testify that Zimmerman was able to act in self-defense on either point. But we know now Zimmerman’s testimony of how the fight occurred is false and not reliable.

     And the jury is entitled to draw an inference as to why Zimmerman felt the need to lie.

     Reply ↓

   • Susan Simpson on June 25, 2012 at 8:47 pm said:

     “Now, describe your stumble. Was it possible to have an uncontrolled fall that took you 45 feet? Or was there something that resembled walking or running in there? Does that 45 foot walk/run feel like something that you might remember as being knocked down to the ground in one punch?”

     Not to sound like a Zimmerman, but.. EXACTLY!!

     It is not possible. It is not believable. It is beyond any reasonable belief of Zimmerman’s “story”. It’s a total fabrication. Zimmerman’s story is a lie!

     Even George Zimmerman’s reenactment showed he was in the grass at a different location than the facts.

     Reply ↓

   • Let’s separate out two parts here, the circumstantial evidence of the movement of the fight and what Zimmerman remembers:

     I originally noted that the car key chain and attached mini-flashlight (which was turned on) was dropped about 8 feet south of the T intersection. This is strong circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman was attacked near the T intersection. We know the body ended up about 40 feet south. Under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, the jury will likely accept the T as the start of the fight and that somehow it ended 40 feet further down the path.

     As for Zimmerman’s statement, he said he was punched near the T intersection on the east-west path but did not remember exactly where. He says he stumbled and was being forced south by Martin’s attack and the keychain was dropped about 8 feet south of the east-west path. So he was already being forced south after being punched at the east-west path. From that point he says he does not remember clearly how and exactly where he was eventually forced to the ground by Martin. He vaguely remembers staggering while Martin was attacking him and trying to force him to the ground. As he describes this in the video, he is moving south, so the momentum of Martin trying to get Zimmerman to the ground was south down the path.

     It is a normal MMA technique for a fighter, to get an opponent to the ground, to swarm his opponent, pushing him back to force him lose his balance, fall and then to get on top of him and pound him about the face and head (a “take-down” and “ground and pound”). This can easily take 20-30 feet in a small ring as the fighter being pushed back gradually loses his balance and falls at which time the aggressor straddles him and pounds him about the head and face. In short, that is what Zimmerman is describing and it easily explains how he and Martin could end 40 feet south of the east-west path near where the keychain was dropped 8′ south of the east-west path after Zimmerman was punched at that path and constantly forced south by Martin until Martin got him to the ground, straddled him and then pounded him “MMA style.”

     Zimmerman, in the video, when trying to find where he first landed on the ground, says he doesn’t remember exactly and he says that after having traced his path south along the path to where he is standing diagonally southeast from the small tree on the north-south path. While he is saying this he is also still looking south from there while saying he is cannot remember exactly were he was eventually forced to the ground. This indicates it could well have been further south. He says he just doesn’t remember (it was dark and he was stunned).

     The location of the keychain (about 8 feet south of the east-west path) confirms Zimmerman was already being forced in a southerly direction after being first punched at the east-west path and that Martin was the aggressor in the fight.

     Zimmerman makes it very clear in the video walk through that he just doesn’t remember how far he was forced back before Martin finally got him to the ground but that the direction he was being constantly forced in was southwards.

     Reply ↓

     • “The location of the keychain (about 8 feet south of the east-west path) confirms Zimmerman was already being forced in a southerly direction after being first punched at the east-west path and that Martin was the aggressor in the fight.”

       No, it doesn’t. It just confirms that the keychain was most likely dropped in that location.

       Could have been dropped elsewhere and accidentally kicked there during the struggle.

       The dog could have picked it up and then dropped it there.

       But that’s probably where it was dropped.

       Why it was dropped is a different question.

       unitron

       Reply ↓

   • In all of the recorded interviews, Zimmerman says he went down after the first punch. Stop making up better lies that Zimmerman could have told, use the lies he actually gave in his police statements.

     Also they were not MMA fighting. That was an offhand remark by a single witness who has recanted his testimony, and you are deluding yourself. Zimmerman never says they were “MMA fighting,” he says ‘I didn’t even see the punch coming and then I was knocked down.’

     Now go do what I said. Go try the experiment yourself — stumble 45 feet, and then report back.

     And then, second experiment: how did Zimmerman fall southwards, when he was facing an assailant approaching him from the south?

     Reply ↓

   • Susan, here is a link to the full walk-through video:

     http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/video/george-zimmerman-police-video-statements/

     Start at about the 10 minute mark. Zimmerman says that after he was punched he was moving south trying to push Martin away. You can also see exactly where he is saying this as he is trying to track his movement as he was attacked.

     All you seem to be saying is that Zimmerman was punched and ended up on the ground. And in the video he shows, as much as he can recall, what happened. LOOK AT THE VIDEO.

     Moreover, Zimmerman knew full well, by the time of his interviews, the layout and where he was first punched and where the body ended up (from the night before).

     PLEASE SHOW ME A LINK WHERE ZIMMERMAN, IN ANY OF HIS STATEMENTS, SAYS HE IMMEDIATELY DROPPED TO THE GROUND THE MOMENT WHEN HE WAS PUNCHED.

     And if so, then explain how his key-chain/flashlight ended up 8′ south of the east-west path.

     And explain how, if Zimmerman was so calculating, he would ever have said he dropped immediately after being punched when, obviously, he knew the shooting was further down the north-south path.

     In his walk through video on 2/27 (at the link above), he clearly is showing how the fight proceeded south down the north-south path and explains he was trying to push Martin away from him as part of the movement south, until he was finally forced to the ground further south down the path.

     Reply ↓

   • Susan you said: “Also they were not MMA fighting. That was an offhand remark by a single witness who has recanted his testimony, and you are deluding yourself. Zimmerman never says they were “MMA fighting,” he says ‘I didn’t even see the punch coming and then I was knocked down.’”

     ***I can tell you never viewed MMA fights or even any street fights. There are many such fights on YouTube in all weight classes.

     All I did was describe how a someone familiar with MMA fights, street fighting, or even who had only been in schoolyard fights, would, if he was attacking, try to force his opponent to the ground and once on the ground, straddle him and pound his face and head. Is it any more complicated than that? No.

     So the “offhand remark” of “Jonh” and the observation that Zimmerman never USED the word “MMA,” is a complete red herring. The only issue is the fighting tactic used by Martin not how it is named. Whether or not Zimmerman says the magic word “MMA,” he certainly suffered the effects of the basic of fighting technique of being forced on his back so he could be straddled and pounded into submission (or in this case, possible death).

     That simple fighting tactic Martin used has been going on as long as men have been fighting. It isn’t unique to “MMA.” We know Martin took a strong interest in MMA, hence the terminology.

     The fact is that Zimmerman was attacked with the common fighting tactic of being forced to the ground, on his back, so he could be beaten up.

     BTW, “John” never “recanted,” his testimony he only qualified it. His testimony will be just as powerful in Zimmerman’s defense as before. Particularly, since he candidly admitted he “never saw the lips move” and that Martin’s violent arm movements were not necessarily punches. He will certainly testify that the violent arm movements could very likely have been any combination of slamming Zimmerman’s head down, punching him normally, punching him using his fist as a hammer, covering his mouth as he struggled to try to stop him from calling for help, or holding him down to do any of the foregoing. I have no doubt that “John” will be a very good witness for Zimmerman. Let the jurors reach their own conclusions.

     Reply ↓

   • Peter O.

     “Zimmerman makes it very clear in the video walk through that he just doesn’t remember how far he was forced back before Martin finally got him to the ground but that the direction he was being constantly forced in was southwards.”

     And when he indicates where the person who opened his patio door saw him he indicated a direction that would be blocked by the wing fence.

     So he was actually further south than in the walk through.

     Reply ↓

4. And another thought:

   Zimmerman says that he did not think he had hit Trayvon when he fired his gun. That he immediately went to try and restrain Trayvon (and incidentally, frisk him for a gun that Zimmerman was sure/hoping Trayvon would have…) And that Zimmerman kept yelling for neighbors to help him restrain Trayvon, after Trayvon was actually dead.

   But why do the screams on the 911 call stop dead, the second the shot was fired? No more screams, at all.

   Odd that Zimmerman, who was screaming for help non-stop for 60 seconds, would stop cold after the gunshot, when by Zimmerman’s own story he kept fighting for his life even after Trayvon was mortally wounded.

   Reply ↓

   • And what’s even weirder is how blood got on the bag of Skittles Trayvon Martin purchased from the 7-11. The blood had to be George Zimmerman’s after he frisked/jumped on top of the dead body if what George Zimmerman claimed he did after he killed Trayvon Martin. Surely Trayvon Martin didn’t use the Skittles to “likely” break Zimmerman’s nose.

     Reply ↓

   • Zimmerman was hoping beyond hope that Trayvon had a gun — that’s why he frisked him. He knew the gun wasn’t in Trayvon’s hands, he was hoping to find one on him elsewhere.

     Reply ↓

   • Susan said “But why do the screams on the 911 call stop dead, the second the shot was fired? No more screams, at all.”

     Right after the shot, Martin sat up and Zimmerman did not remember exactly how he ended up on top but he could easily have pushed Martin off in a southerly direction and forced him face down — which BTW could explain another 5-10 feet southerly movement of the body as Zimmerman got up, grabbed and forced Martin face-down.

     It will be interesting to know how long death can occur after being shot as Martin was and we can be certain there will be dueling experts on that matter at trial. All Zimmerman remembers is that Martin “sat up” and obviously the pounding stopped then.

     Zimmerman does NOT say he continued screaming after the shot, only that he spoke to someone nearby and asked for help while holding Martin’s hands apart while he was face-down. It could also well be that he got that detail wrong based on faulty memory in a traumatic situation. Earlier he had misremembered some of his actions before Martin ran, so it could easily be a similar situation here and he kept repeating he didn’t remember many details of the fight and its movement south.

     Reply ↓

     • hilarious stuff…..Martin “sat up” since he supposedly was alraady sitting UP ON TOP of zman how exactly did he sit UP after being shot?
       and if they were so close that he needed to “sit up” then it is NOT possible that zman fired his directly straight on shot into the heart from that position.

       peter o you have NOTHING backing your SILLY claims.

       Reply ↓

   • Susan@ 6/26 12:29am.

     I too thought GZ was looking for the gun he thought his suspect had, in order to secure it (one story says GZ didn’t think his suspect was dead – I mean, just like in the movies, you think you’ve killed someone and they find a weapon and kill you instead).

     GZ’s references to ‘waistband’ in his NEN call clearly indicate GZ was supposing that his suspect had a gun.

     If you don’t believe that, what do you make of his apology at the bond hearing “I didn’t know he was unarmed”. Yeah, he thought TM had a gun. Which makes his exiting his vehicle and chasing/seeking/looking for TM all the more reckless.

     Anyway, I have no doubt GZ was searching for the gun he thought TM had while he was standing over him (the standing over the body of TM thing was reported by more than one witness) and when he didn’t find one, that’s when GZ went, as he should have, ‘Oh nuts, I just shot an unarmed young man”, although I suspect ‘nuts’ was not what went through his mind.

     Reply ↓

   • Does anyone have a link where either Zimmerman or a witness says Zimmerman “frisked” Martin? Where did that come from?

     Moreover, if it is shown Zimmerman did frisk Martin, that would simply show Zimmerman didn’t think Martin was dead and was being prudent, as anyone else would be under the circumstances, after being violently attacked.

     If it is shown Zimmerman did frisk Martin, did he do that before or after he realized Martin was dead?

     Reply ↓

   • Peter O

     “It will be interesting to know how long death can occur after being shot as Martin was and we can be certain there will be dueling experts on that matter at trial.”

     I came across an FBI report from 2011 (long before the shooting) that said the only instantaneous “kill shot” was the neck (spinal cord or head), and only a trained sharpshooter could hit an arm or a hand (so as to knock a gun away).

     It said there was about 15 seconds of oxygen supply to the brain before voluntary motor movement would stop. The body has around 6 liters of blood, with about 75 ml per beat.

     Reply ↓

   • jimrtex,

     “I came across an FBI report from 2011 (long before the shooting) that said the only instantaneous “kill shot” was the neck (spinal cord or head), and only a trained sharpshooter could hit an arm or a hand (so as to knock a gun away).”

     That is correct, I was the radio guy in Afghanistan for the guys that could do that in an instant. There are 4 things they needed – Training and Practice Practice Practice. I’m talking in the many many thousands of rounds on a regular basis repeatedly.

     Reply ↓

   • Peter O

     “Does anyone have a link where either Zimmerman or a witness says Zimmerman “frisked” Martin? Where did that come from?”

     He was planting the watermelon juice can on Martin’s body. When the little boy ran the first time he dropped the can. Zimmerman, picked it up and was acting it like he was going to pour it out, while roaring, “There is No Limit, (N-word)” This so outraged the lad who had simply returned for his beverage that he attacked. Zimmerman knowing that the felony (armed robbery of the juice can) would make the shooting a first degree murder, he put the can back into Martin’s pouch. He told the witness to call police, because he hoped they would go inside and not observe him.

     Use some common sense for a change.

     Reply ↓

   • Susan Simpson says:

     “Zimmerman says that he did not think he had hit Trayvon when he fired his gun. That he immediately went to try and restrain Trayvon (and incidentally, frisk him for a gun that Zimmerman was sure/hoping Trayvon would have…) And that Zimmerman kept yelling for neighbors to help him restrain Trayvon, after Trayvon was actually dead.”.

     Zimmerman said he kept yelling for neighbors to help him restrain Trayvon?

     Do you have a source?

     Reply ↓

     • Source George Zimmerman
       listen forward from 11:32 @ 11:38 don’t call 911 I already called them, help me RESTRAIN THIS GUY.
       

       Reply ↓

   • CSFC blurted in a matter of fact way:

     “And what’s even weirder is how blood got on the bag of Skittles ”

     You are claiming that the SPD put a bag of skittles with blood on it inside an evidence envelope with the red lighter, the photo button, and the headphones?

     Reply ↓

     • “CSFC blurted in a matter of fact way: “And what’s even weirder is how blood got on the bag of Skittles ” You are claiming that the SPD put a bag of skittles with blood on it inside an evidence envelope with the red lighter, the photo button, and the headphones?”

       I’d think they’d put the bloody bag of Skittles in it’s own separate evidence bag.

       And seeing as how Martin had them in his pocket in front of him, he probably bled on them a little when he got shot, so no great mystery there, although I do hope the state made sure that was his blood and not someone else’s, just to be thorough.

       unitron

       Reply ↓

   • Unitron says:

     “I’d think they’d put the bloody bag of Skittles in it’s own separate evidence bag.”

     I’d think that they would have sent it over to the FDLE to do DNA analysis. Maybe CSFC was at a rally where they distributed bags of skittles with ketchup squirted on them, and he thought it was the real bag.

     Reply ↓

   • Loree,

     At 16:50 of the first 2/26 interview it is the resident who first comes up, that Zimmerman asks to help restrain Martin. At some time, that person goes over and takes a picture of Martin.

     Reply ↓

5. Susan said:

   “The only living person who saw how the fight started is Zimmerman, and so Zimmerman is the only witness who can testify that Zimmerman was able to act in self-defense on either point. But we know now Zimmerman’s testimony of how the fight occurred is false and not reliable.

   “And the jury is entitled to draw an inference as to why Zimmerman felt the need to lie.”

   Yes, and for some reason, Zimmerman felt the need to lie for just about EVERYTHING so far, including the moments just immediately before and after Trayvon’s death.

   I think this makes it a little tougher for the jury to conclude that Zimmerman’s motives in shooting Trayvon were “reasonable”.

   Reply ↓

6. Excellent points Susan. This clearly shows that it was not Zimmerman that was screaming. If Zimmerman was screaming for help as he was shooting as his supporters claim, then why was that scream cut in half. Especially if Zimmerman was not sure that he got him. There may be a reason why Zimmerman is peddling his straddling and spreading the Martin hands theory. It is quite likely that he shot Zimmerman when he was on top of him. When he gave his statement to the SPD, he was not sure who saw what and needed an explanation for why he was on top of Martin.

   Reply ↓

   • My theory all along is that Zimmerman used this he may not be dead yet “reason” as a way to cover his tracks by tainting/tampering evidence. If he wasn’t sure he’d killed Trayvon Martin, why would the helps end (Zimmerman would have kept screaming for help if it was him) and why would he holster his gun?

     Reply ↓

7. @Ricky Jimenez –

   Given that Zimmerman says he was on the bottom and NEVER says anything about him being on top of Trayvon Martin in his police dispatch call, his police interviews on the night of the murder (2/26/12) nor in his written statement of 2/26/12, how do you explain that the wounds on Zimmerman’s head bled down from the TOP OF ZIMMERMAN’S HEAD in a pattern that nearly encircles his ear (which forensically means Zimmerman was leaning FORWARD in an on-top or standing leaning over position when the wounds were encountered)?

   Also, there’s NOT ONE SINGLE SMEAR of the blood on his noggin that doesn’t match his own hands placing a smudge or two there. The paramedics said they cleaned up the blood from Zimmerman’s hands and arms. How did blood get on his hands and arms?

   Separate witness accounts revealed that George was seen with his hands on his head after the killing. Witness #13 snapped a pre-paramedic-clean-up pic of George Zimmerman’s head showing all blood dripping down (sitting/standing position) or downward towards his ear (on top position/kneeling over position) and George Zimmerman said he put his hands on his head in his recorded statement to the police.

   Side note… the universal position of surrender is heads ABOVE the head, not ON the head, so why would George Zimmerman put his hands ON his head? I believe this was yet another of his attempts to taint/tamper evidence he’d been taught would be collected.

   George needs to answer some additional discrepancies before a jury will find him credible as well. Here’s a few of the questions a jury will have:

   (1) George Zimmerman claims to have walked all the way through to RVC in his initial recorded interview with SPD on 2/26/12 @ the 20:05 and 21:00 marks and he said he was still on the phone with SPD at that time. Why didn’t he give the address he had gone to look for to “help” SPD to dispatch? @ the 21:41 mark, the interviewing officer asked where was your cell phone and asked if the call dropped at that point? Again, since the call hadn’t yet ended, why didn’t Zimmerman give the address he was supposedly standing in front to dispatch while he was still on the phone?

   (2) Zimmerman says that the phone is in his hand and confirms he eventually put his cell phone away while at the RVC address after crossing the tee/dog walk. But, Zimmerman didn’t bother to give that address to dispatch after claiming after-the-fact that his entire journey to that particular location on RVC was to obtain the address for dispatch. HUH? This is also contradictory to him saying on the recorded call that he was indeed following Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman also said he had his cell phone in his hand at this time while standing on RVC at the end of the dog walk after passing the dog walk Tee (per his 2/26/12 first interview @ the 21:45 mark). But during the reenactment, Zimmerman claims not to remember which pocket he had put the phone in. This would be approximately 1-2 seconds after putting the phone away. How do you not remember where you literally just put something a few seconds ago?

   (3) How did he get his keys out, get the flashlight out and put it in the on mode just in time to be found across from witness #13’s house although he was putting his cell phone away? He had only put this phone away 1-2 seconds previously (per his 2/26/12 statement). The flashlight attached to his Honda key was found near witness #13’s house after Zimmerman walked towards that area and witness #13 came out with a flashlight.t

   (4) How did skinny Travon Martin punch 194 lb George Zimmerman 40-45 feet away from where George Zimmerman says he fell back when punched while walking along a sidewalk at the Tee of the dog path? (I’ve never seen Mike Tyson or even do that, but I’ve seen it on old popeye vs. bluto cartoons.)

   (5) Why is the picture that FPD took (and forgot to download as evidence) of GZ’s nose injury while GZ was sitting in the police car look so drastically different from the close-up pics the SPD took at the police station about 1/2 hour to an hour later which showed no swelling or deformity to Zimmerman? (Look at the pics on the officer’s cell phone and the pic from the police station tside-by-side).

   More to come…

   What, again, do you find so reasonable about George Zimmerman’s story that you think the jury will believe also? What part of Zimmerman’s story do you believe is NOT disprovable? From what I’ve seen, every part of Zimmerman’s story has already been disproved except for the name Zimmerman answers to which is apparently “George”.

   Reply ↓

   • Good analysis! Thanks.
     Very pertinent questions, and I agree with your conclusions.

     Now let’s see what a jury will say!

     Reply ↓

   • “Given that Zimmerman says he was on the bottom and NEVER says anything about him being on top of Trayvon Martin in his police dispatch call…”

     Isn’t that the call which ended before the struggle began?

     unitron

     Reply ↓

   • “onlyiamunitron
     on June 26, 2012 at 5:35 am said:
     “Given that Zimmerman says he was on the bottom and NEVER says anything about him being on top of Trayvon Martin in his police dispatch call…”

     Isn’t that the call which ended before the struggle began?”

     Yes. Thanks for the catch. I meant police interviews.

     Reply ↓

8. @Sadanie –

   Yes. That’s exactly the problem with the law. Bigots (mostly ignohrant and unreasonably scared people) were given license to kill off anybody they felt a stereotype could justify deadly force against with the passage of the SYG laws that weren’t needed for real self-defense.

   Disturbing. It’s apparently wild-wild west all over again. Sad, really, that SYG wasn’t analysed more reasonably.

   Reply ↓

9. I agree, and I think it’s very disturbing that some people seem to prefer to have laws that allow an innocent young person to be shot dead. Whether Trayvon actually attacked Zimmerman or not, that’s what this law does.

   I wonder how many of these Zimmerman supporters carry a concealed weapon themselves and picture themselves in Zimmerman’s shoes. If they do, then I think it’s time for them to hang up their holsters and just learn to stay away from situations where they might need to use a loaded gun.

   Reply ↓

10. The reason the laws are written with Reasonable Belief in some states vs Actual Threat in other states. You are walking out to your car from Target at 10pm not a lot of cars to duck between, and you aren’t going to out run a car, a guy pulls up next to you and points a gun at you “GET IN THE CAR (Censored) OR I”LL KILL YOU!!!” he has demonstrated to you both the intent and ability to commit a Forcible Felony, you shoot him in self defense. When the police arrive they find out it is a fake gun that looks real. In a Reasonable Belief state you are protected by laws like 776.032 Justifiable Use of Force. In a Actual Threat state you have now committed murder since it was not an actual weapon he was holding but a toy gun. Some criminals like the Toy Guns because in some states if they are caught (especially the states that have actual threat laws) they can not be charged with Armed Robbery, merely robbery etc… since they did not have an actual weapon but merely convinced people they did. If someone pulls a gun on you are you going to ask then to prove if it is real before defending yourself, or are you going to protect yourself and your family.

    Reply ↓

11. I am amazed at the degree of wishful thinking here, that purports to “prove” Zimmerman lied about the fight, when it seems clear he suffered from some memory lapses but the overall points of his story hold up extremely well.

    Here is a link to the full walk-through video:

    http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/video/george-zimmerman-police-video-statements/

    Start at about the 10 minute mark. Zimmerman says that after he was punched he was moving south trying to push Martin away. You can also see exactly where he is saying this as he is trying to track his movement as he was attacked. The full video is completely consistent with where the fight started and ended as Martin forced Zimmerman down the path, Zimmerman says he attempted to push him off, and finally, Martin got him to the ground, straddled him, and started pounding his head on the concrete.

    Zimmerman also clearly says that he did not remember many details and even the exact spot where Martin straddled him. But it is clear that Zimmerman was forced a good distance south down the north-south path by Martin. And his memory lapses were normal where he was stunned with a punch that broke his nose, shocked by that sudden vicious attack, and where the darkness that night made impossible to identify exact points. O’Mara will have very credible presentation on exactly what happened in support of Zimmerman.

    Reply ↓

    • “PeterO.”, (and you have participated on this website under other different aliases, e.g. StanS. Etc.), I put I to you that you are (a) RZ or another family member of GZ or (b) you are on team-MO’M.
      I put it to you that you are on this site floating a lot of trial balloons and testing different theories with Susan and other participants on this site unknowingly playing the role of the prosecution for you.
      I would also like to put the following questions to you:
      (c) Do you think any jury will buy the memory-laps-argument without any medical record stating that GZ suffered any injury that might support that claim (and we know GZ refused to go to the hospital even at the advice of his own doctor; we also know that the said doctor did not even indicate that GZ suffered any concussion that might lead to memory loos; we also know how the paramedics at the crime scene described GZ injuries; we also know that the witness ‘Jon’ describe GZ as calm and collected few seconds after the “fight”, etc. )?
      (d) If TM punched and broke the nose of GZ, put his hands over the mouth and nose of GZ suffocating him, how is it possible that not a single dna (from e.g. saliva, blood, other excretions/fluids of the skin) of GZ was transferred to TM in the process? I have hundreds of other questions, but I think is better we begin with the above four.
      Pls. keep your answers very shot (bearing in mind what you have stated in your earlier (contradictory) posing)
      BTW, do you STILL think MO’M will mount and SYG defense? If not, why not? If yes, what is he waiting for? Is he still “meticulously gathering evidence”?

      Reply ↓

    • Intel — PeterO has never posted under any other handles, or done any kind of sockpuppeting.

      I can’t say I agree with PeterO’s theories, but at least in that respect he has participated here in good faith.

      Reply ↓

      • So then his work here is more like an homage to StanS?

        : – )

        unitron

        Reply ↓

12. “Peter: But it is clear that Zimmerman was forced a good distance south down the north-south path by Martin. And his memory lapses were normal where he was stunned with a punch that broke his nose, shocked by that sudden vicious attack, and where the darkness that night made impossible to identify exact points.”

    Peter, explain why you think it is clear TM forced Zimmerman south. zimmerman through his lie about the punch location is obviously trying to position himself on or around the “T” because he knows he loses SYG if it is established that he was pursuing TM. To Susan’s point, you can’t have it both ways… either he was decked at the “T” or pursued TM to the point where the struggle/shot occurred.) The physical evidence supports only the latter. I think zimmerman isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed – he could/should have come up with a reason why he ended up South. But that’s the problem with lies, they end up creating more lies not fitting and the jury will not believe that 2 + 2 = 5.

    Reply ↓

    • His story is consistent. He was punched, he staggered from the punch, Martin kept coming at him, he kept moving backwards (and early on dropped his keychain) and pushing Martin off, Martin finally forced him to the ground and started pounding him.

      Why is that so complicated? BTW circumstantial proof of the punch location is the place where Zimmerman’s keychain/flashlight were dropped about 8′ from the T as the fight proceeded south down the path.

      Zimmerman story is consistent and it can easily explain the movement of him and Martin. 40 feet south is not so far if Zimmerman is backing up trying to keep away from Martin who keeps coming on and attacks. Sure, he doesn’t remember every little detail, who would? Compare him to every other witness in this case and he ranks pretty well and is weaker in the areas where he suffered the most trauma — during the fight. Many witnesses blank out completely in such circumstances.

      Reply ↓

13. MarvinM said: “GZ’s references to ‘waistband’ in his NEN call clearly indicate GZ was supposing that his suspect had a gun.”

    ***how about a burglary tool? If he thought the suspect was armed he would have said that to the dispatcher to warn the police that were coming. It is clear that he did not reach any conclusion, only that the suspect was acting suspiciously. How many intruders into the complex that age were armed? My guess is the number is low and if Zimmerman really though the suspect could be armed, he would have told the dispatcher since he was certainly very very candid in his language about a*****s and wanted the police to come. What better way to get them there then to say he thought the suspect might be armed?

    “what do you make of his apology at the bond hearing “I didn’t know he was unarmed”. ”

    ***foot in mouth and an after the fact mental justification which should have no bearing on self-defense. Zimmerman has not listened to anyone, his Judge father, his original attorneys, and he was even for a while distrustful of O’Mara. He has been his own worst enemy by making ANY statements at all, including insisting on that foolish apology that he should have known would be roundly rejected. I think that is one thing everyone can agree on.

    Reply ↓

    • PeterO, Zimmerman said he immediately fell backward onto the ground after he was punched, and then Trayvon got on top of him. The two different stories do not jive.

      Reply ↓

    • Maybe the reason he has been his own best enemy by making statements is because he really did something wrong.

      Reply ↓

    • HP, show me a link to that statement! I posted the link to the actual video that says otherwise. Here it is again:

      http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/video/george-zimmerman-police-video-statements/

      Start at about the 10 minute mark. Zimmerman says that after he was punched he was moving south trying to push Martin away and more

      Reply ↓

    • PeterO, In at least 3 places, Zimmerman says he fell down when he was punched, and Zimmerman got on top of him. There was nothing about Zimmerman “finally” falling down later, except for the walk-through video.

      Even in the walk-through video, Zimmerman says:

      “He punched me in the face. I stumbled and I fell down and he pushed me down and somehow he got on top of me.”

      THEN, as he walks south and waves his arms around, he says: ” ….and I think I was trying to push him away.”

      How could he be trying to push Zimmerman away while walking if he fell down already and Trayvon was on top of him?

      From his written statement:

      “The suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me.”

      But this next one from the Feb. 26 Part 1 audio (12:12) is pretty much the clincher:

      Zimmerman says: “He punched me in the nose. AT THAT POINT I FELL DOWN. I tried to defend myself. He just started punching me in the face and I started screaming for help. I couldn’t see. I couldn’t breath.

      Detective: Are you still standing?

      Zimmerman: No ma’am. I FELL TO THE GROUND WHEN HE PUNCHED ME THE FIRST TIME. It was dark. I didn’t even see him getting ready to punch me. AS SOON AS HE PUNCHED ME, I FELL BACKWARDS IN THE GRASS. Then he started wailing on my head.

      :

      Reply ↓

    • Peter O,

      GZ, from his first police interviews and in his written statement, repeatedly said, backed up by public statements from his father, that TM punched him and that he immediately fell backwards on his back, at which point TM jumped on top of him.

      You can read his written statement here:

      http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/21/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html

      Until the actual video re-enactment, GZ never says anything about getting punched and then stumbling, staggering some 40-60 feet south towards TM’s house and away from his car, eventually landing on his back in the grass. And please note the actual position of TM’s body a good distance away from the sidewalk. There is no way that GZ could have been underneath TM with his head anywhere near the sidewalk when he shot TM.

      And you keep insisting that GZ having dropped his keychain-flashlight near the T proves that he was punched there. It doesn’t. It only proves that GZ dropped his keychain-flashlight there.

      Reply ↓

    • SusanChad said: “And you keep insisting that GZ having dropped his keychain-flashlight near the T proves that he was punched there. It doesn’t. It only proves that GZ dropped his keychain-flashlight there.”

      First, I said the keychain-flashlight was “circumstantial proof,” not “proves.”

      We know the keychain-flashlight was dropped 8′ south of the T. So which of the following scenarios, the only possible ones so far presented, is more likely and by how much:

      1. Zimmerman’s scenario, where he was hit and forced southward and the keychain had fallen along the direct path southward that he indicates in his walk-through; or

      2. the keychain had randomly fallen there.

      Assuming scenario 1, the chances are very very high he dropped the keychain after being hit and it fell along his path southward (we know it dropped). Obviously, if the keychain was found by the clubhouse instead, these chances would instead be about zero.

      Assuming scenario 2, the chances of the keychain dropping at that particular spot randomly given the area of the complex within 3-4 minutes walking from the T is very very small, about the same as as if the keys were found by the clubhouse or anywhere else.

      So which scenario is most likely given ONLY that we know where the keychain was dropped? The obvious answer is overwhelming that the evidence supports Zimmerman’s scenario over the ‘random drop’ scenario.

      Reply ↓

    • Well, Peter, Travon Martin DID have a 7-11 bag holding the goods he’d just purchased from the legally run U.S. business operating a convenience store. Most people carry bags holding their purchases from a store in there hands, yes? “He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is” is what Zimmerman said on his dispatch call.

      Do I NOW have to start looking over my shoulder as I carry my purchases in a bag just in case a paranoid citizen thinks my bags are suspicious just because he’s “got a feelin’ I’m up to no good”?

      Reply ↓

    • @Hapufern –

      I agree. There is no getting around the clarity of Zimmerman’s description of falling to the ground with one punch onto his back. Maybe he’s learned in his criminal justice classes that the state would pay for a massage if he suffered injuries while “preventing a crime” that “may” occur in the future.

      Not to be “out there” topic-wise, but I’ve wondered if any of Zimmerman’s instructors regularly used examples of how to defeat certain obstacles to self-defense that stuck with Zimmerman.

      Reply ↓

    • CSFC,

      Martin stuffed the bag of skittles into his sweatshirt. He’d probably have done the same with the can of watermelon juice, except the clerk reminded him to use some manners.

      The 7-11 clerk refused to sell him the product that needed proof of age. Because they run their business legally, they refused to sell the product that Martin attempted to buy.

      Reply ↓

      • “…Martin stuffed the bag of skittles into his sweatshirt. He’d probably have done the same with the can of watermelon juice, except the clerk reminded him to use some manners.”

        You mean the can he puts in the bag he specifically asks the clerk for?

        Although I don’t see what manners have to do with it.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • Unitron,

      “‘…Martin stuffed the bag of skittles into his sweatshirt. He’d probably have done the same with the can of watermelon juice, except the clerk reminded him to use some manners.’

      You mean the can he puts in the bag he specifically asks the clerk for?

      Although I don’t see what manners have to do with it.”

      Martin grabbed the skittles and stuffed in in his shirt.

      The clerk then asked “do you want a bag for that?” (pointing with his hand).

      Martin pulled the can toward himself, and then Martin might have said something – but he has a very deep voice. The clerk said something like “OK” as he then ripped the bag off the stack and put the can in it.

      Martin’s instinct was to just grab after he had paid for the items.

      Reply ↓

      • You seemed to have watched a video with an audio track different from the one I heard.

        Do you happen to have a link to it?

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • Unitron inquires:

      “Do you happen to have a link to it?”

      Reply ↓

    • @jimrtex
      on June 26, 2012 at 11:45 pm said:

      “Martin stuffed the bag of skittles into his sweatshirt. He’d probably have done the same with the can of watermelon juice, except the clerk reminded him to use some manners.”

      So are you saying Trayvon Martin’s hand was bleeding when he put the Skittles in his pocket?

      The evidence dump said:

      Page 11, item 38:
      Two (2) swabs of suspected blood evidence collected from the Skittles located with In item # DMS-10 and the flashlight located with in item #DMS-6.

      Page 31 describes DMS-10:
      DMS-10 PERSONAL EFFECTS
      One (1) red “711” brand name lighter, photo button, bag of skittles, and headphones, and collected from wIth in the victim’s pockets.

      So how did blood get on the Skittles? Who’s blood was it? Did it bleed through Trayvon Martin’s wound or did Zimmerman put his bloodied hands inside Trayvon Martin’s pocket during the frisk?

      Reply ↓

    • CSFC,

      “Page 11, item 38:
      Two (2) swabs of suspected blood evidence collected from the Skittles located with In item # DMS-10 and the flashlight located with in item #DMS-6.”

      Thank you. Was it ever tested?

      Reply ↓

14. unitron, where is your link where any witness or GZ says GZ “frisked” Martin? You have repeatedly claimed GZ “frisked” Martin. Or was that a myth you started as a “put on?”

    And if there is such a link (which I right now doubt) let’s see it so we can look at the context of that “frisk.”

    Another apparent myth being spread is that Zimmerman said he immediately fell to the ground when he was punched. His walk through video says otherwise.

    If anyone has that link to that other apparent myth, please post it.

    It’s so easy to argue “guilty” when myths are used as “facts.”

    Reply ↓

    • From what I’ve seen so far, she doesn’t delete facts, she deletes opinions presented as facts.

      Something of which supporters on both sides have been guilty.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • “unitron, where is your link where any witness or GZ says GZ “frisked” Martin? You have repeatedly claimed GZ “frisked” Martin. Or was that a myth you started as a “put on?””

      You are attributing to me the words of someone else.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • PeterO., your answers to my earlier questions I STILL await. I will be posing to you more questions that would not give any room for speculative answers – the kind of questions one would have to answer pointing to specific evidence in the body of evidence known so far. BTW, do you STILL – as you did a couple of months/weeks ago – believe that the arrest and indictment of GZ was politically motivated?

      Reply ↓

    • Zimmerman’s walkthrough statement is FULL of inconsistencies, but you appear to take what “fits your need the best” from each one of his statements, ignoring the inconsistencies from one to the next.
      But even in his walk through statement, Zimmerman said Martin hit him and he stubble and fell. He said (probably when he realized that he was at the “wrong spot” to describe the “struggle,” because he was still on the T junction when he said hat Trayvon hit him and he fell. . he then changed his story slightly and said that, he stumbled, and tried to get away, but he fell. However, another inconsistencies, he said he fell about 8 feet along the pass between the townhouses, while the body was found over 40 feet away from the T junction.
      It also doesn’t make sense (if he was really trying to walk away from Martin, that he went in the direction of the SOUTH, instead of continuing WEST. . .toward his car! But that would have clearly been a lie, and even Zimmerman is not that dumb!
      By the way, did you notice Zimmerman’s body language when he describe where his gun was placed? He actually does that movement that shows that his gun was on the BACK SIDE OF HIS RIGHT HIP, under his pants 3 times during the few seconds between 2:42 and 3:00 on the walkthrough video.
      Why is this important? Because, standing in the dark, in the rain, with dark clothes on, there is no chance that Trayvon could have seen a gun placed in the back of Zimmerman’s Right hip, under his trousers waist band! It makes no sense. The only way Trayvon could have seen the gun is if Zimmerman pulled it out at that moment. . .and that would explain why Trayvon then tried to run with Zimmerman following him, to the area (about 30 feet further along the North to South walkway) where the REAL struggle took place and where Trayvon was shot.

      Reply ↓

    • @unitron –

      “onlyiamunitron
      on June 26, 2012 at 5:38 am said:
      From what I’ve seen so far, she doesn’t delete facts, she deletes opinions presented as facts.

      Something of which supporters on both sides have been guilty.”

      Yeah, but the way she does it is kinda like the way Fox accidentally always reports Republican politicians arrested for child molestation and prostitution type offenses as Democrats. It’s very Rush-Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck style.

      As someone who previously ran blogs, I limited deletions to real violations of discourse terms (like personal attacks or posting illegal info) and chose instead to dispute/debunk the inaccuracies so that everybody could see the truth. That’s very much like what Susan does here and NLME does at bcclist.com.

      That’s WHY I like viewfromll2 and bcclist and a small handful of other sites I read/lurk about.

      The strike of balance and the public’s experience of being informed is much greater when both sides CAN be heard without some dimwit with admin control deleted facts like an unpaid intern over at HP would do. Control can be an oppressive, abusive tool when misapplied/mismanaged.

      I often learn from the Zimmerman supporters what crazy stuff they’ve photoshopped or misconstrued by reading their nutty, illogical and irrational comments.

      Ignorance is NOT bliss.

      Reply ↓

    • Sadanie says:

      “He said (probably when he realized that he was at the “wrong spot” to describe the “struggle,” because he was still on the T junction when he said hat Trayvon hit him and he fell. . he then changed his story slightly and said that, he stumbled, and tried to get away, but he fell. However, another inconsistencies, he said he fell about 8 feet along the pass between the townhouses, while the body was found over 40 feet away from the T junction.”

      In the walk through he is about 30 feet south of the T junction. But when he indicates where John was, it would have mean that John was behind the wing wall. So he did not know how far south he was.

      In his second 2/26 interview, when Singleton is asking for him to indicate locations on the map, he indicates the building where he saw John (I presume this was the building to the west).

      Reply ↓

15. Even though I click on the “Reply” link in the email alerting me to a specific comment, my replies seem to be getting appended to posts by someone other than who made the comment to which I am replying.

    WordPress is seriously buggy.

    unitron

    Reply ↓

16. Hey Peter, I answered your question up there about Zimmerman falling down right after he was punched. I noticed something else when going through this stuff again.

    Zimmerman left out the word “homey” in his written statement.

    Then, On the Feb 29 Part 1 tape, the detective asked Zimmerman, “Did he use the word ‘homey’?”

    Zimmerman says, “I don’t remember.”

    And yet he seemed to use the word “homey” in several of his other statements. Could be the adderall or the ADHD or whatever, but either way, his statements are not reliable.

    How do you think Zimmerman got so far south between the rows with Trayvon? Do you think Trayvon pushed him there?

    Reply ↓

17. Peter, just in case you didn’t get to it the first time, from the Feb. 26 Part 1 audio (12:12):

    Zimmerman says: “He punched me in the nose. AT THAT POINT I FELL DOWN… I FELL TO THE GROUND WHEN HE PUNCHED ME THE FIRST TIME. It was dark. I didn’t even see him getting ready to punch me. AS SOON AS HE PUNCHED ME, I FELL BACKWARDS IN THE GRASS. Then he started wailing on my head.”

    Reply ↓

18. I am in total agreement with SusanChad!

    Reply ↓

    • Yes Hap agree with SusanChad. Have been working hard lately trying to catch up on posts.

      Reply ↓

19. Obviously, Zimmerman wasn’t at the tee when Trayvon was killed. How did Zimmerman get where Zimmerman got it he didn’t walk there himself? And why would he walk there except that he was playing the role of the aggressor?

    And isn’t this what he was trying to cover up by pretending to get punched at the T?

    And if he lied about the “where” to cover up going after Trayvon, could he have also lied about the “what” (actually happened)?

    And then there’s that transient “homey” word.

    Another part of Zimmerman’s “self-defense” claim is in serious jeopardy.

    Reply ↓

20. If the prosecution follows the arguments given here, it will be argued that beyond a reasonable doubt:
    1. The totality of Zimmerman’s misstatements couldn’t be made by an innocent person
    2. There is no way Martin’s body could have ended up where it did unless Zimmerman chased Martin there.
    3. Zimmerman had to have drawn his gun out before he was on the ground on his back.

    And if they could get a jury made up of some of the posters on this blog, they just might convict. I have very little faith in the accuracy of American justice.

    Reply ↓

    • Ricky, you are correct. To disprove Zimmerman’s story, the prosecution has to explain a version of events that are much more likely to have occurred such that all of Zimmerman’s versions (note plural) must be rejected beyond reasonable doubt.

      No one has stated any prosecutor theory that:

      a) shows exactly how Martin’s body ended where it did, INCLUDING THE EXACT SECOND BY SECOND STEPS AND MOVEMENTS OF ZIMMERMAN AND MARTIN, INCLUDING THE FIGHT SEQUENCE AND SHOOTING, LEADING TO THE BODY ENDING UP WHERE IT DID.

      b) explains as part of a), how and why Zimmerman’s lit car keychain and mini-flashlight ended up 8 ft from the east-west path.

      ALL I HAVE SEEN IS “MURDER BY NIT-PICKING” (sounds like an Agatha Christie book). Let’s see a SINGLE theory in the detail Zimmerman has provided and weigh the two versions.

      Many commentors have it EXACTLY BACKWARDS. The burden is on the prosecutor to advance their theory.

      LET’S SEE A PROSECUTOR THEORY OF THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL MOVEMENTS OF MARTIN AND ZIMMERMAN LAID OUT THIS BLOG. (this isn’t for you HP, you have done enough!)

      PLEASE DO NOT REFER TO THE MIS-MASH OF PAST ANALYSES AS AN “ANSWER.” JUST, IN NUMBERED, STEPS LAY OUT THE EXACT MOVEMENTS OF ZIMMERMAN AND MARTIN. IT SHOULD NOT BE THAT COMPLICATED TO DO. REMEMBER THE PROSECUTOR MUST DO THIS TO CONVICT!

      Reply ↓

    • PLEASE DO NOT REFER TO THE MIS-MASH OF PAST ANALYSES AS AN “ANSWER.” JUST, IN NUMBERED, STEPS LAY OUT THE EXACT MOVEMENTS OF ZIMMERMAN AND MARTIN. IT SHOULD NOT BE THAT COMPLICATED TO DO. REMEMBER THE PROSECUTOR MUST DO THIS TO CONVICT!

      Wrong. You’re making stuff up again.

      The prosecution absolutely does not have to “recreate” precisely how the shooting went down in order to convict Zimmerman.

      If and when Zimmerman is able to produce enough evidence to raise an affirmative justification of self-defense, the prosecution will then need to prove that (1) Zimmerman was not acting in objectively reasonable fear for his life when he shot, or (2) Zimmerman provoked the encounter with Trayvon, and did not exhaust all reasonable means of protecting himself that did not involve deadly force.

      If the only evidence Zimmerman has for these two points is his own word, all the prosecution needs to convict is to show the jury that Zimmerman’s account of the incident has been untruthful and inaccurate, such that his testimony on these points should be disregarded.

      They will very likely need more than that. But at a bare minimum, that’s all they need.

      Reply ↓

    • Just for the record Ricky, I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but I do think the known evidence against Zimmerman is adding up.

      Would it seem like justice to you if Zimmerman is actually guilty, and then he is convicted? His guilt is a possibility you know.

      Or do you think that someone should be automatically exonerated as long as the deed was done in the dark?

      Reply ↓

    • Susan said: “Wrong. You’re making stuff up again.”

      Sorry, I disagree. I am talking about the real world trial. I notice in your last paragraph to add “They will very likely need more than that.” What is that “more?”

      If no one wants to lay out, step by step, what the prosecutor will try to show at trial (in the real world), let’s use the probable cause affidavit. Otherwise, if the prosecutor wants to take out a football and toss it to the jurors saying “hail mary,” let him.

      Of course, he will have mock ups and experts who describe, step by step, what happened in the final minute or so of Martin’s life. What will that description look like? Anyone have ideas?

      I find it strange how Zimmerman’s extensive statements are nit-picked to exhaustion, but no alternative is presented in anywhere near the detail he has provided for that same critical time period.

      Reply ↓

21. Here are Zimmerman’s descriptions of how the fight occurred, chronologically:

    2/26 written statement

    As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said “you got a problem” I said “no” the suspect said “you do now”. And [illegible] and tried to find my phone to dial 911 the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back.

    2/26 audio interview, Pt. 1:

    GZ: So I was walking back through to where my car was and he jumped out from the bushes. And he said, “WTF’s your problem, homey?” And I got my cell phone out… to call 911 this time. And I say, hey man, I don’t have a problem. And he was, “No, now you have a problem” and he punched me in the nose. At that point, I fell down, ah, I tried to defend myself. He just started punching me in the face and, ah, I started screaming for help. I couldn’t see, I couldn’t breathe, then he starting taking my head…

    …

    GZ: It was dark, I didn’t even see him…getting ready to punch me. As soon as he punched me, I fell backwards, um, into the grass. Then he grabbed me by…he was wailing on my head and then I started yelling help. 

    …

    GZ: And I said, I don’t wanna have a problem, and he said “Now you have a problem.”
    DS: Okay.
    GZ: And that’s when he hit me.
    DS: And that’s…he struck you in the nose first?
    GZ: Yes, ma’am.
    DS: And that’s what knocked you down?
    GZ: Yes, ma’am.

    2/26 audio interview, Pt. 2:

    GZ: He punched me in the face and I fell backwards, and I don’t even know where…

    2/27 interview:

    GZ: When he came up to me, he said, “You got a problem?” and I said no. And then I went to reach for my phone to find my phone to call 911 instead of non-emergency.
    CS: Okay.
    GZ: And then is when he punched me. He said, “You have a problem now.” And then he punched me in the face.
    CS: Oh, so he said, okay, you have a problem now. Okay, he punched and you fell?
    GZ: Yes, sir.

    2/27 walkthrough video:

    GZ: [H]e was about there, but he was walking towards me.
    Inv.: “So he was coming from this direction here? [the investigator motions from behind him (towards the south) to in front of him where Zimmerman is standing (north)]
    GZ: Yes, sir. Like I said I was already past that, so I didn’t see exactly where he came from but he was about where… And I said I don’t have a problem and I went to go grab my cell phone but my…. I left it in a different pocket. I went…I looked down at my pant pocket and he said, you got a problem now and then he was here [motions that Trayvon was right there next to him, directly to the southeast of Zimmerman] and he punched me in the face.
    Inv.: Right here? [investigator moves southeast down the sidewalk, away from the “T”]
    GZ: Right up around here, to be honest I don’t remember exactly.
    Inv.: That’s fine.
    GZ: I think… I stumbled, and I fell down he pushed me down, somehow he got on top of me.
    Inv.: On the grass or on the cement?
    GZ: It was more over towards here [Zimmerman walks down into the dog path, southeast, directly the way he says the attack came from]

    2/29 Interview, Pt. 1

    CS: … Another thing too as far as 25 and 30 punches, I’ve consulted with a lot of people, not quite consistent with your injuries. You do have injuries, however. Um, how did he manage to bang your head, and, okay, correct me if I misunderstood what you said here as far as slamming the head into the concrete. Into the cement thing. How’d he do that?
    GZ: I was on my back.
    CS: Okay.
    GZ: First punch, you mean? I don’t know if I immediately fell down, he threw me down. I was stumbling, I ended up on my back.
    …
    CS: Okay, so when he approached you this boy said “What the fuck’s your problem?” Correct?
    GZ: Something to that effect, but…
    CS: Did he use the word “homey”?
    GZ: I don’t remember.
    CS: Okay.
    DS: Did you at that time, ever say to him, I’m Neighborhood Watch?
    GZ: No.
    DS: Did it not occur to you?
    GZ: I was, no, I was, said I don’t have a problem. And I started backing away from him.

    Reply ↓

    • And some observations on these competing versions of events:

      (1) Zimmerman’s initial story is that he is punched and goes down flat. As the interviews progress — after Zimmerman does the walk through — Zimmerman adds claims that he “stumbled” after being punched.

      (2) Zimmerman is clear that he landed on his back. This is difficult (impossible) to reconcile with his claim that he “stumbled” forwards — if you stumble forwards you do not fall on your back.

      (3) Zimmerman says at many points that he fell “backwards.” However, Zimmerman’s line of movement was directly south –the direction he was being attacked from. How does one fall backwards, and end up falling in the precise direction your attacker is coming from?

      (4) Zimmerman had to have moved directly through the space that he says Trayvon was in when Trayvon attacked him. Zimmerman never alleges, however, that Trayvon pulled him — instead, he specifically alleges that he was knocked down by a punch travelling northwards to connect with his face. Zimmerman’s car was to the west, and somewhat north — if he was trying to escape, his momentum and path would have taken him in that direction. The only conceivable explanation for how Zimmerman’s momentum could have carried him south is that he deliberately moved in that direction.

      We don’t know why Zimmerman might have voluntarily moved southward as the fight progressed. But the fact Zimmerman he insists he did no such thing is reason to be suspicious about what his actual motives were.

      Reply ↓

    • Before I post some comments on Susan’s explanation, the rendition of the interviews and video looks very good, with one minor quibble:

      In the video it is very clear that the Detective (who presumably has done this with thousands of witnesses) did not in any manner lead Zimmerman into him showing how the fight progressed southwards. It was Zimmerman alone who did that and walked in a southerly direction along the cement path as he was trying to remember exactly the locations of him and Martin. And he clearly kept repeating (including in his oral interviews) that he couldn’t remember events exactly [except, for example, the generals facts of: movement and direction of the fight and two isolated events of being punched at the beginning and on his back near the end].

      As an experiment, every commentor should try to remember an event that: a) occurred in the last day or so; b) in an area new to you; c) that involved something new to you; d) that involved complex spatial movement over 100’s of feet; and e) involved a complex series of interrelated physical and mental steps. Write that down and tape it. Then go to the actual location and see if other details come to mind or the version is ‘fleshed’ out, or the ‘trigger’ of actually being there (which is the VERY REASON POLICE DO PHYSICAL WALK-THROUGHS) firms up memory. Then compare all three versions.

      Look at all the other witnesses in this case and how their memories of events changed over days and weeks and, objectively, compare to variations in Zimmerman’s story — he comes out pretty well by comparison.

      I don’t expect anyone to do any of the above, but you should get the point.

      Reply ↓

    • Susan, regarding your observations on the conversations, items 1) to 4). I hope we can agree that our views are different.

      I posted a link to this paper from the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies on witness memories and the legal system that explains my basis for believing nit-picking Zimmerman’s forms of statements (written, verbal (not at the scene) and walk-through (at the scene) will prove only he has normal human memory, no more. And is not proof of murder.

      “The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony” (http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm)

      Your last ¶ was interesting where you say: “We don’t know why Zimmerman might have voluntarily moved southward as the fight progressed. But the fact Zimmerman [] insists he did no such thing is reason to be suspicious about what his actual motives were.”

      1. Zimmerman made it clear he was being defensively forced southward by Martin’s attack; there was no “voluntary” retreat except in the sense of fleeing an actual threat;

      2. I fail to understand why Zimmerman’s claim he was forced backwards “is reason to be suspicious” about motives. His motive seems obvious: he doesn’t want to be further hurt.

      In fact, item 2. above fulfills Zimmerman obligation to retreat, if he needs that element for his self-defense claim.

      Reply ↓

    • I saw an auto accident which occurred directly in front of me about 40 feet. I was sure that one car was getting t-boned but that is not what happened, and I may not have actually happened.

      I was filling my gas tank, and I was in the outside lane closest to the street. I had finished filling, had checked the price and replaced the hose.and handle.

      I was standing by the back of my car apparently getting ready to put my gas cap on. and so was facing directly in the direction of where the accident occurred. I must have heard something and looked up and saw a car being t-boned. One car continued down the street and the other spun around and ended up over a curb. I saw some other people running over and thought that I should do the same.

      I realized I had the gas cap in my hand (it clips into the gas tank cover). So I thought should I, (1) drop it; (2) set it on the car; (3) clip it back in cover; (4) set it on the inlet; (5) screw it on. I’m sure I was quickly evaluating – auto accident, what if there is an explosion; or I’ll forget and lose my gas cap. So I screwed the cap in.

      I had envisioned one car being T-boned on its right side. It had actually been hit in the back left rear, and spun around. I think it essentially had come across and was far enough forward and at an angle so it wasn’t hit in the side but just was clipped in the left rear.. The other car was able to continue down the road for a 100 feet or so (with a busted radiator).

      So I don’t know whether I saw the accident, or saw immediately after the accident, but what I “saw” was totally inconsistent with the damage to the car that was hit.

      Reply ↓

    • Did Martin hit with a left jab, right cross, right uppercut, left roundhouse? Did Zimmerman turn to call 911? Did he partially stumble, did he attempt to duck at the last second?

      Reply ↓

22. Excellent summary, Susan. Thanks. You may already have covered this: do you think GZ will be testifying in his own defense?

    Reply ↓

    • That may ultimately turn out to be the most fascinating part of this case. Because normally, no, there is no way in hell Zimmerman testifies. He’s not good on the stand, he’s impeachable, and it would be a disaster for the defense. It’s a bad idea in general, and a worse idea in this particular case.

      On the other hand… if Zimmerman has no other way of producing sufficient evidence of self-defense to get a jury instruction on it, he may have to anyway.

      Reply ↓

    • Thanks. This is in reply to Susan S. I was thinking the same thing. Very odd circumstance, it seems to me. Who or what will be mounting GZ’s self-defense except for GZ himself? None of the evidence supports him, except a minor smack in the nose and a couple of little dings on the head.

      Reply ↓

23. unitron, re your use of apparently trying to mislead by saying Zimmerman “frisked” Martin — at least until a valid link is provided:

    Do a page search for ‘frisk’ and your post comes up. Without a direct page link to a statement by Zimmerman (with a time stamp) the ‘frisk’ usage is a myth and should be treated as such.

    Reply ↓

    • typos in 1st ¶ but you get the point.

      Reply ↓

    • “Someone on bcclist advanced the theory that Trayvon’s phone was back there where the body was because it was still in a pocket until Zimmerman pulled it out while frisking Martin’s corpse or near corpse.”

      That’s me saying that someone else on another site advanced it as a theory.

      That’s not me claiming it happened, or that I’d seen mention of it in any official documents.
      __________________________________________________________________________

      “jimrtex on June 23, 2012 at 4:33 am said:

      Unitron,

      I don’t think there is any visible evidence of Martin in the clubhouse surveillance videos….”

      “onlyiamunitron on June 23, 2012 at 4:58 am said:

      I wasn’t the one claiming that he was there….

      If it was someone else (other than Martin, who apparently didn’t have a flashlight), they were there at a time when they could have seen Martin or Zimmerman or both and need to be tracked down, unless Corey’s saving them as a surprise witness.”

      Which led to me being sarcastic…

      “Of course I suppose that, as the master thief and all around criminal genius he’s supposed to have been, it could have been Martin with a flashlight which Zimmerman took away from him, and that would explain him attacking Zimmerman later.

      But what did George do with Trayvon’s back-up screwdriver?

      Was that what he was frisking the corpse for?”

      Are you sure you aren’t StanS?

      You’re certainly getting to be as tiresome.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • unitron, and there you have it:

      You NOW claim you were just “being sarcastic” when you said:

      “Was that what he was frisking the corpse for?”

      I was going to post an interesting paper from the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies on witness memories and the legal system, so I will do it now:

      “The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony” (http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm)

      The trick you used is similar to the one used in the above study to successfully trick subjects into altering their perceptions of events. They successfully slipped misleading information into questions in a way designed to change perceptions.

      In the same manner as the study, you included the word “frisking” into your question to imply an assumed legitimacy to the idea Zimmerman was “frisking” Martin.

      Also, in the past you have tried to mislead by posing “loaded questions,” where the presumptions and alternatives were presented in a way to reach the conclusion you wanted.

      To show how this works, please, unitron, answer the following:

      After you stopped beating your wife last night, did you watch TV, did you eat a snack, did you skip TV and eating or do both?

      BTW do you have any direct evidence that Zimmerman “frisked” Martin?

      Reply ↓

      • If you couldn’t tell from the line about the back-up screwdriver that I was being sarcastic, I consider that your failing and not mine.

        There is nowhere that I personally suggested in seriousness that Zimmerman was frisking him.

        If you’re desperate to argue about it, I’ll go find the comment on the other site to which I referred and provide you with a link and you can go over there and argue with them about it.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • PeterO, Zimmerman admitted he felt around on Martin trying to find the “object” he claimed he thought Trayvon was “hitting him with.”

      This is frisking. That doesn’t mean he did a police pat down — but he was hunting around on Trayvon’s corpse trying to find a weapon. What the heck else would you call that?

      Reply ↓

    • Susan, maybe I missed something so a time stamp would be useful.

      What I remember from the video was that towards the end Zimmerman said he spread Martin’s hands apart and asked for help (again, he could easily have mis-remembered some events as he did when he said he told the dispatcher Martin disappeared when he was at the club-house). In the video, he said he held the hands apart because he thought Martin had something in his hands. I assumed (and a defense lawyer will assert) that Zimmerman did that because the power and hardness of the blows raised the possibility the attacker could have had a short stick, black jack or similar type weapon in his hands. He would also say it was not a gun because that would be too big and would likely have already been used or at least shown to Zimmerman to intimidate him.

      If there is evidence Zimmerman actually “patted” Martin down that would be useful.

      However, even evidence of a “pat down” (frisk) would not be strong evidence that, before the confrontation, Zimmerman believed Martin was carrying a gun. It would only show after the fact prudence, if he did not know Martin was dead, about the small chance Martin could have a gun in his pocket and suddenly pull it and shoot.

      Also, if I was in his position, I well might ask for help to hold an attacker down and do a pat down for safety sake. But who knows how we really react in times of stress.

      Reply ↓

    • back to the dictionary:
      frisk v. quickly patting down the clothes of a possible criminal suspect to determine if there is a concealed weapon. (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/frisk)

      If we are talking about only checking Martin’s hands for a weapon of some sort then I agree that was what Zimmerman said.

      Also, I should have added that even a full pat down could also have been for a knife or any other type weapon besides a gun.

      Reply ↓

    • Susan Simpson says:

      “Zimmerman admitted he felt around on Martin trying to find the ‘object’ he claimed he thought Trayvon was “‘hitting him with.'”

      In his 2/26 interview Zimmerman says he held Martin’s hands out to his sides.

      In his 2/27 interview Zimmerman says he grabbed his hands and spread them away.

      Please find those two places and transcribe them as best as you can, and see if it matches your description.

      Reply ↓

      • Why don’t you just listen to the walk through between 3:40 and 3:50. Zimmerman explains how straddled Trayvon and spread his hands apart because he thought he had used “something” while he was “beating” him, and he wanted to find it.
        And, why do you think Susan owes it to YOU or to Jeralyn (whomever she is!) to “explain” why she disagree with her analysis of the law?

        Doesn’t that sound a little arrogant on your part? Why are you putting more credence in what Jeralyn says than in what Susan says? I don’t!
        If I did. . .I would probably move to Jeralyn’s site. . .maybe that would be an option for you!

        Reply ↓

    • Sadanie:

      “Why don’t you just listen to the walk through between 3:40 and 3:50. Zimmerman explains how straddled Trayvon and spread his hands apart because he thought he had used “something” while he was “beating” him, and he wanted to find it.”

      Do you mean 13:40 to 13:50? At 3:40 they’re still back at the NW corner.

      “he wanted to find it” is not in the version that I have.

      I’ve got cheap external speakers, so I don’t have the subliminal channel that you are apparently hearing.

      Reply ↓

24. Back to the nit-picking “how did he get 40 feet down the path?” theory of murder guilt:

    Let’s hold aside the dispute over Zimmerman’s video, in which he gives a perfectly rational explanation how Martin, as aggressor, and after punching him, forced him continually backward as he kept trying to push Martin away, and finally was driven to the ground by Martin ground — over a 40 foot distance from start to finish.

    I previously, asked the question about how long Martin lived after he was shot. Curiously, not one of the media outlets seems to have picked up on this question, leading me to the conclusion they may have found the answer but do not like it.

    Here are two previous comments on that important subject of how long Martin lived after being shot, by jimrtex and InspectorG:

    ******************************
    jimrtex on June 26, 2012 at 2:02 pm said:

    Peter O

    “It will be interesting to know how long death can occur after being shot as Martin was and we can be certain there will be dueling experts on that matter at trial.”

    I came across an FBI report from 2011 (long before the shooting) that said the only instantaneous “kill shot” was the neck (spinal cord or head), and only a trained sharpshooter could hit an arm or a hand (so as to knock a gun away).

    It said there was about 15 seconds of oxygen supply to the brain before voluntary motor movement would stop. The body has around 6 liters of blood, with about 75 ml per beat.

    *****************************

    Inspector Gadget (@inspect_gadget) on June 26, 2012 at 2:21 pm said:

    jimrtex,

    “I came across an FBI report from 2011 (long before the shooting) that said the only instantaneous “kill shot” was the neck (spinal cord or head), and only a trained sharpshooter could hit an arm or a hand (so as to knock a gun away).”

    That is correct, I was the radio guy in Afghanistan for the guys that could do that in an instant. There are 4 things they needed – Training and Practice Practice Practice. I’m talking in the many many thousands of rounds on a regular basis repeatedly.

    ***********************************

    What this means is that, unless someone has different or updated information, most likely Martin was alive and capable of movement (with full strength) for at least 15 seconds after being shot.

    What this critical fact of Martin remaining alive for another 15 seconds means is that a defense attorney will, reasonably, say:

    After Zimmerman shot Martin:
    Martin sat up;
    Zimmerman and Martin rose as Zimmerman struggled up;
    Zimmerman, believing Martin was still a threat, tried to wrestle him to the ground for the police;
    Zimmerman, as he was struggling to get control of Martin, forced him southwards to where Martin finally fell about 10-20 feet further southward; and
    Zimmerman, still feeling Martin struggling as he forced him to the ground, called for help in restraining Martin for the police.

    The length of time Martin remained alive ALSO means:

    If Martin was the one doing the screaming for help, presumably in terror of the man he was beating to pulp, he must have been in much greater terror after the shot was fired. Yet Martin made NO ATTEMPT TO SCREAM FOR HELP in the next 15 or so seconds when he not only could still physically do so, but would have had even more reason and more terror to call out.

    Why didn’t Martin continue screaming after being shot for the next 15 or so seconds during which time he could still physically do so and was actually, for the first time, losing the fight and was shot?

    No wonder the media does not want to touch this issue with the proverbial ‘ten foot pole’!

    Reply ↓

    • Because someone who has just had a quarter of their heart obliterated and both lungs punctured by a hollow point bullet shot point blank into the chest is incapable of screaming for help.

      Holy cow, are you actually serious, PeterO? This is the most asinine argument you’ve come up with yet.

      Being alive and being able to scream at the top of your longs are not synonymous. Trayvon could conceivably have been conscious for a few seconds after being shot, but he would have been incapable of anything much more than looking around in terror. He could have grunted out something with any air left in his lungs after being shot, but that’s it.

      Reply ↓

    • Also the “after Trayvon was shot in the heart he wrestled Zimmerman 20 feet down the pathway” argument is a close contender for the second dumbest argument ever.

      Reply ↓

    • Susan Simpson says:

      “Because someone who has just had a quarter of their heart obliterated and both lungs punctured by a hollow point bullet shot point blank into the chest is incapable of screaming for help.”

      Why do you say both lungs were punctured? The autopsy reported finding one fragment behind the right ventricle, and two behind the lower lobe of the right lung? Are you a trauma specialist in addition to being a lawyer?

      Reply ↓

    • Susan, I am sure I am mistaken if I sense a little panic here but you said:

      “Holy cow, are you actually serious, PeterO?”

      ***I am very serious. And, as jimrtex pointed out, you misstated the autopsy report [by accident I presume].

      “Being alive and being able to scream at the top of your longs are not synonymous. Trayvon could conceivably have been conscious for a few seconds after being shot, but he would have been incapable of anything much more than looking around in terror. He could have grunted out something with any air left in his lungs after being shot, but that’s it.”

      ***based on the ACTUAL autopsy report, I believe you will be found to be wrong. Let the experts debate this, but I see no reason why Martin, in 15 seconds, could not have done a number of things, no matter how tragic the ultimate result.

      “Also the “after Trayvon was shot in the heart he wrestled Zimmerman 20 feet down the pathway” argument is a close contender for the second dumbest argument ever.”

      ***Really??? First, I said 10-20 feet, and I stick by it. Use a stop watch. If both rose within a few seconds after the shooting, Zimmerman, rushing Martin to get him down and to get on top of him could, very easily, have forced Martin 10-20 feet southward (Zimmerman was much shorter than Martin). That is only about 1.5 to 3 body lengths … not that far at all in the context of the fight that was occurring. Moreover, that presumes the first Martin attack and taking down of Zimmerman, by itself, did not span the entire 40 feet or almost all of it. Sounds very reasonable to me.

      Reply ↓

    • Oh, it’s not panic.

      More like awe.

      Your faith in the word of Zimmerman is so absolute that you are perfectly willing to believe that a kid, who has just had a substantial portion of his heart liquefied by a hollow-point bullet, was able to carry on a conversation while standing up from the ground and then running 20 feet, rather than to even consider the possibility that some dude you’ve never met might have told a lie to save his own ass.

      Wow.

      Reply ↓

    • Come on, susan you are putting words in my mouth. You said:

      “was able to carry on a conversation while standing up from the ground and then running 20 feet, rather than to even consider the possibility that some dude you’ve never met might have told a lie to save his own ass.”

      ***Martin, for 15 seconds had functional ability, notwithstanding damage to his heart.

      Martin, said something to Zimmerman as soon as he was shot, yet Martin made NO attempt to yell ‘help.’

      You also know I never said Martin was “RUNNING 20 feet.” If both stood, or even half-stood, Zimmerman could easily have been (and most likely was) rushing Martin and was therefore providing almost all of the momentum to go 1-3 body lengths southward (if that amount was even necessary). The issue is beyond reasonable doubt and there is probably more than enough evidence to support Zimmerman, even under a preponderance of evidence standard.

      Reply ↓

      • As usual, you’re full of . . . IT!
        Tell me two things: HOW would Trayvon intice Zimmerman to move “South?”
        and WHY would Trayvon intice Zimmerman to move “South?”
        Do you believe that martin had “hidden reasons” to push Zimmerman South of the T junction? What? Do you think he was trying to get Zimmerman to Brandy’s townhouse and shackle him in the (non-existant) basements? Or what?
        Do you think if he had managed to get Zimmerman to Brandy’s house, he would have killed him and cut his body in little pieces just for fun?

        Obviously, to any reasonable mind, Zimmerman had EVERYTHING TO GAIN. . .that is if he wasn’t the aggressor, if he wasn’t the one pursuing Trayvon, to go back toward his truck. . NOT South!

        And, Trayvon had everything to gain to have Zimmerman go back to his truck. . .not follow him South!

        There is NO WAY that Zimmerman didn’t INTENT on pursuing Trayvon South. .or he simply would not have done it! There is NO WAY that, Trayvon “reportedly attacking FROM South” could have caused Zimmerman to “stumble” South! On the contrary, IF IT WAS TRUE that Trayvon had attacked Zimmerman from the South, he would have PUSHED Zimmerman further to the West or the North. . .and if Trayvon had pursued or harrassed Zimmerman after the first punch, they would have both (tugging and pulling) moved WEST. . .NOT SOUTH!

        Your fairy tales about Zimmerman the wizard are getting very tiring and ridiculous!
        Give us a break, will you. . .or at least try to answer LOGICALLY to our questions!

        Reply ↓

    • I feel like a tiny part of you, deep down inside, has to realize how insane this argument actually is.

      Reply ↓

    • Peter O,

      The body ended up with the head toward the northeast. This is consistent with John’s description of Martin generally having his back to him, and also a change in orientation as he discovered a face lifting up toward him.

      Zimmerman said Martin sat up, which from a straddling position leaning forward to smother him would mean that his body was vertical. He might have attempted to get up, but then Zimmerman wriggled out from under him. If you are underneath someone, you probably would not try to push forward but somehow get your legs out from under his. Martin probably fell forward then – there is a bit of a slope to the ground since the valley is west of the the sidewalk, so it would make sense to push him somewhat downhill. Then the body was rolled, flipped, turned over in order to perform CPR.

      After the body was removed, they then searched for the cartridge casing. It appears to have been pretty close to where the body ended up, if not actually under it.

      As soon as Martin was declared dead, I think everyone backed away from the body until the medical examiner arrived (at 9:40, with body removed at 10:10).

      The medical examiner investigator reported that the SPD removed personnel effects after he had looked at the body, and there are two separate reports of SPD personnel (one officer and one CST) removing the personnel effects after the medical examiner had arrived, and then searching for the casing after the body had removed.

      Much of the TV coverage is of a huddle of 8 or so police officers up on the east-west sidewalk as the body is off a few dozen feet away, apparently waiting for the ME. Other than going around trying to find witnesses there wasn’t too much to do. We do know of course that they were checking for surveillance video and running tags on cars in the area.

      Incidentally, when Zimmerman was pointing out locations on the map during the 2nd 2/26 interview he identified where the person who came out on their patio had seen them from. Presumably this would be the building to the west.

      Reply ↓

    • jimrtex:
      jimrtex:
      “Why do you say both lungs were punctured? The autopsy reported finding one fragment behind the right ventricle, and two behind the lower lobe of the right lung?”

      ** Both lungs do not need to be punctured. If both left and right pleural cavities have an unobstructed air pathway into them from the outside, both lungs could collapse with the next attempted breath, preventing vocalization. The autopsy report describes the bullet’s path as entering on the left side of the chest with fragments found in the lower lobe of the right lung. This would imply that the bullet (or fragments of it) punctured both pleural cavities. Also, most of the bleed out from the heart ended up in the pleural cavities (1.3 liters on the right, 1 liter on the left). This further indicates that both cavities were compromised.

      Reply ↓

      • Great information! Thank you. I didn’t know those details, and they are obviously very meaningful to show, once again, that Zimmerman lied when he said that Trayvon was still talking, not only directly after the shot, but even after he straddled him and moved his hand away from his body!

        Reply ↓

    • How long did it take for 2.3 liters of blood to flow into the pleural cavities?

      Zimmerman reported that Martin said something like “you got me” or “you got it” and then “ouch ouch”.

      Reply ↓

    • jimrtex said:
      How long did it take for 2.3 liters of blood to flow into the pleural cavities?

      ** Don’t know — would depend on lots of factors. As a first/simplifying/crude worst case approximation, if one assumes that almost the entire cardiac output went into the pleural cavities and cardiac output was in the high end of normal range (5 – 8 l/min) due to stress, could be as little as 20 seconds.

      That said, I would think that a bilateral pneumothorax with accompanying collapsing lungs would probably occur first.

      Reply ↓

25. Susan wrote:

    “If and when Zimmerman is able to produce enough evidence to raise an affirmative justification of self-defense, the prosecution will then need to prove that (1) Zimmerman was not acting in objectively reasonable fear for his life when he shot, or (2) Zimmerman provoked the encounter with Trayvon, and did not exhaust all reasonable means of protecting himself that did not involve deadly force.

    If the only evidence Zimmerman has for these two points is his own word, all the prosecution needs to convict is to show the jury that Zimmerman’s account of the incident has been untruthful and inaccurate, such that his testimony on these points should be disregarded”.

    I agree with the first paragraph; but I haven’t seen any evidence yet that the prosecution has to establish (1) or (2). The second paragraph seems to be a statement that Zimmerman’s denial alone won’t be enough to counter the still phantom evidence that the state might produce to establish (1) or (2). Well, okay, but it is pretty difficult to figure out what evidence is needed to counter a phantom in any situation.

    Reply ↓

    • Ricky — self-defense is an affirmative defense. The prosecution doesn’t have to rebut an affirmative defense until the accused actually raises it.

      So until Zimmerman can introduce facts showing he has met the elements of a self-defense claim, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove anything.

      Reply ↓

26. ” If both rose within a few seconds after the shooting, Zimmerman, rushing Martin to get him down and to get on top of him could, very easily, have forced Martin 10-20 feet southward (Zimmerman was much shorter than Martin). That is only about 1.5 to 3 body lengths … not that far at all in the context of the fight that was occurring. Moreover, that presumes the first Martin attack and taking down of Zimmerman, by itself, did not span the entire 40 feet or almost all of it. Sounds very reasonable to me.”

    Maybe it sounds reasonable to *you*, PeterO, but even Zimmerman (whose word is gospel, I understand) states that Trayvon slumped forward after the shot, at which point Zimmerman attempted to further subdue (?!) him. Even Zimmerman doesn’t attempt to convince anyone that Trayvon stood up and staggered another 20+ feet.

    Reply ↓

    • In the walk through video Zimmerman only says Martin sat up. He doesn’t say Martin then ‘slumped.’ And he then goes on to say he doesn’t remember the exact details as to how he ended up on top of Martin.

      Witness memories (and statements) in situations like that are normally not highly reliable about exact details. Just the act of getting on top had to involve lateral distance movement.

      Lastly, I never said Martin “staggered another 20+ feet.” I presented a reasonable scenario (which I am sure O’Mara will vastly improve on with expert testimony) of Zimmerman, forcing Martin southward as he was able to rise. This theory does not require Martin “staggering” on his own, or Martin himself providing that momentum alone, or even that the distance be as long as 20 feet. Maybe only 5 more feet were needed in a southward direction or none at all for the body to end up where it did.

      Reply ↓

      • Funny, a little while ago, you were saying that TRAYVON forced Zimmerman further South. . .and now you say that ZIMMERMAN forced Trayvon further South AFTER he was shot!

        You really are all over the place, and you are getting jumbled in your own wishful thinking and outright lies. . .just like Zimmerman himself!

        Earlier I asked you HOW Trayvon would have forced Zimmerman South, and WHY.

        Now, I am asking you HOW would Zimmerman have pushed a deadly wounded (or already dead!) Trayvon 20 feet south. . and WHY?

        Make up your mind, if you have one!

        Reply ↓

    • Yeah, shots to the heart are no biggie.

      That must be why Zimmerman told the witnesses not to call 911, right after he shot Trayvon. Paramedics and ambulances clearly wouldn’t be needed, Trayvon could probably just walk it off. So why bother with calling an ambulance?

      Or maybe Zimmerman just didn’t give a damn whether his victim lived.

      Reply ↓

      • Susan, for the very first time I kind of disagree with you . . .somewhat!

        When you say: “Or maybe Zimmerman just didn’t give a damn whether his victim lived.” I believe you are wrong.

        Zimmerman DID give a damn whether his victim lived. . .because IF he had lived, even just long enough to make a statement that would tell HIS side of the story. . .Zimmerman’s story would have been immediately exposed as a lie.

        And his “self-defense” claim would have been seen by ALL for what it is: A huge lie bordering on a bad joke!

        Reply ↓

    • @verafish –

      I don’t think PeterO is being serious. He can’t be. No way a body that miraculously “sat up” doesn’t slump as the wounded pe rson dies. Unfortunately for Zimmerman, he can’t prove his presumably faked story that Trayvon Martin “sat up” (as Zimmerman attempted to infer Martin was shot while Zimmerman was under Martin’s body (also as possibly learned in his classes). If Trayvon Martin sat up, it probably occurred if Trayvon Martin was UNDERNEATH Zimmerman and bounced from the gunshot’s force.

      PeterO said:

      “In the walk through video Zimmerman only says Martin sat up. He doesn’t say Martin then ‘slumped.’

      Reply ↓

    • Verafish says:

      “Zimmerman states that Trayvon slumped forward after the shot.”

      This is FALSE.

      I don’t know if you are aware of this, but you can go on the internet and listen to recordings of the actual interviews.

      Reply ↓

    • Susan Simpson says:

      “That must be why Zimmerman told the witnesses not to call 911, right after he shot Trayvon. Paramedics and ambulances clearly wouldn’t be needed, Trayvon could probably just walk it off. So why bother with calling an ambulance?

      Or maybe Zimmerman just didn’t give a damn whether his victim lived.”

      The woman who ran out (by the way doesn’t sound like she said the kids ran out in her 911 call) said that she called out 3 times to Zimmerman and finally on the 3rd time he told her to call the police.

      After the male resident came up to Zimmerman, he asked whether he should call police, and Zimmerman said that he already had. In the picture of his head, he has his cell phone by his ear. Perhaps he was so stunned that he believed that by yelling at some woman to call, and put the phone up to his ear, that he was talking to police.

      Reply ↓

    • @jimrtex
      on June 27, 2012 at 12:17 am said:
      “The woman who ran out (by the way doesn’t sound like she said the kids ran out in her 911 call) said that she called out 3 times to Zimmerman and finally on the 3rd time he told her to call the police.

      After the male resident came up to Zimmerman, he asked whether he should call police, and Zimmerman said that he already had. In the picture of his head, he has his cell phone by his ear. Perhaps he was so stunned that he believed that by yelling at some woman to call, and put the phone up to his ear, that he was talking to police.”

      If he didn’t call 9-1-1 and what he meant by that was a neighbor had called, he’d be attributed other’s actions to himself. There’s plenty of speculation floating about that everything that Zimmerman said he said was actually what Trayvon Martin said.

      For example: The “I don’t have a problem” Zimmerman claims as his words, may have been Trayvon Martin’s words if Zimmerman has a habit of reversing who said what.

      Reply ↓

      • I just got this email to me, thought you might find the videos interesting
        http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/author/masonblue/

        Reply ↓

27. Susan, according to the article, frequently quoted here, from Jeralyn’s blog:
    1. To get a jury instruction on self defense, all Zimmerman must produce is some evidence, no matter how flimsy, even if it’s just his own version of events.
    3. Once George Zimmerman introduces some evidence of self-defense and is entitled to a jury instruction, he has no other burden of proof. The state must disprove self-defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    So your statement, “So until Zimmerman can introduce facts showing he has met the elements of a self-defense claim, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove anything.” doesn’t appear to be much comfort for the prosecution. By the way, if you disagree with Jeralyn’s analysis of the law, you should explain your views now.

    Reply ↓

    • A jury? Isn’t that what the public has asked for despite SYG’s confusing non-jury requirement? Self-defense has already been disproved because of Zimmerman’s pursuit. There is no evidence that Zimmerman had wounds that were life-threatening or justification of deadly force. Zimmerman pursued an unarmed neighbor of his community who he didn’t recognize and provoked a scuffle based on his erroneous “suspicions” and profiling of black teenagers.

      There is much evidence that Zimmerman had the opportunity to diffuse the situation before it escalated into a violent, deadly situation. Zimmerman didn’t go down, stay down without opportunity to flee because “he ran (Trayvon Martin ran)” from Zimmerman.

      Reply ↓

    • Maybe, we should get away from any argument or presumption there will be any difficulty in getting a jury instruction for self-defense which Susan may be focusing on. It would make things much easier to do that since I know of no legal commentator who seriously thinks that will be a problem.

      Reply ↓

28. (Aside to Susan, I don’t seem to be able to reply to replies from my own posts, so begging forgiveness for seeming to start a new thread)

    Jimtrex and PeterO, must I really state that my quote of Zimmerman’s depiction of events was paraphrased? Good lord…but okay, this just helps me understand who I’m addressing. No, Zimmerman did not say THE word “slumped”, you’re absolutely right. He indicated that Trayvon “sat up” (more or less, is that okay?) which enabled him to the extricate himself at which point, Trayvon either fell or was pushed forward while Zimmerman spread his arms out, etc. My point? That even Zimmerman gives NO indication and no claim that after the shot, the whole scuffle moved way south. That postulate is completely the fabric of your own imagination, PeterO, with no basis in *anything* we know. Is that clear enough?

    And thanks for your advice, jimrtex, but I’m fully aware of all available evidence released thus far and have studied it…with the exception of watching paint dry.

    Reply ↓

    • Great reply! Thanks. Glad you’re there to call on some of those non-sense comments! It gets tiring after awhile to continue to correct stupide “scenarios!”

      Reply ↓

    • “(Aside to Susan, I don’t seem to be able to reply to replies from my own posts…”

      Quoting at least part of to what you are responding can help identify to whom you’re attempting to respond and when you get the email advising of the response to your post, click on the reply button right there in the email and it will (or at least should) launch a new copy of this page with a text box at the bottom where you can enter a reply that should show up underneath the post to which you are replying.

      You can tell it works, cause above that text box it’ll say “Leave a Reply to _______” with the person’s ‘name’ in the blank.

      (For instance, here’s a copy and paste from right above the text box into which I’m typing this–

      Leave a Reply to verafish

      )

      And almost all of the time it’ll attach that comment to the correct person’s thread.

      But that doesn’t mean that WordPress isn’t terrible forum software.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • “…must I really state that my quote of Zimmerman’s depiction of events was paraphrased?”

      If you paraphrase, you are not quoting, and you raise the question of whether or not you are accidentally or intentionally mis-representing what the other said.

      Although apparently if you don’t like the way Zimmerman said something in one interview, you can find alternative versions in the others.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • Verafish,

      He did not slump forward after being shot.

      He was straddling Zimmerman and attempting to smother him, leaning forward (this was the description by John as well). Zimmerman was on his back, so Zimmerman was actually shooting upward and angle to the ground. Zimmerman said that Martin then “sat up” indicating that he was in a more vertical position (to sit up is the opposite of slump over). Zimmerman then got out from under him and may have pushed so that he was on the ground or perhaps his body fell forward.

      Reply ↓

    • Thanks, unitron, I’ll keep that in mind. I haven’t been subscribing to discussions since first learning of this blog, but merely stopping back every so often to read.

      “Although apparently if you don’t like the way Zimmerman said something in one interview, you can find alternative versions in the others.” Bee-yoo-tiful. 😉

      @Sadanie, thanks. Most of your posts have caught my eye and I can see you’ve been doing your darnedest, too.

      ***If this post falls somewhere out of the ether, it’s all unitron’s fault*****

      Reply ↓

29. I have been waiting for a while for anyone to address the key piece of evidence that supports Zimmerman’s story and provides overwhelming physical evidence that the fight moved from the T intersection to where the body ended up 40 feet away.

    That evidence is the keychain/miniflashlight that was lit.

    It was found right near the T intersection. Unless we are living in some other dimension, the prosecutor MUST (yes Susan, I use the word “MUST”) have a rational explanation on how the lit keychain/miniflashlight could possibly have landed in the grass right by the small tree near the T intersection.

    That keychain had Zimmerman’s car keys on it and it proves (yes SusanChad, I am using the word “proves” here) that at some point, after Zimmerman left his car, he dropped it where it fell right near that tree.

    Zimmerman has already provided a reasonable scenario that explains how that keychain/flashlight came to fall by the tree. He said he was attacked right near the T and was forced southward. And he showed in his walk-through that he passed the very point where the keychain/flashlignt was found. It is virtually impossible for him to have planned to pick that walk-through with the plan of its exactly having a fight path that includes where his keychain/miniflashlight fell after being punched. He would not have had a way of knowing where they fell — unless of course, he was telling the truth that he was attacked and would then know the keys were dropped somewhere near his path after the first punch.

    Everyone seems focused on saying it was impossible for the fight to begin at the T. But here you have the physically reality of the fallen keychain/flashlight and no provided other explanation as to how it came to be there and in a lit. This is a physical reality that the prosecutor must explain otherwise the defense will jump all over any prosecutor theory.

    Whatever theory the prosecutor comes up with, if it doesn’t include how Zimmerman dropped the keychain/flashlight where it fell, then the defense will have evidence that destroys the prosecutor’s case.

    Some commentors have blithely said the lit keychain/miniflashlight “was dropped there” by Zimmerman as a full explanation. That explanation is worthless without explaining the circumstances under which it was dropped at that specific location; explaining why Zimmerman would lose his car keys and attached lit flashlight at that out-of-the-way location; and explaining the time they dropped at that location during the course of whatever steps the prosecutor postulates Zimmerman took that night.

    In short, the keychain/miniflashlight is a serious limiting constraint on any scenario the prosecutor comes up with.

    Reply ↓

    • One point to add. The keychain/miniflashlight was lit and it was dark, so if Zimmerman randomly dropped it, besides the obvious fact he was using the lit flashlight, he would immediately see where it dropped and pick it up since he needs his keys, so it adds to the defense argument that he dropped it after being attacked and had no chance to pick it up.

      Reply ↓

    • “That keychain had Zimmerman’s car keys on it and it proves… that at some point, after Zimmerman left his car, he dropped it where it fell right near that tree.”

      Or it “proves” that it was dropped elsewhere and kicked over there during the struggle, or that the kid’s dog picked it up elsewhere and then dropped it there.

      When there’s more than one feasible explanation, the most likely one doesn’t prove, it merely suggests a strong possibility.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • unitron said: “Or it “proves” that it was dropped elsewhere and kicked over there during the struggle, or that the kid’s dog picked it up elsewhere and then dropped it there.”

      Are you seriously proposing that the prosecutor adopt or use one of those theories explaining how the keys came to be there to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? The dog (from where?) did it or the football kick (from where?) during the fight did it?

      I guess you are saying that at trial, a strong piece of evidence can never “prove” something for trial purposes where the evidence is useful and the other side concedes the issue by not having an argument addressing it.

      No wonder no can distinguish your sarcasm from reality.

      Reply ↓

      • If you were trying to convict a defendent with a good lawyer of something, and your case hinged on “The keychain was found here and that proves it was here that it was dropped, and that proves that the defendent is guilty”, do you think that good lawyer isn’t going to drive a Mack truck through the holes in your arguement?

        If the keychain was found at point X, it proves it got there somehow at some point and was found there, but it only suggests how it got there.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • Okay, I’ll take a shot at it: the flashlight was dropped there when Zimmerman spotted Trayvon far down the walkway, he quickly discontinued his call with NEN and started running to reach him and confront him, dropping things in his haste.

      PeterO, you make it sound like there’s no *other* plausible explanation for it being dropped right in one particular spot. There are myriad explanations.

      I don’t have any difficulty detecting unitron’s sarcasm, so you can’t say no one (sic) can distinguish its presence.

      Reply ↓

    • unitron, debating logic and probability with you is fruitless.

      If disputing the argument I presented (which I have no doubt OM will use) is so easy for the prosecutor, then come up with a better explanation than the dog dragged it there (from where?) or it was kicked there (how far?).

      You may want to ignore it but the issue is a very strong one for Zimmerman. And it fits very nicely with his self-defense claim, the theory Martin attacked him, and his walk-through and statements as to places and movements and where the fight began. Also, it is evidence that contradicts the comments claiming the fight could not have been spread out over 40 feet.

      Lastly, as a hint, look up the term “a posteriori,” some basic probability theory, and talk to some experienced trial attorneys.

      Reply ↓

      • “Most likely explanation” does not equal “fact established beyond all doubt”, and until you can grasp that, discussions with you based on logic are, indeed, fruitless.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • verafish, your argument is way better than unitron’s since it has some plausibility. I never said there is not any other plausible explanation only that I haven’t seen any. And now you presented one possible counter argument.

      Using the word “proves” in a trial setting is obviously flexible depending on the strength of evidence on each side. At some point in a trial a ‘fact’ is accepted as being “proven” with some degree of importance or reliability and jurors ultimately balance those facts to reach a conclusion of guilty or not guilty.

      Reply ↓

    • the confrontation by zimmerman may or may not have started at the “T” but the real question is how did they both end up 45 feet south based on the story line that zimmerman himself has advanced. There are two likely scenarios: 1) The confrontation started around the “T” where zimmerman attacked TM or pulled his gun causing TM to strike him, then TM at some point trying to flee south with zimmerman chasing. or 2) zimmerman confronts somewhere near the ending spot where the wrestling and shot took place. Either way, zimmerman has to tell at minimum a half truth and at most a flat out lie in order to hide his pursuit actions.

      Reply ↓

    • Ace, I assume you meant “There are two likely PROSECUTION scenarios.” I added the word “prosecution.”

      Your scenarios are at least plausible and, presumably, include an explanation how the lit keychain/miniflashlight came to be dropped near the T intersection in the grass by the small tree.

      My question is then how, if Martin was further south on the north-south path, could Zimmerman be able to run faster than Martin and ALSO catch up to him, all within 40 feet of starting to run?

      Reply ↓

30. More than likely, it proves his gun was needed more than his keys. No time to put them in his pocket. So, he just dropped them, sacrificing them for his weapon to detain an ahole he just found and did not want to get away from him.

    Reply ↓

    • If the prosecutor says that, Zimmerman walks.

      The burden is on the prosecutor to come up with a scenario to explain a key physical piece of evidence — the location of Zimmerman’s car keys and attached flashlight that was lit and dropped at a specific location (that supports Zimmerman’s defense) — to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt Zimmerman when O’Mara says it was dropped when Martin attacked him.

      This severely limits the prosecutor’s theories to explain what happened just before and during the fight because his theory MUST account for the dropped keys (I use the word MUST in a realistic win-lose trial sense). As an example, the prosecutor cannot say there was a constant chase up-down RVC and at the end of the chase Martin and Zimmerman moved south up the north-south path because then, how did the keys end up further north?

      Reply ↓

    • Zimmerman had both motive and opportunity to *place* them there. I think they were placed there.

      Serino asked Zimmerman in one of the interviews what went through his mind when the NEN dispatch asked Zimmerman if he was following Trayvon Martin to which Zimmerman said yes and then dispatch told him “We don’t need you to do that.”

      Zimmerman’s reply about what was going through his head was something along the lines of “yeah, they were right”.

      Depraved mind? Willfully doing something you KNOW is evil/wrong? Doing it out of anger?

      Reply ↓

31. Peter, maybe Zimmerman dropped his keys when he pushed Trayvon. Or maybe he dropped his keys when he checked to see if he remembered to bring his gun. Or maybe he dropped his keys while he was looking for his cellphone. Or maybe he dropped his keys while he was pulling out his shirt. Or maybe he dropped his keys while he was tucking in his shirt. Or maybe he dropped his keys while he was combing his hair (no, scratch that). Or maybe he dropped his keys when he was taking a whiz.

    Too bad you weren’t around to give Zimmerman more story options. Your stories might not be credible, but at least they maybe could have landed Trayvon in the right place.

    Regarding movement south AFTER Trayvon was shot, any story you could invent about Trayvon getting up and moving south doesn’t really matter, because Zimmerman already gave a detailed, different account. Who would present a different story in court and provide evidence that it happened that way?

    What we DO know is that Trayvon’s body was found 40?, 45? feet from the T.

    Dead men (and dead children) don’t tell lies. Perhaps the location of Trayvon’s body is his one piece of critical testimony that he will be allowed to present to the court.

    And my understanding is that someone witnessed some crucial moments before Zimmerman and Trayvon went down.

    Reply ↓

32. O’Mara’s already going to have a heck of a time explaining away all of Zimmerman’s lies. I have no idea if he’ll introduce some other tall tale or not about Zimmerman getting punched at the T and stumbling 40 feet while pushing Trayvon away before Zimmerman finally fell. And then of course making that fit with Zimmerman’s statement that he fell right after he was hit.

    Reply ↓

    • My guess is that O’Mara will have to base the defense solely on challenging the strength of the evidence, because the only other thing he has are Zimmerman’s false statements.

      Zimmerman has already made so many false statments to police, that not only is his credibility in the zero range; but also, any focus by O’Mara on Zimmerman’s statements will only deflect from Zimmerman’s favor.

      There’s also absolutely no reason to assume Zimmerman was punched rather than Zimmerman was punching, when he dropped his keys.

      Reply ↓

    • Or, to modify my last statement, there’s also absolutely no reason to assume Zimmerman was punched rather than Zimmerman was shoving when he dropped his keys.

      Zimmerman does have his wounds, but people don’t have the right to shoot to kill just because someone punched them in the nose, after they’ve been following that person in the dark.

      As for the wounds to the back of the head, one is very small. The other one doesn’t look like a cement wound to me, and perhaps we’ll have some forensics on it later.

      I wonder if cement wounds leave sand particles in the wound.

      And why did the wound bleed toward the face? And why wasn’t the wound smeared? Zimmerman’s head wounds seem to defy the laws of physics.

      Reply ↓

    • @Hapufern,
      We still do not have witness 4, 7 , 10 statements. The state held back on those witnesses. I am very curious to see what those witnesses had to say. From the second discovery dump Officer Smith interviewed them (page 3).

      Reply ↓

    • O’Mara will have to go with the “Zimmerman was confused and not really sure how the fight went down” defense.

      The problem with that defense is that, if Zimmerman cannot be relied on to accurate recall how the fight moved during the course of the struggle, how can he be relied upon to recall how the fight started? Or how it progressed?

      Why is Zimmerman’s claim that Trayvon punched him out of nowhere more likely to be reliable than Zimmerman’s testimony about where he shot Trayvon? And why should Zimmerman be believed when he says he had no opportunity to escape the fight, when he does not even know whether he was pushing Trayvon or being pulled by him? Even if Zimmerman is telling the complete truth about what he remembers, those memories are too unreliable to base a defense on.

      Reply ↓

    • I have seen AAR’s (After Action Reports) where someone could remember everything clearly until the IED went off, after that they do not remember the details of what they did, they know they were in a firefight, they know in general terms how they got out of the vehicle but can not remember the details. There are no major injuries, there are no visible wounds, but the immediate aftermath until things calmed down is a blur. This is with people that are trained to deal with the stress of a fight.

      With Zimmerman being fuzzy about what happened after he was hit, it is easy enough to raise Reasonable Doubt by calling a professional that deals with PTSD. I personally believe he is honestly fuzzy about what happened after the first hit.

      Reply ↓

33. jmrtex — “The body ended up with the head toward the northeast.”

    “The male was lying on his stomach with his head oriented in the general direction of north.”
    Anthony Raimondo, SPD, 3.2.2012.

    This would have had to have been more in a northwesterly (i.e. oriented away from the sidewalk) position because when TM’s body was rolled over for attempted resuscitation, “his head was to the west.” Joseph Santiago. 3.2.2012 SPD report.

    Among other problems for GZ, the final struggle did not take place near the sidewalk. All the evidence contradicts GZ’s repeated claims that his head was being bashed on the sidewalk.

    Reply ↓

    • “Among other problems for GZ, the final struggle did not take place near the sidewalk. All the evidence contradicts GZ’s repeated claims that his head was being bashed on the sidewalk”.

      Have you listened to the long interview with Witness #8. “John”. He places the combatants on the sidewalk seconds before he dialed 911. Like Serino, I doubt that Zimmerman’s head continually bashed against the sidewalk, however I think it reasonable that Zimmerman thought that was coming.

      Reply ↓

    • I must correct myself, John is Witness #6 on whose lawn the killing happened. And I should add he heard the shot as he was dialing 911 seconds after he saw the combatants, with Zimmerman on the bottom, on the concrete walkway.

      Reply ↓

      • Do you have a link that says “on the concrete walkway? ” or are you just “embellishing?”
        Because, face it. . .even Zimmerman said he WASN’T on the walkway. . .that he ONLY HAD A SMALL part of his head TEMPORARELY on the walk way. . . .and he was talking about the walkway about 20 feet further NORTH than were the shot was fired.

        Reply ↓

        • Sadanie, at around 8:55-9:40 on this source, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx6GS61UCxQ , Witness #6 mentions them being on the sidewalk, at least twice. Then again at around 18:06, 22:05, 26:26 “They moved up onto the sidewalk” and repeated that phrase at 29:07. Unfortunately, John’s drawings have not been released. Please listen to the whole thing.

          Reply ↓

    • Ricky J.,

      For some reason I am unable to find a recording of Witness #6. Every source seems to have the links removed or they play only the final 47 seconds of the interview. Witness #6 John, though, would be the witness who first reported MMA style blows raining down on GZ, then retracted?

      Whatever it was #6 thinks he saw before he called 911, the fact remains that TM was shot some 10 feet from the sidewalk and fell face down in a position with his head oriented away from the sidewalk.

      Reply ↓

      • Hope this helps.
        http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-6-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/
        Loree

        Reply ↓

      • SusanChad
        That site has alot of information. They have all the witnesses 911 calls and other information. Except witnesses 4, 7 and 10. State still has not released the information as of yet.

        Reply ↓

    • Susan Chad,

      I’m basing my direction on Witness 12, who had the advantage of being able to look at the picture he had taken, and gave his orientation based on the buildings.

      Raimondo may not have known which way is north, or may have forgotten since he almost immediately to turn the body over to administer CPR.

      Witness 6, who was the person who came outside and yelled at the persons fighting, clearly states that the body ended up more on the grass than where he had observed them fighting, which he describes as being on the sidewalk. He describes the body as sprawled (he would have first seen it this way looking down from his upstairs), and the arms as being away from the body.

      He describes the dark shirted fighter as having his back generally toward him, and he didn’t see the person in the red and white until he lifted up his back or head so he could see a light colored face.

      Santiago’s recollection was that Martin had light colored shorts. So if he said that Martin’s head was toward the west, it must be true.

      Reply ↓

    • jmrtex,

      Well, I guess we will find out the truth eventually.

      Reply ↓

    • To get real with this situation: I see a lot of “that was impossible” so he must be guilty arguments.

      However, there are many reasonably possible explanations for every such argument under the circumstances of a brutal fight, rolling bodies, uncertainty of how Martin was ‘flipped over’ after being shot including post shot wrestling, maneuvering, simply forcing a still alive person from on top, CPR movements of the body and other factors. Some can turn a blind eye to reasonable arguments, but at trial, O’Mara will make sure the jury does not.

      Moreover, another blind eye has been turned to the vagaries of human memory under circumstances that night, including by EVERY witness in this case. “Guilt by nitpicked memory,” as a theory never works. I previous showed a link to a comprehensive study on the subject and simple searches can find many more:

      “The Problem with eyewitness testimony” Stanford Journal of Legal Studies

      http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

      Reply ↓

      • As strange as it is to find myself in even partial agreement with PeterO, comments here and elsewhere about this case contain a lot of “improbable” or “unlikely” assumed to be “impossible”, as well as a lot of “more likely”, “most likely”, “more probable”, and “most probable” assumed to be “an absolute fact” or “the only possible explanation”.

        These occurances usually co-incide with the poster’s view of who was at fault that night.

        Next Zimmerman thread Susan starts, I’m jumping in at the start with the story about the judges and the sheep.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

      • Dear, let’s face it. . .YOU are the one person in this whole debate turning a “blind eye to any reasonable argument!”

        Trayvon DIED on the spot! There is no “wrestling after the shot” when one is shot in the lungs and the heart!

        Where ever that last struggle took place (after Zimmerman pursuing Trayvon following their face to face confrontation at the T junction) is where the shooting took place. . .contrary to what Zimmerman’s statement was!

        Reply ↓

    • Witness “John” retracted??? Both Susans keep repeating that word to imply “John’s” testimony now means nothing.

      All witness “John” did was candidly and voluntarily clarify his original statement. His witness testimony remains very positive for Zimmerman’s defense with his clarifications:

      1. he did not see Zimmerman’s “lips moving” in the dark (sounds part sarcastic also?) when he believed Zimmerman was the one calling for help;

      2. he could not be sure the violent arm movements of Martin were all punches but could have been other actions (including probably a combination of actions such as smothering, slamming a head to concrete, trying to stop Zimmerman from calling for help, etc.);

      3. he remains absolutely certain Martin was on top, straddling Zimmerman.

      Reply ↓

    • @RickyJeminez –

      The last person to *see* the incident was witness #3. She saw the guy in the white tee-shirt on top. She is one of the three witnesses who apparently were on the phone with 9-1-1 when the shot was fired. Witness #6, John, recanted his statement, said what he’d seen was some one restraining someone else (as opposed to MMA blows) and called too late to capture the shot on his 9-1-1 call.

      Reply ↓

    • Unitron,

      I call dibs on the Space Alien version of Mortal Kombat theory 🙂

      Reply ↓

    • Witness #3 peeked her eyeball above the sill of her window, below the blinds, and then went into another room. She couldn’t even be sure if the person on top was on top. Since both Martin and Zimmerman had long sleeved gray shirts on it is impossible to know what she saw if anything.

      Reply ↓

34. HP.

    There is no evidence that Zimmerman pushed Martin, thus precipitating the fight.

    I’d also point out that Zimmerman told the police what happened that night and gave statements the next day. He did this without knowing what evidence the police had. Assume that Zimmerman started the fight and was attacking or chasing Martin. He didn’t know if there was a witness to this. So if he started it all, the smart thing to do was to keep quiet.

    Compare GZ with DD, who for some reason kept her mouth shut for weeks.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

    • DeeDee heard: “Get off, get off.”

      She wasn’t asked for weeks. There weren’t any dots to connect until the phone logs could be accessed.

      Reply ↓

35. HP,

    Are you saying GZ’s wounds are self-inflicted?

    Since I don’t think they are and it’s beyond dispute that GZ had a broken nose, the most reasonable explanation is that TM punched him in the nose, thus starting the fight.

    -MM

    Reply ↓

    • Zimmerman’s wounds are just not as apparant as his band aids, and really a joke at this point. When one puts such large band aids to cover areas where there is nothing bleeding, seems they are drawing attention to them rather than actually utilizing them for the need to contain blood. The band aid on his nose had such a bend, that it was not even resting on the “scratch”. I think Zimmerman portraying a victim is beyond stupid. He really is insulting everyone’s intelligence with those “wounds” to portray Trayvon as a big bad thug. I’m sure he did get hit in the nose. I don’t think there is a person here that wouldn’t throw a punch to get away from some creep trying to detain them. Zimmerman had intent to do just that; detain the a-hole he told us so. He didn’t want him to get away. The fact that his wounds aren’t bigger just shows that Trayvon had no chance at all to get away from Zimmerman in that cut, and he wasn’t given the opportunity to actually fight for his life at all. So, the bigger the band aid the more sympathy for him to prove his stupid tale in his fabricated world.

      Reply ↓

    • MM, In answer to your post above this one: Actually, we do have evidence that Zimmerman pushed Trayvon. The evidence came from DeeDee. It may not be the best evidence, but it’s evidence (not proof).

      Whoever said Zimmerman was smart?

      I agree that’s it’s reasonable to assume that Trayvon punched Zimmerman. However, I don’t think we can infer from that who started the fight. For example, Zimmerman may have pushed Trayvon several times and/or attempted to physically detain him.

      There may be witnesses who will testify to that. The homocide detective on one of the tapes told Zimmerman there was a witness who said it looked like Zimmerman was trying to detain Trayvon.

      Reply ↓

36. The state may have grabbed the bank footage just because it was the next nearest place with a video camera and gotten nothing for their troubles but eyestrain.

    However, that probably means that them having it has to be part of the record and O’Mara has to be given a copy, even though there’s nothing to see.

    Does anybody know for certain if Trayvon is left or right handed?

    unitron

    Reply ↓

    • Good question unitron.

      Reply ↓

    • Um, it’s not a for certain thing, but the photo of TM in his football uniform has him holding the ball in his left hand. Sure, that could have been photoshopped and flipflopped to make a handier photo for the Fulton-Martin Christmas Newsletter, but …

      TM might have been left handed.

      Reply ↓

    • What difference would it make?

      Reply ↓

      • If you mean what difference would it make about Martin’s “handedness”…

        There’s apparently a cut on Zimmerman’s face to the right of his nose.

        Assuming that was caused by a punch to his nose, it’s most likely that the punch came from the other person’s left hand.

        If someone walks up and punches Zimmerman out of the blue, they’re probably going to throw that one punch with their dominant hand.

        If Martin’s dominant hand is the left, that supports the theory that the punch may have been unprovoked.

        If it’s his right hand, however, then using his left hand instead strongly suggests that the right hand was unavailable, perhaps because Zimmerman had grabbed him by the right arm to keep him from getting away before the police arrive.

        All of that is, of course, speculation.

        Maybe the cut to the right of Zimmerman’s nose was not caused by the blow that broke it, if if was broken by a blow.

        Maybe Martin backhanded him with his right hand.

        Maybe Martin came up from behind and hit the right side of his nose with his right hand.

        Maybe Martin’s right-handed but used his left hand from in front of Zimmerman because he was holding his phone in his right hand.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • “Assuming that was caused by a punch to his nose, it’s most likely that the punch came from the other person’s left hand.
      If someone walks up and punches Zimmerman out of the blue, they’re probably going to throw that one punch with their dominant hand.
      If Martin’s dominant hand is the left, that supports the theory that the punch may have been unprovoked.
      If it’s his right hand, however, then using his left hand instead strongly suggests that the right hand was unavailable, perhaps because Zimmerman had grabbed him by the right arm to keep him from getting away before the police arrive.
      All of that is, of course, speculation.”

      ***the problem is that your simply throwing out words like “speculation” and then using words like “most likely,” “probably,” “may have been,” “strongly suggests” and like brings to mind the saying:

      “If all the economists were laid end to end, they’d never reach a conclusion.” –
      — George Bernard Shaw

      regarding you explanation above about left vs right hand, I disagree. I don’t agree that a cut on the right side, with any reasonable degree of certainty weighs more towards the blow coming from the right or left hand. So the chain of logic fails.

      You throw out countless “maybes” about many unlikely events as argument so there is nothing to otherwise address, the argument becomes simply spam.

      If you feel strongly about one of your “maybes” then you should say so and explain your logic rather than simply saying “maybe.”

      Reply ↓

      • ” I don’t agree that a cut on the right side, with any reasonable degree of certainty weighs more towards the blow coming from the right or left hand. ”

        If the cut to the right of the nose was one of the results of a blow to the nose, I’d think it more likely that the blow landed on the right hand side of the nose.

        I think that right hand side of the nose blow coming from a person standing directly in front of him would most likely have come from the other person’s left fist. It would be more awkward to do it with the right fist, unless standing somewhere other than directly in front of him.

        If Martin is right-handed, then that would make it more likely that either something prevented him from delivering the blow with his right hand, or that he was standing somewhere other than directly in front of Zimmerman.

        So that makes the question of his “handedness” of interest, at least to those of us still trying to figure out what happened by analyzing what information is available.

        For those who decided what they wanted to believe first, and then started looking for ways to interpret everything to support that, perhaps it is of less interest.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • unitron said: “If the cut to the right of the nose was one of the results of a blow to the nose, I’d think it more likely that the blow landed on the right hand side of the nose.
      I think that right hand side of the nose blow coming from a person standing directly in front of him would most likely have come from the other person’s left fist. It would be more awkward to do it with the right fist, unless standing somewhere other than directly in front of him.”

      ***That logic flow still doesn’t add up. The mark depends on where the fist landed, not the hand the punch came from. It was dark, Martin swung, whether with right or left hand makes no difference, and he managed (in the dark) to connect with a brutal blow where to cause the mark and break Zimmerman’s nose.

      Either hand could cause that damage I just do not see Martin, in the dark “aiming” to within 1 inch one way or the other or why he would even take the time to do so. He swung hard and fast and connected brutally, probably with his dominant hand.

      To then, based on such a weak previous conclusion presented, try to carry the logic flow to an even weaker premise, pretty much ends up with nothing.

      I don’t see handedness meaning much, at least in the way you try to use it.

      Reply ↓

37. Susan Chad says:
    “Whatever it was #6 thinks he saw before he called 911, the fact remains that TM was shot some 10 feet from the sidewalk and fell face down in a position with his head oriented away from the sidewalk”.

    You ignore the witnesses and discount what might have happened to the body when Zimmerman got up and the CPR operator turned it over. All your “the fact remains” posturing shows is your own ignorance and arrogance.

    Reply ↓

    • Thanks Loree for that information. It’s looking more and more to me that the prosecution will have a very good case!

      Wow Ricky, this isn’t CNN. Is it really necessary to accuse people of “ignorance and arrogance”?

      Reply ↓

    • Also forgotten is that Zimmerman, very credibly, showed in his walk through how, after his jacket rolled up, Martin said he would “die” and he felt an arm reaching along his side for his gun and showed how he then drew and fired a single shot.

      Everyone forgets that Zimmerman only fired a single shot. Martin then sat up, so the immediate threat was gone and Zimmerman DID NOT FIRE AGAIN. Instead, he tried to wrestle with Martin as the alternative to shooting again which he could easily have done. This is strong evidence that he only fired at an instant when he felt most threatened and when even a momentary relief from that time of greatest fear occurred, he resorted to physical action not shooting.

      Reply ↓

      • Very credibly? Are you kidding?
        During the walk through, Zimmerman demonstrated through his body language that his gun was hidden, not only in a holster INSIDE his waist band, but toward the BACK of his hip!
        And he said he was PINNED TO THE GROUND by Trayvon straddling him and beating him up (imagine the position of the two men. . .Trayvon would have been SITTING RIGHT ON TOP OF ZIMMERMAN’s WAIST!). Then, Zimmerman explains that, although he was “pinned down,” he wanted to move HIS HEAD (not his whole body. . .which was “pinned down!”). And still he “pretends” that his jacket AND shirt on his RIGHT side moved to reveal the gun (can you tell me how the gun hidden on the BACK of Zimmerman’s hip, UNDER his waistband, UNDER where Trayvon was reportedly sitting while pinning Zimmerman down AND beating him up, could have been visible to Trayvon while he was . . .somewhat busy (reportedly) beating Zimmerman’s face and his skull into . . .non existant. . .concrete?).
        Then, Zimmerman gives even MORE details. . . to hang himself a little further!. . .he says that when Trayvon saw the gun, he told Zimmerman “you’re going to die,” and reached for the gun.
        Except that, Trayvon being right handed, he would have had to reach with his RIGHT hand to the opposite side of Zimmerman’s body. . .BELOW his hip. . .ACROSS and between their two bodies.

        And then, Zimmerman explains further that “he pinned Trayvon’s ARM down with his Right arm, and GRABBED HIS GUN. . .STILL WITH HIS RIGHT HAND!” How, pray, is this scenario possible?

        But. . .to make things even a little less credible. . .Serino asked Zimmerman where he grabbed Trayvon while Trayvon was “reportedly” reaching for the gun. . .and Zimmerman said he grabbed Trayvon’s WRIST. . .nothing about his arm!

        But either way. . .whether he was pinning Trayvon’s wrist, or his arm with his RIGHT hand. . .Zimmerman still managed to GRAB HIS GUN with THAT RIGHT HAND, and ALSO managed to shoot PERFECTLY STRAIGHT, WITH NO ANGLE IN THE TRAJECTORY, STRAIGHT INTO Trayvon’s heart. . . . while keeping Trayvon’s arm/wrist incapacitated!

        How gullible can you be to not see the discrepancies in this very important moment that directly preceeded Trayvon’s death?

        Reply ↓

        • Hey Sadanie,
          Thought you might find this interesting in your debate about the gun.
          http://www.youtube.com/user/LLMPapa

          Reply ↓

          • Keep up the good work Sadanie.
            Don’t know what happen up there came out as Anonymous

          • Thank you for the kind words, and ESPECIALLY thank you for that link, Loree!

            Since the beginning I have been baffled by the amazing feat of Zimmerman, almost “unconscious,” with his head being “bashed in,” and his mouth and nose covered by “both of Trayvon’s hands,” and his head “repeatedly smashed in concrete,” while being “pinned down by Trayvon straddling him” managing to grab his gun and shoot the PERFECT killer shot. . .direct from front to back, no angle trajectory at all (neither left to right, right to left, up to down, or down upwards) straight into the lung and heart of the teenager straddling him just about waist high!

            But this video is AMAZING!

            No wonder the prosecution had “no more evidences” than Zimmerman’s own words!

            Now, what’s the spin from Peter O and Jim?

          • @Sadanie & Common Sense
            Thanks for the kind words. We should hear the judge’s ruling tomorrow on bond, at least that is what he said he should have a decision by. If any new data regarding witnesses I might pass by again, keep fighting the good fight.

          • Thanks, Loree! That is VERY interesting! What do you think about it?

          • Thought it was thinking outside the box. Intersting video. More interested in witnesses 4,7 and 10. Still searching for those statements. State did not released those three in the first discovery dump. The second dump mentions them again on page three with Officer Smith taking their statements on page three. He also took almost everyone else that night. It does state in dump 2 interviews memos statements attached. O’mara mentioned at the bond hearing, the state had someone who, and these are his words, saw my client challenging him. In my mind that translates to, someone saw GZ confronting and or detain TM against his will. He also said it wasn’t presented in the discovery so far. O’mara couldn’t even keep the witness numbers correct to who was saying what. He keep talking about witness nine as if that witness helps his client, when in reality she doesn’t. Doesn’t he remememebered he filed a reconsideration motion to witness 9 ?If it the evidence of a witness statement was given in the first and second to that regard, he either hasn’t gotten to it, or has not been presented. Considering his unpreparedness on keeping the witness statements correct and only using John #6 first statement, I’ll take it that he hasn’t gotten to it yet. Also Serino mentioned this witness twice in interviews. Might be a cop bluff, but for O’mara to mention it at the bond hearing was telling. The state was quiet on his statement regarding this witness, as well they should be, let O’mara do his own work. It was a bond hearing, they don’t have to say diddley squat to O’mara.

          • You seem to have a good head for analysis. Thanks. Let me know if you find those witnesses’ statements.

    • I am right handed although I can draw and shoot with either hand accurately, I can only write with my right hand. I am presently wearing a Left Handed IWB (Inside the Waste-band) Kydex holster about the 5:30 position. This allows me to slide the back of my hand along my back near the Kidney’s in between the grip and my back and grab the weapon with minimum clearance between by back and the car seat, or the ground or whatever is behind me, this also means I do not have to raise my elbow as high to raise the weapon out of the holster. To put a Right handed holster in that position where I can grab it comfortably, it would have to be riding the weapon almost horizontal pointing the weapon at any person on my left side while in the holster. Somewhere about the 4oclock position forward I prefer a right handed holster all the way around to what for me is the most comfortable position about 11oclock crossdraw across the stomach (this is where I carried my backup weapon on the left side of my Body Armor, primary was my rifle) When you are watching the movies where John Travolta is wearing 2 45’s slide to slide with the grips pointing out in the square of his back, this is the same principle, a right handed holster on the left side a left handed holster on the right side.

      In the end you wear the weapon in the most comfortable position to draw, a left handed holster in the 5oclock position makes perfect sense. I also know a lot of people that write with their dominant left hand but shoot primarily with their right.

      —–

      On a side note for any women out there that are thinking about carrying I recommend Limatunes Facebook page, or the cornered cat website to start you off.

      This is a very helpful Women’s self defense page.
      http://www.corneredcat.com/Contents/

      This is a page for the LGBT self defense community if that is more your style. This is a real organization and they really did have valuable input to both the DC gun case, and the Chicago gun case at the Supreme Court.
      http://pinkpistols.org/

      Reply ↓

    • Sad Annie

      You’re so smart.

      Reply ↓

      • Jim, I never pretended to be smart, and your feeble attempts to ridicule me would be kind of cute if they were not so silly.

        Reply ↓

    • Sad Annie,

      “I never pretended to be smart,”

      OK.

      Reply ↓

    • I tried to add a few thoughts on how I carry if it helps, but it automatically kicked to moderation. Since I do not know when Susan will be able to get back to the site, you can find it on my Facebook page “Insp Gadget”. I do not know if this is how Zimmerman carries, but if I were pinned in that position I may be able to pull my gun from there, I wouldn’t necessarily be aiming at that close a quarters just firing at the single biggest target (the center of the chest) and firing due to adrenaline to end the fight, one difference is I would probably automatically have fired 2 shots out of training in case the first one missed.

      Reply ↓

    • @Loree –

      I agree. O’Mara’s repeated reference to witness #9 (instead of #6) was a sad indication of another of O’Mara’s unpreparedness. Even if he had said witness #6, he’d still be showing he was ill-prepared since witness #6 recanted his statement weeks, if not months, ago.

      Reply ↓

38. What a brave man Zimmerman is to actually start to protect himself and fight after he already killed the kid. BRILLIANT

    Reply ↓

    • Zimmerman was punched (broken nose etc), stunned, retreated down path while trying to fend Martin off (look at walk through), Martin ultimately forced him to the ground, bashed his head repeatedly on cement, felt Martin reaching for his gun so he drew and fired a single shot in desperation, did not know Martin was “already killed,” forced Martin off him and acted to restrain him.

      Where did Zimmerman say he wanted to, or did, “fight” Martin, except in the limited sense of trying to push Martin away and struggling to avoid being seriously injured or killed? He never said he was “brave,” only that he was viciously attacked by Martin.

      Since when does pushing a vicious attacker off of you mean “actually start to protect himself and fight?”

      At least you acknowledge that Zimmerman, at least up to that point, did not himself “fight” Martin. The marks on Zimmerman and the lack of any marks on Martin (confirmed by Martin’s own family mortician!) show Zimmerman never landed a blow, only Martin. So where is the evidence Zimmerman was the aggressor or even ever landed any blows at all on Martin?

      Reply ↓

      • Funny that you should say “retreated down path. . .” when, actually, if he had “retreated down the path” where he was REPORTEDLY headed, he would have retreated toward his truck, toward the West on the T junction. . which would have made more sense anyway!
        Obviously he was not “retreating,” but “following!” Maybe even trying to grab the kid to restrain him or. . .worse. This would fit perfectly with the TWO witnesses (one who heard this comment from her house, the other Trayvon’s girl friend) who BOTH said they heard Trayvon say “let go of me, let go!” Trayvon was probably trying to “retreat” toward his house, while Zimmerman was probably trying to restrain him until the police arrived.

        You see, many people can play the “guessing game.” However, some “guesses” make more sense than others, based solely on logics and the evidences that have already been released, as well as Zimmerman’s statements!

        This is why the State said that they didn’t have any more evidences than what was being presented at the bond hearing, but only the evidences contained in Zimmerman’s statements. . .
        Many people (including you) took that to mean there was no more evidences. . .until Zimmerman’s statements and the walk through were released. There is so much EVIDENCE in there that Zimmerman LIED to protect himself from an investigation, because what really happen would NOT have supported the self-defense theory!

        Reply ↓

    • Yes, isn’t Zimmerman a prince of a fellow! So brave and honest, too!

      What a jerk. .and a dangerous one at that!
      I think he is the perfect example of what is wrong with our gun laws: guns are given to any imbeciles . . .and the only ones who benefits are the gun manufacturers!

      Reply ↓

39. “It’s looking more and more to me that the prosecution will have a very good case!” To me, that sounds like whistling in the dark, hapufern. The only reason I haven’t completely dismissed the prosecution yet is that Judge Lester opined in the document which revoked bail that the prosecution had a “strong case”. So until I know what he was talking about, I will say I am not sure.

    Reply ↓

    • By law, Judge Lester could only look at the evidence presented to him at the bond hearing and the only evidence was the probable cause affidavit (and associated testimony).

      No problem if you want to second guess Judge Lester on his opinion here!

      You saw EXACTLY what Judge Lester was permitted to “see” at that time for his ruling.

      The world already did second guess the bond hearing evidence and the consensus among legal experts is that even for probable cause there were some serious problems.

      Reply ↓

40. He made a remark in that hearing indicating that he had seen Zimmerman’s statements. I am not sure that we have seen all of them since O’Mara has been the one releasing them. So right now there is a reasonable doubt in my mind that I know now what he knew then. I have forgotten the context of the remark about the strength of the evidence or case, so I am not sure whether or not he made a legal mistake.

    Reply ↓

    • Water under the bridge. Ultimately, MAYBE (a remote ‘maybe’) a fourth amendment or similar such challenge, if found guilty.

      Reply ↓

    • A judge, surely, is allowed to weigh the strength of the evidence before him against a defendant when considering bond(revocation) regarding the same defendant. As such, the judge in the present case did not violate any laws by stating that the evidence against GZ “is strong”. But I am wondering which evidence the judge was talking about. Was the judge talking about the evidence to revoke bond or the evidence in the murder case?
      Also RickyJ. I have to commend you on your graduation from ‘there is no probable cause to arrest and indict GZ; the arrest and indictment of GZ is politically motivated’ to ‘so right now there is a reasonbel dout in my mind that I know now what he knew then’. That shows a healthy degree of emotional detachment from the case and allows for a healthy discussion – unlike the blind rantings of- and running around the circle with PeterO.

      Reply ↓

    • Intel, why don’t you cite the record correctly?

      There was an original bond hearing. Judge Lester granted bond and made no ruling at the hearing the case was “strong,” which ruling is used to identify the scope of his powers in what he must to look at to determine bond. He did not issue an immediate written order. After the website disclosure he finally issued his written order which must be based on the original hearing since there was no “reconsideration” hearing. It was in the written order that he inserted the new finding that the case was “strong” which he never said at the original hearing.

      So you, without knowing what was happening legally at the bond hearing, said:

      “But I am wondering which evidence the judge was talking about. But I am wondering which evidence the judge was talking about. Was the judge talking about the evidence to revoke bond or the evidence in the murder case?”

      If you knew what was happening you would already know the answer to the above question — assuming the judge was following the law.

      The “strong” ruling could only be with respect to evidence presented at the original bond hearing. I don’t think you understand what the bond hearing is about and the purpose and scope of a “strong case” ruling, otherwise you would not have made your uninformed comment.

      Also, there was no bond revocation hearing, so O’Mara never had a chance to explain Zimmerman’s side.

      Reply ↓

41. Newest bombshell, as reported by Jeralyn on her website:

    “ABC Reporter Says Serino Leaked Zimmerman Info ”

    “Investigator Chris Serino will no longer be acting as a homicide investigator starting July 1. He will be on night-time patrol duty….”

    Can it possibly get any worse for the prosecution?

    Reply ↓

    • Debunked already. The reporter said he didn’t divulge his source and deleted the erroneously replied to tweet.

      Reply ↓

    • Then Serino should be immediately reinstated!

      Don’t you think Serino already admitted what happened to the prosecutor?

      ABC reporter Gutman has been shipped out of the country to the other side of the world. He did the “unpardonable” by disclosing his source, was banished, and now, too late, is trying to cover his tracks.

      Reply ↓

42. I have a question for the lawyers. I am hearing people talking as if O’Mara has decided to release the discovery, but my understanding of my States Sunshine Laws mean they have no choice, with specific exceptions (i.e. witness names unless they are called.). It is my understanding of the order signed 12 Jun 12 that O’Mara, BLDR, Corey and all have no choice. If neither side intends to use the information, 911 call, witness, or evidence in the trial then they do not have to release the material as it is not part of the trial. If there are remaining materials that have not been released as of 27 Jun 12 then they are not being used in the trial and therefore irrelevant. But since IANAL then I may be completely wrong about this order altogether.

    Order on The State’s Motion for Protective Order and the Media Intervener’s Motions to Intervene.

    Click to access SKMBT_363-V12061312310.pdf

    Reply ↓

43. Serino requested the transfer per Morgenstern he is not being demoted. His rate of pay will be unaffected.
    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-06-27/news/os-george-zimmerman-latest-evidence-20120626_1_special-prosecutor-release-statements

    Reply ↓

    • Investigator Chris Serino will NO LONGER be acting as a homicide investigator starting July 1. HE WILL BE ON NIGHT-TIME PATROL DUTY

      Voluntary? Sure!

      Reply ↓

44. To show how through the investigation was, they apparently went on location to have Zimmerman yell “help” and “help me”.: http://soundcloud.com/producermatthew/state-v-zimmerman-voice .
    Apparently the FBI lab found it impossible to make a valid comparison. Of course that doesn’t stop various charlatans from making claims.

    Reply ↓

    • Thank you. I had been looking for that particular piece of evidence.

      Reply ↓

45. @ Susan Simpson
    What do you think of this side by side comparsion of GZ yelling help , along with the neighbor 911 call?
    Also, I have a question about discovery. How long can the state hold back witnesses 4, 7 and 10 statements and or 911 calls?
    Another question, when does reciprocal discovery start?
    I thank you in advance for your reply.

    http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/audio/george-zimmerman-voice-exemplars/

    Reply ↓

    • What the website did is completely invalid. You have to compare the waveforms from two snippets of the same length made under exactly the same conditions. You think Zimmerman was on the ground fearing death in the second sample? And the 911 sample wasn’t “help” or “help me” rapidly repeated. Both versions they used were enhanced in unknown ways. Please don’t second guess Dr. Nakasone of the FBI lab. He has been a published author on biometrics and an invited speaker at many conferences, as you can tell by googling his name. He is an order of magnitude above the two fakers the Orlando Sentinel contacted.

      Reply ↓

    • Loree,

      I don’t know if this helps but there are arguments between the prosecution/Defense and Media Representatives. The Prosecution and the Defense are trying to redact information from public view, the Media are trying to get everything released, and appear to be winning. The various motions, and orders are best viewed here: http://www.flcourts18.org/presspublic.html The dates listed are usually a day or so later, to determine the date of the order you have to dig down to the signature date.

      Insp. G

      Reply ↓

      • Thanks that helps. It justs drives me a little bonkers because they are releasing GZ written statements, reenactments, and so much other data to date but not those three witnesses. On the second discovery dump on page three is states that Officer T Smith interviewed witnesses 4 7 and 10 along with almost every numbered witnesses on the discovery list # 1. They released all this other data but not these three witnesses. Why is the state holding these three back? Why are they so special? Driving me bonkers : ^ )

        Reply ↓

    • Loree,

      I have been looking but do not see 4, 7, and 10 listed as special cases and according to the 12 Jun order they should have been released to the media by today 27 Jun 12. #9 Statement 2 is being argued as Prejudicial, it will stir up racial hatred toward GZ as well as not admissible as evidence, the media is countering that it is the public’s right to know. For all I know this is someone that doesn’t even know GZ trying to stir the racial pot. I will need more information about who she actually is (i.e. ex-girlfriend with an ax to grind, David Axelrod’s neighbor from 3 doors down, or legitimate caller) before I will consider her call. The jailhouse tapes are also in play, the only ones that are being released pertain to the cases against GZ or SZ, the media want all of them.

      Reply ↓

      • Thanks for your reply. I understand about witness nine. I heard her phone call to Investigator Perkins. It was short audio saying she knows him and his family and some other things. If I am understanding you correctly, we should have 4 7 and 10 today or tomorrow. I’ve been looking but to no avail. If you come across this information please post link.
        Thanks for your help.
        Loree

        Reply ↓

    • The 911 tapes show some screams were more like simply screams of terror, not trying to verbalize the specific words “help” or “help me,” which seem to be the words the police wanted Zimmerman to repeat.
      Also, how does someone ‘repeat’ a scream of absolute terror on ‘queue’ (unless you are a trained actor — just look at the sounds Meg Ryan was able to duplicate on queue in You’ve Got Mail)?

      Reply ↓

      • Zimmerman clearly stated during his walk through that he told “John” who came out to see what was happening to “help me” and that when John told him he would call the police, Zimmerman actually ARGUED with him saying, no, I need help, just help me.

        So, it is not surprising that the police wanted to hear Zimmerman say those exact words. . .and as you said yourself. . .that is NOT what is heard on the phone calls. . .

        So. . . once more, it seems that Zimmerman is LYING!

        Re: the trajectory of the shot, there is almost NO CHANCE that a shot fired in the position described by Zimmerman would hit the chest of the victim perfectly perpendicular and exactly centered on the heart. The likelihood of a shot being fired while two people are struggling and ending up PERFECTLY straight and directly into the heart, without any angular trajectory is basically NUL.

        Reply ↓

    • sadanie, Zimmerman said that to “John” (if, in fact he remembered that correctly) AFTER the shot and was speaking much more normally and simply asking for help to restrain Martin when he did not realize Martin was mortally wounded. The screams being matched for were only those heard BEFORE the shot. There were no screams after the shot.

      Reply ↓

      • Absolutely NOT! Once again, you are spinning!
        I think you should go back and watch the walk through! Zimmerman is describing himself being hit by Trayvon, and being “smothered” by Trayvon’s hands, and STILL he describes how someone (John) came out and asked what was going on, and Zimmerman said he basically argued with him to NOT go up and call the police, but to come and help him restrain Trayvon. . .and John went up anyway, and called 911 and heard a shot while he was calling 911.

        Go back and listen to Zimmerman’s testimony!
        I am appaled with the totally misleading statements you make. Either you should report and debate the FACTS that are currently available, or you should abstain all together.

        You are either very confused, totally screwed up, or a liar!

        Reply ↓

    • sadanie, here is the link to the videos : http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/video/george-zimmerman-police-video-statements/

      Go to about 13:50 which is AFTER the shot. Zimmerman says he asked someone to help in restraining Martin, who Zimmerman did not know was mortally wounded at the time (actually that person was probably another witness not ‘John’).

      Earlier in the walk though, Zimmerman clearly says he was screaming for help while being beaten on the sidewalk. It was only at one point when, in a more normal volume voice, he specifically said he asked someone very nearby (who was probably ‘John’) for help. Zimmerman does not say he was screaming at that person nearby (‘John’?) at that point, he was only asking him for help at a more normal voice volume. That part would never have been picked up by the cell phones any distance away even assuming those phone were connected when he said that .

      The 911 calls picked up just snippets (only the very loudest screams) and are not continuous over that fight period. The only screams that could be picked up on the cell phones from the distances away of the cell phones, were the very loudest of the earlier screams from the sidewalk. Other more normal requests for help would be too low.

      So it was ONLY the earlier screams picked up on the 911 calls that were being compared, NOT the more normal words asking for help (both before the shot and after), which words could never have been picked up on the 911 calls since they were too low.

      Unfortunately, only your invective is proportional to your misinformation, not the accuracy of what you say.

      Reply ↓

    • Sadanie Says,

      “The likelihood of a shot being fired while two people are struggling and ending up PERFECTLY straight and directly into the heart, without any angular trajectory is basically NUL.”

      The likelihood of a shot to the left of the breastbone fired toward the spine and ending up in the right lung is zero.

      Reply ↓

      • “Sadanie Says, “The likelihood of a shot being fired while two people are struggling and ending up PERFECTLY straight and directly into the heart, without any angular trajectory is basically NUL.” The likelihood of a shot to the left of the breastbone fired toward the spine and ending up in the right lung is zero.”

        The likelihood of a hollowpoint fragmenting upon impact and causing damage all around the entry trajectory is pretty good, though, wouldn’t you think?

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • The likelihood of sadanie accurately citing the evidence is nil.

      Reply ↓

    • “The likelihood of a hollowpoint fragmenting upon impact and causing damage all around the entry trajectory is pretty good, though, wouldn’t you think?”

      Is that a question, a rhetorical question, or sarcasm (in which case it should be ignored? Do you expect an answer? Should someone waste their time providing an answer when your intent cannot be figured out and the answerer may only to be told later by you that the question was rhetorical or sarcastic?

      If that is your position why not simply say so?

      Reply ↓

    • Haven’t gotten a chance to listen to them yet, and won’t have a computer with sound until I get home. Curious to hear them, though — even if they probably won’t be of much evidentiary value in a courtroom setting, it’d still be pretty telling.

      And no idea about the remaining witnesses and 911 calls, unfortunately — Florida FOIA law and Florida criminal discovery procedures are not rabbit holes I am willing to chase down for those answers, since it’ll get released eventually one way or another, haha.

      Reply ↓

46. More supporting evidence Martin, not Zimmerman, was the aggressor:

    If Zimmerman was the one on top of Martin, when they were struggling on the sidewalk, then there would have been at some scrape marks (even faint) on the back of Martin’s head from the sidewalk from any punches by Zimmerman or struggling movements.

    Even supposing Zimmerman was on top of Martin before the shot, then why wasn’t Zimmerman throwing ANY punches? Any such punches would cause at least faint marks to the back of Martin’s head from the sidewalk and bruises to Martin’s face. Even out of shape, Zimmerman would still have marked Martin with any blows and everyone is saying Zimmerman was a trained “bouncer” (I haven’t heard that one being raised lately as some commentors now realize there were NO marks at all on Martin’s body).

    If Zimmerman, while on top of Martin on the sidewalk, and while not hitting Martin even once, suddenly drew his gun and fired point blank at Martin he would have immediately known that he hit Martin and there would no need to wrestle or move Martin and Martin’s body would be at least partially on the sidewalk. Yet the body did not end up on or right by the sidewalk.

    Everyone is asking for an explanation of why the body ended up in the grass, as a sign of Zimmerman guilt. But the real problem for the prosecutor is that the body ending up in the grass is evidence Zimmerman never shot Martin point blank deliberately, and that he was never on top while on the sidewalk struggling since the body was much more likely to remain on the sidewalk under that scenario after the shot.

    The shot was on a straight plane that indicates Martin’s upper body was near parallel with Zimmerman’s hand at the time of the shot and one or the other was not sitting up perpendicular to the other (no matter who was on top). That seems like a more defensive position for Zimmerman then him deliberately shooting Martin while controlling him while on top since his position would much more likely be perpendicular to Martin in that circumstance.

    Reply ↓

    • Trayvon Martin had on a hoodie when he was attacked by George Zimmerman, so there was a bit of cushion between himself and the grass.

      Reply ↓

    • CSFC, you have a good point.

      But the hoodie would be very thin, and assuming it was up at the time, there would still be a bruise on the back of the head and/or bruises and marks on his face from any hits by Zimmerman (the ex “trained bouncer”)

      Reply ↓

    • CSFC, I forgot to add that at least one witness saw the “straddling” on the sidewalk (and he (“John”) after clarifying his statement is adamant it was Martin on top).
      and you still would have bruises on the face.

      Reply ↓

47. Could Zimmerman be not guilty even if he was wasn’t topped by Martin right at the T? Of course! Just because what he said was wrong, doesn’t mean he is guilty. He could have been groggy from the punch and clinched with Martin and after pushing, shoving and shouting was finally downed when they reached the area in front of John’s patio door. Or he did fall down right after the punch and Martin started kicking him in the back of the head and he rolled south, then got up when Martin knocked him down again, etc..

    Given Zimmerman’s ADD/AHDD, I am sure a good defense lawyer along with an expert witness could explain why it was reasonable that Zimmerman forgot exactly what happened in the seconds after the original punch. And several witnesses remember loud voices that went on for a while before the screaming for help started. Unless they really have an unimpeachable surprise witness, I don’t see how the prosecution can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Reply ↓

    • The point is not simply that Zimmerman may have lied about getting punched initially at the T, although that’s important too.

      If Zimmerman was south of the T, then he definitely had another purpose for being there besides looking for an address. This is what he may be trying to cover up by saying he was at the T.

      Reply ↓

    • You are, of course, correct. I saw the debate over jury instructions, but NO ONE should doubt the jury will get a self-defense instruction. At that point, the burden shifts to the prosecutor.

      I previously said the prosecutor “must” present his own scenario. And everyone jumped on me saying he really didn’t have to … while not realizing (or ignoring) I was talking in the very real world sense that if the prosecutor cannot present his own scenario (even if it is that from the probable cause affidavit) then let Zimmerman free now and don’t waste scarce State and Court resources.

      No one can come up with any scenario that the prosecutor could raise that would even begin to complete with the scenarios the defense will use to rebut that still UNIDENTIFIED prosecutor scenario. All of the nitpicking of Zimmerman’s scenario misses the point about what will happen once the prosecutor sets forth HIS scenario. What is it?????

      None of the commenators here want to lay out a logical step by step scenario in the same detail Zimmerman has because they, no doubt, already realize it will be ripped apart. But, that still unidentified prosecutor scenario holding up to a defense attack with its own defense scenarios, is the only way to get a ‘guilty’ result in the real world (do I really have to keep adding those last two words?).

      Reply ↓

    • You’re right Ricky that I might have been a little premature by saying it looks more and more like the prosecution will have a very good case.

      However, I do think that the release of Zimmerman’s statements combined with forensics does eliminate a substantial part of Zimmerman’s self-defense claim – namely the smothering and repeated punching to the face. These are impossible given the forensic evidence of an absence of blood on Trayvon’s hands.

      I also think Zimmerman’s statements have been shown to be completely unreliable – whether due to ADHD or lying. It may not matter.

      I’m not sure what to make of the photos of blood on Zimmerman’s head being unsmeared and flowing towards his face, as if he had his face toward the ground after receiving those wounds. Any ideas?

      Reply ↓

    • PeterO said “None of the commenators here want to lay out a logical step by step scenario in the same detail Zimmerman has because they, no doubt, already realize it will be ripped apart.” OR, PeterO, it could be that none of us considers this a court of law for which we *must* meet certain formal standards, nor are we subject to the dictates of another poster. OR, we could be enjoying the discussion and interaction with other intelligent people on a more casual basis than what *you* seem to require. Anyone’s failure to post step-by-step alternate scenarios doesn’t have the meaning you’re intent on attaching to it. It might only mean that we’re just not that into you.

      Reply ↓

    • verafish, I assumed this is a legal blog, the intent of which is to examine the legal aspects of the case and its likely progression in the court and at trial. I didn’t realize it is a ‘Nancy Grace” or “Geraldo Rivera” type blog, but instead analogous to Jeralyn’s talkleft.com extremely good legal blog dealing with this case.

      No one is forced to respond, many pass over my comments as ‘spam’ as I do theirs. But Ricky for one, and many other, including Susan, seem keen about the actual law as applied to this case. I am sure Susan (correct me if I am wrong) doesn’t want all her readers hitting their heads if a not guilty verdict comes down (as the followers of ‘Nancy’ and ‘Geraldo’ did in the Anthony case).

      Many commentors state what the law is, when it is clear they don’t know, and pronounce (as I do sometimes) their opinion of the anticipated course of the trial or its result. In those cases, we are not talking about commentors “chewing the fat” with no concern for the law … they are premising their comments directly about the law.

      I didn’t present my question about the prosecutor’s case to “force” anyone to answer. And no one has to. It was based on the likelihood that some might realize how important the prosecutor’s scenario on the case will be at trial and at least state what they believe it will be.

      If you don’t feel qualified to respond or don’t want to, you don’t have too.

      Maybe someone else, who also believes it will be important at trial in the real legal world (which is what this blog seems primarily to be about), not a “chew the fat” “Nancy and Geraldo” type world, might want to provide some answers so we do not end up with a “hit the head” surprise at the final verdict like “Nancy” and “Geraldo” aficionados did in the Anthony case — I must admit they did get big ratings though, and made a lot of money, maybe Susan wants that too — I just don’t think so).

      Reply ↓

    • I have to agree with Pete on this, the other blogs I have gone to ended up with name calling and accusing anyone that disagrees with anyone of being a racist. Something bad happened, but bad things happen all the time, I have seen enough Fallen Comrade ceremonies to know. I am concerned that the officials follow the rules that “We the people of Florida” have given them, not what some yahoos that run a Network from New York want to see. I care about the laws that are supposed to protect us after we have to protect ourselves. We have the strongest Sunshine Laws in the country to allow us to oversee our elected officials, this gives the responsibility to know, and the duty to check our officials square on our shoulders.

      Since this is a legal blog I will throw a IANAL in now and then so some new person doesn’t mistake my Non-lawyerin opinion on the law for an actual lawyers opinion. Since the Laws and the precedents set in this case may affect me if I have to defend myself up here on the panhandle I am trying to learn. The brute force memorizing of FL Laws are the easy part, it is when you get into the more nuanced interaction and individual precedents that it becomes tricky for me. I will try to put the actual information out and then try to understand the laws involved as best I can, i.e. the Media Intervention order, since I am not the only Non-Lawyer here.

      Reply ↓

    • PeterO, it looked, to me, like you were finding fault with other posters “..because they, no doubt, already realize it will be ripped apart.” I am a layperson, here to read and learn…gain insight. It isn’t up to me to *decide* what Susan’s intentions are in writing her blog, but it seems to me that you attributed some “failure” on the part of those who don’t wish to engage in a step-by-step reconstruction. Perhaps I misunderstood your intention…if so, my apologies.

      @Inspector Gadget, I hear you. I, too, am averse to the name-calling and insults in many other forums…not to mention the complete lack of accurate information. Clearly, IANAL, but think I’ll use “non-lawyerin” henceforth.

      Reply ↓

    • verafish, you were 10% accurate.

      I did a little “needling” in my wording to provoke a response and hopefully shame (not a good word?) someone into an answer on, yes, its my opinion, an important real world point that gets to the heart of this upcoming trial.

      But that type of occasional innocuous (I like that word) needling is quite frequent (including from Susan herself) in this blog and part of the give and take of debates. There is no intent to insult anyone personally, only to stir up some issues.

      Reply ↓

    • “verafish, you were 10% accurate.”

      That being the case, then allow me to rephrase: “My apo______.”

      Reply ↓

48. Sorry I don’t follow you friend hapufern. I just got finished explaining why getting punched at the T and ending up further south is consistent with reasonable doubt. That you may propose some guilty scenario in its place doesn’t amount to anything in the legal sense.

    Reply ↓

    • Ricky, I misunderstood you then. Are you saying that Trayvon pushed Zimmerman all that way, or did Zimmerman walk in that direction voluntarily?

      Reply ↓

49. I didn’t say either hapufern. Please tell me what in my 10:39PM post is unclear.

    Reply ↓

    • Well, I’m just trying to understand what exactly saying. Are you saying that Trayvon maybe punched Zimmerman at the T and then they wrestled all the way to where Trayvon was killed, except for the part where Trayvon may have kicked Zimmerman, which made Zimmerman roll in that direction?

      If so, I was putting that under the category of Trayvon pushing him that way. Maybe a poor choice of words.

      But are you saying that Zimmerman went all that way involuntarily? (Maybe a better choice of words?)

      Reply ↓

    • To add to the above, if Zimmerman forgot about going all the distance involuntarily, how do we know he didn’t forget that he was the one who confronted Trayvon?

      And how do we know that he didn’t forget about chasing Trayvon, or trying to detain Trayvon, or drawing his gun on Trayvon to try to overpower him?

      How do we know he didn’t forget that Trayvon hit him and held him down to try to get away from him and his gun?

      How do we know Zimmerman didn’t forget about killing Trayvon to avoid having a live witness testifying that this crazy guy had followed him, grabbed him, and threatened him with a gun?

      Well we don’t. Prosecution has to prove that something similar happened, beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman’s statements are not going to hurt the prosecution’s case, in my opinion.

      Reply ↓

    • Zimmerman’s defenders are getting way too hung up on this idea that, if we don’t know precisely how Zimmerman ended up killing Trayvon, he can’t be convicted.

      It isn’t true. In murders without witnesses, we never know precisely, move-for-move, how the murders occurred. But that isn’t necessary for the prosecution to prove.

      Or do you really think we live in a world where every time a black teenager is shot by someone than can claim to be an “upstanding member of the community,” and there is no witness to the shooting, the shooter cannot be convicted if they claim the teenager punched them first?

      Wait, that’s a dumb question — I guess some people do think that’s how it works.

      Reply ↓

50. Ricky Jimenez, don’t get too frustrated with hapufern, just ignore her.

    She will filibuster her own filibusters!

    Reply ↓

    • I thought we were buddies Peter.

      Reply ↓

    • I never said otherwise.

      Reply ↓

    • Oh good, seriously.

      Reply ↓

51. Maybe all the prosecution has to prove is that Zimmerman’s claims about the circumstances leading up to the shot could not have happened.

    Reply ↓

    • HP, I am breaking my cardinal rule with you, which is NEVER RESPOND TO HP.

      Is the above a question?

      If so, do a search on this page where I plagiarized Jeralyn’s blog, to cite the case law that says once a jury instruction is entered in this case, which it will be (nitpicking zombies, please to don’t rise here!) the burden shifts to the prosecutor with all the implications of the shift, including that the prosecutor must (down zombies!), in this case, come up with a good scenario as to what he believes happened, particularly at the time of the fight.

      Reply ↓

52. Well, got to go. There’s too much else happening with my life right now.

    Thank you Susan for allowing me on your blog. I have appreciated your hospitality, and I have appreciated everyone’s insight and information!

    Farewell!

    Reply ↓

    • Sorry to see you go, and hope you come back if and when more useful info on the case is released!

      Reply ↓

    • Sorry to see you go Hapufern, enjoyed your posts.
      L

      Reply ↓

    • Sorry to see you go, hapufern. I enjoyed reading your reasoning and logic and learning that it was from a maternal view. I found not much to add to your responses and you gave me plenty to ponder re this case. Hope you’re back when stuff settles down.

      Reply ↓

    • I am really sorry you are leaving, Hapufern!
      You were a breath of fresh air, with logical, clear arguments and a very sweet way to stand your ground!
      Hope you’ll be back soon!

      Reply ↓

53. If a person is involved in drunk driving accident and kills a person on the highway, the case is centered around. HE WAS AT A BAR, HE WAS DRUNK, HE GOT IN A CAR, HE CROSSED A LINE, HE KILLED A PERSON. They don’t care too much about the wreck itself. The fight in the case of Zimmerman and Trayvon is obsolete as well. It’s about Zimmerman’s frame of mind and why he did what he did. Which is why he felt the need to pursue a kid who was doing nothing and kill him.

    Reply ↓

    • Where do you practice law Jodi Ann? The heart of the case, self defense, is centered on Zimmerman’s state of mind in the last minute or so before he fired his gun.

      Reply ↓

    • That example is centered around an illegal act of “Drinking and Driving” that led to the death.

      Prior to the first push/shove there were no illegal acts by either party, unwise maybe, illegal no. In this case the middle and end of the fight are the result of the first illegal act – starting the fight. Either Martin attacked Zimmerman, and was winning the fight until shot, or Zimmerman attacked Martin and Martin took control of the fight until Zimmerman shot him. That is why who started the fight is the central question, and the Prosecution has to prove it was Zimmerman that started the fight “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”. Any unwise acts while not illegal will be Aggravating circumstances used for sentencing after the verdict.

      This could be that same argument no matter which side survived, had Martin succeded in beating Zimmerman to death, the same argument about self defense would still be out there. Martin could say that he was being followed by a guy that attacked him, during the fight he saw saw the gun and had to kill Zimmerman in self defense. I would have the same problem with Probable cause in the theoretical Martin case, and the Prosecution would have to prove it was Martin that started the fight “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”. That would be no more possible in the Theoretical Martin case than it is in the Real Zimmerman case. I do not see a guilty verdict as possible in either prosecution due to the lack of contradictory evidence or witnesses to the start of the fight just as Det. Gilbreath admitted during the first Bond Hearing.

      Reply ↓

    • Awesome point, Jodi Ann. I think Zimmerman’s state of mind was “depraved” and that’s why he got the murder 2 charge. The shooting was no accident although the subject Zimmerman would end up shooting may have been by chance.

      Reply ↓

      • Absolutely agree with you and Jody!
        Excellent point!

        Reply ↓

    • I think what Jodi Ann may be saying is that in a case of self-defense it has to be shown that the totality of circumstances prove that he was *not* the aggressor. That he even left his vehicle in pursuit shows that he initiated the contact (and that he did nothing that could have defused the situation, given a couple of opportunities) What other things he may have done after that that furthered the conflict would be used as support for the prosecution.

      An intuitive aside: and that Jodi Ann may be pointing out that many have gone down the rabbit-hole of “he took three steps to the right”, and “he lifted his arm *this* way, not *that* way”, therefore losing sight of the bigger picture which is: Was the shooting in self-defense? Did he set out with a “depraved mind”?

      I don’t personally think Zimmerman set out that night to shoot someone but he certainly instigated – and then perpetuated – a situation where he caused *himself* to feel that lethal force was his “only” option. (Snark alert: as opposed to managing to wait for LE)

      IANAL.

      Reply ↓

    • verafish said: “I think what Jodi Ann may be saying is ….”

      verafish, you are correct, Jodi Ann does need you as a translator! Otherwise, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to figure out what she is saying or means.

      Since you said “I think,” is there anything else she may have been saying instead? Please, let us know if there is.

      Reply ↓

    • Your analogy is somewhat flawed.

      If a drunk driver gets out on the road and someone else crosses the center line and runs into them head on, the drunk driving was not the cause of the accident.

      (of course they’re going to get charged with driving drunk anyway, but the party that crossed the center line is responsible for the wreck)

      In this (also less than perfect) analogy, Martin attacking Zimmerman (if that’s what happened) is the other car crossing the center line and Zimmerman’s equivalent of driving drunk is proof of bad judgement but is not the cause of the wreck.

      It gets down to who first laid hands on whom, and who, after that, had an opportunity to desist and retreat.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

54. No the story has a beginning. It starts there. Not at the end. The beginning is his mind frame on WHY he targeted Trayvon and considered him an Fing Ahole….in the first place.

    Reply ↓

    • Read up on the law:
      http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/24/122557/873
      http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/26/223357/828

      Reply ↓

    • @Jodi Ann -i

      That’s exactly what it sounds like to me… And probably what it sounded like to Angela Corey and Chris Serino. Zimmerman was asked what went through his mind when the dispatch told him his following services weren’t needed. He acknowledged that he had no business doing so, but did it any way, then tried to lie about his continued hunting down of that boy.

      Reply ↓

55. All that is hunky dory however, what you said would be more sufficient in reason, had Zimmerman not called for assistance with is non emergency call. With that call we KNOW what Zimmerman’s intentions were. Had he not called, we would have more reason to find reasonable doubt in regards to Trayvon being the aggressor. But because of that call we now have frame of mind to consider first with Zimmerman. We know for a fact that Zimmerman thought Trayvon was an f-ing a-hole. Did Trayvon know that? We know for a fact that Zimmerman did not want Trayvon to get away. Did Trayvon know that? Because of his phone call, they have to determine what the motive was for Zimmerman to actually pursue his intentions based on the reason why he placed Trayvon in a position to either be on the offensive side and beat him up, or on the defensive side to defend his life. Now, if had not made that damn non emergency call….you might make sense.

    Reply ↓

    • Zimmerman’s been screaming for help for years, and no one came to really help his sick arse. No, Trayvon Martin did not know what Zimmerman thought of him, but he knew he was “crazy” by his actions. Why didn’t Zimmerman’s own damn family and “friends” know?

      Reply ↓

56. Flimsy and Lie……look it up. dictionary.com

    Reply ↓

57. @Susan Simpson
    Thanks for your reply regarding voice exemplers.
    Really appreciate your input, thoughts and legal mind.
    I will be following Sandbagger and Hapufern footsteps.
    Thanks to all the EATs (Expert Argument Typists) on this blog. Most of the posters have been great in their arguments and information they have provided.
    Thanks again and Susan keep up the good work!

    Reply ↓

58. Loree –

    The link you posted to http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/author/masonblue/ was pretty fascinating. The videos were very good especially against the Robert Zimmerman retelling of the events that night.

    Personally, I think Zimmerman went further down RVC or Twin Trees and cut through one of the paths between houses (not the Tee) to head Trayvon Martin off.

    Reply ↓

    • Thanks for your comment. I thought video 5 was thought provoking. I was just thinking, I had just sent a post writing to Susan thanking her for her blog and other posters. I was going to step away from this blog when I got your post and I heard in my head the famous GodFather line, when I thought I was out they pull me back in. Its been a long day. Well anyway just wanted to acknowledge your post. Maybe when they finally release witnesses 4 7 and 10, we will exchange posts on their information , until then I need a break from some of the commentary from posters on this blog, they know who they are.
      Its been a real pleasure, Common Sense.
      Loree

      Reply ↓

      • Loree, I really wish you wouldn’t go. Between Hapufern’s departure and your own, it seems that this site is losing two of the best, clearest posters.
        I have enjoyed and respected your comments, and really was looking forward to more from you.
        I hope you’ll be back when more new information becomes available.

        Reply ↓

    • Loree –

      I’ve been reading the frederickleatherman site a little more lately. It *is a great site, imho. Thanks again for the link. Wonder if Frederick and Susan would do a joint piece on the case?

      Reply ↓

      • Yes that would be great. I do follow fredlawblog and bcclist. Bcclist has got some ace posters. Can’t wait for the new evidence to be released. Haven’t been able to follow as intently, do to working long hours. Feel funny not being able to to participate as much as I did before.

        Reply ↓

        • It is our loss when you don’t post as often!
          But, yes, thanks for that link! I really enjoy it too.

          Reply ↓

59. Peter O:
    Your attempts to ridicule and insult me are silly.

    There was no “normal voice” cry for help from Zimmerman, neither before OR after the shot.
    If you think Zimmerman really called for help in a “normal voice” before he shot Trayvon, would you please provide the proof of that.

    And where did you get the idea that he asked for help AFTER he shot Trayvon? He only asked someone to call his wife. . .didn’t even ask for anyone to call an ambulance. . .which he should have done if he really thought Trayvon was still alive.

    But this will be my last reply to your insults and your fairy tale scenarios.
    I am tired of stupidity and lies.

    In fact, I think I also will wait until some more FACTUAL information comes out. . .In the mean time, enjoy your delusions and your shrinking audience!

    Reply ↓

    • sadine, you didn’t read my post or look at Zimmerman’s walk through video.

      The 911 calls could ONLY pick up the “screams” which were loud enough to be picked up by cell phones a distance away, not any more normal statements.

      Zimmerman, in his walk through, said he both screamed (and ONLY his screams were loud enough to be picked up on the cell phones — assuming the phones were connected) and separately asked for help to persons standing by.

      He said he spoke to other persons both before the shot (to ask for help) and after the shot (to ask for help to restrain Martin who he believed was still alive). Those more normal statements would NEVER be picked up by the cell phone 911 calls. So, obviously, there is no evidence on those statements on the 911 tapes.

      That is was Zimmerman said in his walk through. What don’t you understand?

      Reply ↓

    • @Sadanie, even with the very, very little that I have contributed to this blog, I’ve read along throughout and can only say this in re: your last sentence: word!

      Reply ↓

      • @ verafish:
        Sorry verafish, but I do not understand your comment. In fact, I can’t even go back to which of MY comment you are referring to, or if you are referring to my comments in general.
        Do you care to clarify?

        Reply ↓

    • No worries, sadanie. It was this remark that made me chuckle: “In the mean time, enjoy your delusions and your shrinking audience!”

      Reply ↓

      • Thanks for answering.
        Yes, I never pretended to be a legal wizkid. . .in fact, before you joined, I explained that there seem to be plenty of “legal advise and assumptions” here, but that I was offering my OPINION, not as a professional, but as a lay person. . .the kind of person who will most likely make up the jury pool. And, if this case goes in front of a jury, my OPINION as a lay person is probably as valuable as that of the most skilled expert. . .since it is the jury who will decide the outcome of such a trial.

        And I am sad that some of the most active and logical posters have abandonned this site. . . .
        I believe that Peter O’s style of presenting what are only “scenarios,” (and very far fetched ones!) as FACTS is partially to blame for wearing out people who think logically.

        Reply ↓

60. So, PeterO, as he was fighting for his life, getting his head banged and being suffocated and fearing for his life, George then simply turned to the left and asked in a casual tone: “can you please help me?” to a man who was a distance from him and then he started screaming HELP after that? Is that what we are going with?

    Reply ↓

    • Look at his walk through and you will see what he said.

      Reply ↓

      • Zimmerman said a lot of BS during his walkthrough that contradict what he said in his interviews with Singleton and Serino.
        But most of all, he said a lot of things that contradict the forensic evidences.
        You insist in believing every word Zimmerman says, and even filling in the blanks for him and correcting what is obviously lies to try to make em “fit” in his story.
        I’ve got news for you: it’s not working!

        Reply ↓

61. I just don’t know if we are talking about the same case with you PeteO, but I just watched the walk through. In it George says: “I was screaming as loud as I could” a couple of times, especially when he is at the part where “John”, comes out. I don’t think when you are that pumped up and screaming because you are fearing for your life as someone is trying to kill you, that you would stop and consider speaking in a normal tone because someone just walked out their door. I think that would make me scream louder, just to make sure the person who just walked out is for sure aware, with no doubt, that I’m scared as hell and I do in fact need help.

    Reply ↓

62. “Or do you really think we live in a world where every time a black teenager is shot by someone than can claim to be an “upstanding member of the community,” and there is no witness to the shooting, the shooter cannot be convicted if they claim the teenager punched them first?”

    I hope you realize how much saying that has done to your credibility Susan. That was a dumb, racist, non legal, strawman. Nobody even hinted that they thought that way and you should apologize to your readers. In a courtroom, what is legal takes precedence over what is “right”.

    There is an interesting question of whether Zimmerman’s misstatements can possibly lead a judge to refuse to grant a self defense jury instruction and even if he does, could the jury use them to conclude that no theory of self defense is reasonable. Also one wonders why the probable cause affidavit didn’t harp on Zimmerman’s supposed lies and contradictions and instead cited some laughable excuses for probative evidence. Yes, there are plenty of things to discuss and analyze seriously.

    Reply ↓

63. Request for assistance?

    It’s Deja-Vu all over again, I have found video snippets of the trial but am having trouble finding the entire trial video. The media have this tendency of focusing on specific snippets that support the side they are on. I want to base my opinion of this hearing on the entire hearing, if I can find it I will break down time-stamps of major events. Any assistance would be appreciated.

    Reply ↓

    • Wasn’t able to watch the hearing — it’d be nice to get a transcript of it, but like last time I doubt they’ll release a full one.

      I did notice this article earlier, though — man, as a civil attorney, that is irritating as hell. Can’t believe someone dropped the ball so bad there that he never even had to pay it.

      Reply ↓

      • Jeralyn goes into some detail about that whole deposition and arbitration thing, and it seems there were some things left out of the news stories. (Yeah, I know, big surprise).

        http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/29/54327/9520

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • I think the TalkLeft post got changed — it was there when I clicked the link, but when I came back later to read it over lunch, most the commentary and comments were gone. Drat.

      Reply ↓

      • Jeralyn does sometimes moderate with a heavy hand as she enforces her rules.

        (so do a Save to your temp folder)

        But the site is still worth reading.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • I meant the post itself, actually — she seemed to have a longer commentary up before, it’s gone now. Oh well, I’m sure there’ll be plenty of recaps posted all over.

      Reply ↓

    • From the article Susan referred to:

      “Zimmerman ultimately won the overtime-pay dispute in arbitration, but the arbitrator hit him with a fine he apparently never paid. Nothing in the court file explained why he missed the deposition.”

      This happens all the time in civil suits. Does anyone seriously think the arbitrator went into a regular court to reduce that ‘fine’ to a judgment? If so, please provide the link. It the arbitrator (or Zimmerman opponent, WHO LOST THE ARBITRATION) did that, Zimmerman may well have had a defense.

      The arbitrator or opponent, I say apparently (until anyone shows otherwise), did not believe it worth following up, either because the ‘fine’ went overboard or recognized Zimmerman had a legitimate excuse and the ‘fine’ was not legitimate.

      That’s civil litigation for you!

      Reply ↓

    • To explain about arbitration a little more:

      Zimmerman won the arbitration.

      The usual procedure for arbitration is that the opponent, to challenge Zimmerman’s win or try to “enforce” the decision, would appeal the matter to a civil court. Only the civil court can issue a final enforceable judgment. At the time of appeal Zimmerman may very well have had a legitimate defense or reason to invalidate the fine. The opponent most likely felt it did not have a legitimate claim that would hold up to scrutiny in a civil court (otherwise who wouldn’t want 10k?) so it didn’t pursue it, or the attorney committed malpractice (which I doubt).

      Reply ↓

64. The hearing shows that one of the defense’s best assets is Prosecutor Bernardo de la Rionda. He is totally uncharismatic, doesn’t seem to know where his strongest suit is (Zimmerman is a liar) and he thinks that by shouting he is making a point. He said a number of false things like witness#6 changing his opinion that Martin was on top, a reliable witness watched Zimmerman chasing Martin, the defense claims that wearing a hoodie is proof of criminality. I tend to believe that many prosecutors got into that line of work because they struck out at being defense lawyers.

    Reply ↓

    • Not to mention that ol’ Bernie has a really annoying voice, very harsh and grating.

      unitron

      Reply ↓

    • I noticed, but did not see any videos, that Zimmerman’s father testified the screams on the 911 tape were George’s.

      Does anyone know if any of the Martins testified that the screams were Trayvon’s?

      Reply ↓

    • More huge headaches for the prosecution. It appears as if the Martins were unwilling to testify under oath that the voices on the 911 tapes were Trayvons (if anyone saw the hearing and knows otherwise please say so).

      It hurts the prosecutor’s case dramatically if not one of the Martins is willing to say under oath the screams are Trayvon’s.

      So why didn’t they testify? The reason should be obvious and is called “cross-examination.”

      Anyone testifying would immediately be asked about any recordings of Trayvon that had his voice on it existed, that would include any of Trayvon’s videos with audio. The next questions would be about where those items are and if they still exist. A whole new “kettle of fish” is now present.

      If the Martins did not testify at this key bond hearing to keep Zimmerman in jail, does anyone expect the Martin’s to testify at trial? Any ideas?

      Reply ↓

    • It’s a bond hearing. The state is not going to put on a full prosecution at a bond hearing. What gain would there be to them?

      Zimmerman likely will and probably should get bailed out, with a significantly bumped up bond amount. Putting on a full case to fight that would be weird, and result in the state tipping their hand way too early as well as wasting judicial resources.

      And for all your harping about “cross-examination,” you seem to have totally missed the part where O’Mara, somehow, thought it was a good idea to try to get his client on the stand without being cross-examined… Hilarious. O’Mara knows that in order to win this case, he needs to get Zimmerman on the stand, but he also knows the second he does that, the state is going to have a field day. He’s in a rock and a hard place with that,

      Reply ↓

    • Susan, you said:

      “[Asking the Martins if the scream was Trayvon’s] result in the state tipping their hand way too early”

      ***The world already knows the Martins said the voice is Trayvon’s so nothing to tip off. Cross would only be allowed on that limited issue. Are you saying the prosecution knows there are still undisclosed tapes/videos with Martin’s voice on them? That isn’t ‘tipping’ off its case but instead concealing obstruction of justice.

      “as well as wasting judicial resources.”

      ***this whole case is a waste of judicial resources. Since the state already knew from the tapes of the web money, and were told the brother-in-law had the current amount. This whole bond fiasco “extra expense and resources” was caused by the dishonesty of the prosecutor alone.

      “O’Mara knows that in order to win this case, he needs to get Zimmerman on the stand.”

      ***Too bad this isn’t a next day basketball game where we will know the answer immediately. I guess the spin/fiction that Zimmerman must testify at trial, in order to be found ‘not guity,’ will now keep up until trial by ‘trayvonites’ … and then immediately be forgotten after trial!

      Susan, I guess you will now claim how Casey Anthony’s testimony — so needed by her at trial to beat her murder rap (if you, similarly, are correct about Zimmerman!) — resulted in her conviction!

      Reply ↓

    • Loved the State’s prosecuting attorney at both the first bond hearing and the second. No matter how many times you shout that the State’s evidence is weak, it won’t change the fact that the State has a strong case and committed attorneys to thwart any self-defense claims grifter George Zimmerman and fam and his self-serving, publicity-seeking lawyers (past and present) try to sell to the public via media interviews.

      Reply ↓

    • Speaking of grifters, did anybody else notice how O’Mara snuck in Zimmerman’s back injury? Will this piece of information form the basis for Zimmerman’s future claim as a reason why he *can’t work* (although he hasn’t held a legitimate steady job at any time in the past with any consistency)?

      I also noticed the State asked the forensic accountant brought on by team-Zimmerman whether or not Zimmerman paid off his student loan. The answer was that he paid only the current month’s payment. But he paid off the other non-government owed debts, right? Why didn’t he pay off the taxpayers?

      Reply ↓

65. For anyone who still believes the myth the prosecutor will not present his own scenario of what happened that night, look closely at what ricky jiminez said:

    “The hearing shows that one of the defense’s best assets is Prosecutor Bernardo de la Rionda. He is totally uncharismatic, doesn’t seem to know where his strongest suit is (Zimmerman is a liar) and he thinks that by shouting he is making a point. He said a number of false things like witness#6 changing his opinion that Martin was on top, a reliable witness watched Zimmerman chasing Martin,”

    The prosecutor’s “story” for what happened that night is now, at minimum:

    — “a reliable witness watched Zimmerman chasing Martin”
    — “witness#6 changing his opinion that Martin was on top” meaning the prosecution will say/imply Zimmerman was on top (after chasing Martin, catching him and somehow forcing him to the ground).

    That, folks, is a “scenario.” A very weak one, but one none the less. In short, “Zimmerman chasing Martin” then Zimmerman on top of Martin then, of course, Zimmerman shoots Martin for no reason and with a depraved intent.

    Presumably, the prosecution will flesh the above out in much more credible detail. If not, give Zimmerman the keys out right now.

    Reply ↓

    • How O’Mara summed up the defense at the bond hearing:

      “O’Mara said, “he got shot, and he got killed because of his own doing.””

      Reply ↓

66. I watched the hearing from the beginning to the end. And I enjoyed it. MO’M DID NOT DO WEL – and I will tell you why. Here is prat 1. MO’M called to the stand a financial forensic expert to account for the ins-and-out of GZ finances. The prosecution was able to use the same witness to establish (a) that GZ and SZ knew they had a huge amount of money in GZ’s account before the first bond-hearing; (b) that GZ and SZ conspired to empty GZ’s account by transferring large sums of money to both SZ’s account and the sister of GZ; (c) that during the course of the said transfers, GZ and SZ made efforts to keep their head below the radar of IRS, etc. (by transferring amounts below 10.000. USD at a time); (d) that the purpose of the said transfers was to hide the money from third parties; (e) that GZ and SZ were “untruthful” to the court when they informed the court that they were financially wretched (MO’M admitted that very clearly). After this testimony, I started scratching my head as to why MO’M would even bother putting this guy on the stand – wasting money and energy. What did de defense gain from the testimony of this financial forensic experts except that it is now written in stone that SZ committed perjury and mislead the court; that GZ conspired with her to do so and that possibly other federal crimes may have been committed. Stay tuned.

    Reply ↓

    • He had to in order to show that Zimmerman didn’t have any further funds hidden from the court. It sucked for the defense for all the reasons you mentioned, but there was no way around it if Zimmerman wanted a shot at bond.

      Reply ↓

    • Part 2: other things that emerged during the hearing are the following: (f) GZ did not take the stand; (g) MO’M introduced a photo of the bleeding head of GZ after the killing of TM; (h) GZ did not suffer any concussion during/after the struggle with TM; (i) the injuries sustained by GZ are not consistent with his claim that his head was being bashed on a concrete over and over again; (j) GZ went to his family doctor only after his employer asked him to get a medical clearance; (K) (confirming what Susan said in her earlier postings) the claim of self-defense is of affirmative nature. In order to put forward that defense, GZ MUST take the stand to do that; (l) MO’M mumbled out (and I literarily mean mumbled out) that GZ may indeed have to take the stand to put forward and lay-out his self-defense claim; (m) MO’M introduced the result of the lie-detector test passed by GZ; (n) prosecution asked the court to declear the said test inadmissible; (o) MO’M introduced the CCTV picture of TM taken on the night of his death “show how big he (TM) is” and ‘to counter other images of TM “that have been put out there” (i.e. circulating in the media), at wich point the judge reminded him that such is not the goal of introducing any material into evidence. Stay tuned, analysis of MO’M performance, etc., yet to come….

      Reply ↓

      • Great summary! Succinct and clear.
        Thank you Intel!

        Reply ↓

    • MO’M mumbled out (and I literarily mean mumbled out) that GZ may indeed have to take the stand to put forward and lay-out his self-defense claim

      Yowch. I missed that part. Must’ve been unpleasant for O’Mara to concede that so soon.

      And as an entirely separate matter from this specific case, I really detest that law enforcement in this country actually uses voice stress analysis “lie-detectors” for anything, ever. They are snake oil, no better at detecting lies than the bogus “bomb detectors” like the GT-200 are at detecting bombs.

      Reply ↓

    • Not much point to responding to Intel’s legal “analysis.”

      He should go on ABC News with it.

      I also guess, based on that analysis, that Zimmerman will not get bond.

      I also guess, based on that analysis, that when Zimmerman is not bonded the “strong case” prior ruling (based solely on evidence presented at the 1st bond hearing — assuming the law was followed) will STILL be quoted by the “talking heads” as proving Zimmerman is guilty.

      I will comment on susan’s statement:
      ” MO’M mumbled out (and I literarily mean mumbled out) that GZ may indeed have to take the stand to put forward and lay-out his self-defense claim

      Yowch. I missed that part. Must’ve been unpleasant for O’Mara to concede that so soon.”

      ***the prosecutor now has great comfort from the above!.

      After all, O’Mara just screwed up and told the world Zimmerman will testify! And the prosecutor also knows that Susan says Zimmerman “must” testify to be found ‘not guilty”!!

      Such a relief to the prosecutor are these pronouncements!

      When he is wasting enormous effort to: counteract the now “known fact” that Zimmerman will, after all, testify!

      Which, of course, means the prosecutor must now spend great effort to tailor his case (which is put on FIRST at trial) with the “known fact” Zimmerman will testify, in mind! And, must also spend great effort planning how to “destroy” Zimmerman on cross-examination!

      Reply ↓

67. I don’t think Zimmerman’s attorney did an all around horrible job, necessarily, but some of his decisions are completely cringe-inducing. Especially the argument O’Mara kept making that ‘Zimmerman didn’t know that lying to the court was wrong because he’s only 28’ defense. O’Mara blamed Zimmerman’s lying on “the lack of trust he may have had for a system that he only got involved in by being honest and straightforward. I don’t know what goes through a 28-year-old’s mind at that point. Yeah, he mistrusted you, he mistrusted the system, he allowed a lie to exist.”

    As a 26 year old, the idea of attempting to excuse myself for, well, just about anything, based on my age, is laughable. I don’t understand how O’Mara could have thought bringing Zimmerman’s judgment into question as a defense to perjury is a good idea — when Zimmerman’s entire defense is that his killing of another human being was a reasonable and justifiable decision. And doubly so when his victim was a 17 year old, whom O’Mara argued “was killed because of his own doing.”

    Reply ↓

    • Part 3: Susan I completely agree with your analysis. I was scratching my head when MO’M was making that ‘a-28-years-old-argument’. That argument reveals to me a level of ‘chutzpah’ that can be construed as being disingenuous/dishonest and that is rarely seen in someone of the caliber of MO’M. MO’M should have – in my humble opinion – stoped at admitting that GZ was wrong in misleading the court; that GZ is only but human and GZ begs the forgiveness of the court. Trying to rationalize an admitted willfully carried out wrongdoing with ‘a-28-years-old-argument’ comes across as cocky and not repentant.

      Anyhow, this is part 3 of what happened during the hearing yesterday: during the hearing it emerged that the prosecution has a witness who saw GZ pursuing TM. During the first bond-hearing, the prosecution also made this claim! This his HUGE. And I do not think the prosecution was/is bluffing in this regard – knowing the damage that would be done to their case if this claim is/turns out to be false. RickyJ. Seems to suggest that the prosecution is being untruthful. I wonder what Susan thinks of this.

      Reply ↓

    • see my post: June 30, 2012 at 2:44 pm. Ditto.

      Intel also said: “RickyJ. Seems to suggest that the prosecution is being untruthful. I wonder what Susan thinks of this.:

      ***So do I.

      Reply ↓

    • I have disliked and distrusted O’Mara since his early interviews where he fell back on ‘I don’t know the facts yet’ yet type answers all over the media. If you don’t know the facts yet, perhaps you should decline a few media interview requests and get to work on obtaining the facts!

      I also found it very telling that O’Mara was submitting evidence of a recent picture of Trayvon Martin via the 7-11 video as a means to counter the younger pictures the Pro-Zimmerman supporters keep complaining about. That move by O’Mara only solidifies my initial view of him as a self-serving media hog with a propensity towards “ambulance chasing” if that’ll get him paid. He’s perhaps better than Sonner and crew, but cut from the same cloth, imo.

      I loved the judges admonishment of him for that. Speaking of gentle treatment, I think Judge Lester is getting tired of having to coddle and coach O’Mara.

      Reply ↓

    • @Susan –

      ” Especially the argument O’Mara kept making that ‘Zimmerman didn’t know that lying to the court was wrong because he’s only 28′ defense.”

      I think his argument was way off base and is designed to appeal to the older southern set. I think O’Mara knows where his donations are coming from and is making sure he appeals to them.

      To them, a 28 year old jewish-white-hispanic with a conceal/carry permit is a baby, but a 2-3 weeks past 16 year old black teen without a drivers license is a great big old grown man that is to be feared due to his *animal strength and ferociousness. IOW, only Zimmerman is human to them and either that’s what O’Mara also believes or he’s appealing to those that believe propaganda like that.

      I am in no way saying that all old people in the south are racists/bigots. I know that isn’t the case. But I also know that almost all of the pro-zimmerman sites rely on ignorant arguments and made-up bull to justify their reasons for justifying George’s “doing what he did” in his daddy’s own words and deserving of his own death in O’Mara’s own words before the court.

      Reply ↓

68. The “witness who saw GZ pursuing TM” is long discredited Witness#2, the lady who just had taken her contacts off and later recanted her account to say she only saw one shadow running. Check out Jeralyn’s blog, yesterday where this was all hashed out again. http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/29/54327/9520 . In particular, look at posting with links #69 by Tom McGuire, who by the way, has his own blog, http://justoneminute.typepad.com/

    You may be right that O’Mara isn’t all that good but can you, a prosecution fan, be happy about de la Rionda’s performance?

    Reply ↓

    • Ricky, during the hearing MO’M did not suggest that the witness in question is witness#2. MO’M infact said that the prosecution was referring to a witness that is yet to be revealed to him in the coming discoveries. Maybe MO’M was being sarcastic. I do not know. Maybe Susan can weigh in on this.

      Besides: I do not trust “Jeralyn” as her arguments are goal-driven, nor do I think that “Jeralyn” has the intellectual elan to be regarded as any kind of authority in legal matters (and many of her analysis are intrinsically inconsisten). All men and women who consider the LAW as their religion and the only savior of mankind, are always seeking the truth and to protect and defend they who cannot do such for themselves. This does not make me or any other person on this site ‘friends of the prosecution’ as you suggest. When the prosecution is on the wrong side of the law, we will all be there breathing down their neck to do what is right. In the present case GZ saw (in the words of GZ) a “kid”, who according to GZ is black. That kid was walking leisurely, “looking at all the houses and stuff”. GZ found that black kid suspicious and “really up to no good” because black teenagers (in the words of GZ: “these Fucking assholes”) have been responsible for a lot of break-ins in that neighborhood and ‘always get away with it’. GZ follows that “kid”. Minutes later that “kid” is dead with a bullet right through is heart. GZ claims self-defense. Up till now I cannot point to anything TM did wrong and neither can you. On the other hand one can pinpoint numerous errors committed by GZ that strongly suggest that GZ is being untruthful and may have murdered TM in cold blood or after losing the fight to detain TM (who to his surprise was far stronger than hemzelf). Good men and women are obliged to get to the bottom of this and squeeze GZ really hard in the process. If he indeed is innocent, I will be the first to vote for acquittal and full compensation. “Jeralyn” is not doing this. On the contrary, she comes across as ideologically driven and acts in a repugnant way like someone who has a dog in the fight – in the most blind way.

      Reply ↓

    • @Intel –

      I agree 100% with everything you just said. Even if Trayvon Martin whacked Zimmerman real hard across the face (which I’ve seen zero evidence of), Zimmerman was the aggressor and I dare any parent to stand up and say that their own child should not eventually fight off a predator with every ounce of force they can muster.

      Reply ↓

    • @Ricky Jimenez –

      Isn’t she also the same witness that estimated about 10 feet between the two people running? We already know was chasing Trayvon Martin once as he admitted to “following” on his police dispatch call as he covered more ground (per his own statement) than could be covered at a walk-speed.

      Since Zimmerman chased Trayvon Martin once and there’s evidence of it, why is it so hard to believe Zimmerman chased Trayvon Martin again once he re-discovered his location?

      The 9-1-1 calls had not been released when witness #2 made her statements about chasing. How would she know she was providing corroborating evidence of Zimmerman’s behavior?

      Reply ↓

    • Intel said:

      “All men and women who consider the LAW as their religion and the only savior of mankind, are always seeking the truth and to protect and defend they who cannot do such for themselves. ”

      What ARE you talking about, Intel?

      Are you telling us this is YOU?

      Susan, is ‘Intel’ REALLY your “go to” legal analyst?

      Reply ↓

    • PeterO. starting from Aristotle’s through to Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacque Rousseau, etc. the whole concept and practice of LAW has been about the PROTECTION of life, property and liberty (i.e. the fundamental rights of man (as embodied in the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, divers international human rights conventions, etc.). To archive these goals the STATE was instituted (the Leviathan according to Hobbes) and invested with monopoly of powers which we (the governed) relinquished upon the institution of the state. Lawyers I know that have strong background in the Philosophy of Law tend to think that humanity will be doomed without the LAW (think about it for a moment, without getting into the quetion: “what is the law?”). With the LAW however, we are able to protect ourselves, our lives, properties and freedoms from our fellow men/women and from the state, and maintain order, peace and tranquility in our society. In this sense I meant that I consider the LAW as my religion and the only savior of mankind. It was not meant to be taken literarily (by you PeterO). I thought, honestly, that you are smarter than that. I hope I have not mis-calibrated you. The law is not just civil/private- criminal and public. It’s much, much, much more than that as the sturdy of the Philosophy of Law would have revealed to you, PeterO. Proper study of that aspect of the Law will tell you that the LAW, indeed, is the only savior of mankind.

      Reply ↓

    • Intel, unfortunately, I was afraid of a ranting like your above post, I should have said nothing.

      Reply ↓

    • CSFC,

      She was the witness who was interviewed by Serino outside – and said that she was downstairs cooking saw two figures and then saw a fight. Serino came back a couple of minutes later and asked her to estimate the distance based on him standing apart from her.

      A half hour later, her sister, W2, was being interviewed by Serino. He asked about whether W1 was her sister – and she says “yeah, but she was upstairs”. W2 had been downstairs in the kitchen, heard noises, gone to her patio door, saw fighting and saw John in his patio door telling the fighters he was going to call police. She appears to have thought he was a cranky neighbor and gone back to cooking when she heard the shot.

      The next time W1 was interviewed she was upstairs, had her contacts out, and had only gone into the back bedroom (not hers), had laid something on a chair, and glanced out the window. She had then walked back toward the front of the house, talked to here daughter, for a second when she heard a noise which she thought was either her sister dropping something, or the doggie door that keeps the dog from coming upstairs had fallen down. Her sister then came upstairs and said that she though someone had been shot.

      W1 estimates based on what she had done after glancing out the window (without her contacts, while putting something on a chair) it was 15 seconds before she heard the shot.

      Reply ↓

    • “Jeralyn” is not doing this. On the contrary, she comes across as ideologically driven and acts in a repugnant way like someone who has a dog in the fight – in the most blind way.

      But Jeralyn does have a dog in the fight — she’s a criminal defense attorney.

      There’s a reason I don’t blog about the kinds of legal matters that I deal with professionally. It’s not that I couldn’t give my own candid views on those topics if I wanted to, but it would be… well, awkward, to take one position in a blog post, and then wind up being forced to make the opposite argument while advocating on a client’s behalf.

      Jeralyn probably always has her potential client base in mind while writing about the handling of Zimmerman’s case. It’s not that her reasoning or legal analysis has been faulty, from what I’ve seen, but it is pretty clearly skewed and given from a purely defense attorney-based perspective. Those are the same arguments she’d make on behalf of her clients, even knowing she’s likely not going to win, or at least not win everything, on most of those claims.

      Reply ↓

69. Part 4: RZ also testified during the bond hearing. The crux of his testimony is the following: the voice yelling for help on the 911-tape is GZ’s; he (RZ) reviewed the tape more than once but had to listen to it again with a headphone after which he decided it had to be GZ’s voice yelling for help; yelling for help and having someone’s hands placed on your mouth and nose to suffocate and or block vocalization are not mutually exclusive (because – according to RZ – TM did not all the time have his hands in the mouth and nose of GZ). However RZ have not yet explained why not even a drop of saliva and/or blood of GZ was transferred to TM during that process (in which “45%” of GZ’s face was supposedly covered with blood according to the firefighter who also testified). Maybe PeterO. can enlighten me on this subject.

    Reply ↓

    • Rain.
      Wet grass rubbing off traces.
      Wasn’t only DNA from under Martin’s fingernails taken?

      Does anyone know the answer to the above question or if Martin’s PALMS were tested DNA or blood?

      Answers to the above might be interesting, but not conclusive. Let the experts argue the issue at trial.

      A large problem for the prosecution is that:

      1. if Zimmerman really was on top of Martin on the sidewalk and attacking him, then there would be some bruises on Martin’s face and/or the back of his head. Martin’s own family mortician repeatedly said there was NOT A SINGLE MARK ON MARTIN.

      2. The body would have ended up on the sidewalk, not many feet away. This is because Zimmerman would have known he hadn’t missed a deliberate point blank shot he and would simply have kept Martin down while he died and/or fired again. The body ending up a distance from the sidewalk destroys the prosecutor’s contention Zimmerman was on top.

      3. The shot angle would have been angled upwards, not straight, since Zimmerman would have perpendicular to Martin while straddling him, and leaned away from Martin when firing as Martin lay on the ground to keep Martin from grabbing the gun, for better control of the shot and for greater accuracy in shot placement.

      The flat shot angle happened when Martin (while straddling Zimmerman) was leaning over and very close to Zimmerman and was reaching for the gun, so the shot angle was flat.

      Reply ↓

    • The best part of Robert Zimmerman’s testimony was when during the cross, the DeLarionda asked him when he’d heard George Zimmerman making similar screams like the ones heard on the 9-1-1 call. Robert Zimmerman said it was when George lived with him in Virginia (which translates to when George Zimmerman was in his teens).

      Reply ↓

    • @Intel –

      “he (RZ) reviewed the tape more than once but had to listen to it again with a headphone after which he decided it had to be GZ’s voice yelling for help”

      That, too, caught my attention. Media reports were that it was Trayvon’s parents that couldn’t first identify the screams. As it turns out, it was Zimmerman’s father that had to have a re-listen to the tapes before deciding it sounded like his son when his son was in his teens.

      Reply ↓

70. It should be very encouraging that ‘Intel’ now appears one of Susan’s primary sources for “legal” analysis!

    ABC News also needs ‘Intel’s’ legal expertise … right now! So does the prosecutor! How about Nancy Grace, too?!

    Reply ↓

    • What’s even more telling is that the silly site you and other pro-zimmerman supporters rely on had two full posts of rumored non-sense (presumably originating from the conservative tree-house) proclaiming ABC’s Matt Gutman was off the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case and had been sent overseas because of some tweet about Serino.

      In addition to some fancy pageant-walking, that had to be some of the most impressive fancy-lawyering and presenting of the ‘facts’ over there, huh?

      Here’s a link to Matt’s report after his exile status (per pro-Zimmerman sites):

      http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-dad-testifies-voice-howling-son/story?id=16672554

      By MATT GUTMAN (@mattgutmanABC)
      SANFORD, Fla. June 29, 2012
      George Zimmerman’s father listened to frantic howls for help overheard in a 911 call today..

      Reply ↓

    • CSFC, you left out this part of the article that says:

      “The parents of Trayvon Martin insist that the voice calling for help that their son.”

      Really? I didn’t see either testify under oath. Nor do I expect them to. Ever.

      Tracy Martin already gave his statement to police (the one that counts) that the voice, unequivocally, was NOT Trayvon’s

      The Martins’ testifying was not an issue of the prosecutor “tipping off its hand,” since the article already does that. And the many videos and other voice samples of Trayvon have yet to be produced. Where are they? Have they already been destroyed, raising the specter of obstruction of justice? If so, no wonder the Martins will never testify the voice is Trayvon’s.

      ABC News, once they aired DeeDee’s bizarre and fictitious stories, aired the “police tapes that showed no harm to Zimmerman tapes (grainy with the ABC logo blocking the back of the head off), aired the carefully fed Serino “tips” (is he back from night patrol yet?), and now may be interviewing ‘Intel’ as its legal analyst, has lost all credibility. And the public, in polls, now believes Zimmerman acted in self defense.

      Reply ↓

      • Peter O, you say: “Tracy Martin already gave his statement to police (the one that counts) that the voice, unequivocally, was NOT Trayvon’s ” and this is (once again) an absolute over reach!
        Tracy Martin first listened to the tape when he had just discovered his son was dead. Unlike R. Zimmerman Sr., he didn’t have the time to process information, and he didn’t have a chance to talk to his son and be told by his son that he cried for help when he realized that the creepy old guy had a gun!. At first Tracy Martin was not certain if it was Trayvon’s voice, so he said he didn’t think so. . .he NEVER UNEQUIVOCALLY said it was not. And as soon as Trayvon’s mother heard the tape, she started crying and stated it WAS Martin’s voice!

        Can you explain how Zimmerman’s voice could be so clear in “crying for help” when he was being “smothered” by Trayvon? Can you explain why the voice crying for help suddenly stopped with the gun shot?

        NO. . .you can’t. And there are NO WITNESS that say it was Zimmerman calling for help. . .only Zimmerman himself, and his father. . .because he was told by Zimmerman that he was crying for help!

        Stop spreading lies. They will not get to court, and your efforts to turn public opinion into zombies for Zimmerman are NOT very successful! In fact, they are convincing me more than ever that Zimmerman and his lawyer are both snake, and I bet that some of that “defense fund” is now going to pay people like you to spread propaganda in an effort to boost Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. It will not work.

        And. . .if you were that convince that Zimmerman has a “rosy future” and that his self-defense claim will be validated by a jury. .. why are you so intent in spreading that propaganda, especially the part that are easily verifiable and totally illogical?

        I do not believe you are fooling a lot of people. . .and Zimmerman certainly isn’t!

        Reply ↓

    • PeterO. I really want us to have good discussions on this site. We both agree that ad hominem jabs will not aid in that regard. I appreciate your very energetic input in the discussions. I do think you have enormous power of imagination and fantasy. A good trial-attorney is in my humble opinion one who, not being present at a particular occurrence, is able to visualize the same occurrence, fill-in the blanks and put together a coherent chain of events that is plausible and in harmony with our general experience as humans. I think you have frantically tried to do this for GZ (and I appreciate you accept you are not trying to be impartial in that regard). However, here are the dilemmas I think you face: if everything you have stated are to be accepted as “what happened”, the narratives of GZ regarding “what happened” must by logical necessity be thrown out because of mutual exclusivity of both (the way you fill-in the blanks for GZ is not in harmony with GZ’s account but contradictory to it). If on the other hand the narrative of GZ regarding “what happened” is accepted, your account of “what happened” does not make sense. Above all it is imperatively clear that “what happened” according to GZ is in conflict not only in itself but also with the laws of time and space, and exists in different versions that compete with one another. At trial the prosecution will NOT be required to produce an alternative version of “what happened” to beyond reasonable doubt debunk GZ’s claims of self-defense. All the prosecution has to do is to lure GZ to the stand and IMPEACH him right there!

      I think you should worry more about the above than why the parents of TM did not testify at the bond-hearing (even though there is absolutely no need for them to testify, given (a) the trial has not started, (b) they have already testified and their testimony is part of the current body of evidence (c) they will testify again at the trial, (d) there is not a shred of evidence suggesting that they “are unwilling to testify” as you claim.

      I also think you should not dwell on the absence of a recorded voice of TM which can be compared with the 911-tape – because the said absence is not rare (at age 30 I do not have any recordings of myself!) and there is nothing to gain by GZ by dwelling on that topic. On the contrary, dwelling on that will definitely hurt GZ. For if I understand you very well, a recorded voice sample of TM should be compared to the 911-tape to determine if it was TM yelling for help. This implies that you do recognize that there are experts who can make such determination. Well then, two independent experts have already used samples provided by GZ (in his 911-call) to rule him out as the one beckoning for help on a different 911-tape. GZ also provided voice samples to the investigators for the purpose of aforementioned comparison. Guess what, GZ could not produce any sound comparable to the voice yelling for help. According to an MSNBC-reporter, sounds produced by GZ sounded “like a dog backing”! As a result, I went and listened to the tape myself. I advise you to do same. One could reasonably conclude that it must have been TM yelling (if you exclude GZ you are left with TM as the only possible source of that voice yelling for help).

      I am not any kind of “to-go-analyst” for anyone. Susan is a senior lawyer (and she has been called to the bar even while I was still in the early stages of my LL.B-degree) whom I have never met, never spoken to, never seen before and do not even know if she is white, black, Hispanic, Chinese, etc. I read her blog and concluded that she does have an enormous intellectual power and is committed to the LAW. I also think that participants on this site (incl. you PeterO.) are very smart, well informed and civilized individuals who seriously engage one another without any attempt and/or intent to demean, diminish, etc. one another of trample on (the memory of) the dead. That’s why I neglect my work sometimes to hang out on this site! I am just a participant as yourself, PeterO., and do not understand why u state/suggest otherwise.

      Reply ↓

      • Thank you for a very kind and “diplomatic” message.

        Reply ↓

71. DNA results are in the evidence dump PDF file, http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/Zimmerman_Discovery.pdf , on pages 104 to 116. I don’t see anything about a test of Martin’s palms. Fingernail scrapings from both of Martin’s hands were tested as well as the cuffs of his hoodie jacket and no DNA foreign to Martin was found.

    I don’t conclude from the above that it is unreasonable to think that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear for his life and couldn’t escape while he was down on John’s lawn/sidewalk. I think many of the posters here are expressing how pissed off they are about that being the standard of proof to defeat self defense in the USA so they propose new criteria based on Zimmerman leaving his van. Tough!!! I am pissed that in the US an elected prosecutor can indict somebody for second degree murder without the evidence of probable cause being critically reviewed by an independent judge.

    Reply ↓

    • My state has instituted laws to protect it’s citizens from prosecutors, and we have discovered a loophole in those protections. We will be recommending that our State Legislature mandate a Grand Jury review prior to an arrest in a Self Defense case. If Zimmerman or anyone else is involved in a Self Defense shooting and the Prosecutor arrests them without Probable Cause then the damage has been done, going to them afterward saying “Sorry, My Bad” if they are found not-guilty is no where near good enough, if Zimmerman is found not-guilty do you really think Angela Corey can compensate him for what she has put him through with this mess. More simply put if she can violate his rights as a FL citizen by manipulating evidence in a PC Affidavit, then she can violate any of our rights.

      Dershowits is claiming the Probable Cause Affidavit is bad because it omits exculpatory information, I am far more angry about the actual falsehoods in it as I have shown and you can verify in my earlier post, “The police dispatcher informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer.” You all have access to both a transcript and audio of the NEN call to verify this. Sanford decided they did not have PC to arrest, and she had to present false information about what Zimmerman was told in the NEN call to convince Judge Reckslider to allow her to arrest. This should scare anyone that believes in the rule of Law.

      Reply ↓

    • Inspector, it was Judge Mark Herr, not Judge Reckslider, who signed the affidavit on April 12. There is no information available that he actually read it. In most of the civilized world, such a document can only come from the judge who was in charge of the investigation. Only after the judge indicts, does the prosecutor come into the case. No country has Grand Juries any more, except the US, but its better to have one than just a prosecutor’s whim.

      Reply ↓

    • Regarding the flimsy fiction of “no blood on Martin” to “disprove” Zimmerman thought, for a time, he was being “smothered.”:

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trayvon-martin-autospy-report-indicates-struggle/2012/05/17/gIQAxw6HXU_story.html

      The Washington Post, on the autopsy results, said above: “The information includes laboratory reports that show Martin’s blood had traces of THC …. Toxicology reports also found blood under Martin’s fingernails, Zimmerman’s blood on Martin’s sweatshirt and Martin’s blood on Zimmerman’s red jacket.”

      I understand Zimmerman’s blood was found on Martin’s hoodie sleeve. In the dark, Zimmerman could easily have mistaken a forearm over his mouth — since his nose was already broken and he likely could not breath through it — as a “smothering” action by Martin during the heat of the life and death struggle. Moreover, since Martin’s palms were not tested, it was raining and nose bleeding at time may well have been minimal or not started yet, what does this red herring get the prosecution? Nothing.

      The prosecution’s theory seems to be it has “reliable” witnesses that it was Zimmerman was on top of Martin and who was “chasing” Martin. The premise that Zimmerman “was on top” is silly, as I posted previously:

      — Martin had no marks anywhere on his body, including his face and head (front and back) [except for a finger] so Zimmerman clearly was NOT “winning” and doing nothing while purportedly on top;

      — the angle of the shot and powder burns means the bodies were very close at the time of the shot and near parallel where Zimmerman would have been more perpendicular if purportedly on top and the shot thereby angled upwards;

      — the body would have remained on the path because Zimmerman would have known he hit Martin directly and could have easily just fired another shot or held Martin down until he died (using the assumption is that Zimmerman dominated the struggle in purportedly getting on top, no more “struggling” was needed or possible since Zimmerman would have been in “complete control” after the shot).

      Reply ↓

72. Susan, I have watched the raw reenactment video, http://www.wtsp.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1700798094001 , and cannot find the spot, you mentioned, where Zimmerman inadvertently reaches for his gun while saying he is reaching for his cellphone. At about 10:25 into the video, when he describes trying to find his cellphone, you can only see the top of Zimmerman’s shoulders.

    Reply ↓

    • If you want to see how Zimmerman reaches for his cellphone, but makes a motion like he’s reaching for his gun, take a look at the 30:40 mark here:

      Reply ↓

73. Just thought I would stop by and post the link to the two and a half hour audio to the hearing. I watched it live but there is no video of it. Someone should think about being the person that records these live and post the video in the future. I would do it, however I just don’t have time anymore.

    Enjoy

    Cheers,

    Reply ↓

    • Sandbagger, found this maybe this will also help this site. Has video but it is not the full 2.5 hours.

      Reply ↓

    • Just passing by also.

      Reply ↓

      • Thank You Loree. I hope next time you do more than “pass by!” I miss you clear logic here.

        Reply ↓

    • Thanks,
      I have been looking for something like this, when I get off I will try to mark the different sections for everyone.

      Insp. G

      Reply ↓

74. All Times are referenced from this Video http://youtu.be/UjX0bQR5INg OM =O’Mara, BR = Bernie De La Rionda, MC = Magill (Accountant), JL = Judge Lester, MSM = Main Stream Media Lawyers.

    0:00 OM is talking about Witness #9 and jail calls.

    2:23 BR about Witness #9 and jail calls.

    3:41 MSM about Witness #9 and jail calls.

    5:50 MSM about Bent issue on Jailhouse calls (Interesting legal question about Jail Calls and Discovery).

    7:39 MSM Orlando Sentinel specific about Bent issue.

    9:58 OM rebuttal to MSM

    11:17 Media portion complete

    11:18 OM starts case for bond, (Fair Warning this needs an accountant to understand the legalities of any of the transfers.)

    13:29 OM calls MC, MC describes his position and information he was hired to analyze.

    16:30 OM starts questioning MC about accounts.

    18:50 MC PayPal rules restrict funds transfers to less than $10,000

    20:00 MC all funds accounted for, attempts to transfer more than $10,000 were cancelled by PayPal due to transfer rules.

    25:40 OM completes questioning of MC

    25:50 BR starts cross of MC

    27:30 BR asks about Zimmerman’s sisters accounts and goes into nauseating detail about transfers and days.

    45:40 OM questions MC.

    53:10 BR questions MC

    56:05 OM Moves GZ audio and video evidence in

    1:00:34 Video where George talks about injuries

    1:03:38 OM continues entering evidence regarding George’s injuries

    1:07:46 Kevin O’Rourke EMT on George’s injuries

    1:14:00 BR questions O’Rourke

    1:17:00 BR questions O’Rourke about Martin

    1:21:15 OM enters George’s medical records

    1:24:48 OM tries to enter lie detector results

    1:26:44 OM Enters Witness Statements #6, #11 and #20

    1:37:20 OM Enters Trayvon’s Medical Examiner’s Report

    1:38:30 OM Enters 711 Video Photo’s

    1:39:21 Adam Vincent Probation Officer

    1:44:10 OM Presents and Enters 911 Call with yells

    1:51:49 OM calls George’s dad to testify

    1:54:54 BR questions George’s dad

    1:57:54 OM Addresses bond issue, tries to get judge to allow George to address the court without being cross examined

    2:03:02 OM Arguments

    2:17:30 BR Arguments

    Reply ↓

75. 2:18:30 BR “The non emergency call they told him to back off or to get back, he didn’t he runs after this person to take him down. Our contention is that he is the aggressor that the person that actually has self defense is Trayvon Martin.”

    They are sticking with the “they told him to back off or to get back”, no they did not. The Prosecution appears to be loosely basing this on time 2:23 to time 2:29, the rest of the conversations are about where to meet them if he still want’s to meet them. I have no doubt that there will be written into future Standard Dispatcher Terminology to tell people to wait for police but this dispatcher did not do that.

    # 1:30 PD: “Yeah we’ve got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.”

    —–

    # 2:23 PD: “Are you following him?”

    # 2:25 GZ: “Yeah”

    # 2:26 PD: “Ok, we don’t need you to do that.”

    # 2:29 GZ: “Ok”

    —–

    # 2:53 PD: “Alright George we do have them on the way, do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?”

    Reply ↓

    • An order can be given in multiple different ways. What matters is not necessarily the way a specific order was given, but how it is reasonably meant to be understood (in the abstract) and it was actually understood in a specific case. As such what matters here are not de specific wordings of what GZ was told but what he should have understood from what he was told and what he actually understood. GZ accepted in his statements ‘that he was told not to follow TM and he said ok’. I therefore do not understand what point you are making and its’ relevance.

      With regard to the probable cause affidavit, I would like to mention that we have already been there and discussed the matter at length. It is more than clear that the said affidavit meets the legal standard under Florida law. Above all, the judge has stated that “the evidence of the state is strong”. Once again, I do not understand what point you are making and its’ relevance. Maybe you can illuminate a little more – if you see any need in doing so.

      Reply ↓

      • Leaving aside the question of whether what a dispatcher says rises to the level of being an actual order, the dispatcher told Zimmerman they didn’t need for him to be following Martin, but never said anything about returning to his vehicle.

        You can accuse him, as I have, of displaying very poor judgement in not returning to his vehicle, but if, after 26 seconds of running, he remains on foot but stationary, probably at the “T” intersection of sidewalks, until he finishes his call, and then walks over to Retreat View Circle for that all-important address and then starts back towards his vehicle, he cannot be said to have continued to have followed Martin.

        Unless Martin happened to have stood there waiting for him to finish the call and then walked ahead of him to RVC and then ahead of him back to the “T”.

        But if Martin was out of his sight when he quit running and remained so until Zimmmerman went over to RVC and came back as far as the “T”, then Zimmerman cannot be said to have continued to have followed him, therefore he was not in non-compliance with any “order”.

        In non-compliance with being smart? Oh, yeah, big time.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • @onlyiamunitron
      on July 2, 2012 at 4:37 am said:

      “Leaving aside the question of whether what a dispatcher says rises to the level of being an actual order, the dispatcher told Zimmerman they didn’t need for him to be following Martin, but never said anything about returning to his vehicle.

      You can accuse him, as I have, of displaying very poor judgement”

      Hold on. In Zimmerman’s statements to the police, this *non-order has been perverted into an *order to go get an address and find out where Martin was going? Zimmerman’s actual words in his interrogation video of 2/27/12 at the 26:48 mark:

      “I lost visual contact. Um, the operator asked me if I could get to somewhere where I could see or at least give them a direction of where he was headed.”

      This is well past poor judgement. Zimmerman’s lying.

      Notice, too, in that same segment of the video that Zimmerman said he profiled Martin based on Neighborhood Watch program guidelines. Yet another lie!

      Reply ↓

      • CSFC, I wasn’t answering you, I was answering Intel’s post, apparently in response to Gadget, about “orders” where he/she doesn’t appear to understand that Gadget is challenging Bernie’s misunderstanding of what the dispatcher said.

        So I wasn’t really talking about Zimmerman’s interpretation or misinterpretation of what the dispatcher said, but Bernie’s and Intel’s.

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • @Intel
      on July 2, 2012 at 4:13 am said:
      “GZ accepted in his statements ‘that he was told not to follow TM and he said ok’.”

      Well said. Zimmerman was also asked by Serino in one of the interviews what was going through his head at that moment. He acknowledged that he understood and said that the dispatcher was correct.

      Reply ↓

    • Right from the get-go, even before getting into what was said on the NEN call, The Telecommunications Call Taker (Dispatcher) cannot give orders, he cannot order someone to keep him informed, he cannot order someone to stop following, he cannot order someone to return to their vehicle and wait. According to his bosses he is just a Telecommunications Call Taker and from the phrasing in his call he is aware of this fact, he never phrased anything as an order merely as a suggestion i.e. “Ok, we don’t need you to do that.”.

      The following is from City Manager Bonaparte’s statement
      —–
      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.
      —–
      I am challenging the Prosecutions misrepresentation of the NEN phone call. There was never as order given to wait or return to the truck nor could the Dispatcher legally give such an order. Yet they reference it over and over. What was said isn’t even in debate since we have full access to the NEN call. The prosecution is dressing this as he was ordered not to follow. This entire train of thought accuses Zimmerman of not complying with an order that was never given by a person that could not give an order, with the goal of demonstrating Probable Cause to make an arrest. And from the sound of BDLR’s closing argument they will be pursuing this same train of thought at trial.

      Now that this has been officially given to Judge Lester as evidence in this case, he has to make a decision on where to go from here, not just about the bond issue but about the trial in general.

      Reply ↓

    • Without addressing whether the dispatcher had the legal authority to instruct Zimmerman or not, I just want to say this: Isn’t it interesting that the very people who would claim the dispatcher did *not* have the authority to order Zimmerman to stop following Trayvon then turn around and claim that Martin “had” to get an address for this very same dispatcher? 😉

      Any way you look at it, Zimmerman seems to disregard the better judgment of the people who are in a position to guide him. Ignore the dispatcher, defy your first team of lawyers, and speak to Trayvon’s parents in spite of your current lawyer’s advice to the contrary.

      Reply ↓

76. Based on the general principle of innocentiae presumptio, any defendant in a criminal case is and must be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Such defendant has as such a right to be free until he/she is found guilty. This right should in my humble opinion NOT be accorded to GZ – AGAIN. Here is the reason. The court has rightly released GZ on bail. It however emerged that GZ conspired with his wife (SZ) to misinform the court and by so doing hijacked the decision-making procedures and thought-process of the judge and fraudulently obtained bond. Granting GZ another bond will surely hurt the integrity of our legal system and judicial process and send the wrong message to the general public that you can lie as much as he wants to the court. When you are caught all you have to do is say “I was confused and fearful” to get another bond. And if you then don’t get the bond, you cry discrimination (after all GZ lied and deceived the court and after his lawyer apologized for him, he was granted yet another bond and released on bail). This is not about GZ anymore. It’s about the integrity- and protection of our system. I do not agree with the earlier post of Susan that GZ should and will be granted bond. I think GZ should and will NOT be granted bond. The integrity of the system will weigh heavily on the mind of Judge Lester.

    Reply ↓

77. Thanks to CSFC for the link to the Zimmerman interview where he reaches for his gun when describing reaching for his cellphone. I guess Susan was mistaken about where she saw that happen. The state hasn’t brought this up yet but if they read blogs, they will soon. The power of this evidence is made more by it being hard to understand why Zimmerman’s reaction to hearing, “You got a problem?”, is to reach for his cellphone.

    Reply ↓

    • Witness 18 said that shooter had a white short-sleeve shirt, perhaps with a collar.

      Do you think if she testifies in open court that she will say that the shooter was wearing a suit, had medium-length dark hair and no facial hair.

      Reply ↓

      • Did she say she saw someone wearing a short sleeved white shirt, or did she say she saw someone wearing a white, short sleeved shirt holding a gun?

        (wonder what ol’ Frank was wearing that night)

        unitron

        Reply ↓

    • Witness 18 lives north of the T. She couldn’t tell what Martin was wearing, but could tell he was a boy. And she could tell the person calling for help had a young boy voice (in her 911 call, she said she didn’t know, but male she guessed).

      The heavy-set man had a short sleeve shirt that was not black, and may have had a collar (I wonder if she watched the walk through, or saw Zimmerman’s mug shot on the news).

      The 911 operator also told here that someone had called about a suspicious looking guy, and a police officer was on the way.

      Reply ↓

    • Ricky J said: “The power of this evidence is made more by it being hard to understand why Zimmerman’s reaction to hearing, “You got a problem?”, is to reach for his cellphone.”

      ***The reason he reached for his phone is because he had NEW INFORMATION to tell the dispatcher. He only hung up when, to him and dispatcher, it was clear there was nothing more for Zimmerman to report and the police were set to arrive shortly.

      The reaching for phone, not only is NOT incriminating in any manner. INSTEAD, IT SUPPORTS Zimmerman’s claim he did not see Martin until just at the time Martin attacked him.

      AS SOON AS ZIMMERMAN SPOTTED THE SUSPECT AGAIN, THIS TIME FEET AWAY, ZIMMERMAN IMMEDIATELY THOUGHT TO CONTACT THE DISPATCHER TO REPORT THAT NEW, IMPORTANT, DEVELOPMENT. AND TO DO SO HE REACHED FOR HIS PHONE TO MAKE THAT CALL!!!

      Reply ↓

      • So funny that he found his gun instead, right?

        Reply ↓

78. Hey Susan, make something happen on the Martin/Zimmerman front so you can start a new thread. This one’s about to topple from its own weight. : – )

    unitron

    Reply ↓

    • And while I’m at it, I’ll force WordPress to come up with a better commenting format… That’d help.

      But I’ve got some free time this weekend, so I’ll see if I can’t scratch up a new comment thread for you guys in the meantime. Although, why haven’t they released more evidence in this dang case yet?

      Reply ↓

79. @ Loree Thanks, Yeah I saw that partial, I think it misses a lot of to Forensic financial guy, and also I had a hard time listening to the audio. To be honest the live broadcast of the trial had terrible audio.
    @ Insp. G… WOW that is a awesome job, Good work man 🙂

    Cheers

    Reply ↓

80. Lester, with his dramatic “delay,” is acting a little like a “drama queen” here. He will set bond or look very foolish on appeal.

    In a few days all the pundits will forget the incident.

    And the “strong case” nonsense will disappear into the sewer where all “media” issues of no significance go.

    Reply ↓

    • PeterO., you are increasingly getting angry, disturbingly vulgar and disrespectful. Maybe you need some timeout?

      Reply ↓

81. It is hard for me to envision that in response to a menacing figure, who looked like he was on drugs and up to no good, going up to him, Zimmerman wanted to solve the problem by whipping out his cellphone and dialing 911. Did he think that Martin would just stand there and wait until he finished the call? I wish Serino and Singleton had questioned him closely on this.

    Reply ↓

    • Hard to understand? Seems disingenuous. One of the main “block watcher” principles is to contact the police FIRST and another is to NEVER, yourself, confront a suspect.

      The dispatcher was certainly on ‘redial’ by that time and had twice earlier told Zimmerman to report any new actions by the suspect. Picking up the phone would be the FIRST thing that comes to mind to do under those circumstances.

      Are you saying Zimmerman should have verbally confronted the suspect instead? Attacked the suspect instead? whipped out his gun instead? Run instead? What else should he have done if not immediately call the police?

      The attack was a vicious surprise attack that happened before Zimmerman had a chance to do anything at all, including calling the police.

      Reply ↓

      • I guess you were there and witnessed the whole thing, right?
        For someone who pretends to want to obey the “innocent until proven guilty” principle, you sure seem unwilling to give that benefit to THE VICTIM!

        Your comments are so one sided and full of speculations that ALWAYS vilify and demonize the victim that I have taken the habit to fly over them.
        Nothing of any interest in your delusions.

        Reply ↓

    • sadanie, please do “fly over” my comments.

      And the words you repeatedly use: “demonize” and “delusions” are getting repetitious.

      Reply ↓

    • Agreed, Ricky J. Same for when Zimmerman says that he thinks Trayvon might’ve been mad because Zimmerman called the police — why did Zimmerman think that Trayvon might’ve known about his NEN call?

      How would that 911 call have gone, anyway? “Hi, 911? This is George Zimmerman again… I’m out on a walkway right now, and unfortunately, I never actually got an address to tell you my exact location. So I still can’t tell you how to find me, but I have found the suspect! Yup. He’s standing right here next to me — please come investigate him. What’s he doing? Oh, just standing here next to me. He still looks suspicious though, come quick.”

      Reply ↓

82. The “he should have returned to his vehicle” or “very poor judgement in not returning to his vehicle” premises don’t make any sense since they are all in hindsight:

    Up to Martin’s attack, what Zimmerman saw and his interaction with the dispatcher were plain routine. Even when Zimmerman started following the fleeing suspect, the dispatcher, properly, implicitly warned him of potential dangers in such following. Zimmerman, recognizing the wisdom of that advice, immediately stopped following.

    At that point, all the incident was was a routine non-emergency call for the police to check out a possible suspect. That’s all. The dispatcher has, no doubt, handled many many thousands of this type call. In probably none of them, nor in training, would he have told the reporting citizen to “hide,” except maybe if there was some real indication of violence. The police were minutes away, the suspect, a youth acting suspiciously, had been spotted, vanished already and Zimmerman was not following him.

    If, under those circumstances Zimmerman and the dispatcher made some sort of mistake then dispatcher procedures for all similar situations must be completely revamped to advise any citizen reporter to immediately hide or go to safety of some sort anytime he/she sees a suspicious character.

    It is amazing how certain pundits, in hindsight, can be — when the procedures followed were perfectly normal and acceptable given the situation at the time.

    Reply ↓

83. He says during the video at the police station that this time he was going to dial 911 instead of the non emergency number. This is not like a neighborhood watchman in his vehicle calling about a suspicious person. The person is walking right up to him and is angry. At least as probable as Zimmerman’s story is the one where at this point Zimmerman starts to pull out his gun and the battle is all about control of Zimmerman’s gun hand. However if it happened this way, Zimmerman may not have felt he had as strong a self defense claim and used the story we all know.

    Reply ↓

    • Ricky, you’ve wandered down a garden path and are now looking to justify it to yourself.

      The simple answer is the obvious one:

      Zimmerman wanted to call the police again quickly because the fleeing suspect had returned — as 9 out of 10 ‘block watchers’ would have done, as they are trained to do, which is to immediately call the police and not do anything themselves. .

      Reply ↓

84. Except for this account of zimmerman is baloney… who follows in the dark after a “suspicious” person that just minutes before had something in his hand and his hand in his waistband. So zimmerman would have us believe he walked in the dark WITHOUT his gun drawn and without his phone in hand. Why would he put the phone away if he did not replace it with a gun. This story is actually ridiculous when you really apply any assemblance of the rule of reason.

    Reply ↓

    • Ace, I wouldn’t completely dismiss Zimmerman’s account of when he took his gun out of his holster as baloney; it is just one of a number of times of roughly equal probability. A jury doesn’t have to figure out what actually happened; just whether or not it is reasonable that Zimmerman killed Martin in self defense. But the first question is more fun to discuss. As far as the second question, I think it will come down to a jury’s answer to the question, Could this be self defense even though it is likely that Zimmerman lied about what really happened? If I had to answer that right now, I would have to say yes.

      Reply ↓

      • Ricky, you say: “Could this be self defense even though it is likely that Zimmerman lied about what really happened? If I had to answer that right now, I would have to say yes.”

        Well, disagree. Right now, I would have to say NO! If we know for a fact that he lied about some of the most easily to prove details (through forensic analysis, for example), how could we believe that he tells the truth about details that cannot be verified?
        I would say that, at this point (and it may change as more forensic evidence is released and the “re-enactement” of what would logically have happened and what couldn’t have happened based on all the evidences available at the time of trial), as the member of a jury, I would have a very hard time finding ANY reasonable evidence that he does have a legitimate claim to self-defense!
        In fact, I am amazed that anyone with what seems to be a good analytical mind like yours, can still have “reasonable doubt,” except for “wishful thinking!”

        Reply ↓

    • Ricky, the following statement of yours: “Could this be self defense even though it is likely that Zimmerman lied about what really happened? If I had to answer that right now, I would have to say yes” – is inherently FALSE. If you believe that GZ lied about “what happened”, on what basis do you determine that the same “what happened” according to GZ (which you have already found to be a lie) amounts to self-defense? Can “A” at the SAME TIME be a lie and “what happened”?

      Ricky, the following statements of yours also doesn’t make sense – at all: “A jury doesn’t have to figure out what actually happened; just whether or not it is reasonable that Zimmerman killed Martin in self defense”. How do you figure out “whether or not it is reasonable that Zimmerman killed Martin in self defense” without FIRST figuring out “what actually happened”?

      Reply ↓

85. When I say “figure out what actually happened” I mean having to a high degree of certainty, a timeline and detailed accounting of what took place. I contrast that with “having reasonable doubt” which is believing in the existence of a non certain but reasonably believable, innocent scenario of the defendant’s actions; innocent here meaning acting in the legal definition of self defense. If I feel that there was a subjective 15% chance for some innocent scenario to have happened, I feel comfortable with voting not guilty.

    In this particular case, while thinking it may be more likely than not, that Zimmerman is lying about the time he drew his gun and how badly Martin was bashing his head against the ground and a bunch of other details, I base my not guilty, vote on what I know at present, on the following:

    1. Martin had become a confrontational, nasty young man. I don’t base that on any of the evidence submitted in this case but on my belief that what I have read about his school suspensions, Twitter postings and Youtube subscriptions is correct. There is certainty in my mind that he could have gone home but instead sought a confrontation with Zimmerman.

    2. Zimmerman is a fairly stupid, muddle headed individual, with ADD/ADHD about whom it is reasonable to think may be actually confused about whether certain things happened in the way he described.

    3. There is nothing unreasonable, so far, about thinking that Martin had beaten Zimmerman up and Zimmerman, having no way of escaping, felt he had to fire at Martin to prevent much worse happening to him.

    4. So much of the evidence is ambiguous and not easy to interpret as favoring a guilty or innocent scenario. Witness #6 admits that he is not sure if Martin was raining blows down on Zimmerman or just restraining him. The conclusions about who was screaming have no scientific basis, as far as I know.

    Reply ↓

    • Well, if you are on a jury, and I was on a jury, we would certainly NOT agree. Our perceptions are too different. I do not see any “nastiness” in Trayvon Martin’s history, and all the witness from his past have been united in describing him as a nice kid, with absolutely ZERO incidence of aggressive behavior. MANY teenagers get suspended from schools, and MANY teenagers experiment with weed. . .not many get killed, and not many get accussed of being “nasty” because of it!
      In the other hand, Zimmerman’s history clearly (and the facts are verifiables!) shows a troubled and moody person, with 3 charges to his name, and a “my space” site that shows him as a complete A. . .H. . ., bragging about getting away with two felonies charges being replaced by a misdemeanor. . .thanks to his friends who didn’t “tell” on him, and calling his ex fiancee his “ex ho!”
      I still do not believe that Zimmerman had the intention to kill Trayvon as soon as he saw him, but I believe that, once they came face to face, he had NO DESIRE to let him go, and preferrred to pursue him and grab him and eventually KILL HIM, rather than let “this a. . .h. . .get away.”
      If the body had been found on the T junction or closer to Z’s truck, I would have given Z the benefit of the doubt. But the space where the body was found is NO WHERE near Z’s truck. . .so he certainly didn’t try to de-escalate the situation by explaining he was a neighborhood watch person, or by going back to his truck, but he FOLLOWED Martin after they came face to face, and probably tried to grab him (based on the two witnesses’ account of what they heard) and restrain him, and this is what triggered Trayvon pushing back on Zimmerman (maybe even hitting him on the nose), Zimmerman falling (and hitting his head ONCE), and the struggle that followed.
      The fact that Trayvon has no signs of having been hit, instead of being in favor of Zimmerman, in my opinion demonstrates that Zimmerman had NEVER any intention to defend himself with anything else than a DEADLY WEAPON. . .which is obviously unecessary force. … as it was stated in the VERY FIRST police report.
      Funny how everything comes back to base!

      Reply ↓

    • Ricky Jimenez, based on the reasons (especially reason nr. 1) you think that GZ is not guilty I think and very reluctantly state that you are (racially) biased and possess a very unhealthy thought-process. I shall rest my case here and shall not be reacting anymore to comments produced of such unhealthy minds as aforementioned.

      BTW, try contrasting your wholly baseless assumptions about a dead (in the words of GZ) “kid” with what is known as fact about GZ (e.g. which of them has a police/criminal record; which of them has been arrested before; which of them has been reported before for violence; which of them has a restraining order against them; which of them underwent a pre-trial diversion process; which of them conspired to deceive the court; which of them respects the integrity of the judicial system, etc.?). NOT EVEN PeterO. will stoop this low. Shame on you, Ricky!

      Reply ↓

86. What makes it so easy to find Zimmerman not guilty by reason of self defense is this portion of the Florida law, especially the section after the word “unless” in (2). How can it be proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman didn’t have a reasonable fear for his life and didn’t try to withdraw while he was on the ground, screaming for help?

    776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

    (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

    (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
    (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

    The reason that I brought up Martin’s character is that the evidence available to me indicates that he was capable by temperament of aggressively confronting Zimmerman. However, if convincing evidence is presented that he was a sweet docile boy until the end and the claims about his Internet behavior are false, then I would change that opinion. Claims from some of his relatives are hardly the kind of proof necessary.

    From my experiences here and on Wagist, TalkLeft, and Huffington Post, a person who takes a middle of the road stance is subject to personal attacks by extremists on both sides. Since I still post, I guess it doesn’t bother me that much. However I would stop if I felt that nobody benefits from what I write.

    Reply ↓

    • Maybe you should review the (b) part.

      @Ricky Jimenez on July 4, 2012 at 9:06 am said:
      “(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.”

      Reply ↓

    • CSFC, you missed the word “OR” so (a) would apply and (b) is not needed:

      “(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”

      Moreover, (b) ALSO applies because Zimmerman, after Martin violently attacked him, attempted to fend Martin of by retreating backwards down the path until Martin finally forced Zimmerman to the ground and started smashing his head on the concrete.

      In addition, Zimmerman never once hit Martin and that also shows Zimmerman “desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force” along with Zimmerman’s vain struggle to get Martin off of him and to stop hitting him.

      Reply ↓

    • “OR” doesn’t matter as this is a “neither, nor” situation. Zimmerman was on top per witnesses and Zimmerman himself. Zimmerman had “wrist control” per his police interviews. Zimmerman never identified himself prior to this escalation of the incident although having full knowledge of the havoc that could be caused by not ID’ing oneself (per himself and his family’s testimony at the original bond hearing). Zimmerman. The ballistics and forensics will tell where Zimmerman was when he shot and show it wasn’t possible per Zimmerman’s story. Impossible angle while Zimmerman was on the bottom as he claims.

      Reply ↓

      • CSFC, be a little adventurous. Do your shtick on Waglist, Talkleft, ConservativeTreeHouse, etc. Have some fun instead of preaching to the (mostly) converted.

        Reply ↓

    • @Ricky Jimenez
      on July 4, 2012 at 8:32 pm said:
      CSFC, be a little adventurous. Do your shtick on Waglist, Talkleft, ConservativeTreeHouse, etc. Have some fun instead of preaching to the (mostly) converted.

      ————

      Unlike Jeralyn and whoever runs the other nutjob pro-zimmerman sites you mentioned, I have a real job. When I posted at TalkLeft (erroneously thinking I was among reasonable people), my comments were deleted and so were the many responses that brought out the like-minded lurkers. Last I checked, Jeralyn and her minions are discussing the same issues I brought up before she deleted the comments I made and she has issued a challenge that I submit to her sillyness — threatened banning, in fact.

      Since it’s not worth my time, I won’t be submitting. I don’t find it adventurous or challenging. I have found several more reasonable-minded websites, blogs and forums that I’m now actively reading however.

      Bcclist.com is one. AxiomAmnesia.com is another. I visit the other sites you mention only to download court evidence, but usually AxiomAmnesia or bcclist have links to the same info without suffering through ads for the ambulance chasers.

      Reply ↓

      • Common sense. . .I’d love to see you at “politicalforum.com” It’s pretty well divided between Zimmerman’s defenders and . . .others. Obviously, there are a lot more issues being discussed also. Just a thought!
        Just don’t let Peter read this! LOL!

        Reply ↓

    • Because Zimmerman did not have any trauma to the back of his head, and because Zimmerman knew the police were on their way and that there were neighbors close at hand who were also calling the police.

      The state’s case will be that he had no reasonable reason to believe he was about to die, since his head had not actually suffered any trauma, and he had not “exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death” — if Zimmerman had simply waited 30 seconds before shooting, Trayvon would be alive today.

      Reply ↓

    • Zimmerman did not know when the police would arrive. He might have realized he could not answer his phone when they called, and wouldn’t know where he was.

      He didn’t know neighbors were calling police. The first callers had gone to the kitchen and the male was looking for some sort of weapon, but might not have helped. The other person who called before the shooting peeked over bottom of the window and below the blinds, before going to an interior room to call police.

      The one person who came outside shut his door and disappeared. Even the dog ran away.

      Reply ↓

      • You said that Zimmerman didn’t know when the police would arrive and didn’t know if the neighbors would call the police. . .

        Really? And all this time I thought that “John” made it very clear that he was calling 911!

        Reply ↓

        • Hello Sadanie,
          Awesome job people are doing. Would be great if she could submit this to State of Florida.

          Reply ↓

    • Sadanie,

      “Really? And all this time I thought that “John” made it very clear that he was calling 911!”

      Your friend BDLR who works for Miss Corey herself made a special trip to Sanford to find that “John” had only place one foot on his patio. I’ve had a neighbor who thought children in the courtyard were making too much noise, and who would open the door and scream “I’m going to call 911” and slam the door shut.

      Reply ↓

      • Jimrtex: Are you saying that John is NOT a reliable witness? And all this time I thought he was the defense “top witness” and that his testimony would without any doubt clear Zimmerman of any wrong doing!
        And now, you’re telling me that his “one foot on the patio” and his telling that he was calling 911 (which. . .Zimmerman, as per HIS report during the walk through, ARGUED about with John) was nothing at all. . .just a “pie in the sky?”

        Funny how suddenly, when even one small part of a witness statement contradicts Zimmerman, you are so quick at discrediting that “star witness!”
        LOL!

        Reply ↓

    • Sadanie,

      Zimmerman did not know when the police would arrive (they arrived in the opposite order they were dispatched, with one taking about 5 minutes, and the other taking close to 10 – and the dispatcher never informed him how many officers had been dispatched. And it appears that he may have told Zimmerman that they had been dispatched before they actually were.

      And even when they arrived and called, they wouldn’t have known where he was because he wouldn’t be able to answer his phone.

      John barely came out onto the patio. He did see Zimmerman and thought Zimmerman saw him. John yelled something about calling 911 and then slammed his door shut (presumably the first bang was the sliding glass door being shut).

      I doubt Zimmerman was “arguing” with John. He was pleading for him to come help stop the attack. If Martin had heard John (he might not have since his back was to John, he had his hood up, and earphones) he might have intensified his attack.

      Zimmerman had finally attracted a neighbor’s attention, and then after a brief appearance disappeared.

      Reply ↓

      • Jimrtex: You seem to be living in a delusional world where Zimmerman is the victim and Trayvon is the attacker and deserved to die.

        I have already stopped answering to the non-sense rantings of Peter O. . .and I think I should do the same for you. There is no debating in an intelligent manner when you guys are so far off the deep end and insist in believing EVERYTHING Zimmerman says, and finding ridiculous excuses for all the statements he made that have been totally contradicted by the forensic evidences.

        I am very sorry, but I tried to make sense of your delusions, and I just can’t. So. . .good luck to you. I may check in with you again after more evidences are released, although, obviously, you and Peter will find other ways to “spin” the truth and defend the killer!

        Reply ↓

    • Sadanie,

      Martin was the attacker. After 45 secomds of screaming for help, having his head pounded against concrete, seeing the one neighbor who had come out slam his door and disappear, and sensing that Martin had discovered his gun, Zimmerman shot him.

      Zimmerman deserved to live.

      Reply ↓

87. “(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:”

    How did Zimmerman provoke use of force against himself?

    Reply ↓

    • jimtrex, I am not claiming that Zimmerman provoked the use of force against himself. I was trying to show that even if he did, the subsequent course of the altercation allows his self defense claim. It could be that Martin felt Zimmerman’s following him and body and verbal comments after they met up were a provocation deserving of at least a punch in the snoot, but the law makes that irrelevant.

      Reply ↓

    • Ricky said: “It could be that Martin felt Zimmerman’s following him and body and verbal comments after they met up were a provocation deserving of at least a punch in the snoot”

      ***What “body … comments”?
      ***What “verbal … comments”?
      ***If is was ONLY a single “punch in the snoot” and Martin fled, he never would have been caught and charged with a violent felony.

      With his hoodie on and in the dark, Martin never would have been ID’ed and he could have immediately hidden in Brandy’s unit within a few seconds … from which unit he had just come from to attack Zimmerman for starring at him.

      O’Mara got it exactly right when he said: “he got shot, and he got killed because of his own doing.”

      Reply ↓

      • You’re still stuck in reverse, aren’t you? You still can’t do ANYTHING but blame the victim for the stupid action of one paranoid fool!
        Oh well. . .You’re gone!

        Reply ↓

    • sadanie, read what I said. I got it exactly right in saying: “O’Mara got it exactly right when he said: “he got shot, and he got killed because of his own doing.””

      The “fool” was Martin for attacking someone for “staring” at him and thinking he could get away with it.

      The “victim” was Zimmerman, who fought back in desperate self-defense using his gun as a last resort, and Martin “got killed because of his own doing.”

      Reply ↓

      • You’re not worth answering to. As I said, for what I’m concerned, you’re gone.

        Reply ↓

    • jimrtex on July 4, 2012 at 9:35 am said:
      “How did Zimmerman provoke use of force against himself?”

      Here’s how it’s been done in other cases:

      Verdict was GUILTY! Civilized people don’t buy the bull offered as a pretext for willingly taking another’s life. What was that about Zimmerman called the police and reported a kid looking suspicious for no reason and having his hands in his wasteband and being up to no good?

      Same case with somebody’s analysis:

      Again, this guy even with his calling the police, his providing videotaped evidence of his confrontation and the people he confronted issuing verbal threats while inebriated was convicted.

      Guess again what will happen to Zimmerman considering his pack of lies on top of contradictory forensic evidence and his own violent-ridden past.

      Reply ↓

      • Thank you for your “common sense,” . . .CSFC!
        Your name fits you to a. . .T! LOL
        No, really, I mean it. Thank you for keeping a cool, leveled head!

        Reply ↓

    • Another thing… The Texas guy who was found guilty despite SYG had more facial bruising than George Zimmerman.

      Reply ↓

    • @sadanie
      on July 4, 2012 at 8:41 pm said:
      Thank you for your “common sense,” . . .CSFC!
      Your name fits you to a. . .T! LOL
      No, really, I mean it. Thank you for keeping a cool, leveled head!

      ———–
      Ha! Thanks so much for the kind words. I want the criminal to be kept behind bars to answer for his crime against the child Trayvon Martin just as you do. I am confident Zimmerman will be found guilty.

      I am confident gun rights advocates don’t want this paranoid freak Zimmerman or his lying wife to represent them in their gun sales strategy. Now that so much evidence has been made public, it wouldn’t make sense to have a poster child for selling guns any person that gunned down an unarmed teen walking from the store after legally supporting capitalism by buying skittles or to have a wife who feared dogs but had no fear of the court and chose to lie to it.

      Always enjoy reading your posts/opinions, too. Usually, I have nothing to add.

      Reply ↓

88. “***If is was ONLY a single “punch in the snoot” and Martin fled, he never would have been caught and charged with a violent felony”.

    I saw a scenario on a blog, can’t remember which one, that started that way. A furious Zimmerman caught a fleeing Trayvon who had tripped on John’s lawn, etc. If you just concentrate on the reasonable doubt question, you don’t have to bother with figuring out what actually happened.

    Reply ↓

    • CSFC,

      Do you think the prosecution will introduce those videos as evidence?

      Reply ↓

89. Anybody up for crashing an all pro Zimmerman blog today? Last night I duked it out alone with about 10 or more of them. I just know they’re waiting for me again today but I need reinforcements !!! Let me know

    Reply ↓

    • Which site are you talking about, Phil?
      I may be interested in dropping in.

      Reply ↓

    • Not me. They are best left to their own devices. Look at the damage done to O’Mara for presumably grasping for those same straws that the conservative nuthouses puts out there. O’Mara’s now introducing 7-11 videos to make sure everybody sees a pic of Trayvon Martin beyond his adolescent teen years (as though we hadn’t already). What?? OK.

      Why didn’t O’Mara simply submit as evidence Trayvon Martin’s pic taken by the officer on the scene — the one presented to Trayvon Martin’s father? Was it because Trayvon Martin had a tear in his eye on that pic?

      Up next, O’Mara will try to introduce evidence of the made up “lean” drink they claim Trayvon Martin was on which, according to conservatives, is made with the stuff he purchased from the 7-11. Even if the conservative nuthouse made any sense at all regarding what a “lean” drug is or how it’s made, it doesn’t matter since Trayvon Martin obviously had not yet made it because both ingredients were found unopened at the crime scene. No lean!

      Why would O’Mara go down this path except to ignite a fire via dog-whistles to raise more cash from those suckers?

      Reply ↓

    • http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/07/03/73-george-zimmerman-case-open-discussion-thread/#comment-153473

      Reply ↓

    • Ohhh, Phil…Phil, Phil, Phil….(lol) You don’t want to go to conservative tree house alone. *shaking my head*. I’ve found that on some websites it becomes tiresome to repeat fact after fact just in order to get some people up to debate speed….and then you still can’t budge them. They’re going to cling to their viewpoint no matter what you say. It’s just much more productive – and more satisfying – to engage with people who are viewing the facts with an open mind and a willingness to educate themselves first.

      I only go to those pro-Zimmerman sites for sport…or when I’m feeling ornery. =)

      Reply ↓

    • Whoa, hold up there. I leave for a few days, and when I come back I’ve got people staging invasions on other blogs… None of that, please. If you want to debate someone, go ahead, but there’s no need to be all dramatic about it.

      And besides, there’s nothing at the Conservative Treehouse worth engaging. It’s sort of like a black hole that sucks in all the commenters who are too deluded to participate in conversations anywhere else. Let them be, no need to go look for a fight.

      Reply ↓

90. CSFC, You didn’t even watch the video you posted:

    The circumstances are as different from Zimmerman’s case as is night from day.

    Do you seriously believe that because self-defense fails in one case that means in another case — with entirely difference circumstances — self-defense isn’t valid? If so, why even have a trial?

    It would be just as easy to find a successful self-defense case and then proclaim: Zimmerman is not guilty!!!

    Yet, that is exactly the nonsensical approach you are using!

    Reply ↓

    • Outcomes… caselaw.
      The circumstances are exactly the same, except the texas man had a real job.

      Reply ↓

91. @Sadanie, Sandbagger, and of course Common Sense
    Thanks for the kind words. We should be able to hear the judge’s decision on bond tomorrow, at least that is what he said he will have a ruling. If any new data about the witnesses I’m looking for come by please post. Keep up the excellant work! I might pass by again.

    Reply ↓

92. Someone posted here that Trayvon Martin must be the ‘white tee-shirt’ guy because his light grey tee-shirt was hanging out under his dark gray hoodie. I wonder if it is more ‘reasonable’ to think Trayvon’s undershirt was shown under his unzippable dark gray (nearly black) hoodie to Witness #3 while only person on top’s BACK was visible. You can’t see the tee-shirt underneath a hoodie from the back especially if the hood is on top of the person’s head. You can, however, see the color of one’s light gray (nearly white) mock turtleneck even when the person has his back to you. You can also see the light patches of a multi-colored jacket that has red/light gray and mistake this for a “popped” color against darker backgrounds. Witness #3 must have studied art!

    In any event, the photo taken by a witness prior to police arrival shows the ‘popped’ light color on Zimmerman:

    http://www.alfredhaynes.com/2012/04/alleged-photo-of-george-zimmermans.html

    Look at the collar and the sleeves in the pic at the above link.

    Here’s a view of what George ‘Zimmerman was wearing at the police station:

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10915887-police-video-shows-george-zimmerman-shortly-after-trayvon-martin-shooting?lite

    Look at the collar, sleeve and exposed tee-shirt George Zimmerman was wearing and notice which colors ‘popped’.

    Now look at the pics taken at SPD of Zimmerman’s jacket and notice the colors that ‘popped’ off his arms and belly — the colors of his exterior “free country” jacket and his undershirt exposed under the “free country” jacket:

    

    Finally, aside from the bad yimage taken by SPD from an angle distorting Zimmerman’s nose, the pic SPD took clearly shows George Zimmerman’s jacket was closed after SFD cleaned up Zimmerman, but even zipped, George Zimmerman’s jacket gives off a light (nearly white) ‘pop’ against the darkness of the shoulder patches of his red/gray “free country” jacket worn during the killing. The pattern of the jacket may have left witness #3 thinking the light portion of the “free country” jacket were only a white wife-beater styled tee-shirt.

    

    Reply ↓

    • Thanks for releasing this post, Susan. I didn’t realize when posting it that it either had too many links or linked directly to JPGs.

      I’d really like to see what other’s think of the police pic taken by camera phone. It looks like the lighter pattern on Zimmerman’s jacket could be mistaken for a wife-beater white tee shirt.
      Here’s a photo of the back which is red, but was obviously mistaken for white against the darkness of the night and the other gray portions in the night.

      http://theobamacrat.com/2012/05/18/trayvon-martin-vs-george-zimmerman/

      Reply ↓

93. Hi all! I hope nobody minds my barging in with something totally irrelevant to this site. I apologize Susan, and I hope this is OK. I just learned of this today:

    According to US Navy’s estimates, the Navy’s proposed use of high frequency underwater sound testing will deafen more than 15,900 whales and dolphins and kill 1,800 more over the next 5 years in Hawaii, the California and Atlantic coasts, and the Gulf of Mexico. Whales and dolphins depend on sound to navigate and live.

    The Navy is required to include comments on their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). There is a petition available at:

    http://signon.org/sign/navy-under-water-sound?source=s.em.cp&r_by=4905277

    Your signature and comment will be included in the EIS. Comment deadline is July 10, 2012.

    Please sign! Thanks.

    Reply ↓

    • Lots of signatures over there.

      Reply ↓

    • Glad you came back for this, Hapufern! What a horror!
      I signed the petition and shared with all my friends on facebook!
      Thanks for bringing our attention to this. Hope you come back to post soon!

      Reply ↓

94. Does anyone have a link to DeeDee´s phone records, the toxicology report or Martin school records? I´m on this crazy pro Zimmerman blog debating with these fools.

    Reply ↓

    • Try here:
      http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-11-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/#comment-577205938
      They have files audios tm phone records discovery etc

      Reply ↓

95. Visit the insane pro Zimmerman blog
    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/07/05/75-george-zimmerman-case-open-discussion-thread/#comment-153696

    Reply ↓

96. Bond set at $1M.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/07/05/156299517/zimmermans-bail-set-at-1-million

    Reply ↓

    • WOW ! just got the news, did you read the judge’s 8 page ruling?

      Reply ↓

    • @Loree
      on July 5, 2012 at 4:06 pm said:
      “WOW ! just got the news, did you read the judge’s 8 page ruling?”

      Oh, I did! Couldn’t wait to read it. I’m liking Judge Lester’s clear thinking on these matters. Inspector Gadget posted the link to the court’s written order below, but here it is again.

      Click to access SKMBT_363-V12070510360.pdf

      Judge Lester wasn’t having any O’Mara’s “George Zimmerman is a 28-yr old baby” bull. He said the ONLY youth here is the victim which is Trayvon Martin! The judge also ordered Zimmerman not to contact Trayvon Martin’s family.

      Judge Lester said that George Zimmerman appeared to be manipulating the system to his own benefit.

      Judge Lester also said George Zimmerman’s plan to flee before the bond revocation was thwarted — referencing Zimmerman’s other passport that had not been turned in and the hidden cash.

      Judge Lester said he saw no evidence of strong community ties/family ties because Zimmerman’s family memberS either willfully allowed the court to be deceived and none of his family lives in the county. (Oh the irony of that one!)

      Judge Lester said Zimmerman would be required to remain in the county unless approval was obtained prior to his exit.

      Judge lester said Zimmerman may not go to an airport.

      Reply ↓

      • WoW again!!! I just read your post and the ruling, you have it down pat. I am glad that he increased the bond and kept him in Seminole county. Just a side note he didn’t reinforce no firearms, but I take it that is a given. If I was the judge I would amend that ruling and include no firearms, George might take it as though he can carry since he is a confused fearful 28 year old. LOL.

        Reply ↓

      • Great summary! Thank you CommonSense.

        By the way. . .has anyone heard anything from Peter or Jimenez?
        I would love to hear their spin! LOL

        Reply ↓

    • @Sadanie –

      I’m thinking they may be off talking to mortgage consultants to figure out how much equity they can take out of their houses to send in donations to the “free the murder/support a criminal defense” fund.

      Misplaced compassion at its finest, imo. But I guess murdering grifters need love, too.

      Reply ↓

      • I love your sense of humor! LOL!

        Reply ↓

97. Here is the official link to the order, but the server is being overloaded bigtime, you will probable find it elsewhere first.

    Click to access SKMBT_363-V12070510360.pdf

    Reply ↓

    • Maybe the Zimmermans will move back to the Retreat at Twin Lakes.

      Reply ↓

98. For anyone interested in a good legal analysis of the bond ruling, and not the nonsense CSFC (who has no common sense) spews out, pop over to talkleft.com: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/7/5/12441/34373

    As I have commented in the past, Judge Lester is a biased pro prosecution Judge. And I discovered, from Jeralyn’s site, that his wife is a homicide prosecutor in the next county from Seminole! That explains a lot. Judge Lester did not have much respect for the law in his convoluted orders, and his ruling of protecting the “integrity of the Court” is downright silly in light of his tolerance for the actions of the prosecutor to date.

    Incidentally, the much vaunted “strong” case comment Judge Lester made in his previous order is farcical, as is clear from his explanation of that ruling in the new bond order. He accepted as “true” the allegations in the embarrassingly deficient probable cause affidavit to explain his “strong case” ruling — and digs a deeper ethical hole for himself.

    Jeralyn had some interesting comments on this whole bond issues here: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/7/5/201540/6817

    I was intending to comment on the real effect of this high bond and the fact that Florida residents will ultimately be picking up almost all of the full costs for bond (think less money for social programs), not the Zimmermans. But Jeralyn already did this analysis quite well, so I will simply repeat her comments here:

    “I see an indigency motion as a result of this bond amount. Why should a bondsman and his insurance company pocket another $85k when the result is likely to be that the citizens of Florida will have to pick up the tab? And that’s not all. The state may end up having to provide Zimmerman with lawyers at its expense if there’s no money to pay O’Mara and his team.”

    Reply ↓

    • I was wondering when you would come up with a “spin” on this!

      I think you are really funny!
      So what if zimmerman has to get a public defender? He wouldn’t be the first one. . .and if he is “not guilty based on his self-defense plea,” what does he have to worry about?

      And I thought that Zimmerman’s supporters were EAGER to send him money anyway!
      (not really.. .I also read the news that Zimmerman’s defense fund is not getting far as much money as it used to. . .which seems logical! Most people do not stay dumb that long!)

      Maybe YOU should send him your money. . .or be his “pro-bono defender!” LOL!

      Reply ↓

      • Sadanie,
        This is for PeterO.
        Enjoy the video!

        Reply ↓

99. If Zimmerman does not testify, is it even possible for him to win any self-defense claims including SYG? If the prosecution does not admit to the court at least one of George Zimmerman’s many, many varying accounts of what happened that night, what evidence would a jury use to exonerate Zimmerman?

    O’Mara has no evidence to support any of his claims that self-defense occurred. O’Mara has no witness to the start of the altercation. O’Mara has no witness to any fight. O’Mara has no witness to the claim of head-banging on concrete. O’Mara has no witness to a reach for the gun. O’Mara has no witness to any verbal threat made by Trayvon Martin towards Zimmerman.

    Reply ↓

100. I’m going to speak the unspeakable that we all know exists as an undercurrent to O’Mara’s plea for more money to support his murdering client.

     Suppose all the minorities began setting up websites to proffer a defense against the crimes they felt were unreasonably brought against them like Zimmerman claims. What would the end result be? What message does this send to the poor whites adopting the same notions of raising money if only they had a gun and had killed someone? What message is sent to minorities who may be poor that killing and then setting up a website to raise funds is a viable way out of poverty like the Zimmerman’s did?

     I think the end result would be poor people would steal (not buy, because they couldn’t afford to purchase) guns and set about popping off their neighbors in order to become famous and set up paypal accounts as a source of untaxable income.

     I hope I’m wrong.

     Reply ↓