Zimmerman Open Thread – 7/16/12

This post is an open thread for all discussion on the Zimmerman case. Have at it.

-Susan

Advertisements

386 thoughts on “Zimmerman Open Thread – 7/16/12

  1. I’ve been avoiding saying anything about this, until now, and the latest.

    I wonder, before this is all over, if the word “priest” will feature prominently in the George Zimmerman story.

    unitron

    • I am fairly sure I have identified who #Witness #9 is but I want to confirm some information about the FBI interviews with friends and family. I have found many stories about the interviews but I am looking for a direct link to the FBI report, and what this person told the FBI under her own name. I am not trusting the media to tell me what was said, I would rather read it for myself. The FBI interview was after she talked to the Officer Trekelle Perkins (the same officer the FBI identified as pressuring Serino to make an arrest anyway) as witness #9.

      • I am having CONSIDERABLE difficulty in finding an unabridged clear recording of the FBI walk-thru. Al Gore’s internet is frustrating me badly.

        • There was, as far as I know, no walk-through conducted by the FBI.

          The Sanford Police Department conducted one the afternoon of 2/27/12

          Perhaps you’re thinking of that.

    • No discussion/linking to information on the identity of any witnesses, please. Discussing in general terms is fine, but I don’t want to see anyone posting a link and a photograph of Witness 9 here.

      And there is absolutely no reason I can see to doubt Witness 9’s testimony. If someone wanted to tell a damaging lie to discredit Zimmerman, they’d be making claims about what he did solely as an adult. They also wouldn’t, years ago, have told other individuals about what happened.

      Nothing about her story even remotely brings her credibility into question. Her story also creates the distinct impression that Zimmerman’s behavior isn’t the result from some sort of inherent sociopathic personality. The hyper-vigilance, the need for control and feelings of importance, the willingness to see threats in innocuous every day interactions… I know I’m playing armchair psychiatrist here, but Zimmerman’s history kind of does point towards an explanation for how he acted.

    • Inspgadget, witness #9 is GZ’s own sister – his OWN cousin to be more precise. She was 6yrs old when the incident took place and she has lived with the horrors of that ever since. She is family to GZ and has no dog in the GZ-legal fight. That’s what make her credible to me. But off course you are free to disagree, in which case I shall like to hear what your reasons are. I would appreciate what you yourself think (so pls. do not refer/link me to others’ blogs).

  2. Quite credible; I have a cousin who when I was a young girl scared me to death; he was more than obvious as to what he wanted- I never was in a room alone with him and my mother said she sensed the same thing.

    What is so terribly sad here is that because George was so young when this allegedly started, that someone was was doing something to him, as well. He was an altar boy- another priest issue– even though GZ did this with at least one girl (allegedly).

    His mother wasn’t exactly loving, from what we’ve learned. Any wonder he has problems?

    • I also have no reason to doubt witness #9. I think she is still suffering as a result of what happened years ago. I hope she gets the hepl she definitely needs.

      Having said that, I also find that the witness of witness #9 is hugely unfair to GZ. GZ was 8yrs old when this incident happened. Essentially GZ was still a child who instinctively and out of curiosity did what many children (AND BOYS WILL BE BOYS!) in that age would have done if given the opportunity. At the age of 8 boys are not even sexually mature, do not understand A THING about sexuality (I didn’t at that age) and are NOT equipped with the power of rational thinking. Now GZ is being presented as a child molester, which he is NOT. I think that’s very unfair.

      And, ‘anonymous’ pls. get a name. I think ‘Thee’ of ‘Coffey’ will even do. I always have a strange feeling discussing with anonymous individuals. Even though ‘Thee’ of ‘Coffey’, will not make you un-anonymous, either of them will surely take away the strange feeling that goes with ‘anonymous’.

      • Intel
        Boys will be boys.
        I agree to a certain extent to being curious at that age about sex. You show me yours I’ll show you mine. Or lets play doctor. However, this young lady alleges that he fingered her. That’s a little too far for me as far as curiosity. She also states that it went it on unitl her teens, way past curiosity, more like perfecting. IMO he took advantage of a young girl who didn’t know any better. Most parents have stranger danger talk with their kids. But most of the time molesters are people we know cousins, stepdads, priest, etc, you get the picture.
        I have to go to work bbl
        I have one other thing to say

      • IT happened over the span of 10 years- she was 16 and he around 18 the last time. That still doesn’t make him a child molester of course. She is a beautiful young woman and must have been pretty and delicate as a little girl. The picture on Facebook of GZ supposedly at age 8 is supposed to make us feel as if he could never have done this- not large, glasses, etc. But look closely at his expression-very closely. Hardly a pleasant expression.

      • Hi- It’s showing “saronne” now. :o) When I originally posted I tried to post it showed up the other way,. Don’t forget, however, that most people aren’t using their actual name, anyway, :o)

        Zimmerman continued to engage in that behavior with his cousin up to his 18th year I think it was, when she finally stopped it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with child abuse. She seems very credible and if this is true he showed far too much sophistication at age 8 with what he did. This was beyond “playing doctor”.

        Nevertheless, it has nothing to do with the case, any more than Tray;s school records have.

    • Loree, I concur. Certain indecent acts by children do indeed take a life of their own if uncorrected and (can) go on for a long period. That’s probably what happened here. It’s just a pity that GZ, being a child at the time it all started, could not stop after the first incident. As a result he (GZ) then entered a psychological state that could be likened to addiction where he was hooked to doing the things he was doing and could only stop after the “addictive object” (no insult/offence meant) got beyond his reach (nice try a Sigmond Freud :-)).

      On another note, it would most surely not surprise me if in the future “priestly” abuse becomes part of GZ’s defense (if the SYG-claim fails / appear not be viable). It would not be implausible to claim and argue with eloquence that GZ learnt his actions from ‘the men in black robes’ (I believe my fellow Catholics call those robes: soutanes) whose alter-boy he used to be, who also sexually and physically abused and traumatized him as a result of which he (GZ) now and then acts violently and thus not criminally culpable.

      • Would you believe someone on Wag— is suggesting that it is quite normal for a boy of 8 to insert his fingers into a little girl??

        • He says “That’s what “playing doctor is. That’s what doctors do” (not word for word as it’s from memory but the exact thought.

  3. Thanks for all your work making sense of this situation. It’s good to see conversation based on facts over emotion. I am amazed the right-slanted talkers have rallied behind Zimmerman to the point where some people believe he is innocent regardless of evidence.

    • Welcome Mr. Allen. Are you also amazed that left-slanted talkers have rallied against Zimmerman and some of them believe he is guilty regardless of the evidence? It is almost impossible to get the posters to this blog to realize how difficult a job the prosecution would have in a FAIR trial. For a guilty verdict, it has to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was doing something illegal when Martin was shot, like trying to detain him, or Zimmerman knew he could have escaped unharmed but shot anyway. How this Witness #9 evidence helps establish either is a big mystery to me.

      While you may not find the comments all that educational, it is possible to get a kick from some self righteous clowns who post here, especially if they denounce what you have to say.

      • But we are using the evidence. On most blogs that go against GZ, the evidence shows that he was doing something illegal. READ THE LAW:
        http://www.theraganlawfirm.com/the-best-argument-not-yet-heard-on-the-zimmerman-case/

        To be engaged in “illegal activity” he doesn’t have to be breaking legal statutes! Any and all rules and regulations, that run contrary to what was done, if they would have prevented the outcome/disaster, gain the force of law. Because the statutes recognize “lesser controlling authorities”.

        Thus, if you obtain an eye injury, by not observing the shops “eye protection gear” rules, Those shop rules are not statuary laws, but the statuary laws will recognize the shops rules as if they were controlling statues.

        This is why NW rules are so important. If GZ was not observing the NW rules he was supposed to be following, then the statuary laws will recognize those rules as being in control for the situation.

        People can and do argue that “We don’t need you to do that”, was not a lawful order! The NW rules says otherwise!
        In a court of law the court will recognize lawful rules that govern the area(s) in question.

        More than once, before so much evidence was released, I found my self thinking that “gee, we’re going to have to let him go on this, because there just wasn’t enough, or strong enough evidence to find him guilty. After the evidence was released, it was mostly GZ’s own testimony that damned him. Though, you should know, I’m still open to one other possibility I’ve been looking for evidence of, and that is that maybe GZ is lying and, someone else stepped in to take the kill shot, then left GZ with the gun.

        That theory is pretty darned shaky, because all it hinges on is: although people can get colors wrong in the dark, it’s hard to see how they could get the color change of a short sleeve over an arm wrong, when everyone involved is wearing long sleeves. Because that’s how you discern a shirt or jacket from a tee shirt, by the color change half way, or less, down an arm, Both GZ and TM have sleeve of uniform color down their length. That plus I don’t see GZ experiencing “first kill” trauma. That should have prevented him from wanting to talk at all at the scene.
        Instead he’s already at work on his defense.

        • Hmm. Are you that same Obwon who back in the days people were interested in the OJ Simpson case kept posting all over the web that he wasn’t guilty? The rambling style is familiar. The lady’s article, you link to, is based on the assertion that Zimmerman chased down Martin. So far, credible evidence to support that has not yet been released to the public. The known evidence makes it more likely that Martin lurked in the shadows,and attacked Zimmerman when he had the opportunity.

          • The same, did OJ get convicted? Or was he acquitted?
            I still have the transcripts as well (lol).

            Hmmm… There is no such “known evidence”, TM’s profile and history logically precludes any thought he would engage in such activity. He was not a street fighter, in fact he has not been in any known fights, either at home or at school. Hardly a wonder though, given his size in height, most people his age would be shorter and not likely to target him for bullying and/or abuse. He has had a peaceful and joyful existence with many friends and a very loving, hard working family whom he cheerfully assists.
            As far as we know from his peers and superiors he is well mannered and not aggressive in the least.

            But, before you provide a knee jerk reply, because I’m just making assertions up there. Read this, because it’s of more substance:
            http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/zimmerman-did-the-defense-change-strategy/#comment-11116

            I also have other very good reasons not to believe that TM attacked GZ. I’ll save that for later.

          • Obwon, it would certainly be important if an unimpeached slew of character witnesses for Martin, teachers, clergy, teammates, employers, etc., testify that the kind of behavior Zimmerman attributed to him was never observed by them. O’mara said that he has received most of the prosecution discovery and there hasn’t been a whiff that the prosecution has lined up such witnesses.

            I discuss the case mostly at forums.talkleft.com . There are lots of distinct threads covering different aspects of the case. Currently, there seems to be only one regular poster from the anti-Zimmerman camp, tchoupi; you might want to keep him company.

          • I certainly have noticed that character witnesses against Zimmerman pop from time to time but I don’t recall one against Martin talking to the media. I have no insight as to why.

          • The SP doesn’t have a list of such witnesses because they didn’t do the interviews of them. Those interviews were done by reporters and other researchers. I suppose the SP will get around to interviewing them later if need be. Right now they have their hands full enough with more proximal interviews.

            I’m planning on looking in on talkleft later on. TC can hold his own, he’s a darned good researcher.

    • Ricky, the legal side of the case is only one aspect of the discussion. I have no disagreement with you on the fact that this will not be an easy case to prosecute — it is entirely possible that Zimmerman will be acquitted.

      But there is a very big difference between being acquitted and being innocent of wrongdoing. I believe very strongly that even solely under the facts that can fairly be said to be agreed upon by all sides, that Zimmerman is morally culpable for Trayvon’s death. He acted in reckless and callous fashion, and it caused the death of a 17 year old who had his entire life before him.

      Trayvon’s death is a tragedy. That so many people are willing to call his killing a “public service” or “what Trayvon deserved” is sickening. It isn’t a “left-slanted” or “right-slanted” issue to believe that, regardless of the outcome of the trial, Trayvon didn’t deserve to die, and Zimmerman should not have killed him.

    • That GZ shot and killed TM is not in dispute. However, GZ claims he acted in self-defense. To be found “not guilty”, it is incumbent on GZ to (a) take the stand and (b) put forward a (as in one) self-defense story that is (c) coherent and (d) plausible – as in consistent in itself (internal consistency), consistent with the laws of time and space and at least major objective evidence of the case (e.g. forensic, et cetera).

      At this point GZ has not actually taken the stand. As such there is NO self-defense claim – yet. The implication then – at least for now – is that GZ unlawfully shot and killed TM.

      If GZ does NOT take the stand at trial, it will NOT at all be difficult at all to convict him (because there is no self-defense claim). The implication then is – definitely – that GZ unlawfully shot and killed TM (footnote: counsels arguments however persuasive are not evidence).

      If GZ does take the stand, it will become quite tricky, both for him and the prosecution. If GZ survives what I assume will be an onslaught by the prosecution and gets acquitted, it will NOT be because he is not guilty, but because the prosecution botched the operation. If on the other hand the prosecution substantially impeaches GZ’s testimony on the stand, the prosecution shall have inadvertently “shown beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was was doing something illegally when Martin was killed”. That’s how the game is played – at least in this case. MO’M seems to think that if the prosecution cannot prove “who started the fight”, then GZ has to be found not guilty. I am frankly amazed by that.

      Ricky, if you disagree, I would like to know what your reasons are. It will be very interesting to know what YOU, and I mean YOU think (if you know what I mean. No copying, pasting and presenting as your own thoughts what others wrote elsewhere. It isn’t cool – talking about “self-righteous clowns”).

    • The “reply” button doesn’t seem to show after every post so am answering here. I cannot imagine a more credible statement than this young woman’s. That being said, however. I think all this release can do is poison a prospective jury pool

  4. What disturbs me about the whole FBI questioning to friends and family, who in heavens name is going to admit that their family member acted or have shown to be a racist. Even if he did not show that kind of behavior around those individuals, who is to say that he did not profile Martin. I find it hard to believe that for someone to feel like someone just tried to kill him, he did not once mention to his wife, I can not believe I killed someone or I can’t believe he tried to kill me. He did not sound depressed or stressed out for that matter. I believe he kill Martin by over playing his neighbor watch position.

    • You don’t know what he told his wife.

      You know what a husband who had been on his way to the grocery store to do the weekly shopping, and was in handcuffs and being taken to the police station about a shooting, had a total stranger call his wife and say.

      The first officer would have been in no way relaxed, since he thought he had two people at gunpoint in a very dark courtyard (you can hear this in his dispatch). The second officer who arrived a couple of minutes later, remembers how Martin’s hands were, because he was yelling at him to put his hands out to the side and was getting no response.

      After the situation was more controlled, the arresting officer would have Mirandized Zimmerman. The officer did not let Zimmerman call his wife. Zimmerman asked a total stranger to call. That stranger says he called the wife, and said that “your husband has been involved in a shooting and is being taken to the police station.”

      Now what is it likely that Shellie Zimmerman said?

      (a) Oh darn, I’m going to have to go do the grocery shopping myself.
      (b) Did he get one of those F….. C…..?
      (c) What happened? Is he hurt?

      If you listen to the witness interview, it really sounds like the witness did not know what to say to Shellie Zimmerman at that point – rather than that he was at a loss of words to describe George Zimmerman’s mannerism.

      It sounds like his honest first impression was that George Zimmerman blurted out “Just tell her I shot someone” quickly.

      It would be stupid for Zimmerman to go into any detail about what happened, simply to satisfy your voyeur curiosity.

      • Well do we know where Zimmerman was really, what he really doing, everything he says is questionable…In one of his jail calls, his wife says, I can’t believe this is happening, you can’t take life for granted Z responds like yeah well, back to the money..We can do the back and forth thing all day…I review evidence, I listen to what he says, I still feel as though he acted reckless, shows no remorse, he lies and for this to be so dramatic, in his jail calls you still would mention how this would have an affect on you. I don’t know what he told his wife…but I do know someone that is highly bothered by their action would probably still mention to their HOW SORRY THEY ARE ABOUT THE EVENTS. I still would like to know what crime did Martin commit that Zimmerman was help bent on calling police…what would his criminal act would have been if police would have arrived….ONE MORE POINT THE TRUTH NEVER CHANGES JUST ZIMMERMAN TURN OF EVENTS..I HAVE MY OPINION JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE…MY OPINION..HE KILLED MARTIN BY OVER PLAYING HIS POSITION…IF Z WOULD HAVE STAY IN HIS CAR OR EVEN STOOD BY HIS CAR, I FEEL CONFIDENT ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE WOULD BE HOME ENJOYING LIFE WITH THEIR LOVE ONES, there is nothing about Z that remotely indicates that he is sorry about how that night turned out. If it would not have gone public that would just have been the end of that story!

          • It is considered freedom to say whatever one choses. my optionis just that….I will not give way to disrespectful responses. I will stand on my comments…at the end of my ranting, Zimmermanewas and is still OUT OF CONTROL. My opinion.

          • Susan,

            Read Priscilla’s original comment where she wrote “I find it hard to believe that for someone to feel like someone just tried to kill him, he did not once mention to his wife, I can not believe I killed someone or I can’t believe he tried to kill me.”

            I responded to that comment in detail.

            Was what she wrote back responsive in any way to what I wrote? Perhaps Priscilla is not aware of the convention that upper cased words are considered to be the equivalent of shouting.

            I didn’t bother with her statement:

            “What disturbs me about the whole FBI questioning to friends and family, who in heavens name is going to admit that their family member acted or have shown to be a racist.”

            Were you disturbed by the FBI investigation, and the manner that they conducted it?

      • In response to all that you are talking about, I’m talking about his jail calls I should have made that clear but generally, I still feel as though he could care less that he killed someone…as for your ranting, did feel like you made your point. I replied several tines to your response to my comments but I will not be responding back to you any more no matter what you say….I respect your ranting and opinion regarding this tragic case….JUST FOR THE MARTIN FAMILY!!!!!!

        • Priscilla had originally written,

          “I find it hard to believe that for someone to feel like someone just tried to kill him, he did not once mention to his wife, I can not believe I killed someone or I can’t believe he tried to kill me.”

          Priscilla now relates:

          “In response to all that you are talking about, I’m talking about his jail calls ”

          The jail calls were made 6 to 7 weeks after the shooting. I don’t think that qualifies as “just tried to kill” him.

          Zimmerman knows that he shot Martin, and he knows that shot killed him. Zimmerman believes that Martin was trying to kill him”

          Why would he say to anyone that he “can’t believe that he shot Martin” or that he doesn’t believe that “Martin was trying to kill him”. That is contrary to what he believes.

          If Zimmerman and his wife have talked in depth about his feelings, it would likely have been face to face in person, and not over a monitored and recorded phone line.

  5. I agree with you Susan that it is legitimate to discuss other issues besides legal guilt or innocence in this case. However the one you propose, “acting in a reckless and callous fashion” is a tough one to define and analyze. The worst thing Zimmerman did, that I am fairly sure about, is following in an obvious manner in his vehicle for a few minutes, irritating Martin. That probably wasn’t illegal but it surely was being obnoxious. We will never know with the same certitude what Martin’s sins were that night but I feel it is more likely than not he could have entered the townhouse where he was staying but chose instead a confrontation with Zimmerman. Maybe I just like comparatively easy problems. Figuring out how much moral culpability to assign Zimmerman and Martin is too tough for me.

    The other issue I would love to chat about is how the case would have been handled in other countries. Unfortunately, nobody else here is interested.

    • A problem with comparing how Florida handled Zimmerman’s case with how other nations might’ve handled it is that (1) the Zimmerman case is in many respects a product of the U.S.’s unique historical background concerning civil rights and racism, and (2) there are very few other nations in which Zimmerman could have obtained a concealed carry permit in the first place.

      So it isn’t likely that this case would have occurred anywhere else. And if it had, it would have played out differently.

  6. Susan, I remember reading of road rage incidents on the Autobahn in Germany where firearms resulted in deaths but you are right that CCW weapon permits are harder to get there and in other countries. I am still much more afraid of other automobile drivers than I am of strangers with concealed guns. I disagree with you that civil rights and racism are problems unique to the US and I am not as certain as you are that they played an important role in the Zimmerman-Martin case.

    The one thing I find most egregious about the case, which doesn’t bother you at all, is that Zimmerman was arrested on the whim of an elected prosecutor, who made the decision based on public pressure. In just about every other country, a prosecutor (civil service) gets involved in a case only after an investigative judge has some hearings where the evidence is examined and is deemed adequate to justify an indictment. Also, letting the attorneys for both sides interview witnesses is the heart of the US adversary system and I think it stinks. Bernardo de la Rionda’s interviews are perfect examples of putting blinders on and only asking questions to further prove an existing narrative rather than doing a real investigation.

    • Ricky,

      I read somewhere that it was pretty stupid for BDLR to interview “DeeDee” since that makes him a witness who could be called to testify.

      Is that true? Susan?

      Have you listened to his interview of W13?

    • It’s true. Could result in him being disqualified. I’m sure this is a more common occurrence in the criminal law world, and they have ways of dealing with it, but any time you have that kind of interaction the attorney makes himself a possible target as an impeachment witness.

  7. I am on my Nook so Ill keep it short. I apologize in advance for mistypes.

    With their partisian nature of the past few years, beyond witness #9’s ststements, I am curious what the Civil Rights Division actually found that caused them to back off. They declared GZ was not racist, all his friends, family, and ex’s said he wasn’t racist (even the one with the restraining order), then they started looking into SPD and Coreys office for any evidence against GZ and then suddenly went home with just a preliminary finding about GZ? I suspect they found evidence of civil rights violations they did not want to find, being perpertrated against the person they wanted to prosecute. If they proceed they are in deep dookie with this AG, and any coverup would get them in trouble with Romneys AG, the career investigators safest option – leave the investigation open and go home.

    Although I disagree with Susans analysis, I would reccomend all parties hold off on kneejerk attacks and kneejerk defense of witness #9 for a few days, there is a lot of information out there under our sunshine laws that may change your opinions on both sides.

    Loree/Unitron – unfortunately they heard your whisper 😉

    • I am back home now so here are a few useful links,

      State’s Response to Defendant’s Verified Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge
      http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/State's%20Response%20to%20Defendant's%20Verified%20Motion%20to%20Disqualify%20Trial%20Judge%20-%207%2017%2012.pdf

      Serino Interview with FBI

      I am trying to start a general warehouse of links for this case if anyone is interested, I am NOT running it as a Blog, Susan is doing a good job of that here, but if you want to drop me a link feel free.
      http://inspgadget365.wordpress.com/zimmerman/

    • InspGadget,

      Thanks for the complete report on the Serino interview.

      For some reason, they omitted the second page of the interview in the 284 page PDF. Is that mere incompetency?

      I had read a little bit about the allegations about Barns, and the others in the Miami Herald. The FBI interview with Sgt Barns was pretty odd, since he had nothing to do with the case other than being in the property crimes division (so would likely have been involved in the investigation and prosecution of Emmanuel Burgess), and he was being asked about the Twin Lakes area, and was recalling that it used to be undeveloped farm land.

    • (Insp. G: Since I cant copy and paste from the PDF file I have retyped this document on 17 Jul, 2012. For actual review of the entire document go to http://www.scribd.com/doc/99942204/Serino-s-FBI-Interview-2-Pges-1 () are my comments)

      Sanford Police Investigator, CHRISTOPHER SERINO, work phone number XXX-XXX-XXXX, personal cell XXX-XXX-XXXX was interviewed at Sanford Police Station on March 3, 2012 at approximately 11:00 am. After being advised of the identities of the interviewing agenta, SA Elizabeth C Alexander and SA Matthew Oliver, and the nature of the interview, he providsed the following information:

      Investigator Serino reviewed the police report dated 03/12/2012 in which he wrote, “The encounter between GEORGE ZIMMERMAN and TRAYVON MARTIN was ultimately avoidable by ZIMMERMAN, if ZIMMERMAN had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to MARTIN as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party’s concern. There is no indication that Trayvon MARTIN was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter. ZIMMERMAN, by his statements made to the call taker and recorded for review, and his statements made to the investigators following the shooting death of MARTIN, make it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to MARTIN’s purpose for being in the neighborhood.”

      Agents asked SERINO about the above statement and he replied that just the act of following him (MARTIN) was the instigation (of ZIMMERMAN) and nothing else. SERINO believed that ZIMMERMAN’s actions were not based on skin color rather based on his attire, the total circumstances of the encounter and the previous burglary suspects in the community.

      (Following Martin was not an illegal act, there were no illegal acts until the first physical contact.)

      Serino explained to agents that the local gangs, referred to in the community as “GOONS”, typically dressed in black and wore hoodies. Serino believes that when ZIMMERMAN saw MARTIN in a hoody, ZIMMERMAN took it upon himself to view MARTIN as acting suspecious. Serino described ZIMMERMAN as overzealous and having a “little hero complex”, but not as a racist. Serino explained that on numerous occasions he asked ZIMMERMAN specifically if he followed MARTIN based on his skin color and ZIMMERMAN never admitted to this fact.

      (This paragraph actually explains a few things to me, what has been questioned as F-Ing Coons, F-Ing Cold, F-Ing Punks now makes perfect sense as F-Ing Goons. The Hoodie in and of itself was not what set off Zimmermans internal alarm bells, it was that it was the “Gang Marking” of the local gang, and Martin may have never known he was wearing “Gang Colors”. If you have a 13 on your clothes, or the number 13 tattoos in some areas you will be indetified as MS-13. In LA you wear the wrong color bandanna in certain areas the rival gangs will kill you. Gang Colors and Gang signs are how gangs identify each other, it is how Police, Fire, News Media, and Neighborhood Watchmen identify gang activity.)

      Serino told agents that he talked to ZIMMERMAN on numerous occasions and feels he knows him farly well. Serino thinks that ZIMMERMAN does not want to be a cop because cops have a bad reputation and are bullies, but he wants to be a judge. Serino described ZIMMERMAN as being a “soft guy”. Serino believed that ZIMMERMAN’s story appeared “scripted” as in ZIMMERMAN knew the right things to say to the police. For example, he said he feared for his life, claimed self defense, etc.

      (If you go to any Concealed Weapons Class in any state that allows licenses, they spend half their time on the legalities and what to say and do after you have had to defend yourself. If you are in Florida look up floridafirearmslaw.com to get Jon Gutmacher’s book to help you learn the legalities of firearms and self defense in FL. A good place to start in any other state is handgunlaw.us)

      Serino reached out to several sources in the white supreamicist community and no one ever heard of ZIMMERMAN. Serino thought that there had been approximately five burglaries in the Retreat at Twin Lakes within the last year and a half.

      Serino is concerned that, any of the leaks in this case are coming from within the Sanford Police Dept. He listed Sgt AUTHOR BARNS, REBECCA VILLENOVE (phonetic), and TREKELL PERKINS as all pressuring him to file charges against ZIMMERMAN after the incident. Serino also stated that Barns is friendly with TRACY MARTIN and Barns asked Serino for Martin’s phone number but ended up getting the phone number from another source. Serino believed that after his conversation with Tracy Martin regarding the death of his son, Tracy Martin left the police station understanding why charges against ZIMMERMAN had not been filed. Serino was not sure why or when Tracy Martin changed his views and Martin believes the shooting was racially motivated.

      (This is where I believe the Civil Rights Division got derailed in their case against Zimmerman. The three officers Barns, Villinova, and Perkins are pushing to violate Zimmerman’s 14th Amendment Civil Rights by violating F.S. 760.032 Immunity. Verbatim quotes from Serino’s reports are ending are ending up within days being repeated on national news shows. The racial angle that this report squashes, is what mobilized people to protest, and caused Gov. Scott to appoint a Special Prosecutor. In the end he was arrested because he was accused publically of Racial Profiling that never happened “Martin then walked back to and entered the gated community and was on his way back to the townhouse where he was living when he was profiled by George Zimmerman.”, Martin was identified as a Gang Member because he was wearing Gang Markings that Martin probably did not know about, not because of his race.)

    • InspectorGadget,

      In the 2/29 interview with Serino, they are playing back parts of the tape, and Serino asks what he said, and Zimmerman instantly said “punks”.

      Like you noted with the CHL, Zimmerman appears to actually listen to what is being said in the class. Because he has ADD (which he says was diagnosed as a child) he may have some techniques to help him focus on details.

      Go read the Neighborhood Watch materials, either those from the SPD, or on the official Neighborhood Watch (National Sheriffs Association). His observations of Martin are textbook out of the manual. He explains why he thought Martin was behaving suspiciously. It was not because of the hoodie. He was simply observing carefully.

      I think the interesting part was that he didn’t remember mentioning the button the night before, but that is right out of the NW manual. Start with the big picture and then work on details.

    • jimrtex,

      Punks works then.

      As far as Neighborhood watch goes, I have never been on one but I’ll take your word on it. What I look for when I transfer to a new city is what are the local gang signs so I know where not to be.

      IG

    • Thanks InspGadget for the link to the Prosecution Response to the Motion to disqualify. Reading the Motion to disqualify and the Response of the prosecution to the said Motion feels like watching a virtual martial art fight. At this point, MO’M is has just taken a serious jab right in the face: with regard to the majority of the alleged judicial misconduct MO’M missed the deadline to file the motion to disqualify. I just read the first two pages and I think I can’t read it anymore without some popcorn and chilly coca cola on my side. So I will be going out for a while to get some. After I have digested the State’s Response, I shall come back to you, InspGadget – for some legal gymnastics.

  8. Quick update — any further comments by PeterO on this blog will be deleted.

    He has been persistently abusive towards other commenters, and it is abundantly clear he cannot keep a civil tongue long enough to be a useful contributor to discussion.

    Not to mention, it took him a mere 8 hours to violate my warning not to post information concerning the personal identity of Witness #9. And then when I moderated his comment, he decided to try and defend his actions on the basis of the fact that abuse victims are all probably liars if they don’t immediately report their abusers when it happens. Yep, we’re done here.

    • Yay! This means I can come back! (Not that I contributed a great deal, but I really enjoyed reading…) It was PeterO *alone* that chased me away. Hard to stay focused on real discussion when all I wanted to do was rebut his nasty remarks to other posters.

    • At last. PeterO’s long, idiotic comments were also the reason I sought other, more interesting discussions.

  9. Thank you Susan for the new thread, and thank you Loree for directing me over here!

    I’m kind of sorry to see Peter go, but it was getting to the point where the only option was to ignore him anyway. Too bad, but very good call on Susan’s part, especially since he tried to post a forbidden picture here. Not good taste, and not good judgement – to say the least.

  10. This is the best article I’ve seen so far on Witness #9. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2897557/zimmerman-defense-attorney-will.html

    It brings up the following points:

    **From the article: “O’Mara said he’s now put in the position of having to discredit the woman, by pointing out things like that she tried to sell her story to People magazine. The magazine’s executive editor said Tuesday that NO ONE THERE EVER SPOKE TO HER OR WAS APPROACHED FOR SUCH A STORY”. (caps mine). Is O’Mara taking his cues from unreliable sources like ConservativeTreehouse, which makes the same People Magazine claim?

    **According to Dr. Jill Levenson, Children as young as 8 “have often been exposed to domestic violence and pornography” and “are generally not considered sex offenders, and would be referred to get therapeutic help.”

    “Eight is pretty young to be initiating sexual activity. You’re talking about more than, ‘Can I see it?’ So the questions become: Where did the 8-year-old learn that, and does that 8-year-old need some help?”

    **Former Miami-Dade prosecutor Trudy Novicki, who now runs Kristi House, a center for abuse victims, said experts find that children who are sexually abused by another child are no less traumatized than adults who are abused by adults.

    To determine whether something would be considered sexual abuse, law enforcement would consider not just the offender’s age, but the age difference between the two kids, she said.

    “As the relationship is ongoing, then you’re talking about a teenage boy and a 12-year-old girl,” she said. “That’s getting to be the crossing-the-line area. I’m wondering what that kid has become all these years. That’s a pretty odd kid.”

    The experts agreed that children in such situations often don’t tell anyone about it.

    • I kept it to myself for quite a while, but when I saw that Zimmerman had been a Catholic altar boy it crossed my mind to wonder if he’d encountered one of “those” priests, and now I’m wondering it even more.

      When I was 8 I was just finding out that what I thought I knew about Santa Claus wasn’t necessarily entirely accurate, and, although I had always been attracted to females, had no idea it had anything to do with the continuation of the species, or that when one got old enough for a physical relationship that there was anything “beyond” kissing.

      unitron

    • HP,

      I think that the people on the Treehouse were referencing the Miami Herald article.

      Do you believe that because you upper case something, that adds to its credibility? That it must be the ПРАВДА. There is a tweet from a reporter from an Orlando TV station who says she believes W9 had tried to contact her.

      Both the defense and state wanted W9’s statement held back because it was inflammatory, and had nothing to do with the case.

      Do you think that the prosecution will seek to excuse anyone from the jury who didn’t vote for Obama? What about if their mother didn’t vote for Obama?

      Judge Lester said the prosecution had put it into discovery and therefore the public had a right to see it. He did the same with the phone calls. He suggested that next time the state might be a little more circumspect in what they claimed as being evidence.

      Do you think that they should have redacted the ring tones from the calls?

  11. Without any names?

    Dude, I saw your post!

    It included her first name, her maiden name, and her married name.

    “Sensible persons should leave this censored blog.”

    Then, by all means, don’t let us stop you from doing so.

    unitron

  12. Seriously, it is still in my inbox at 4:58AM on the 17th.

    HP. Back to your spamming habits again? Even Susan said the so called “molester” story is not relevant to any trial. Thanks for the info though about the ConservativeTreeHouse. I went there and saw her mugshot and learned she has been, unsuccessfully, trying to peddle her story for a while now. No takers. Guess why? Her full name is “xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (aka, xxxxx xxxxx, xxxxx x xxxxx, xxxxx x xxxxx, xxxxx xxxxx, xxxxx x xxxxx, xxxxx x xxxxx et al) and I saw her unflattering 2007 booking mugshot. In case you miss her, she is further Identified by her “highly apropos tattoo on her right wrist “xxxxx xxxxx”” (courtesy of the TreeHouse)

  13. Unitron, thanks for the explanation about the priest. I was just about to ask you what you meant previously when you mentioned it. Interesting possibility, in my opinion.

    Peter, I think you and unitron are talking about two different posts, and the one you posted above is still over on the other page. It’s never been censored. But what are you doing here? I thought you were banned for posting a picture of #9.

    As for the story peddling, I just don’t think it’s true. ConservativeTreeHouse and O’Mara said she tried to sell her story to People Magazine, and People Magazine denied it. Do you have any references besides ConservativeTreeHouse?

    And please CALM DOWN. If you’re so sure #9 won’t be a witness, quit worrying so much. Most people are quite aware this doesn’t prove Zimmerman murdered anyone, although, in my OPINION, these incidences do appear to follow a pattern.

    Just out of curiosity, what is the purpose of posting this lady’s name and picture anyway? I mean, even if you truly believe she is lying. I can only think of two reasons: #1. retribution, and #2. intimidation of her and other potential witnesses who might come out with the same complaint.

    Have you given any thought to the reasons for spreading around her name and picture? Do you have other reasons than what I mentioned? If you’re a good person (and even if you’re not), I hope you’ll give this some thought.

  14. Peter, Susan’s warning is in her very first post on this thread.

    Am I correct in my understanding from your above post that you posted #9’s picture just to “show how easy it is to smear someone”? Seems like a mighty strange way to play with someone else’s life while professing to be so concerned about this same thing happeneing to Zimmerman.

    Has it occurred to you that her story just might be true? Do you have any evidence that it’s not true? She said Zimmerman came to restaurant and met with her and her parents and apologized. Do you know if her parents dispute this?

    For Insp. Gadget:

    Another point about witness #9: According to the same Miami Herald story, (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2897557_p3/zimmerman-defense-attorney-will.html) on Page 3, the author states:

    “At a hearing last month, assistant state attorney Bernie de la Rionda said he might call “witness 9” as a rebuttal witness at trial.”

    Also, according to the article:

    “She certainly would be a rebuttal witness very similar to that in the Sandusky trial, showing that he has a history of violence and manipulation,” the attorney for the slain teen’s family, Benjamin Crump, said in reference to the child-molestation case involving former Pennsylvania State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. “Zimmerman’s mentality is very relevant to this trial.”

    Inspector, my impression is that Susan has no objection to our discussing opinions other than her own. If that were not true, you wouldn’t be here. However, if she tells me I’m wrong, then of course I won’t discuss whatever she says. THIS IS HER SITE.

    • The molestation side of this I still WILL NOT GO NEAR at all. I am researching Racism allegations which for me are a separate issue. In my first post about her I wasn’t about to give her name, I only referenced that I know who she is and am doing research. That is kind of irrelevant as it is plastered everywhere at this point. The call gives you enough info (ages) to look at the immediate family and identify who this person could be within a few minutes. With the name you can start looking at previous interactions with various players, Judges, arresting officers, etc… that had interacted with her (FL Sunshine Laws). I am still doing research into the players in this drama from arrest records, to contact with various players. For the sake of discussion there are two characters here “Witness #9” and “Cousin” from two different worlds. Witness #9 anonymously called Trekelle Perkins (identified by Serino to the FBI as a possible leak) with allegations about Racism AFTER he found out Zimmerman was probably not going to get arrested under 776.032 immunity. “Cousin” has apparently told the FBI that George and the family are not racist and never were which has apparently been born out by all that the FBI interviewed. A number of officers Villanova and others, involved themselves in this case and were identified in the case of the African American man that George went to the aid of that resulted in an investigation of Sanford PD. There are a lot of things I am trying to piece together here, among them what exactly did “Cousin” say to the FBI. “Cousin” and “Witness #9” do not mesh at all, WHY???? If you try to draw me into the discussion about the Molestation side of this I will simply ignore you.

      I am beginning to think Sanford PD needs to change their name to “General Police Department” and only operate from 2-3pm central on ABC.

      • Most of that was supposed to be a reply to Hapufern but ended up on the end of the list, sorry HP. The comment at the end about ignoring was not directed specifically to HP but ended up there. I am still learning to use this silly program.

      • “Witness #9 anonymously called Trekelle Perkins (identified by Serino to the FBI as a possible leak) with allegations about Racism AFTER he found…”

        Are you saying witness #9 is male?

        I’m pretty sure #9 didn’t specifically call Perkins, Perkins just happened to be the one on duty when #9 called.

        unitron

      • Someone E-Mailed me asking why I don’t want to engage on the molestation issue. Fair question, I am not on “Zimmerman’s side”, I am on the side of Zimmerman’s Rights, that may mean nothing to a lot of you but it means something to me. If he is guilty of Molestation in any of it’s forms then there is a system in place to take care of that; Criminal, Civil, Social, etc…. You can Lock him up and throw away the key for all I care about him as a person, but you had better do it by the fricking book. Even “if” it is true, I do not believe it would have had any bearing on his actions that night, or the actions of the various officials that have targeted him both instigating and reacting to the charges (now discounted by the FBI) of Racism. The only way I could possibly consider it as part of this case is if the molestation were made up specifically to harm Zimmerman.

        One of my questions may have been answered just now, when GZ said his cousin witness #9 was the only person to accuse him of Racism to the FBI. I had incorrectly understood that she had been interviewed and that no one had accused him of racism. Problem solved…

  15. Peter, since you didn’t read Susan’s first post, did you also not notice that from now on all of your posts will be deleted? You are effectively banned from this site. I don’t know if I’m even supposed to be talking to you, but I would like to at least dispute the rumor that #9 is trying to sell her story – unless you have a valid reference otherwise.

    Personally, I think it’s rather brave of the lady to have come forward. It seems so absolutely cowardly to me for CTH to be smearing her. She said her parents were present when Zimmerman apologized. She therefore HAS WITNESSES to his apology! Doesn’t that mean anything? But maybe it’s like a mob mentality over there, and people hung up their brains at the door.

    • Peter, I just posted this, but I moved it down so maybe you might see it.

      Regarding your claim of the lady changing her story:

      In the past, I’ve believed stuff you said when I didn’t have time to go over tapes myself. Then when I finally do have time, I’ve found out that what you’ve said was, I don’t know, imagination? And remember how many times you absolutely insisted that Trayvon was at the pool?

      I don’t have time to go over these tapes again now, but experience dictates that I not believe you until I DO have the time, or until I see the same point made by a reliable source.

      Yes, I do believe Zimmerman is guilty as heck. Same as you believe Zimmerman is innocent as heck. Good thing neither one of us will be on the jury.

    • Peter, I just checked out the #9 witness tapes. All three tapes are here: http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-9-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/

      On the first tape, Witness #9 said at the beginning of the tape that she knew that Zimmerman didn’t like black people.
      Later, she urged the police to find someone who could confirm that he didn’t like black people.

      On the second tape, She said George and his family always made statements about black people. Later she said she couldn’t remember anything specific that Zimmerman had said. This was on the same tape, and it is not contradictory. She said he always made statements. She couldn’t remember anything specific. I would say her statement won’t contribute anything to the prosecution’s case, but it’s not contradictory, and it certainly isn’t an indication that she lied about everything that she claims George did to her. .

      There’s no contradictory statement, and if this woman had wanted to lie about Zimmerman and say she recalled statements Zimmerman made, she certainly could have. She didn’t do so, and she didn’t recant anything..

      Your rumor is false.

    • HP,

      I know you don’t like purple people. You pretend to like purple people as long as they act like orange people. Your whole family is like that, your mother, father, brothers, and sisters, let’s just say it is in your blood.

      I can imagine a situation where you could would kill a purple person.

      There must be someone who will come forward and tell the police about it.

      Can I recall an instance of where you have actually said something negative about purple people? No.

      But I do recall something your mother once said.

      • I have to agree w/ him. This is exactly how I felt. She says his mother said SHE didn’t like blacks. Good grief, are children responsible for what their PARENTS say? That seems totally like a witch hunt. And yes, I do think GZ is a dangerous man but her accusations were pointless.

    • PeterO’s still banned. When I get a chance I’ll see if I can figure out a way to auto-ban his IP address, but for now, I’ll just delete any posts from him that pop up — banned posters usually get bored pretty quickly and leave on their own.

  16. For Insp. Gadget:

    Another point about witness #9: According to the same Miami Herald story, (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2897557_p3/zimmerman-defense-attorney-will.html) on Page 3, the author states:

    “At a hearing last month, assistant state attorney Bernie de la Rionda said he might call “witness 9” as a rebuttal witness at trial.”

    Also, according to the article:

    “She certainly would be a rebuttal witness very similar to that in the Sandusky trial, showing that he has a history of violence and manipulation,” the attorney for the slain teen’s family, Benjamin Crump, said in reference to the child-molestation case involving former Pennsylvania State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. “Zimmerman’s mentality is very relevant to this trial.”

    Inspector, my impression is that Susan has no objection to our discussing opinions other than her own. If that were not true, you wouldn’t be here. However, if she tells me I’m wrong, then of course I won’t discuss whatever she says. THIS IS HER SITE.

    • Susan, I have a lot of experience seeing what banned posters will do- many years of this. If they are truly motivated they come back under different ID’s and use anonymous different servers I think they’re called- to get on.

      What Peter and others who think this young woman’s lying have to ask themselves why a liar would say she drove alone to GZ’s house and even submitted to a massage? She expected other people top be there so that could explain one part, but the other is typical of an abuse victim. The repeat abuser has a kind of hold over them. Again, skeptics- if she were out to get him by lying, why the admission about the massage? You need to educate yourself about these things. Perhaps by doing so you might save someone.

      Susan, a belated congrats on your marriage! :o)

  17. Ladies and gentlemen, pls. I need you all to concentrate on the matter at hand: GZ’s legal saga. Right now, MO’M has filed a motion demanding the recusal of the trial judge. The State has filed its Response to the aforementioned Motion. I wonder if you (FROM A PURELY LEGAL STANDPOINT) are interested in debating the merits of the Motion and the State’s Response to it. I think this is a mighty casus for ‘law junkies’ who are constantly at war in the legal battlefields in their head. I am still digesting the documents and will share my thoughts soon.

    • Thanks intel. I read it. Do you have any idea when the judge will rule? I have no idea what the outcome will be, but I don’t think O’Mara is doing a real great job with the defense.

    • Hapufern, I think the Court must expeditiously rule ‘within a reasonable time’, for the obvious reason that the Court – in the absence of a ruling on the Motion to disqualify – may not make any other decision in the case. The Court has to rule on the Motion to disqualify first in order for the case to move forward.
      Having read both the Motion to disqualify and the State’s Response to that Motion, I find with a reasonable degree of legal certainty that that Motion will fail – on the following grounds:

      1. A Motion to disqualify MUST be filed within 10-days after discovery of the alleged judicial misconduct constituting the grounds for the Motion. This rule belongs to what is known as the “hard rules” (rules that are fixed, cannot be changed and the violation of which are ‘taxed’/penalized). In the present case MO’M did not satisfy this condition. The only judicial misconduct alleged by MO’M that falls within this time frame is the Court’s Order of 5th July 2012. Hence, all other alleged misconducts upon which MO’M’s Motion rests are irrelevant and would not factor in the decision of the Court.

      2. For a defendant to successfully file a Motion to disqualify, that defendant must (a) show subjective fear on his part of bias on the part of the Court and (b) that the said fear is objectively reasonable. In the present case the later condition is not satisfied – i.e. the fear of GZ is not objectively reasonable (in my opinion). As the prosecution pointed out, the Court’s Order of 5th July 2012 contains the finding of the Court upon hearing all the testimonies of all the witnesses- and after considering all the evidence presented by MO’M. The Court was obliged, fully within its right to make such findings and could not escape doing so. Such findings do not amount to any misconduct of any kind and CANNOT in any case (alone) constitute any “objective” “reasonable” ground for fear of bias on the part of the Court (for if the reverse were to be the case, no judge will ever dare make a finding against any defendant, lest he be accused of bias and removed from the case).

      3. Moreover, MO’M has earlier in public stated as undisputed facts essentially the same findings of the Court for which he (MO’M) now wants the trial Judge to disqualify himself.

      Lastly, the signature of GZ on the Motion to disqualify strikes me as odd. I think it is possible that MO’M advised against filing the Motion but had to file it anyway to satisfy the wishes of GZ, RZ (who must have felt indirectly attacked by the Court in the Order of 5th July 2012) and de donors.

  18. Peter, as far as the lady changing her story: In the past, I’ve believed stuff you said when I didn’t have time to go over tapes myself. Then when I finally do have time, I’ve found out that what you’ve said was, I don’t know, imagination? And remember how many times you absolutely insisted that Trayvon was at the pool?

    I don’t have time to go over these tapes again now, but experience dictates that I not believe you until I DO have the time, or until I see the same point made by a valid source.

    Yes, I do believe Zimmerman is guilty as heck. Same as you believe Zimmerman is innocent as heck. Good thing neither one of us will be on the jury.

    • If this young woman were a liar attempting to trash GZ, then she would hardly have stated that the last time anything had happened, she had gone, alone at age 16 to the house where GZ was staying alone, and even when she found out that others weren’t there as well she had accepted a massage from him.

      She showed as a typical victim of someone who had a long history with this person. Of course she left before he “had his way” with her but there is nothing in this last episode with him that would wind up in court. She is painfully honest. I listened to the interview several times and she appeared to have gone out of her way not to overstate anything.You get the feeling that the interviewer keeps expecting something to be said that never is.

      The fact that she didn’t say in the official statement what she said originally on the phone (re GZ and racism) just shows more honesty. She probably thought over carefully what she had heard from him vs the rest of his family. Over and over and over again she is given the opportunity to say something damaging about him re racial issues and you can see how hard she tries to make sure she doesn’t exaggerate or imply anything false.

      She said she tried very hard to forget the bad and unfortunately some of the good was forgotten as well, re her childhood, because of what had happened between them; if she remembered what we heard, I hate to think what she might have forgotten.

      Nevertheless, the judge should never have released this to the public. It’s hard to believe he had no choice in the matter.

      • Hi VSmith,

        I agree with nearly all that you said, except a couple of points.

        First, although it’s true that #9 didn’t say in the official statement what she originally said on the phone, I don’t think any of her statements were contradictory. (Please correct me if any of the following is wrong. I’m going by my notes.) During the 1st tape (over the phone), she said “I know that he does not like black people”. Later in the same tape, she urged the police to find someone who could confirm this.

        Although she said in a later tape that she couldn’t think of any specific racist statement that Zimmerman had made, this is not the same as saying that Zimmerman DID like black people. What I took from the interviews was that she had a strong IMPRESSION that Zimmerman didn’t like black people. However, she couldn’t think of anything specific that he’d said. Maybe he laughed at racist jokes? We just don’t know.

        Whatever the case, I agree that it’s pretty weak. And I also agree that this adds to her credibility, because she had so many chances to make up something more incriminating.

        Second, I do think the judge was correct in releasing this testimony because: Imagine if this had been leaked to the public at a much more crucial time – say during jury selection. Releasing it now, with a year or so to go before the trial, gives people some time to get over the shock value.

        Or imagine if it were leaked just after Zimmerman is acquitted. I think everyone on both sides of the issue would be outraged.

        Also, it’s possible that this could be introduced at trial, although I tend to agree with Susan that it probably won’t be. I think O’Mara will bend over backwards to prevent the prosecution from having a reason to introduce it. But maybe not, This case has been pretty unpredictable so far (at least for me), and I think that’s one thing that makes it so interesting.

        Thanks for your comments!

      • Interesting comment about her remembering more details later makes her more honest but that does not apply to George. OK, I get it now. Makes perfect sense.

        • Is Zimmerman remembering more details later, or different ones?

          What about the ones he’s no longer remembering, like so much of the phone call?

          You know, the call on which he did not say “Sh*t, he must be headed for the May Pole, he’s skipping away.”

          unitron

          • Unitron, you are funny! But it’s so true.

            Jordan, I’m not following about Witness #9 remembering more details later. What “more details”?

          • I see no big deal in him saying running and then later replaying it in his mind to say skipping away, which to me is the same as moving away quickly. Don’t you think he has replayed the NEN call and his interviews dozens of times? To me, he is only being honest but I guess it’s a matter of perspective. Overall, his statements are consistent enough for me if I am a juror.

            I have many stories to tell. I doubt I use identical words each time I tell them.

          • “To me, he is only being honest but I guess it’s a matter of perspective. Overall, his statements are consistent enough for me if I am a juror.. Er, no. The whole business about leaving his vehicle because the dispatcher asked him for an address is shown to be an utter lie by his police call, not to mention the fact he never actually retrieves an address from RVC (becuase, of course, he did not actually walk over there). And that’s just one of many elements of his statements that are contradicted by concrete physical evidence.

          • Jordan, there is a huge contradiction here, because Detective Serino specifically asked Zimmerman the exact same question. Serino asked Zimmerman why Trayvon ran, and Serino suggested that Trayvon may have run because he was afraid of Zimmerman. Zimmerman responded that he couldn’t remember how Trayvon ran. Now he does remember and even denies that Trayvon ever ran. This is a major contradiction.

            HANNITY: — trying to maybe get into the mind-set, because we also have learned that Trayvon was speaking with his girlfriend supposedly at the time — that maybe he was afraid of you, didn’t know who you were?

            ZIMMERMAN: No.

            HANNITY: You don’t think — why do you think that he was running then?

            ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running, but he was more —

            HANNITY: You said he’s running.

            ZIMMERMAN: Yes. He was like skipping, going away quickly. But he wasn’t running out of fear.

            HANNITY: You could tell the difference?

            ZIMMERMAN: He wasn’t running.

            HANNITY: So he wasn’t actually running?

            ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.
            ——————————————————————————

            Apparently, even with all the controversy over Zimmerman’s credibility, he thought the question of why Trayvon ran was important enough to suddenly deny that Trayvon ever ran at all. Why didn’t he deny it to Serino? Guess it’s more difficult to do right there when the tape is being played.

            Zimmerman: “Shit! He ran.”

            Would Zimmerman have said “Shit! if Trayvon just started walking faster?

            And why did Zimmerman say, “He ran” later. “He ran” either means “he ran” or “he escaped”. Both of those meanings are incriminating to Zimmerman, because Trayvon was afraid of Zimmerman, or Trayvon was trying to escape from Zimmerman, or both.

            And the question has still not been answered – by Zimmerman.

          • Sorry, the first Zimmerman quote on the NEN tape was, “Shit, he’s running”. (not “Shit, he ran”)

            Zimmer said “He ran” later, after Zimmerman agreed to stop following Trayvon.

          • HP

            GZ: “Shit, he is making a quick evasive maneuver”
            Dispatcher: He’s making a quick evasive maneuver? Which way is he headed? What is his stride pattern, running, jogging, skipping, trotting, sprinting, or race-walking?
            GZ (opens truck and gets out, to determine the direction Martin is headed and his stride pattern): He is headed for the other entrance.
            Dispatcher: Which entrance is he headed for?
            GZ: The back entrance (Zimmerman begins fast walk, shuffling run towards where Martin began his evasive maneuver 11 seconds earlier).

            GZ: He made a quick evasive maneuver and is no longer in sight.

            Since Zimmerman doesn’t run,

          • Jimrtex, yup, sounds pretty silly doesn’t it? That’s why “quick evasive maneuver” is often referred to as “running”. If Trayvon was actually making a “quick evasive maneuver”, we end up with the same question:

            Why????

            And why was Zimmerman so disappointed about Trayvon’s “quick evasive maneuver” that Zimmerman said, “Shit.”?

          • HP,

            It would be speculative why Martin made a quick evasive maneuver. Why do you think he did so?

            At the time Martin made his quick evasive maneuver, Zimmerman was telling the dispatcher how the police officer could find him. “I am disappointed that because of the quick evasive maneuver, the officer won’t be able to find the suspicious person.”

          • Since you asked jimrtex, I think Trayvon ran because he was afraid of Zimmerman – a stranger who rather blatantly displayed a more than normal interest for no discernable reason.

          • I agree jimrtex that Trayvon returned. Trayvon may have returned after avoiding his house the first time, because a crazy guy was running after him, and his parents weren’t home.

            Zimmerman may have caught up with Trayvon as he was returning to his house the second time around.

            Or, if you don’t believe DeeDee, Trayvon might have hidden, and Zimmerman found him.

            It seems to me that DeeDee’s account has a lot fewer inconsistencies though than Zimmerman’s account.

            And what was Zimmerman doing 45 feet south of the T? Trayvon may have been there because he was trying to get home. What was Zimmerman doing there? According to Zimmerman he never went south of the T during his phone call. I find it difficult to believe that Trayvon FORCED Zimmerman to move so many feet in that direction as Zimmerman was falling down from Trayvon’s first blow, which is what Zimmerman claimed.

            Do you believe that Zimmerman fell down from Trayvon’s first blow, which Zimmerman received at the T? Zimmerman said this, so do you believe it?
            If Zimmerman merely forgot and mistakenly gave an inaccurate story, there’s really no reason to believe that any of Zimmerman’s stories were accurate, is there? Or if there is, then how does anyone pick out the accurate stories from the inaccurate ones?

          • HP,

            Why would the ear witnesses say that the altercation moved north to south?

          • Jimrtex, my point is that how could the altercation move north to south 45 feet if Zimmerman fell right after the first blow, that he claimed happened at the T?

            Also, do you believe Zimmerman when he told the lady detective that he moved his vehicle from Retreat View Circle to where it was parked by the T because the dispatcher told him to move to where he could have a better view of Trayvon?

          • I’m convinced that much more of the ‘altercation’ must have taken place with both GZ and TM not on the ground, which is the main reason why the ‘bashing head on concrete’ never happened.

            a) GZ injury evidence – consistent with one punch in the nose and falling and hitting head on concrete – not consistent with any sort of sustained beating.
            b) near lack of TM DNA on GZ, and I think complete lack of GZ DNA on TM.
            c) almost pristine-looking jacket and shirt sported by GZ when taken into custody that night – no blood from GZ’s supposed ‘bloody nose’, no grass or mud stains.
            d) GZ declining all offers to go to hospital that night.
            e) no reports of other injuries on GZ from EMTs that night (I’m working on a transcript of M. Brandy’s sworn testimony. He raised GZ’s shirt to examine him and found no lacerations, abrasions, bruising … and no redness).

            You can explain away one or two of these, but you can’t explain the evidence of all 5 and fit it in with any story GZ has so far told.

          • Marvin M, you have to go from a certainty that Zimmerman, after the altercation, exaggerated his injuries, to conclude that beyond a reasonable doubt, he knew, at the time of the fight he could have escaped or knew he was not in any danger of serious harm but shot Martin anyway. I am afraid I am nowhere near the high intellectual plane needed to make such a certain deduction.

          • Susan, you are giving a good reason for why the non English speaking world uses panels of 3 or more judges in all cases where a serious penalty, monetary or criminal, is involved.

          • Remember that the law says it is not what GZ thought that counts but, rather, what a REASONABLE person in that exact same situation would think.

          • In the case of a jury trial, conviction means that they feel it is unreasonable that Zimmerman had reasonable fear for his life, a pretty tough conclusion to come to, since it is reasonable that Zimmerman was the belting out those screams. Could a judge at an SYG hearing come to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear? I would prefer a judge who didn’t have to worry about reelection to make that decision.

          • ” Zimmerman was the belting out those screams”
            this is a highly disputed part of the case and deserves to be reviewed by a jury.

            “Could a judge at an SYG hearing come to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear?”

            Any sensible (my opinion) Judge, if put in the situation of uncertainty in a SYG hearing would, and can, decide that the issue deserves to be examined by a jury.

            Why would you rather see a SYG hearing vindicate GZ rather than a Jury?

            ” I would prefer a judge who didn’t have to worry about reelection to make that decision.”

            Could you tell me when he is up for re-election, I could find nothing about it online?

            Also the only way this would turn out bad is if the Judge made a horrible decision. That is why we have an electoral system. Judges are held to answer to the public. There are good things about this and bad.

          • Only if the jury pool is stacked with a pool that also has unreasonable fear of teenagers walking to a store to purchase snacks.

          • Hey I think I have seen you over at frederick site, yeah? I have not posted anything there yet, but I have be sandbagging 😉 he is a bodacious dude!

          • WOW, I hate woordpress! that last comment was to you CommonSenseForChange

          • I need your help, Susan, in understanding how the site now works. I cannot figure how to make a post at the bottom of the bottom of this thread, nor can I find any of my posts without literally checking this entire log. You have my email address and it’s perfectly OK to reply to me there as you have in the past. It is difficult to be a participant here without knowing how posting works.

          • Sorry, Jordan. … To do that, I’d have to know how to make it work myself. I’ll start a new thread soon which I believe I hope will fix the problem. With this thread, I changed the way it worked halfway through, which seems to have broken it.

          • Susan: I will wait until you start a new thread. I want to make a post about O’Mara in response to some of the things you have said.

          • There is a simple question that a good prosecution lawyer will ask a jury.

            “Ask your self, would TM have been running/skipping if GZ were not there that night? Is it reasonable to believe that TM was running for some reason that would have caused him to run/skip in the absence of GZ? if not, then we can conclude that TM was running due to GZ presence that night, and running out of fear of this individual or at very least to elude his follower as DeeDee has stated and the NEN calls prove in GZ own words that night.”

            I think that a jury will also find that GZ knows this and is blatantly lying. Really not a good move on the defenses part to put forward such a flimsy lie. It is one of those lies that disrespect even the most unintelligent of human minds. If he does stuff like this to a jury, frankly he is going to irritate them all.

            When GZ tries to make the statement , “I was going in the same direction as him” this is not only a lie, it is a provable one. Even at it’s face it is hard for any reasonable person to believe this. We can also conclude from this that his lawyer, MOM, finds it important to portray that his client was not chasing TM. But I just don’t see how he gets there with a jury of people that have working brains. Again, the question to GZ, and to a jury, to reasonably believe would be;

            “Are we to believe that GZ would have driven his car from were it was to were he parked it, to then get out out and walk/run in the direction he did if TM were not there that night? If we conclude that GZ drove/ran/walked this route as a result of TM being present that night, we define this and following/chasing after someone. As to GZ motive as to why he was chasing him is irrelevant. The prosecution only needs to prove that GZ was chasing him.”

            Also GZ never told TM “I am NW captain” So it is expected that even when GZ caught up to TM that it was GZ responsibility to diffuse a situation that he himself started, he chose not to diffuse the situation and started to, by his own admission, demand information from TM. This is a clear and obvious example of aggressive behavior. The kind of behavior that has been problematic throughout GZ life.

            Remember BEFORE GZ can argue self defense it is up to him to prove “resonably” that he was no longer a threat to TM and that TM “unreasonably” and for no reason that has ANYTHING to do with GZ actions that night began to then chase GZ and attack him. This would have to be proved with almost total certainty in a SYG hearing. I Doubt that any judge in this country could find this to be the case in a SYG hearing. I also find that no juror could find this to be reasonable. And even the most unintelligent prosecutor could with ease tear this apart.

            Something I am having trouble with talking to many of the GZ supporters is there inability to distinguish between what “reasonable doubt” is and “lies”. It seems that too many people have been led to the understanding that these two things are one in the same. They are not. This is not a movie.

          • Could you imagine a list of lies that he has said so far? that would be one big list. I have lost tract at this point as to all the lies. It might be said that he has not said anything that isn’t a lie other that his name.

            I really can’t understand why MOM is still willing to be on this case. I am starting to think he feels confident about a SYG hearing. I can’t believe that MOM is willing to take this case in front of a jury.

          • Sandbagger, I’m perplexed as well. Maybe the money’s staring to roll in since Zimmerman’s back on his website.

          • Good to know, Jordan, that you would like to be a member of the jury. One of the questions that would be asked during the jury selection is: do regularly sing with the choir at conservativethreehouse.com spewing hate? How would you answer that question, Jordan? I fear they may throw you out if you tell them the truth – just saying.

  19. Peter, were the cousin merely trying to trash GZ, she would NOT have suggested this started when they were both so young; to suggest he was doing this at age 8- finger penetration- would show he would have had some serious issues; the idea that he, himself, might well have been molested would have evoked sympathy.

    Now if she had said it started when he was 12 or older, maybe there could be some suspicion. And, unlike so many victims, she DID wind up telling her sister who told the parents, who told the other parents, with the brief confrontation with GZ in the restaurant where he says “I’m sorry” and then leaves is very believable. There is NO apparent embellishment of any nature whatsoever, On the contrary, she seems to go out of her way to make sure that she doesn’t.

    When she winds up going to the house where he is living alone (she thinks others were going to be there)- she does NOT say he made an attempt to rape her- and when she runs out of the house she makes certain to let us know he didn’t follow beyond the front door.

    Over and over again the interviewer opened the door for her to say something far more dramatic than she did say. The emotion in her voice was far from play-acting.

    She was the perfect victim type; and his popularity with the family would certainly make her more than hesitant to reveal anything and face what would be inevitable. This was family, for Heaven’s sake, and they were close, with frequent vacations together. You have no understanding whatever of the scenario, it seems.

    In my case, I was around 12 when my older cousin showed an interest- but I made darned sure I was never alone with him. Had I been a very young child it would have been quite a different matter, however.

    She is quite credible– but this has nothing to do with GZ’s guilt or innocence re the murder charge.

    And do I believe her comments about racism in the family? Again, yes- one of the reason’s being that she did NOT go out of the way to give us a few “quotes” of what GZ would purportedly have said. She commented about his MOTHER’s stating that she was a racist. Why do you think she did this? The mother isn’t on trial!

    And, no- I do not believe racism had anything to do with Trayvon’s death. I also believe that So far, from what I’ve read and heard, I think that a conviction of either murder or manslaughter is not likely.

    If only GZ had stayed in his vehicle instead of getting out to follow further, no matter for how short of a time…

    • Anonymous — it might help keep the discussion threads easier to follow (as much as that can ever be done with WordPress…) if you include a username with your posts. Right now, you’re the only consistent poster using Anonymous as a handle, but it makes it hard to tell whether you’re the same person or a bunch of different ones!

      • If it helps I got a free WordPress account so wouldn’t have to constantly re-log in using whichever acct was handy Twitter, FB, or as anonymous. It seems to make it easier to go between blogs etc.. and the Android interface is easier than going here from a web page link. It also frees me up to post as many links as I want on my page, so I do not overload Susan’s moderator inbox awaiting approvals. If you want to see my links to information you just click my name above my comment.

        • jimrtex asks, “Why should Zimmerman be expected to be more reliable witness than other witnesses, most who can’t remember if they called after the shot or before it?”

          The short answer is because he was much more involved than they were. Do you think he has not prevaricated about anything and every contradiction is due to faulty memory?

  20. Anonymous: HP?

    “And do I believe her comments about racism in the family? Again, yes- one of the reason’s being that she did NOT go out of the way to give us a few “quotes” of what GZ would purportedly have said. She commented about his MOTHER’s stating that she was a racist. Why do you think she did this? The mother isn’t on trial!”

    Let’s see if I can follow your “logic”?

    Since she says that racism runs in their blood, and she implicates Zimmerman’s mother, then any racist attitudes that are in the blood must come from the Peruvian side of the family. I’m not saying that you believe that racism is a blood-transmitted disease, but it appears to be Witness 9’s belief.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

    Robert Zimmerman, Sr. was invited to a party by an Army buddy George Mesa, where he met George’s sister Gladys, who was visiting from Peru. Robert Zimmerman married Gladys. (other articles have mentioned a cousin by the name of Miguel Meza, so it might be that both spellings are used, or Reuters, being British, edited the name. I’ll go ahead and use Meza)

    Their first son is Robert Zimmerman, Jr., and presumably named for his father.
    That would suggest that George Zimmerman was named for Gladys Zimmerman’s brother. Before George Zimmerman was born, Zimmerman’s maternal grandmother [] came to live with the family.

    []

    Witness 9, says that her father regards George Zimmerman as the “son he never had”. And it is public knowledge that Zimmerman moved to Florida to work for his uncle’s insurance agency. If you regard your nephew as the son you never had, doesn’t that suggest a certain closeness to his mother, your sister, and his grandmother, your mother. []

    So basically you are suggesting that Witness 9 is saying that the whole Meza family, including her grandmother and father are racist, or at least think that blacks should not act in “black ways” (whatever that means).

    And she was unwilling to out her grandmother or father as being racist, and really had no knowledge of George Zimmerman’s attitudes toward blacks, since she has avoided seeing him her entire adult life. So the only incident she could remember was with her Aunt Gladys, and in which she mocked her accent.

    • You’re making a lot of unfounded and weird assumptions here.

      Witness 9 views one nuclear family unit in her extended unit to have racist prejudices. This does not at all imply she believes all family units in her extended family are the same way — in fact, it implies exactly the opposite, if Zimmerman’s family stood out to her for being a certain way.

      Zimmerman didn’t need to be a vocal racist in order to have engaged in profiling when he followed Trayvon. You don’t have to be a member of Stormfront to be the kind of person who sees a black kid walking along the street and assume that the kid is up to criminal activity, when, had that person seen a white kid doing the same thing, their brain wouldn’t have leaped to the same conclusion. This kind of low-level, heuristic-based racism is basically epidemic, and it seems likely that Zimmerman was influenced by these kind of assumptions to some degree.

    • Susan Simpson said:

      “You’re making a lot of unfounded and weird assumptions here.”

      I really think think it is Hapufern who was making the weird assumptions. She said that the fact that Witness 9 “did NOT go out of her way to give us a few “quotes” of what GZ would purportedly have said” gave credibility to her comments.

      Witness 9 was being interviewed because there is an unfounded theory that George Zimmerman targeted Trayvon Martin because he was black.

      She could not cite one incident. If the question is what is “two plus two”; and the answer given is George Washington, hydrogen dioxide, or habeas corpus; you wouldn’t say that the answering person was not going out of her way to answer a unrelated question. You would say she was evading the question.

      Hapufern would apparently think that the refusal to answer the two plus two question, should indicate a jump to calculus. I think the dog ate the homework.

      Susan Simpson said:

      “Witness 9 views one nuclear family unit in her extended unit to have racist prejudices.”

      George Zimmerman’s immediate family included his maternal grandmother (whose name may not be mentioned). She lived in his household his entire life. He has her name tattooed on his body. One of the reasons that his parents bought their retirement home in the Orlando area was because of the mild winters, for the grandmother (who must be 80+ and was in the hospital in February).

      Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee said that his mother and grandmother were dominant. She also said that she felt his mother didn’t approve of her because her parents were Puerto Rican and Argentine, and that she thought that George should marry a white girl, and that in Peru people improved their social status by marrying white. But whatever his other faults were, George Zimmerman had not shown animus toward blacks.

      I don’t think you can exclude George Zimmerman’s grandmother from his “nuclear family”, just because it doesn’t fit your cookie-cutter All-American model.

      And if it is “in the blood”, then it sounds more than likely that a little bit dripped into the blood of Witness 9’s father. That is likely why she didn’t want to go any farther.

      Susan Simpson said:

      “You don’t have to be a member of Stormfront to be the kind of person who sees a black kid walking along the street and assume that the kid is up to criminal activity.”

      Zimmerman did not see Martin walking along the street. He saw him standing next to a house in the rain, where he had previously seen someone, who was apparently arrested a few weeks later in the short cut to apartments to the west. That person who was arrested had a laptop in his possession. As part of his sentencing he was ordered to pay restitution to a resident who lived on the building immediately to the south of the short cut (the shortcut goes between two buildings).

    • I was referring specifically to what I said- nothing about “in someone’s blood”. She has made a point out of trying to forget a lot of what happened, I believe her to be truthful.

      She talks about the idea of being “upwardly mobile” by marrying white mentioned by Gladys, I believe.

      I don’t remember hearing her say she cut off from the family:hat I remember is her saying they now give deference to her feelings over GZ’s when it comes to visits.

      The fact that GZ told her from the beginning that she was to think/say they were only sleeping or playing hide-and-seek tells me that some adult very likely had said the same kind of thing to him; he knew to keep it secret at age 8. I would hardly hold an 8-year-old accountable for this, but surely would see to it that he got counseling and that child services would open an investigation as to what had perhaps happened to him.

      • V Smith,

        It was Witness 9 who made the claim that George Zimmerman’s purported racist attitudes were “in his blood” If we are charitable, this means that W9 believed that they were acquired from growing up in his family, rather than transmitted via the blood or genetically. But we can’t really make that assumption.

        In either case, George Zimmerman’s maternal grandmother (whose name can not be mentioned) was a member of his immediate family his entire life. I did not say that W9 had been cut off. I said George Zimmermans’s grandmother could not be excluded from a reasonable definition of immediate family.

  21. Here is a blogger who argues that Witness #9’s accusations would be relevant for an actual trial; http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/07/17/george_zimmerman_molestation_accusations_relevant_testimony_in_trial.html
    If one accepts her arguments for this material being relevant (which I, by the way, don’t) could one also argue that the dirt on Martin’s school suspensions and social media postings and subscriptions are also relevant? A similar sort of BS, “Shows contempt for authority”, “Shows fascination with violence” would come into play there. There is no essential difference, IMHO.

    • Except Trayvon smoking pot has precisely zero relevance regarding whether Zimmerman was justified in killing him. Same goes for the media postings, assuming Trayvon never tweeted something along the lines of “if anyone ever tries to follow me, I’m going to punch them.”

      As far as I’m aware, Trayvon has never been accused of attacking a stranger. Which is pretty much the only character/behavioral trait that is remotely relevant.

      (Also, contempt for authority? Trayvon had every reason to believe Zimmerman was a thug or creep trying to jump him, and no reason to believe Zimmerman had “authority” over him. Because he didn’t.)

      I do think the sexual abuse and molestation charges are largely irrelevant unless for some reason they need to be used as impeachment evidence, but the sexual assault accusations from when Zimmerman was 18 could definitely be relevant for showing a pattern of violence and aggression. Alternatively, for mitigation purposes if there is a conviction, it’s possible the abuse issue could come up then to show Zimmerman’s diminished culpability due to tragic childhood circumstances, or some such.

  22. For anyone wondering, Peter was here last night, but Susan cleaned it up very well I think.

    For the record Jimrtex, I’m not “anonymous” anywhere on this page. I’ve mistakenly been “anonymous” on other pages but corrected the error whenever I saw it.

    Intel, I noticed (I think) that the prosecution never specifically mentioned the judge’s allegation that Zimmerman was planning to flee. Do you think that will be a problem for the prosecution? Or do you think the prosecution covered that with their claims of the judge having the right to state his conclusions (or something to that effect)?

    Interesting about that 10-day time limit. It doesn’t allow for much accumulation of grievances. I think that’s probably a good thing, because it forces the complaint to focus on something specific and powerful enough to stand on its own. Otherwise defense would be going for recusal all the time.

    • Hapufern says:

      “For the record Jimrtex, I’m not “anonymous” anywhere on this page. I’ve mistakenly been “anonymous” on other pages but corrected the error whenever I saw it.”

      I was responding to a message by:

      “Anonymous on July 18, 2012 at 4:46 am said”

      You should be able to search for that time. I wasn’t sure whether it was you or not. I was responding to the argument that “Anonymous” made, that Witness 9 was more credible about George Zimmerman’s supposed racist attitudes PRECISELY because she could not recall any words or actions.

      I’d appreciate it if you would check it out, just to confirm that it wasn’t you who had posted that message.

      If it was not you, I apologize for attributing the message to you. I do of course stand by the argument that I had made.

  23. [I am obviously PeterO, and I seem to believe that if I post under a different screenname, no one will realize it is me.]

  24. On Nook appologize for spelling.

    The “he” earlier was Perkins. If cousin is who I came up with (the same one Peter identified), she apparently told the FBI GZ wasnt racist. This is either conflicting statements or 2 people but it does not make sense. This is why i want the actual FBI statements. I will not have decent access till late tonight, dvr set for hannity.

  25. All right, I’ve made some changes to the comment format. Hopefully this won’t end up just making things more annoying.

    Also hopefully the spam filter won’t be quite so aggressive, so y’all’s posts will stop getting held up in moderation all the time.

  26. Here are the things that stuck out for me in the Hannity interview and some of the questions they raise:
    1) Z carries his gun all the time except when he goes to work. Is this standard for CCW permit holders?
    2) He started screaming for help right after he got hit in the nose. Is this in accord with the ear witnesses?
    3) He was trying to direct the cops to where he was by his screams. Now that does make sense!
    4) Martin was cursing him and telling him to shut up during the screams.
    5) Martin switched from banging his head on the concrete to smothering him shortly before the shot since his head was no longer on the concrete. On at least one earlier interview Zimmerman said Martin was going to bang his head on the concrete again just before he shot him. Do the screams have any indication that their was a switch between banging and smothering?

    • … How can you be smothered to the point where you fear imminent death due to suffocation, but still have enough breath to scream endlessly for help? What? Zimmerman actually claimed that? What the hell is his attorney thinking??

          • Witness #9 statements can be heard in full; Huffington Post had an article you can click on. Must be available elsewhere as well. She is very credible,

        • I can’t believe O’Mara allowed this interview to happen. Either Zimmerman is seriously off the reservation and O’Mara needs to withdraw representation, or O’Mara is actually agreeing with this kind of self-destructive insanity.

          I also can’t get over Zimmerman being willing to state, on the record, that he has no regrets about shooting an unarmed, innocent teenager. Say what? No regrets about leaving your vehicle to pursue a kid who was committing no crime, which resulted in that kid being gunned down? Even if you believe Zimmerman is not guilty of murder for killing Trayvon, it seems blatantly clear that, at a minimum, Zimmerman ought to be regretting his poor choices that night. Such as not identifying himself as neighborhood watch, and deciding to leave his car to pursue (sorry, “keep an eye on”) an innocent kid. It’s mind boggling.

          Not to mention Zimmerman stating he “can’t remember” what he was thinking when he shot Trayvon… That’s not good for the whole ‘acting in reasonable self-defense’ claim.

          • Susan, GZ said on Sean Hannity show that he was NOT pursuing or following TM. He claims that he was going to get an address for the dispatcher. The direction he headed to get the address happens to be the direction TM was. “30-seconds” after he ended the call with the dispatcher and on his way to get the address, TM attacked him. They (GZ and TM) fought for about 2 –minutes and 45-seconds with TM ending up dead. This seems to be a solid story, would you not agree?

          • I thought I saw a quote in their where Zimmerman said he wasn’t following Trayvon, he was only “keeping an eye on him.”

            And no, it’s not a solid story. Zimmerman absolutely does not have injuries that, in any world, could support his claim of being on the losing end of a beat down for nearly three minutes. Impossible.

      • On the 911 call with the most screams they are less frequent at the end after (apparently) John slams his door shut.

      • The high frequency infomation in the screaming, the clarity (not the volume) indicates that no obstructions (e..g a hand over a mouth) were placed in they’re path. the consitency of the base frequencies indicate no screams were interrupted by anything like head slams to a hard surface. Furthermore the clarity of the screams strongly suggest that W11 and W20 had a clear line of sight to the struggle, and are lying in saying they were in the interior of their unit and saw nothing. This is simple sound physics. I have done a fair amount of location sound work for documentary films and it’s actually quite difficult to get the kind of sonic clarity audible in the background of W11’s call.

        • When you say “base frequencies” do you mean the fundamentals rather than the overtones (or harmonics as some would call them), or do you mean the lower frequencies, in which case you may have meant to say “bass” frequencies?

          And yes, I realize that’s almost the same as 2 different ways to say the same thing, since the actual Hz involved are the same.

          unitron

    • I have the DVR playing now. as far as carrying all the time goes.

      My personal mentality was summed up by my CSM (Command Sergeant Major). God help you if he caught you without a sidearm. I don’t make a conscious effort to carry, I have to make a conscious effort to remember not to when I am going someplace I can’t. It’s like your wallet, you don’t consciously think about it until it isn’t there. If I am going someplace I can’t carry I have a heavy duty gun safe mounted in my jeep. At work I take it off, put it in the safe, lock the jeep and go to work. I take it out and put it where it belongs when I get off. That is pretty standard with all of the CWL holders I know.

      —–

      This part is a re-post but it may help.

      Gun Positioning and Left vs Right handed holsters.

      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 (Plastic) 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 to me. I also know a lot of people that write with their dominant left hand but shoot primarily with their right.

      • Has it ever been confirmed what kind of holster Zimmerman had?

        I know his air marshal buddy stated that Zimmerman’s story to him involved Zimmerman “rotating” his gun before he was able to fire, implying possibly that his gun was positioned for, what, a left-handed cross draw? Is it even possible to quickly and single-handedly rotate a gun about like that on a cross draw?

        • I have not seen any confirmation one way or the other. I can only really describe how I carry, to look into someone else I would have to know what type and where but also how he wore it to even start to make a guess. I have one holster that is Left Handed if I wear it inside the wasteband (against my skin), and right handed if I wear it outside the wasteband (outside of my belt).

  27. Hi guys, I need you all to weigh in on the following:

    I think GZ may have handed the prosecution more ammunition in his interview with Sean Hannity. During the said interview GZ claimed that “30-seconds” after the 911-call ENDED, TM punched him (GZ) and knocked him down and started …. (you know the rest). It is generally assumed that GZ hung up the 911-call at 17:13:41 and that the gunshot that ended TM’s life was fired at 17:16:56.This would mean that the fight according to GZ lasted 2-minutes and 35 seconds. To what extent is this information new, does it support/contradict earlier accounts of ‘what happened’ according to GZ and does it tally with known independent evidence?

      • So Jimmy, help me out here (I am at work right now). What is the timeline given in Serino’s report? Is GZ’s assertion that ‘the fight’ started “30-seconds” after he ended the 911-call new? To what extent does that assertion support/contradict earlier accounts of ‘what happened’ according to GZ and does it tally with known independent evidence?

        • If the fight actually started “30 seconds” after the NEN call was ended, Trayvon did not have enough time to get home, unless he sprinted all the way back, touched the back porch, and then sprinted all the way back to the “T”.

          • 350 feet x 2 / 150 seconds is about a 20 minute/mile walking pace.

            Perhaps “DeeDee” misunderstood Trayvon when he said he was right by his Dad’s place.

            Why would Brandy Green say that Trayvon Martin was sitting on the back porch?

        • Innie,

          You may be at your place of employment. You do not appear to be working.

          The Serino timeline is page 40 of 183.

      • Serino’s timeline was based on when the dispatcher sent stuff out to the patrol cars, not when he answered Zimmerman’s call.

        So it’s of no use.

        unitron

        • Unitron,

          So you are saying that Serino’s timeline, the only one that has been released to the public is of no use.

          Does the SA have a secret timeline that they don’t plan to release until the trial?

          • I really need to get around to updating that, now that we have some actual discovery to work off of. Particularly with the timing of Zimmerman’s narration of events. Although there’s no way to get the timing to fit with that.

            But even now, there still isn’t anything out there that gives a coherent explanation of 7:14:10pm-7:15:30pm of that night. Unless Trayvon and Zimmerman really were fighting for three minutes before Zimmerman drew his gun.

            But I just can’t believe that, not with the severely minor injuries of the participants.

          • ” Unless Trayvon and Zimmerman really were fighting for three minutes before Zimmerman drew his gun. But I just can’t believe that, not with the severely minor injuries of the participants.”

            Not to mention they either did it very quietly or the people who called 911 have very slow reflexes and were all using old rotary dial telephones.

            unitron

        • I prefer “inadvertently inaccurate”, as I don’t think Serino actually intended to mislead.

          He was just going by when the officers in the field were notified about things.

          unitron

    • If you roll back Caller 2 (Witness 11) there is yelling for help for 41 seconds prior to the gunshot you are hearing yelling on the 911 call from 17:16:15 until the shot at 17:16:56.

  28. Hi guys, I think GZ may have handed the prosecution more ammunition in his interview with Sean Hannity. During the said interview GZ claimed that “30-seconds” after the 911-call ENDED, TM punched him and knocked him down and started …. (you know the rest). It is generally assumed that GZ hung up the 911-call at 17:13:41 and that the gunshot that ended TM’s life was fired at 17:16:56.This would mean that the fight according to GZ lasted 2-minutes and 35 seconds. To what extent is this information new, does it support/contradict earlier accounts of ‘what happened’ according to GZ and does it tally with known independent evidence?

    I think GZ may have accounted for the “missing 2-minutes”!

    • Susan, Here is my Non-Lawyerin question of the day. If any part of this interview, or for that matter the walk-through or any of the sit-down interviews are used at trial by the prosecution, does that mean O’Mara can use anything else on that video allowing him to introduce self defense? At the end of the last Bond hearing BDLR said he was not going to use anything that introduces the idea of self defense to force Zimmerman on the stand if he wants to introduce self defense.

      • Zimmerman doesn’t get to use those statements because they are hearsay. I doubt the state will use any of the interviews/walk through in their case in chief, because they don’t need to — and besides, it’d be a million times better if they could withhold it to force Zimmerman to take the stand, and then annihilate his credibility.

        Even if a hundred witnesses with night-vision goggles saw Zimmerman at the losing end of the fight at some stage of the encounter, it wouldn’t be sufficient to grant Zimmerman a self-defense instruction. The sole witness who can testify as to (1) how the fight started, and (2) Zimmerman being in objectively reasonable fear for his life, is Zimmerman himself. And everyone in this case, defense included, knows damned well that Zimmerman on the witness stand is going to be a field day for the prosecution.

        • If Zimmerman takes the stand the only questions left are

          “What acts do they put in the other 2 rings of that circus?”

          and

          “Will the popcorn hold out?.”

          unitron

          • Unitron, I think you are one of very few people who are able to use few words to say volumes. This a good quality many people (myself included) spend their whole life learning.

          • Most of the time, in the interest of precision and accuracy, it’s volumes to convey what amounts to only a few words worth of info, but I try to at least keep the jokes short.

            Informing and amusing are not quite the same art form.

            Although some, like Mark Russell, and Stewart and Colbert, manage to slip some learnin’ in while you’re laughin’.

            unitron

  29. Susan, new posts (19 July 2012) get pushed back/stuck between old posts (18 July 2012). Its kind of difficult tracking what is new on the site.

  30. In the NEN call, Zimmerman plainly describes Trayvon’s actions as “he’s running,” and then a short while later, an out of breath Zimmerman confirms that “he ran.”

    This does not seem to be a very ambiguous description. Trayvon ran, and Zimmerman narrated what he saw.

    Then in the interviews with Serino, Serino repeatedly tries to get Zimmerman to describe what he saw with regards to Trayvon running:

    [NEN call, at 2:08: Zimmerman: Actually you would go past the clubhouse. Dispatcher: So it’s on the lefthand side from the clubhouse? Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left…uh you go straight in, don’t turn, and make a left. Shit he’s running.]
    Serino: Okay. Full sprint, full on flight, jogging, trotting, describe the running.
    GZ: I don’t remember… I just, ’cause I was on the phone. It happened so quickly.
    Um, I understand that George, but like I said… if it was a bicycle theft I’d say okay, but it’s kind of important. Was he running as to evade you, to get away from you, maybe he got tired of getting wet in the rain… what kind of run was it? I mean, it sounds like he’s running as to get away from you.
    GZ: I don’t know why he was running…
    But what kind of run was it? … Can’t say?
    GZ (in a whispery, little boy voice): I don’t remember…

    And now in the interview with Hannity… Zimmerman says Trayvon was skipping? When the heck did Zimmerman remember this detail, and why did he not remember it sooner?

    Zimmerman was adamant that he could not remember how Trayvon ran away from him. His recounting of the story is utterly worthless, nothing he says can be relied upon with any accuracy. Which version of Zimmerman should we believe? The one on the phone during the NEN call? The one being interviewed by the cops? Or the one in a cable news interview with Sean Hannity?

  31. Wanted: Side by side comparison of Zimmerman’s various accounts of the following
    1. Movements of his vehicle from first noticing Martin until his exiting
    2. Martin’s movements including “running”.
    3. Reason for going to Retreat View Circle and what he did with the address he might have found there.
    4. Where he fell to the ground when punched in the nose
    5. When he first started screaming.
    6. Martin’s attempted smothering of Zimmerman.
    7. Martin’s banging of Zimmerman’s head on the concrete.
    8. Timing of Zimmerman’s shot in relation to 6 and 7.

    I am sure the defense and prosecution are preparing such comparisons but I would love to see what evidence buffs could prepare before trial. A table where the columns are the various interviews and the rows are 1 to 8 would be one way to do it.

    • The problem with constructing a useful comparison chart of Zimmerman’s accounts is (1) there are now at least eight different versions of events, not all of which cover the same terrain (either temporal or geographical); (2) a few significant events, as narrated by Zimmerman, are impossible to provide a timeline for, as the events simply cannot be made to fit into any plausible description of events that actually occurred; and (3) we are still lacking in important basic factual data, such as what type of holster Zimmerman had and how he was wearing it at the time of the shooting.

      An earlier anonymous commenter posted this absolutely insane compilation of datat about the events leading up to Trayvon’s death. It seems extremely believable to me, but it also contradicts what Zimmerman has claimed. There is no way to reconcile both Zimmerman’s story and the traffic data — so either the security cameras are worthless, or trying to learn anything by charting out Zimmerman’s recounting of events is worthless.

      But if you do believe the traffic data, it does make some suggestions about Zimmerman’s testimony. It appears that Zimmerman is, predictably, starting from factual events and then warping them into a more favorable narrative. i.e., in reality Zimmerman chucked a Uie right in front of the clubhouse to swing back and get a closer look at Trayvon before calling NEN, and then did it again to follow Trayvon up Twin Trees, but in Zimmerman’s story this becomes the much less threatening “I stopped in front of the clubhouse.”

      • The holster is in evidence, and there are pictures of it.

        There is clear evidence of a vehicle pulling into the parking lot in front of the clubhouse, and then pulling out some time later to go down Twin Trees. The imgur analysis somehow misses this.

        • We have the holster, we don’t know how he wore it. If there’s some way to figure that out based on the type of holster it is, I’d love to hear it. But I think what I understand from Gadget’s description is that it’s possible the holster could be worn different ways if you flip it around, so that it can lay either inside your pants (against your body) or on the outside of your pants.

          And there is not clear evidence of a vehicle pulling into the parking lot in front of the club house. If you think there is, produce proof of it, because nothing I’ve seen would support that.

          It’s possible you’re thinking of the video that shows a light (likely a car) pausing for roughly ~10 seconds to the east of the clubhouse, by the mailboxes.

          • You’re not going to wear concealed outside the pants. And you are also going to claim that Zimmerman moved the holster inside his waistband before officer T Smith arrived and disarmed him as he got up dazed and bloodied. He says it was on his right hip.

            Between 20:30 and 21:00. See kitchen, game room, front door, rear door, and lounge cameras. It will help if you can single step the frames or at least slow the playback.

          • So there was a vehicle parked at the clubhouse for an entire 30 seconds?

            Interesting.

            unitron

          • You’re not going to wear concealed outside the pants.

            If it is winter, why not. Inside the waste-band inherently puts the shirt in the way of grabbing the sidearm. With a jacket on outside the waste-band gets the shirt out of the way and the jacket keeps it concealed, that is how I wear it in winter. The one video where the guy is showing Zimmerman’s ghost-gun upside down is easily explained by reversing the holster, or are you talking about some information about how he was carrying I do not have. If so could you send me a link?

          • Gadget, if the question was addressed to me, I can’t remember now where I saw some discussion on the holster or how the gun might have been situated, sorry. If I see it again I’ll throw a link up here.

            And Jim, I’m not seeing it. Put a link up to the specific frames you are talking about if you think it’s there.

          • This holster worn outside the belt as pictured with the grip facing to the right side, at the 5 o’clock position is right about where mine rides right now. I have one similar to this, it is made to be able to move the side the clip is on. When I use it without a jacket I move the clip to the other side and wear it inside my pants with my shirt over it. It a cheap holster $20 but it is handy for a quick trip to the store. As opposed to my $120 Kydex that is made to wear inside my pants with my shirt tucked in over it, my Colt 1911 is practically invisible. The padding against the skin also makes it more comfortable for long periods of time, but the drawback is my expensive Kydex takes a minute to work around my belt loops. The type shown I can grab and slide on my belt while walking out the door. With a jacket on, this holster at 5 o’clock outside the pants makes perfect sense.

            http://www.craigboyce.com/w/2012/05/trayvon-martin-crime-scene-photos/evidence-photos-45/

          • This holster worn outside the belt as pictured with the grip facing to the right side, at the 5 o’clock position is right about where mine rides right now.

            Can you clarify what “with the grip facing to the right side” means? So… the gun was behind Zimmerman, on his right butt cheek, with the handle pointing towards his side and the gun pointing more to the center of his backside — is that at all an accurate description of what you’re describing?

            And if so, how would someone draw a gun position in this way with their right hand, while lying on their back? When I try to imitate that movement, the best I can do is to turn my right hand counter-clockwise, while reaching behind me. But with that motion, there would be zero possibility of simultaneously pinning someone’s hand against my side with my arm, since my elbow juts way out to the side.

          • InspGadget,

            It is not consistently “Winter” in Sanford, Florida in late February.

            So you would have Zimmerman getting ready to go to the store, and looking outside seeing that it is cold and raining, decide to wear his jacket and put his holster on the outside?

            If you wear on the outside under your jacket, where do you put your wallet?

            And how long would it take you to put the holster on the inside? This assumes that you also have to get out from under whomever you just shot, and then pressed down on his back, get put your hand up to your forehead, walk back toward the body, and then towards the Tee. It is dark and your face is bloody. It is your option whether you also want to go bang your head on the sidewalk.

            Mary Cutcher and Selma Ludmilla (sp?) would be watching, but I doubt they would be observant enough to see you do it – and besides you could distract them by telling them to go call the police.

            But Officer T Smith is going to remember putting his hand in your pants.

          • Game Room 20:48, 20:49
            Kitchem 20:48
            Front Door 20:49
            Rear Door 20:48
            Lounge 20:48, 20:49

            These may be off a second. The frame rate is 40/minute or 1.5 seconds per frame. So a single frame corresponds to multiple times.

          • Unitron,

            I was giving her a time frame of the period in which a car had its headlights towards the southeast as if they were pulling into the driveway, as opposed to the east as if they were simply driving down RVC toward the entrance.

            It is some time in that interval.

          • jimtrex, do you think Zimmerman was harassing Martin by slowly following him in his vehicle for several minutes? I am confused on whether or not the clubhouse videos give proof of that.

          • (dragging in stuff from your later response to RickyJ as well here)

            If Zimmerman goes east on Twin Trees towards the “cut-through” and then U-turns to aim his headlights back to the west toward the clubhouse, well, that’s not the way he told it in the re-enactment.

            The vehicle whose headlights show up during that 30 second period at the clubhouse, does it pull in and park and turn off its headlights while parked? When it backs out however much later, does it turn them back on before or after backing out?

            unitron

          • “do you think Zimmerman was harassing Martin by slowly following him in his vehicle for several minutes?”

            My interpretation is that a vehicle pulled into the parking lot where Zimmerman said that he did, and then about 1-1/2 minutes later pulled out, turned down Twin Trees, stopped to check behind the clubhouse, when down Twin Trees and turned around so it was facing west.

            From where Zimmerman indicated that he first saw Martin, Retreat View Circle is not the shortest walking route. It is shorter to go behind along the detention pond.

          • Unitron,

            What I believe I am seeing is the light from the headlights as a vehicle is approaches the clubhouse. The Kitchen view is in the eastern part of the clubhouse, with the camera pointed northwest. You can see the window on the front. In the top center is the light through the front door. There is a glass interior door that you are seeing there. If you look at the rear door view, you can see the folding glass doors which appear can be used to close off the east part of the clubhouse, but can also be left wide open. You can also see a little bit of light in the west part (lounge) area. The camera is facing toward the larger window on the east part of the clubhouse. It just really lights up. You can see light through a window, and light on the window (being dispersed by the glass, and dirt, and water on the window).

            The lights might not be directly on the window, but it is just so much brighter it appears that they are, when it simply means that the vehicle is angled towards the building.

            The game room is in the eastern part of the clubhouse, and the camera is oriented toward the northeast. The larger window is the same as the kitchen view, but you are looking northeast rather than northwest. It is the smaller window to the right that is more important here. The light transmits through the window and casts a light shadow on the wall.

            The front door, rear door, and lounge views catch some incidental lights or reflections. It might just show up because they are relatively dark. They are more corroborative.

            Now think if you are driving east and decide to pull into the parking lot. It is raining, and nobody is there, so you might not mark purely north-south. If you were parking north-south, you would probably swing out to the north a bit to give you a wider turning radius. But since the vehicle angle towards the building it may not have got fully north-south.

            Now think about if you are leaving. You don’t reverse course. You back out across RVC, and then turn the wheels left as you go forward. You might have the front wheels turned slightly right as you back, but likely not was much as you did when you pulled in. It is easier to steer going forward, correct?

            What I see while the car is parked is in the small window. And you really have to compare it with frames that are much earlier or later. I’m not sure what I’m seeing – it is just different. So I think it may just be light that is blocked by the vehicle somehow.

            This odd period corresponds to just after the light towards the clubhouse, and just a little bit before the light shows up behind the clubhouse. When the light behind the clubhouse shows up, there are also a couple of headlights on a building to the south of the detention pond.

            The east-west segment of Twin Trees is almost directly aligned on the pool, not the clubhouse. There are bushes there to block the light. That is why in the East Pool shots you get such weird shadows when a car passes.

            Earlier in the video there is a car going west on Twin Trees and you get a brighter light in the East Pool videos. As the car turns north, you get a bit of light on the south side of the mail boxes in the East Pool Hall shot. Apparently, the camera is just a wee bit south of the south face of the mailboxes, so at a very oblique angle (5 or 10 degrees), but enough so that when headlights come around the corner to make it go from black to gray.

            Later, after the vehicle passes the mailboxes, there is the bright light in the East Pool view. So I think that there is a car facing west on Twin Trees with its headlights on. I don’t see it go past the mailboxes.

            I have no evidence of a U-turn (or turning around, the streets are fairly narrow, 25 feet wide, so I would use a driveway if I were turning around). But the timing is right.

      • Susan, writes, “It appears that Zimmerman is, predictably, starting from factual events and then warping them into a more favorable narrative”. Since PeterO left, I can’t imagine anybody here disputing that. However, I find some of the points you bring up difficult to connect with a theory of Zimmerman’s guilt. Just what do the details of Zimmerman’s holster show? Undoubtedly, Zimmerman was noticeably tailing Martin in his vehicle annoying the latter, and lied to the police that he was doing that. But that sort following isn’t illegal.

        I keep going back to the bottom line for what is needed for at least a manslaughter conviction.
        1) It is unreasonable that Zimmerman wasn’t committing a crime in the events directly leading to the shooting, and
        2) If is unreasonable that Zimmerman felt he would have escaped serious harm if he refrained from shooting.

        • My questions about the holster are mostly out of curiosity, but also of interest in trying to piece together how Zimmerman shot Trayvon. If the gun was for some reason facing backwards, then how did Zimmerman grab it and turn it about with one hand, while engaged in a fight to the death with an individual penning him to the ground? Maybe it all makes complete sense, but with what I know about the events so far, I am completely unable to visualize how this all may have occurred.

          And the point is, if Zimmerman has consistently lied about what happened that night, why is Zimmerman to be believed when he says Trayvon hit him first, or that he never had a chance to escape the fight without killing Trayvon?

          The problem is that the whole story of “Trayvon came out of nowhere and punched me” is not supported by a single shred of forensic, circumstantial, or eye-witness evidence, beyond Zimmerman’s own statements. And we have ample reason to question the veracity of those statements now.

          Plus, Zimmerman had no head trauma. And his airways were sufficiently unblocked to (supposedly) allow him to scream at great length during the time when he was being “suffocated.” I am very curious to see how the defense is going to explain that.

          • Susan writes: “And the point is, if Zimmerman has consistently lied about what happened that night, why is Zimmerman to be believed when he says Trayvon hit him first, or that he never had a chance to escape the fight without killing Trayvon?”

            But believing him is NOT the criterion. In order to convict you have to believe it is UNREASONABLE that he was not committing a crime in the preceding events or UNREASONABLE that he thought he had to shoot to avoid harm. I have about the same opinion of Zimmerman’s veracity as you do so I rely on the totality of the evidence to come to my perception of reasonable doubt.

          • You’ve got the standard wrong, the jury doesn’t determine what you’ve stated.

            Zimmerman has to produce affirmative evidence of each element of his self-defense claim. But the jury is permitted to disregard Zimmerman’s testimony if they believe is a lying liar.

            And if that happens, under Zimmerman’s best-case scenario for prevailing on a self-defense claim, it will still be up to the jury to determine whether or not it was objectively reasonable for a man who (1) needlessly created a situation where he would encounter his victim, (2) had no serious injuries, beyond a possible broken nose that occurred minutes before the killing, and no defensive injuries at all, and (3) who knew police were only moments away, to then (4) shoot an unarmed teenager, who had no offensive injuries, in the chest.

          • Says Susan: “You’ve got the standard wrong, the jury doesn’t determine what you’ve stated. Zimmerman has to produce affirmative evidence of each element of his self-defense claim”.

            If you are right, Susan, then I have learned nothing from reading Jeralyn’s long posts on the subject as well as reading various sections of Florida 776. Please explain to me why not self defense BYD is not the criterion for conviction at a jury trial. Getting the self defense instruction does not require convincing evidence for each element of the self defense claim; just Zimmerman’s saying it was SD will do. The affirmative evidence part only applies seriously to the SYG hearing before a judge..

            By the way, what is the basis for your opinion that Zimmerman put on the holster so the gun would be in the wrong position if he drew it out with his right hand?

          • Doesn’t the prosecution have to do a bit more than just say “Zimmerman shot Martin, therefore it’s murder” even before the defense presents any rebuttal and self defense arguements?

            Assuming we get past SYG and it actually goes to trial?

            unitron

          • I do not really understand what you mean by backwards? Here is a way to demonstrate the way I carry and it appears Zimmerman was carrying the same way as I look at the re-enactment video. Take your right hand make a finger-pistol with you thumb for the hammer. Place the back of your right hand against your right kidney above your wallet pocket, and slide your hand down to your belt. This is where I carry using a left hand holster with the grip facing out to the right. This requires very little clearance behind me to be able to grab the weapon and draw while seated. I just slide my hand flat with the back of my hand touching my back near my kidney and slide down until I can grip the weapon. Pull your finger-pistol out and point your finger-pistol at the persons chest across from you. This also matches if the holster as pictured is worn outside the belt under his jacket with the grip of the weapon pointing out to his right side and the barrel pointing down.

            This holster demonstrates how I carry, I just carry further towards the center of my back. It appears Zimmerman was carrying outside his belt under his jacket but in basically the same position and in the same way as the guy in this picture.

            http://www.buyholsters.com/product/active-pro-gear-model20-mob-iwb-holster

          • Thanks Gadget — that’s exactly what I was picturing, and attempting (but mostly failing) to describe.

            That does help me visualize better two big problems with Zimmerman’s story. First, why on earth would he have believed Trayvon saw the weapon? Seems like he would’ve needed x-ray vision to see through both his own leg and Zimmerman’s side. And in the dark, at that.

            And second, the “pinning” issue. I don’t see how this part of the story can be true. There is no way I can make the motion to draw a gun in that position without my elbow sticking out, in a manner that would totally prevent pinning someone’s hand against your side. (Although I believe I’ve seen elsewhere that Zimmerman said his elbow was on the ground when he shot? That part makes sense, anyway.)

            It also seems kind of strange that Zimmerman “forgot” he had a gun on him, when it should have been digging into his back the whole time. But maybe guns are more comfy than I’m imagining.

            Last question for now, if you haven’t had enough already — how hard would it be to draw a gun in this position while laying on your back? I think I can see how it would be done, but it involves a lot of, well, shimmying. And with someone’s leg in the way, sitting on top of you… It seems like it might’ve taken quite a few tries before Zimmerman was successful.

          • “Last question for now, if you haven’t had enough already — how hard would it be to draw a gun in this position while laying on your back? I think I can see how it would be done, but it involves a lot of, well, shimmying. And with someone’s leg in the way, sitting on top of you… It seems like it might’ve taken quite a few tries before Zimmerman was successful”.

            A determined body twist to the left might be all that was needed to get his right butt up enough. This whole issue doesn’t seem to be all that promising for the prosecution. Could they propose instead that Zimmerman got the gun out early while both were still standing? I doubt they could sell that beyond a reasonable doubt. It might be a viable defense theory if Martin was the one on trial.

          • Drawing Martins attention to it is the easy part, his knee or leg would have been hitting the grip, Martin looks down sees the gun on Zimmerman’s side and game on. At that point both of them realize it is a fight for their lives, and Martin would not have been in a real position to pull it out from that angle, only Zimmerman would have had a decent angle to pull the gun.

            how hard would it be to draw a gun in this position while laying on your back?

            Not that hard as far as the weapon itself goes, as far as other body parts in the way they would both have been moving as fast as they could to jockey for position to get the gun. Captain Hindsight says the smarter move for Martin would have been to clamp his legs together on Zimmerman’s hips and keep Zimmerman from getting to the gun, but if Martin tried for the gun he would have had to move his legs away from the gun to get at it himself.

            Jimrtex,

            I am not sure where you are getting that the holster changed positions at all? I have like 5 different holsters leg holsters, shoulder holsters, right and left handed cheap holsters. Could you provide further clarification?

            As far as keeping the gun near the wallet goes “No Problem Mr. Mugger, I’ll give you my wallet with the .45 cal money.”

          • InspectorGadget,

            “I am not sure where you are getting that the holster changed positions at all?”

            Officer T Smith says the gun an holster were inside the waistband (page 14 of 183 of the first evidence PDF).

            Assuming that his recollection was correct, doesn’t this suggest that Zimmerman was wearing it on the inside?

            The alternative explanations are (1) that he was carrying on the outside under his fleece, and then moved the holster between the time of the shooting and the time of the arrest; (2) Officer Smith’s recollection is faulty; (3) Officer Smith filed a false report; (4) Zimmerman pulled his gun out before he encountered Zimmerman.

            I doubt that Zimmerman was as gun savvy as you. He may have done some shooting left handed, and trying different holster positions, and his friend decided it best to have him stick with one holster position, and have him concentrate on getting the gun out of the holster before firing.

            That would be another reason for not switching for the relatively few times a year when a jacket is necessary in Orlando.

            “As far as keeping the gun near the wallet goes ‘No Problem Mr. Mugger, I’ll give you my wallet with the .45 cal money.'”

            If your gun is outside your pants, underneath the jacket, how do you avoid exposing it when you reach in your pocket for your wallet? Do you call out to the security guard that you are carrying, so he doesn’t shoot you when you are reaching for your wallet?

          • Jimrtex is right the officer said inside the wasteband, to wear in that position the way the officer describes, it is a right handed holster grip pointing to the left with the barrel down. For me to have a right handed holster in that position the barrel would have to be at a 45% angle with the grip pointed straight up for me to comfortably draw. Someone would have to ask Zimmerman to demonstrate how he carries.

            As far as me carrying goes, I unzip my jacket and reach back. I just avoid lifting my jacket, I have never had a problem. Then again I am up in Pensacola. I gets colder here than it does down there. We had a flake of snow 2 years ago. If you work security around here you are used to people carrying. We haven’t got full open carry yet, but the laws were relaxed to allow people to carry without being charged if their gun is exposed accidentally. If you expose while reaching for your wallet it is not a problem.

            790.053 Open carrying of weapons.—
            (1) Except as otherwise provided by law and in subsection (2), it is unlawful for any person to openly carry on or about his or her person any firearm or electric weapon or device. It is not a violation of this section for a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm as provided in s. 790.06(1), and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, to briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

        • Why should Zimmerman be expected to be more reliable witness than other witnesses, most who can’t remember if they called after the shot or before it?

          • Because ‘lying’ and ‘not remembering’ are not one and the same. Jimmy, I am surprised you ask this type of question.

          • For the same reason that someone who ate a sandwich for lunch should be more likely to remember what they ate than should someone who merely walked by while they were eating it.

            Does it really not even concern you a tiny bit that Zimmerman’s recollection of events is so consistently faulty, and that contradictions that emerge in his testimony are consistently the result of changes that have the effect of making his self-defense claim sound more reasonable?

          • Susan asks, “Does it really not even concern you a tiny bit that Zimmerman’s recollection of events is so consistently faulty, and that contradictions that emerge in his testimony are consistently the result of changes that have the effect of making his self-defense claim sound more reasonable?”

            I know that the contradictions concern Mark O’Mara and he has said he will have to deal with them. As to my own view, it seems that many of the changes Zimmerman makes don’t change the self defense situation at all. I get the impression of a muddleheaded person with short term memory problems. His long term memory seems to be pretty good since his Spanish is about as good as his English. Even putting the worst possible spin on Zimmerman’s misstatements, I still find a huge gap in coming to a conclusion of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of manslaughter and of course an even bigger one for murder 2. Do you think that the prosecution can succeed even if they don’t propose a convincing theory (scenario) of Zimmerman’s guilt?

          • Susan Simpson says:

            “Does it really not even concern you a tiny bit that Zimmerman’s recollection of events is so consistently faulty, and that contradictions that emerge in his testimony are consistently the result of changes that have the effect of making his self-defense claim sound more reasonable?”

            I disagree with your contention that Zimmermans’s recollection is consistently faulty. I don’t really mean what you mean by “so consistently” as opposed to “consistently”. I suspect that you are making a subjective judgement that there would be inconsistencies, and have somehow come to a conclusion that they have passed some threshold.

            I reject the premise of your question. So the “does it really not even concern you a tiny bit” is not applicable.

      • You can look at the police photos and see the actual holster (although I’m puzzled how it goes from black in the picture with the gun to olive drab in the front and back holster only photos).

        Smith knows where he was wearing the holster that night, if it wasn’t on his right inside his waistband like he’s indicated I think something might’ve leaked by now.

        unitron

      • Susan, please take the following strictly given as constructive advice.

        I.e. used to restate something ( in other words)
        e.g. Is used to give an example ( e for example). So ” GZ starting from factual events then warping them…..e.g.,in reality he chucked a Ue which is much more threatening than parking in front of clubhouse
        “I.e.” in above would be correctly used as “GZ starting from factual events then warping them…I.e., he amends the narrative to appear less threatening .

        Added your blog to bcc, whonoze, axiomamnesia, and Frederick Leatherman’s ( he’s a retired fed. Criminal defense attorney..not cited in Miami herald article but excellent) to my good reads.

        Best of luck in your sure to be growing legal practice!

  32. Susan Simpson, I asked this on the other longer thread but I wanted to be clear: could Zimmerman be acquitted of Second Degree murder but found guilty of manslaughter based on the current charges and trial? If so, would the Jury be recommending that charge somehow or would the prosecution have to “step down” their charge, if that makes sense?

    Thanks.

  33. Jimrtex, that’s not me at 4:46 am on July 18. Apology accepted, of course!

    In case I haven’t been so clear, my feeling about #9’s testimony is that it’s very believable but not strong on the racist charge because #9 couldn’t remember any specific racist statements or actions coming from George. In my view, it’s also not particularly strong as a character reference, because nearly all of the incidents happened when George was a minor. This doesn’t mean that I think those actions were any less horrendous. I just think it’s possible that 12 people on a jury might not all agree with me.

    Like I said though, I think it’s very believable, and my opinion is that the molest charge could contribute to an overall impression that could strengthen the prosecution’s case IF allowed in court. Also, if there are racist charges other than what the FBI found, #9’s testimony might contribute to that impression as well. I recall that a coworker had some pretty strong things to say about Zimmerman’s treatment of him.

    • Hapufern,

      I think “anonymous” was VSmith, who seems totally fixated on the molestation charges. I was confused because in that particular post I thought that “anonymous” was contending that the racism charge was particularly believable specifically because she could only remember some incident with the mother.

      The FBI would presumably have tried to track down the former employer of Witness 22.. I thought that witness was somewhat self-aggrandizing. He couldn’t remember when he started working, but he knew exactly when he left.

      He said nobody liked him at first, because he was new and outselling everyone, and that Zimmerman wanted to get in with the in clique so he picked on him. The only really specific thing that he could recall is when another employee told him to listen to Zimmerman. Zimmerman told him it was the new guys job to make sure that there were two chairs in every office just-so, and to also take the trash out. He then went into every office and put the chairs just-so, and then Zimmerman pointed out that he hadn’t taken the trash out.

      Then about a year later (he only worked there for about a year) he said that he was outselling everyone and everyone loved him. So why did he stop working there?

  34. Jimrtex, in case you missed my post above, I wasn’t anonymous at 4:46 AM on July 18. And I clarified my position on witness #9 as best I could, which is somewhat different from anonymous’s position.

    Wow, I really think O’Mara is completely blowing it. He accused #9 of trying to sell her story to People Magazine (this never happened according to People Magazine). Then his own client attempts to trade an interview with ABC for a month’s free rent in a hotel. That’s AFTER the TV crew have already arrived for the interview with the understanding of no strings attached.

    It also seems to me to be pretty risky to ask the judge to recuse himself. Of course, O’Mara is within his legal rights to do this, but if he gets turned down, and if the judge really IS biased, then this might not be O’Mara’s best judgement call in the best interests of his client. Of course he might get more donations out of it though, which might be used for legal fees (to O’Mara). Just speculation of course.

    This reminds me of the circumstances of someone who was busted for pot a few years ago. To my knowledge, he wasn’t a pot activist, just a pot grower. Some pot activists contacted him after the bust and soon this guy became a very vocal pot advocate and activist. He took this identity with him to his trial. Surprise! He was sentenced to several years in jail. I think his timing was a bit off.

    I see the same kind of thing happening with Zimmerman. Certain people with their own agenda are making him into a hero and expecting him and his attorney to openly express defiance during the court proceedings. This is not a particularly good strategy for an approaching trial. But who knows, maybe they’ll get a new judge. If they don’t, well, OOPS!

    It also seems a little weird that Zimmerman claimed (in a jail call) to have told O’Mara about $37,000 from the PayPal account, and Zimmerman goes into some detail about it. O’Mara denies this.

    Meanwhile, Zimmerman moves his donation requests back to his personal website.

    • Good analysis. The Motion to disqualify a judge is a legal firearm rarely used by lawyers. It is a kind of an ‘ultimum remedium’ weapon that is only applied when other means have failed and a member of the legal confraternity (the lawyer/prosecutor) reasonably finds that another member of that confraternity (a judge) is evidently undermining fundamental principles of law (such as the right of ‘fair trial’ and/or other principles that flow from it) which we hold so dear and upon which our justice system pillars. In houses of law, students are told to keep this weapon very far away in a secured safe deposit box. It is not a weapon that you keep around in the cupboards and shelves. This weapon has a personal nature in that the use of it amounts to a frontal attack on the person of the judge, his character and his professionalism. The consequences of FIRING this weapon and MISSING the target, can be very bad for both the defense counsel (bad reputation among judges; destroyed professional relationships, etc.) and his client (who might ultimately have to pay the price of the misfire). I think MO’M knows this but filed the Motion (which as he should know has no legal merits) at the insistence of GZ (and RZ – who is a judge emeritus).

      If judge Lester recuses himself, he will not be doing so on the merits of the Motion to disqualify. A judge MUST stand up for the integrity of the law and the process thereof. I think it is disgraceful to throw and rob in dirt at the face of a judge by accusing him/her of bias simply because he/she makes a finding in accordance with the law. This is in my opinion very cheap. No professional member of the confraternity should this to the other!

      There is enough in the case that MO’M can make use of to get the best possible result for GZ (if he indeed is looking well and concentrating on winning the case in COURT!). The motion to disqualify isn’t one of them.

    • MO’M denied knowing about the “37,000.00. or even the whole 150,000.00”. I believe MO’M for two reasons (a) his a decent man – maybe too decent to be a defense attorney and (b) he is an officer of the Court (while GZ is not known for always telling the truth).

      On a side note, I am wondering what ‘hapufern’ means. It sounds German. I know e.g. that the German word for television is ‘fernseher’. Does hapufern have any relationship with the German language?

      • I thought I believed O’Mara for those same reasons.

        But his recent decisions with regards to his representation of Zimmerman have been so jaw-droppingly poor that I am no longer sure it’s the case. This guy is not a good attorney, or, at best, he has completely chocked when it came to defending a high profile matter.

        • Susan, I think that there are other factors that play a significant role in the decision making process within the defense team: (a) Robert Zimmerman. RZ is a (former, it seems feisty and combative) judge who I think is part of that team and to who’s opinion MO’M might feel obliged to defer and (b) GZ who one way or another has to find a way to finance his expensive life style (cost of private security companies, hotel apartments, etc.). In one of his interviews with the Miami Herald, MO’M stated that ‘it’s the (money strapped) client who calls the shots. I THINK MO’M don’t like some of the decisions made so far by the defense team (e.g. the decision to file a Motion to disqualify and the decision to go on Hannity). But he also does not want to lose this client – yet (unless the donations stop flowing in). It would not surprise me if MO’M does not see this case through to the trial. The handwriting is already on the wall.

          • Jimmy, I have no idea why NJ (Natalie Jackson) will say what you claim she said and on what evidence she is basing her alleged statement. The link you provided does not mention either NJ or the statement she is supposed to have made. I am NOT a fan of Crump & Co. especially the one called Parks. Anyways, we both agree that NJ is very smart and attractive.

            On a side note, I love the technical discussion raging between you, Susan, Inspector Gadget and Unitron, regarding ‘the gun’, ‘the position of the gun’, ‘the holster on or in the waistband on the outside or the inside pointed left/right downwards’, etc. I think that this technical forensic aspect will be very CRUCIAL during the trial in determining ‘what happened’. I am as conservative as it gets (and we can discuss the meaning of conservatism later). But I have never owned or carried a gun in my life (the need to was never there). So I depend on you guys to understand this aspect. So pls. keep that discussion on.

          • Unitron, If GZ is to be believed, one would rightfully assume that MO’M committed perjury and participated in the conspiracy to mislead the Court and commit perjury by others. That – if it is true – WILL (at the minimum) get MO’M disbarred. When you have a client putting you in this kind of position; when you have a client contracting you and you have to tell the public ‘well you can believe me or my client’ then there is a serious problem of trust and confidence. If MO’M applies the rules of ethics (strictly), he should advice that client to seek another counsel. But we do not know what is going on in the head of MO’M. I think he will either jump or he will be pushed by (later) events (combined with former ones).

        • Ivan,

          “The link you provided does not mention either NJ or the statement she is supposed to have made.”

          What they did show was the relatively low importance of a magistrate in the Virginia judicial system, and the functions they performed. You had suggested that somehow he had used his high level judicial connections to influence the case.

          He was career military, and apparently was able to become a magistrate after his military retirement. Moreover, he moved to Florida after he had retired from being a magistrate, and had heart attack a few weeks before the shooting.

          It is along the lines of the false narrative that Natalie Jackson had been peddling, for example suggesting that Zimmerman kept changing his story, at one time telling the police that Martin had dragged Zimmerman out of his car.

          • Oh, I see what you mean, Jimmy (who is Ivan?). But I did NOT suggest that RZ has influenced the case. I said that he (being the father of GZ and former judge) is part of the defense team and someone whose opinion MO’M would consider weighty / feel obliged not to ignore. In this sense RZ (like other members of the defense team) in my opinion influences the decisions made by the defense (such as the decision to file motions and how to handle the case in the media). I did not say or suggest that RZ used his- or any other connection to influence the case. Maybe you have to re-read my comment and the posts that preceded the said comment to put things in context.

            I think it is not an understatement to state that GZ has given different versions of ‘what happened’. In that sense NJ is right if she stated (as you say) that GZ kept changing his story.

            With regard to your claim that NJ stated that TM tried to pull GZ out of his car, I have to tell you, Jimmy, that I do not understand why I have to be a spokesman for NJ. We both have the same in common when it comes to NJ: (a) we have only seen her on TV (b) we both agree that she is smart and attractive. So let’s move on. I do not know why I have to defend, denounce or talk about this lady.

          • Just an FYI, Zimmerman’s father wasn’t a judge. He was a magistrate for the Commonwealth of Virginia.

            A magistrate in Virginia isn’t like what a magistrate would be in the federal system. They’re usually not lawyers, and their function is largely ministerial — they are more like a court clerk than a judge, really.

          • Thank you Susan for the clarification. I actually assumed that RZ is a judge emeritus with all the academic qualifications that precedes that title. I feel like I have to apologize to him.

    • Are you sure the judge would be recusing himself in this instance? I thought this particular request went to a higher court?

      • No, the Motion to disqualify will not be considered by higher Court. Judge Lester will decide on it.

        The fact that the Court has not yet ruled on the Motion to disqualify tells me that the Court understands the sensitivity and seriousness of the situation and is taking its time to consider very carefully both the Motion and its reasoning to either grant or reject it. In my opinion the Motion should- and would not be granted because granting it will imply that the Court is indeed biased as alleged even though there is no evidence of bias or the appearance thereof (i.e. making a finding against a defendant BUT in accordance with the law CANNOT constitute bias or the appearance of bias) (and Susan can correct me on this).

        In other countries like The Netherlands and Germany, the Motion to disqualify a judge MUST be filed IMMEDIATELY (not within 10-days – or even hours!) upon discovery of the fact(s) that in the defendant’s opinion constitute bias or the appearance of bias. Upon filing the Motion, the trial judge must stop all proceedings and either recuse him/herself (because he/she agrees with- or does not want to contest the charge of bias) or have Recusal-Chamber (best translation I can give) composed of three judges formed to decide on the Motion. If the Chamber rejects the Motion, the judge whose disqualification was sought will continue with the case from where it was before the Motion to disqualify was filed. If the Chamber grants the Motion the case will be assigned to a new judge who will re-start the trial from scratch as if the case has not been tried before. The decision of this chamber is not appealable. You did not ask about this but I thought you might like a little bit of Comparative Law in the equation.

  35. Hey guys, I have the following question:

    Is it PHYSICALLY possible for GZ to AT THE SAME TIME (1) restrict TM’s right hand with the elbow of his (GZ’s) right hand from reaching and grabbing the gun holstered behind him (GZ) while he (GZ) was lying on his back with TM on top of him and pinning him down and (2) use the SAME HAND to (a) unholster the said gun (b) grab the gun first before TM could reach it and (c) “aim and fire it” (GZ said in one of his statements/reenactments that he “aimed the gun and fired”)?

    I think GZ does not have a good oversight of all the statements has made to date regarding ‘what happened’. GZ stated to Sean Hannity that he was about/less than 100ft away from his car when the dispatcher told him not to follow TM (MO’M raised his eyebrows in surprise at that moment). GZ said that he did not go any further than that and proceeded to return to his car when TM appeared out of nowhere and attacked him. My question is this: (a) what is the distance between where GZ (claimed to have) parked his car and ‘the T’? (b) what is the distance between ‘the T’ and where TM body was found?

    • It is further than 70 yards from the place of the shooting to Brandy Green’s home, but that the figure is repeatedly used. It is about 70 yards from the north edge of her building to the south edge of the closest building to the shooting. But the shooting took place close to the north end of the building, and Green does not live in the northmost unit of her building.

      Most people have no idea how far “100 feet” is. Someone who has played a lot of football, might, since they could visualize a little more than 30 yards. An architect or contractor can probably estimate such a distance, perhaps by mentally chaining smaller distances.

      • Jimmy, I understand what you mean. I think someone better get to GZ and make sure he understands the following: “the devil is in the detail”. The best way lawyers rip their opponents apart is by chipping away the credibility of their story piece by piece until there is no more story left. It is comparable to a house that is demolished by chipping out the blocks one by one until the house/building crumbles. It is a painstaking job. But determined and zealous minds do get it done. If the details of GZ’s story do not add up/make sense, he has NO story!

          • Who is Inga?

            This following speculation is way out there I’m sure, but I wonder if it’s even a remote possibility:

            Could O’Mara be well aware by now that Zimmerman tends to tell a different story every time (he should be)? If so, could O’Mara be planning on using this to the defense’s advantage by bringing up Zimmerman’s diagnosed ADHD (memory loss is a symptom) and saying that Zimmerman just simply has no competent memory of the circumstances and therefore he’s not deliberately lying? How would such a strategy affect the expectations for “affirmative defense”? Generally speaking, how would “affirmative defense” be affected, when the accused is mentally challenged, or has some other reason for legitimately not being capable of recalling events?

            In my opinion, it appears that most of these story changes (such as Zimmerman’s most recent description of Trayvon “skipping” rather than “running”) are coincidentally self-serving. Still though, I wonder about

          • Not guilty by reason of being unable to adequately and competently assist in his own defense and is therefore unable to get a fair trial?

            I guess that makes as much sense as anything else about this case.

            unitron

          • HP,

            Zimmerman doesn’t remember saying that Martin “ran” on the NEN call. In the 9/29 interview when they were playing that part of the tape, he simply could not recall in what manner that Martin moved.

            When they were playing the NEN tapes he was totally surprised about the button. He said something like, “I don’t remember a button”. Similarly when he heard “F punks” he knew exactly what he had said.

            During the walk through, he suddenly recalled where he had been told to stop following in the direction that he had last seen Martin.

          • Jimrtex, do you think it odd then that Zimmerman was not able to recall that Trayvon wasn’t running when interviewed by police, but he was able to recall this by the time he spoke to Hannity – coincidentally as Hannity was asking if Trayvon might have run out of fear?

            HANNITY: — trying to maybe get into the mind-set, because we also have learned that Trayvon was speaking with his girlfriend supposedly at the time — that maybe he was afraid of you, didn’t know who you were?

            ZIMMERMAN: No.

            HANNITY: You don’t think — why do you think that he was running then?

            ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running, but he was more —

            HANNITY: You said he’s running.

            ZIMMERMAN: Yes. He was like skipping, going away quickly. But he wasn’t running out of fear.

            HANNITY: You could tell the difference?

            ZIMMERMAN: He wasn’t running.

            HANNITY: So he wasn’t actually running?

            ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

            And then there was this part of the interview:

            HANNITY: What did you do from that moment forward? Because this is where we get into this minute gap in this case, you know, and what did you do from that minute forward when the dispatch said “we don’t need you to follow him?” What did you do next?

            ZIMMERMAN: I walked across the sidewalk on to my street, Retreat View Circle, where I thought I would meet a police officer that I had called.

            What in the world is he talking about? What police officer? What call? The NEN call? And if he thought he would meet the officer there, why was he walking back to his vehicle – AWAY from Retreat View Circle – when he was supposedly attacked (or at least that’s what he told the investigators during his walk-through)?

            There was also Zimmerman’s assertion on FOX that he didn’t know for sure that he’d shot Trayvon. He’d apparently said this before in one of his previous statements to police, but he goes a little further on FOX and ends up contradicting another of his previous statements.

            HANNITY: When you think back, there was one report or police report that actually said you didn’t know after you fired, you didn’t think — you thought you missed?

            ZIMMERMAN: I didn’t think I hit him, yes. (page 5)

            …HANNITY: Did you look over at Trayvon? You obviously at some point recognized he had been shot. You didn’t know it at the beginning. Did you look over at him at anytime and realize he was in really bad shape?

            ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. (page 6)

            Did Zimmerman forget his previous statement that he crouched over Trayvon and pulled Trayvon’s hands away from his body? Is it a coincidence that Zimmerman says this after Hannity mentioned that according to a witness, Zimmerman appeared to be “acting like it was nothing”?

            In my opinion, the only thing that appears consistent about Zimmerman’s statements is that they keep changing in Zimmerman’s favor depending on the immediate circumstances (if anyone can believe what he says – and I’m sure some people do).

            Still, there may be a way to use all these inconsistencies to the defense’s advantage. Not sure, but if they don’t try to do that, how else can the defense possibly use any of these statements?

          • Indeed, hapufern, the only thing ‘CONSTANT’ in GZ’s stories is ‘CHANGE’. And if GZ was “100ft” away from his car when he turned back to return to his car, that opens up a lot of unanswered questions, such as (a) the distance between his car and the ‘T’ (I think GZ actually took a different direction to cut TM off and prevent him from running away) and (b) between the ‘T’ and where TM’s body was found. Do you have any thoughts on this? It is not PR that the prosecution has taken the tape into evidence (as Hannity is suggesting – to console himself and sleep better at night).

            How’s the weather today in Hawaii? Never been there before but I read a lot about its great beaches.

          • HP

            Hannity got the events out of sequence. He is reporting what Witness 13 has said about the manner in which Zimmerman blurted out that “He had shot someone”

            When Officer T Smith first arrived he reported over the police dispatch that he had one person in handcuffs and another person down. When Office Ayala arrived, he says he ordered Martin to move his hands out from under him. Then he says he went over and with the assistance of Sgt.Raimondo rolled Martin over and began to apply CPR. Sgt. Raimondo says that Office T Smith said that the person he had in custody was the shooter, and showed him the gun. Raimondo says that as Officer T Smith escorted Zimmerman to his patrol car he went over to render aid. Sgt McCoy reports that when she arrived she observed Zimmerman in the back of Officer T Smith’s car. She then went and assisted in the resuscitation efforts. After SFD arrived and declared Martin dead, she told T Smith to have SFD clean Zimmerman up and then take him to police HQ. The paramedic reported that when he went out to the patrol car, he asked if the door could be opened and have Zimmerman have his feet swing out. He later had Zimmerman stand up so that he could lift his shirt and check for any injuries to his torso.

            I would take Hannity’s “pretty bad shape” as meaning “dead”. It is not clear what, if any resuscitation attempt that Zimmerman observed. It is also not clear when Zimmerman asked that Witness 13 to call Shellie Zimmerman. Was it when Officer T Smith had him cuffed and and at gunpoint and was calling over his radio that he needed help because he had two persons? Unlikely. Was it after Officer Ayala arrived? Or was it as Sgt. Raimondo arrived, and Zimmerman was being escorted to the patrol car. I would guess that Office T Smith would stay on the scene in case Officer Ayala needed assistance, and that the arrival of Sgt. Raimondo, then permitted him to take Zimmerman to his patrol car.

            Witness 13 said that Zimmerman asked him whether he would call his wife. Witness 13 said that he told Shellie Zimmerman that her husband had been involved in a shooting and that he was being taken to the police station for questioning. So did Zimmerman tell Witness 13 to tell his wife, that he was being taken to the police station. Or did Witness 13 observe Zimmerman being taken to the patrol car and reported that to Shellie Zimmerman? How did Witness 13 know Shellie Zimmerman’s phone number? Did he know her name when he called? How did Shellie Zimmerman respond? When Witness 13 hems and haws, was he actually describing what happened after he said, “Your husband had been involved in a shooting and he is being taken to the police station for questioning.”

            I think that Witness 13 did not know what to say next, and Zimmerman was telling him what to stay. Remember that Witness 13 has always used “blurt” and “just get to the point” and mimicked Zimmerman as speaking rapidly “Just tell her I shot someone”. The “matter of fact” mannerism was suggested by BDLR who was so intent on getting it in, he interjecting it before Witness 13 had answered the previous question.

            So I’m not seeing an inconsistency here. Please explain.

          • Jimrtex,

            In my previous post, I wasn’t at all addressing Zimmerman’s inconsistencies with other witness’s testimonies. I was only addressing Zimmerman’s inconsistencies with Zimmerman’s testimonies.

            However, other witnesses did See Zimmerman on top of Trayvon after Trayvon was shot, so we know that Zimmerman had to know that Trayvon was shot. I don’t think he thought Trayvon was taking a nap.

          • Also Jimrtex, Zimmerman did tell someone to call his wife and tell her he shot someone, which Hannity pointed out to him and Zimmerman appeared to simply ignore.

            If Zimmerman is an intelligent human being, he must be on some serious drugs – or he is seriously delusional. However, this might not meet the legal definition of insanity for the reasons that Intel pointed out.

          • HP,

            “Also Jimrtex, Zimmerman did tell someone to call his wife and tell her he shot someone, which Hannity pointed out to him and Zimmerman appeared to simply ignore.”

            That was in third segment:

            http://video.foxnews.com/v/1741927642001/

            Sean Hannity asked him whether he remembered that a gentleman [Witness 13] had come out and talked to him, and have him call his wife, and then asked him whether he remembered “that conversation”.

            Zimmerman asked whether he meant the conversation with that gentleman (as opposed to some conversation he might have had with his wife). This is a reasonable response to clarify whether Hannity was speaking about the conversation with Witness 13 or with his wife.

            Hannity says: “Yep” Zimmerman says, “Yes sir”

            Hannity then says, “You do remember that conversation? And he did talk about it, and his suggestion was — that you were very matter of fact about it. Do you remember what you said to him? Do you think you were in a state of shock? Did you know that Trayvon — when did you know that Trayvon had died?”

            Hannity asked a run on question, and Zimmerman answered the last one that Hannity had asked when he permitted Zimmerman to answer.

            I disagree with your assessment that Zimmerman ignored the question.

            “Zimmerman did tell someone to call his wife and tell her he shot someone, which Hannity pointed out to him and Zimmerman appeared to simply ignore.”

            A couple of nitpicks. Witness 13 says that Zimmerman did ask for him to call Shellie Zimmerman. Witness 13 says that he called her, and told her that her husband had been involved in a shooting, and that he was going to be taken to the police department for questioning. It is at that point, that Witness 13 says that Zimmerman “blurted” out, “just tell her I shot somebody”.

            At least based on how I interpret the Witness 13 interviews, Zimmerman did not have Witness 13 call Shellie Zimmerman for the purposes of saying he had shot someone; but rather to inform her that he was being taken to the police station (and not returning from the grocery store anytime soon). It was only when apparently Witness 13 did not know what to say, that Zimmerman blurted out “just tell her I shot someone”.

            We don’t know how Witness 13 knew Shellie Zimmerman’s phone number. We don’t know whether he knew her name. We don’t know how far apart the two were. If a police officer had someone at gunpoint, took their gun, and then handcuffed them – I would not be standing next to them,

          • “If a police officer had someone at gunpoint, took their gun, and then handcuffed them – I would not be standing next to them.”

            And if it were someone else not as smart as you about that, you’d think that at least the police officer would be, and would prevent it.

            unitron

          • Unitron,

            “And if it were someone else not as smart as you about that, you’d think that at least the police officer would be, and would prevent it.”

            It will be interesting to have Witness 13 go through his entire recollection of that night.

            He was the first witness that Serino interviewed that night, and he says that he asked Zimmerman whether or not he used a 9 (mm) or 45 (caliber).

            In his FDLE interview, he says he was assembling furniture (and points to the coffee table) and they had heard noises, and his wife had peeked out and reported two men fighting. He says he told her “that they were grown men and to let them settle it”. They heard the shot, and she peeked out again and said that she thought someone had been shot.

            He then went around through the garage and around the building, with a flashlight and iPhone. If he immediately went to the area behind his house after he had heard a shot, and he asked Zimmerman what type gun he had used.

            What other item did he have?

            Witness 18 is the hysterical 911 caller, who lives north of the T (see her map in 2nd evidence PDF). Those units are elevated by perhaps 5 feet so she was in a somewhat better position to observe the arrest. The 911 operator was trying to figure out whether someone way laying in the street (because she had given her street address) and when she said she could open her window, he was apparently trying to figure out whether she could still hear screaming and shooting, when she probably meant the people talking.

            She kept referring to people coming out. I don’t know it that would have included Cutcher and Ludmilla. I don’t know of any other witnesses who reported going outside immediately. The boy with the dog said he came home through the front door. The woman with the dog came outside before the shooting.

            Back to Witness 18’s 911 call.

            1:06 she reports man with flashlight. (my guess is Witness 13)
            1:16 man is up
            1:34 man going over (to body?) with flashlight.
            2:15 man with flashlight with man who had been wrestling.
            2:36 another man with flashlight (my guess is Officer T Smith)
            2:40 “he shot the person” (presumably Zimmerman telling Smith)
            2:49 he is raising his hands up
            2:59 operator says officer is there and has someone at gunpoint
            4:35 operator says two officers on scene
            5:03 she reports another officer
            5:19 officer is shining light on person (Ayala on Martin?)
            6:14 is bringing the person away
            6:29 they’re looking at person

            So Witness 13 appears to have gone over and looked at the body, and that is likely when he took the picture. The FDLE were able to recover the originals from his iPhone, so they should know the sequence).

            It was maybe a minute before T Smith arrives – Witness 18 is unlikely to be hyper accurate for times. She was 80 feet from the body, and maybe 30 from the T. So it is hard to tell what “looking at the person” means. Does that mean they were performing CPR? When did they flip the body over?

            So when did Witness 13 call Shellie Zimmerman?

            One of the officers reported that an Asian male brought him a plastic bag and vaseline so that he could form an air seal when administering CPR? Was that Witness 13? His wife sounds Asian, I can’t really tell for him.

            And there was a witness who was reported to be standing within the police tape, who a later arriving officer had to shoo off after making sure that he had his name and address. I’m pretty sure that was Witness 13.

        • Insanity plea will ultimately take GZ down to the gallows on the following grounds: (a) GZ is a criminal justice law student (b) he reads, understands and passes his exams (c) he went through an elaborate complicated process to set up a website and PayPal account on his own. Through this enterprise GZ has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars in a matter of a few months (d) his Gail telephone conversations in which he conspired with his wife to hide tens of thousands of dollars from the Court, depict someone of above average intelligence who can manipulate the judicial system, make complicated business calculations, give orders and directives to others and make sure that the said orders and directives are carried out to the letter (d) his interview with Hannity shows a man who is able to appreciate the seriousness and gravity of the situation, calmly provide a coherent story where it serves his interest and contradicts himself and give new accounts of what happened in an effort to serve his interests, etc.

          The best defense GZ has is self-defense. But bringing in his ADHD-thing, etc. into the equation will ultimately undo any credibility he has left (if any is indeed still left), for – so it must be concluded – that GZ ONLY remembers “facts” that serves his own interest and contradicts himself/give a different account of ‘what happened’ because he makes up the stories along the way.

          (This on is for Jimmy. Jimmy the sentence “the devil is in the detail” is just a ‘saying’, a metaphor that does not have to be taken literally – just like “the elephant in the room…”, “the smoking gun”, “catch-22” etc. . I am surprised you did take that metaphor literally. You do realize that GZ telling Hannity that he (GZ) was “100ft or less” away from his car when he on the instruction of the dispatcher stopped following TM and proceeded to return to his vehicle at which point TM appeared out of nowhere and attacked him, seriously contradicts not only what GZ has said before but also objective evidence. The problem is NOT that GZ is claiming self-defense BUT the details of that claim. In the said details lies the devil – the ‘devil’ being the many different stories, inaccuracies, contradictions, etc. which renders the said story complete nonsense. Now, you can play the apologist for GZ (and I think it is fair for you to do that), but you do agree with me at one point the margin of appreciation granted to GZ (or any other defendant) to make mistakes has been exhausted/shall have been exhausted and nothing GZ says is/would worth anything. When you have a dead boy with a bullet driven through his heart by a 28-year old grown man who is also a criminal justice student, the last thing you want is play apologist for him ad infinutum).

          • Irvin,

            Zimmerman was probably just short of 200 feet from his car. He has consistently said that Martin came out of nowhere as he was walking westward towards his cars.

            So did Zimmerman ever tell a version where Martin dragged him from his car. Natalie Jackson said that he had. Was this a fabrication on her part? Is it OK for her to do so, because she was a lawyer, or you believe her to be smart or attractive?

          • Isadora,

            Have you ever set up a Paypal account. How do you know whether it is elaborate and complicated? The whole purpose of Paypal is to make it easy to transfer funds without having to set up some collection method.

            His website was quite primitive. He discusses in one of his phone calls whether to pay a few more dollars per month to have a different form of site, so that some friend would not be restricted to the templates that the website provider limited on the entry level account.

          • Intel, thanks for your comments. It seems to me that Zimmerman’s reversal about Trayvon “running” during the Hannity interview is pretty major. Definitely an important question all along has been “Why did Trayvon run?” The running does imply that Trayvon had reason to be afraid of Zimmerman.

            So now, after 6 months, and with numerous previous Zimmerman statements that Trayvon ran, and with the NEN call record as well, Zimmerman decides that Trayvon didn’t run.

            In my opinion, Zimmerman’s brand new assertion that Trayvon didn’t run presents huge and undeniable credibility issues, and I can’t imagine that
            the prosecution wouldn’t use it.

            So my question to you and Susan (if you have the time) is: How would the prosecution bring this up during trial? Would they call Hannity as a witness for the prosecution? I’m sure he’d like that…..NOT!

            (Weather’s great here – finally! We’ve had nothing but rain for months. Maybe this means the rain is going over there, where you guys really need it!)

          • It’s most likely usable as impeachment evidence only. Since the interview is hearsay, the prosecution would likely bring it in only to impeach Zimmerman, if he tries to testify.

            Or I guess they could get it admitted as a statement by a party opponent, maybe… But I really don’t think the state is going to go there. It seems to me the state’s game has been, from day one, to load up the impeachment ammo against Zimmerman, and then to avoid offering any evidence of self-defense in their own case. If Zimmerman is forced to take the stand, he is effed, and if he doesn’t, he runs a very big risk of not getting a self-defense instruction, or losing on it even if he does.

          • Susan says: “If Zimmerman is forced to take the stand, he is effed, and if he doesn’t, he runs a very big risk of not getting a self-defense instruction, or losing on it even if he does”.

            I wonder why I get so different an impression of the legal situation from another liberal lawyer. Please comment of the material at http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/24/122557/873. I will just give the headings here. Plenty of Florida case law is given below each heading.

            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.
            2. The Aggressor Statute: Why Zimmerman is not the Aggressor, But If He Was, He Could Still Use Deadly Force
            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.
            4. Zimmerman does not have to testify to get a jury instruction on self-defense.
            5. The Rules of Evidence are not relaxed and Hearsay is not allowed at a Stand Your Ground Hearing
            6. The Danger George Zimmerman Feared Need not be Real or Actual.
            7. Depraved Mind Requires Showing of Ill-Will, Hatred, Malice:

          • If there’s a way to get self-defense in there without testifying he might skate, but just for giggles, ask Jeralyn what happens if Zimmerman has to take the stand.

            unitron

          • “If there’s a way to get self-defense in there without testifying he might skate, but just for giggles, ask Jeralyn what happens if Zimmerman has to take the stand. unitron”

            I answer that without answering Jeralyn. Judging by his past performance, I would think Zimmerman would love to take the stand. He would reply to contradictions the same way he replied to Serino, Singleton and Hannity when they pointed out discrepancies, “Well I don’t remember or I didn’t mean that”. Of course in American jury trials, lots depend on the chemistry between the lawyers and jury and right now that is unpredictable. Now my question for you, unitron, is how the prosecution is going to fill the gap between A: Zimmerman has given an unreliable account of the details of his activities on the night of 26 Feb 2011 and B. Zimmerman, BRD, knew he could have escaped serious harm without shooting.

          • The convenient thing about approaching this whole mess from an “I want to figure out what really happened” mindset, rather than “I’ve already made up my mind I’m on (insert either Zimmerman or Martin here)’s side, and all I care about is the verdict” is that I don’t have to carry water for either Corey or O’Mara, and I’m perfectly free to have my doubts about both the state and the defendant.

            And boy do I have doubts about both the state and the defendant.

            unitron

          • The only difference between me and you unitron about this case is that I seriously doubt that I will ever learn what really happened so I stick to the easier legal questions. As I have said from early on, the evidence shows that Zimmerman is not guilty BYD of manslaughter or worse and the evidence shows that Martin is not guilty BRD of assault. This Beyond a Reasonable Doubt business messes up the law of the excluded middle.

          • HP,

            “So now, after 6 months, and with numerous previous Zimmerman statements that Trayvon ran, and with the NEN call record as well, Zimmerman decides that Trayvon didn’t run.”

            Zimmerman never made a statement that Martin had run, other than on the NEN call.

            In his written statement, he says that Martin “disappeared” and “went”. In the February 29 interview when Serino was playing portions of the NEN tape he did not remember any running.

          • However, other witnesses did See Zimmerman on top of Trayvon after Trayvon was shot, so we know that Zimmerman had to know that Trayvon was shot. I don’t think he thought Trayvon was taking a nap.

            Sean Hannity asked when he knew that Martin had “died”.

            Sean Hannity then asked about “after the shooting” when did you realize he “had been shot”.

            Zimmerman then repeated what he has said in every interview that “Martin sat up” and that he had thought that he had missed, and got out from under him.

            Sean Hannity did not follow up. It is possible that the tape was edited at that point. Watch the video closely.

          • Susan said:

            “(…). It seems to me the state’s game has been, FROM DAY ONE (my emphasis), to load up the impeachment ammo against Zimmerman, and then to avoid offering any evidence of self-defense in their own case (…)”.

            Imperatively correctly – with emphasis on the phrase: “from day one”. That’s the reason why the probable cause affidavit was very thinly formulated and does not contain GZ’s version (namely his claim of self-defense). The goal was unmistakable: effectively seal off all avenues with the excetion of the witness-box as the ONLY place GZ MUST go to put forward any evidence of self-defense he thinks he may have and defend that evidence there on the stand. If GZ does NOT take the stand- OR takes the stand BUT his self-defense story is shown to be UNTRUTHFUL (because objective evidence, witness accounts, etc. contradicts that story and/or the inconsistencies/internal conflicts within that story are such that they cannot be ignored and/or GZ claims not to remember key facts without reasonable explanation and/or retracts earlier statements he realizes do not quite favor him, et cetera) and as such NOT BELIEVABLE, then he (GZ) shall have effectively sealed his own fate. GZ was already boxed in on day one by a very shrewd and calculating prosecution team. I wonder why Professor Dershowitz could not see through- and beyond that affidavit. It was an affidavit that at the SAME TIME said nothing and yet everything.

  36. Jimrtex,

    Just to clarify my Sheriff Dept’s position on CWL’s (Concealed Weapons Licenses), this is a ECSO Defense Tactics instructor. Notice the statement about Concealed Weapons. As a side note under Aurora Law it was illegal for anyone to have been carrying in that theater due to the “No Guns” signs.

    http://www.weartv.com/newsroom/top_stories/videos/wear_vid_23801.shtml?wap=0

    “It’s called domestic terrorism. You have so many different situations that would dictate different tactics,” said Defense Tactics Instructor Andrew Kilgen.

    Kilgen teaches defense tactics at the sheriff’s department. He says there is not an umbrella rule to ensure survival in this case, but your options boil down to hide, flee, or fight. The most important thing you can do is keep calm when deciding what your best course of action is.

    “Placing yourself in a mass hysteria isn’t going to do much for you. If you can take that one moment to tuck yourself down, take a deep cool breath and figure out here’s my exit, here’s my plan, here’s how I can protect my family or waiting for that moment, that is your chance to possibly take that person down,” said Kilgen.

    For people who have a concealed weapons permit and a gun, should you use it?

    “I would say yes, if it’s safe, if you can prevent any further death or harm to anyone else, but then you have to worry about your secondary issue as in law enforcement identifying you as a threat also,” said Kilgen.

    • Hi InspGadget,
      Given that GZ is licensed to carry concealed weapons, is it possible that GZ – prior to the issuance of that license – would not has been drilled on his rights and responsibilities (including under SYG-Law) with regard to the use of concealed weapons? Do you think that GZ would not have heard about the SGY-Law prior to the shooting of TM?

      • That depends on his instructor. With the people I have helped get their licenses the first place I send them is not to a gun store but to Jon Gutmacher’s book on Florida Firearms Laws (floridafirearmslaw.com) and from there to (handgunlaw.us) to see the laws in neighboring states they might visit, I live at the AL state line. I do not ever want to see a girl defend herself from a rapist just to have people like Corey and Company giggling while they charge her with a weapons violation. Knowing the laws are every bit as important as knowing the gun. As far as Zimmerman goes I have no idea what he was taught, a qualified NRA instructor should have gone over that with him.

        On a side note Military and Police training counts in FL so I did not have to go through a FL NRA class. I have studied the laws on my own to keep myself out of legal troubles.

        • Thanks for your thoughtful answer. In this tragedy, I have been hoping and still hope that GZ will open up to MO’M and tell him everything. I think if he does that, MO’M is more able to get the best possible result for him. The worst thing one can do to himself is to lie to- and/or withhold information from his doctor and/or lawyer. I do not know what happened the night of the shooting. I believe GZ knows but is not telling everything and is even making up a couple of things. Most reasonable people who do not have a dog in the fight come to the same conclusion and that could mean disaster for GZ in the end. It should NOT AT ALL be difficult for GZ to give ONE straight forward account of what happened to MO’M and let MO’M figure the rest out (i.e. how to use what he knows to get the best possible result for his client in light of all the known evidence and in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct). But, you know, sometimes certain clients think they know better what their lawyer should and should not know. Sometimes it works. Many a time it backfires – because the other side comes with information that are unknown to the lawyer and/or contradict the lawyer and/or create new situations the lawyer neither anticipated nor prepared for, etc.

          Like you, my prayers go out to the families of the victims of the Aurora incident. It’s quite unfortunate what happened, but I also think it is a price of being and ultra-mundane society, a price we all quietly accepted to pay at the institution of the Second Amendment. What happened is not the first and will not be the last for there will always be crazy people who are armed to the teeth and more than willing to cause carnage and bring misery to others. Law-enforcement can only manage the risk. But reducing that risk to zero would amount to abrogation of the Second Amendment ( and literally disarming Americans) – and that is what most Americans don’t want.

          • I will have to modify my response about to what to do if you get into a self defense situation. GET A FRICKING LAYER, TALK TO YOUR FRICKING LAWYER AND LISTEN TO YOUR FRICKING LAWYER!!!!! My unqualified legal advice of the day.

            On a more personal note there were a lot of my brothers and sisters in arms in that theater, not just the ones that died, a large number of them had to have some level of combat experience with the way we have been doing deployments. That Military ID should automatically be considered a license to carry a sidearm. And they were Disarmed by Auroras laws the same way the Soldiers in the SRC at FT Hood were disarmed, the Ft Hood incident had a crowd that could have turned Hassan into Swiss cheese after the first shot if they had had their sidearms. If you can trust us with weapons that can level countries, you should be able to trust us to defend ourselves and our neighbors. I’m off my soapbox, sorry for the rant.

    • Instead of (…) would not has been drilled on (…)” read “would not have been drilled on …” (the heat is driving me nuts over here!).

  37. Thanks Susan for your reply to my question about the Hannity interview way up there somewhere.

    I think I can see how the interview would be hearsay if Hannity testified about it. But Is the interview still hearsay if the video tape of it is played for the jury?

    I’m pretty astonished that after this interview with Trayvon skipping instead of running, the defense was going for another interview with ABC.

    • Hearsay is any statement made outside of the courtroom, that is offered to prove the truth of what is asserted by the statement. Whether it is being recounted by the witness, replayed by a tape recorder, or shown on the video.

      So, technically, the Hannity interview is only hearsay if it is offered as proof that Trayvon was skipping around the complex, la de da da. Which obviously the prosecution wouldn’t do. But there isn’t much value to the prosecution in the statement, absent all of Zimmerman’s contradicting statements — which the prosecution isn’t going to want to grant Zimmerman a freebie on by offering in to evidence themselves.

      The statements could also be admission by a party opponent — which, in a somewhat Kafkaesque manner, is defined as “not hearsay” under the Federal Rules of Evidence, while under the Florida Rules it is defined as hearsay but is admissible under an exception to the hearsay. But that’s why the prosecutions might be able to offer the statements into evidence, while Zimmerman is prevented from using those same statements as part of his defense.

      • You got me started on hearsay rules. They are usually only found in English speaking countries. Elsewhere, the trier of fact is expected to be intelligent enough to weight hearsay properly. However, they have the advantage of requiring lawyers to figure the complicated exceptions, you know, the same way complicated tax rules are good for lawyers.

      • OK, thanks so much Susan! I think I get it. This is interesting.

        Also, Jimrtex, I think you may be correct that Zimmerman never made a statement that Trayvon was “running” after the NEN call. Zimmerman didn’t deny this terminology however when asked by Serino for a description of what kind of run it was (Feb 29 Part III audio). At that time, he said he couldn’t remember.

        Zimmerman’s exact words on the NEN tape were:

        “Shit, he’s running.” I think the use of the expletive adds credibility to the stated observation of running.

        Also, at that point, the dispatcher asks Zimmerman, “He’s running? Which way is he running?”

        Zimmerman doesn’t correct the dispatcher about Zimmerman running.

        George tells the dispatcher which way Trayvon ran, and then George says, “He ran”.

        Also, noticeably missing from the NEN conversation is any assertion that Trayvon ever circled Zimmerman’s vehicle. In fact, I think that assertion is pretty much dead be now, because there’s absolutel no timespan during the NEN call during which this could have taken place – IF Zimmerman was telling the truth about calling from the clubhouse, which I really don’t think he is. He got himself into a corner on that one.

        • Very good analysis Hapufern. Like you I am very much aware of the things you pointed out. But I fear that that the BS coming from GZ is sooo much and obvious that the prosecution might even get redundant thinking that this case is a slam dunk and by so doing snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. But a colleague thinks the prosecution team has been and is still sharpening its knife, salivating and lying in ambush waiting for GZ to cross their path. The question is: is GZ taking any notice at all? Can he read the writings on the wall and act in time to limit the damage he may inevitably have to sustain? I don’t think so. In ancient Greece, a saying goes: he who the gods want to kill they first block his ears and make go mad.

      • If the prosecution offers them any of Zimmerman’s statement made during the interview into evidence, Zimmerman can use the whole interview.

  38. Susan, I have three questions that still burg my mind and I think I need your help:

    1. Why didn’t MO’M appeal the ruling whereby the bond for GZ was set at 1,000,000.00.- UDS? It seems to me he could possibly have gotten a lower bond on appeal and a less far-reaching condemnatory language of GZ by the appellate Court.

    2. Why didn’t MO’M appeal the Order to release the testimony of witness #9? (It seem to me that the appellate Court might have been more sympathetic to the idea that releasing the said testimony would make fair trial impossible. It seems to me also that the said testimony substantially closed the donation-oasis from where GZ drew thousands of much needed dollars. Many who support GZ might be “conservative” misfits who will move heaven and earth to get the last laugh at Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, but things like rape, molestation, etc., are abomination to the members of this group of our society (and I grew up with them) and it seems they (with few exceptions) have dropped GZ since the allegations surfaced.

    3. Is MO’M guilty of professional misconduct in not appealing the Order meant above in no. 2 AND filing the motion to reconsider the said Order AFTER the testimony of witness #9 has ALREADY been released? Can GZ EVENTUALLY sue MO’M for damages sustained from the release of the testimony of witness #9?

  39. Not to minimize the alleged victimization of W9 or the degree to which the Hannity interview seems to reveal GZ as a truly delusional sociopath, i can’t help but feeling the really big news from the 2nd evidence dump is being largely overlooked, that being the role of Air Marshall Mark Osterman who may well have spotted TM entering The Retreat as he drove down RVC to visit George and Shellie, reported this to GZ, prompting George to go searching for an intruder, and then been involved in coaching GZ in preparing his story, and assisting Shellie in removing the truck from the crime scene. To condense a lot of speculation into one synecdoche, why would GZ have Jon Manola ‘just tell me wife i shot someone’ — emphasis on the ‘just” — unless she already knew the context. I mean if she really thought he was going to Target wouldn’t he at least have to explain how and why he never got there, lest Shellie think he shot someone trying to shoplift a Michael Graves teapot or something?

    • Officer T Smith: You are under arrest. I’m going to take you to the police station for questioning. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be twisted by unscrupulous prosecutors.
      Zimmerman (to stranger who is standing at distance): Could you call my wife, please? Tell her that I have been involved in a shooting, and am going to be taken to the police station for questioning.
      Stranger: What’s the number?
      Zimmerman: [redacted]
      Stranger (dialing): What’s your wife’s name?
      Zimmerman: Shellie Zimmerman
      S Zimmerman: Hello?
      Stranger: Hello, is this Shellie Zimmerman?
      S Zimmerman: Yes it is.
      Stranger: Um. Your husband has been involved in a shooting and is um going to be taken to the police station for questioning?
      S Zimmerman: What? What happened. Is he hurt?
      Stranger: Um,
      G Zimmerman (recognizing confusion and hesitation by stranger, speaks rapidly): Just tell her I shot someone.
      Stranger: You husband says to tell you that he shot someone.

    • Agreed. Osterman’s role throughout the investigation has been weirdly withheld — the initial police reports didn’t even reveal his presence at the crime scene. I also really want to see Zimmerman’s phone records from that night; it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if either Taafe or Osterman alerted Zimmerman to Trayvon’s presence.

      Did Osterman talk to Zimmerman that night? Did he remind Zimmerman of what he needed to say to invoke a self-defense claim? (And if so… why didn’t he remind Zimmerman not to talk at all, until he lawyered up?)

        • Jimmy, I think the answers to the questions raised by Whonoze might be as crucial as other pieces of evidence in this case. But your sarcastic reaction could make one put it to you that you know who called GZ in the minutes before GZ started to stalk, and I mean stalk TM while riding in his car? One could also put it to you that you know who GZ called after the shooting from the crime scene and the police station? One could equally put it to you that you know that the individual in question has no (prior) relationship with the SPD and did not contact any member of (the higher echelon of) the SPD on behalf of GZ? Seriously Jimmy, would you like to shear that information with all of us or maybe tell us why they are not relevant?

          BTW Jimmy, greetings from Natalie Jackson. Boy, how did you let this lady get under your skin? What in the world were you thinking?

  40. You can nick pick at what George has said all you wish, but, at the end of the day, he does not have to prove very much to be immune at a SYG hearing. I saw Parks the other night and he could not answer how the State could possibly proved murder two. Instead he kept saying the same old thing that none of this would have happened if George had remained in his vehicle. That appears to me to be the only thing that the State has. And while that may be true, it does not convict George of anything. If George had stayed home. .. If Trayvon would not have gone to the store…

    • Jordan2222 said

      “(…) saw Parks the other night and he could not answer how the State could possibly proved murder two. Instead he kept saying the same old thing that none of this would have happened if George had remained in his vehicle. That appears to me to be the only thing that the State has (…)”.

      My question to you, Jordan, is the following: have you ever wondered if that is a well thought through strategy of talking about the case while at the same time NOT talking about the case (as in ‘I do not want to reveal to the defendant what we and/or the prosecution are really thinking and/or going to do and how we are going to do it)?

      Have you ever wondered if that is a result of an agreement they made with the prosecution to keep repeating that same talking points over and over again without getting into the details of the case?

      I have asked myself the question you raised, but the answer may be right under your nose.

      • The prosecution is not going to share any information about how they intend to proceed with Parks or Crump or anyone else, nor are they going to tell him whether he’s getting warmer or colder if he attempts to guess, and anything he can figure out about what the prosecution might do, O’Mara can figure out as well, so what he says doesn’t really matter.

        unitron

        • Unitron, I am trying to make sense of why Crump & Co. keep on reaping ONE SENTENCE over and over again and make me think they do not have good knowledge of the case. Any thoughts on that? is it possible that Crump & Co. are dummies?

          You state that “the prosecution is not going to share any information about how they intend to proceed with Parks or Crump (…), nor are they going to tell him whether he’s getting warmer or colder if he attempts to guess (…)”. On what (law/jurisprudence/Rules of Ethics, etc.) do you base this assertion?

          You also state: “…and anything he can figure out about what the prosecution might do, O’Mara can figure out as well, so what he says doesn’t really matter”. My question to you is: how do you know that “anything he can figure out about what the prosecution might do, O’Mara can figure out as well”? What is the basis of that assertion of yours? Do you think that legal practice is really that transparent that one lawyer ALWAYS knows/figures out what the other is thinking/strategizing on without discussing/exchanging thoughts on a particular set of evidence?

  41. So the prosecution put the Hanity interview into evidence and everyone is wondering why. Here is what I am thinking. GZ Bond order said he was to have no direct or indirect contact with the Martin family. He clearly violated it during the interview with his laywer sitting right next to him by talking to them via the camara. I wouldn’t be surprised if you don’t see GZ returning to jail very soon.

      • Martin’s parents have appeared on Fox a number of times. They certainly know what Zimmerman said to them on Hannity and replied in the media something to the effect that they worship a different God than Zimmerman. It would really be something if Lester revoked bail over what Zimmerman said on the program.

        • Well it is a direct violation of GZ bond. I see no reason for the prosecution to request a bench warrant on him and for him to be put back on a no-bail status. He simply can’t follows orders and thinks he is above everyone including his own legal counsel. There are many in the legal community that are wondering why MOM is still involved in this and why he hasn’t walked. But he clearly isn’t in control. He also seems to be doing a very bad job. He waited till it was too late to appeal the W9 stuff, so it appears he didn’t care if it got out, he let him go on TV and talk.. giving the prosecution much more ammo on depraved mind and also if a jury convicts he has already made a statement that he has no remorse. So sentencing will go very bad for him.

          If they revoke his bond over this again I have to wonder how this will play out with SZ. I mean she has dealt with her new husband killing someone, finding out the truth about his abusive past with his x, his 10 years of sexually assaulting a girl, and convincing her to lie in court thus her now being charged with perjury. If they get GZ away from her she may be willing to roll over on him and testify against him. I mean lets face it, what women would want to be with this guy?

          After W9 stuff got out many of the supporters that were giving him money stopped and at this point the only supporters he has left are the truly nutty people.

          Who would have thought that all the prosecution needed in this case was GZ big mouth. They just don’t come any dumber than this guy.

          • I doubt he’ll lose his bond over it, but it still wasn’t a smart move. He’s already screwed up once — he can’t afford any more screw ups, no matter how slight. The court isn’t going to have any extra patience when it comes to Zimmerman bending the rules of his bond conditions.

            And I remain utterly baffled by the dynamics of the O’Mara-Zimmerman relationship. Don’t know what’s going on there, but it is not an example of a healthy and productive client-attorney relationship.

          • Susan, I think that you are obliged to provide the reasoning underlying your position.

            GZ was released on the following conditions:

            1. The Defendant shall refrain from criminal activity of any kind;

            2. The Defendant shall not have any contact with the victim’s family, directly or indirectly, except as necessary to conduct pretrial discovery through his attorneys;

            3. The Defendant shall be subject to electronic monitoring at his own expense;

            4. The defendant shall not leave Seminole County without prior authorization by this Court;

            5. The Defendant shall check in with the Pre-trial Release Department every 48 hours;
            6. The Defendant shall not enter the property of the Orlando-Sanford International Airport;

            7. The Defendant shall not open or maintain a bank account;

            8. The Defendant shall not consume any alcohol;

            9. The Defendant shall obey a curfew between 6 pm and 6 am.

            10. The Defendant shall not apply for or obtain a passport.

            Are you of the opinion that GZ violated condition #2 . If yes, why then do you “doubt he’ll lose his bond over it” – on what legal reasons is your “doubt” founded?

          • Because judges get to do whatever the hell they want.

            When it comes to technical or persnickety violations of orders, where it’s possible there’s a problem but it’s more of form rather than substance, but the opposing side files a motion over it anyway, judges will often just give a stern look to the offending party and basically say “okay plaintiff, don’t do that again. But defendant, stop crowding up my docket. Now both of you gtfo of my courtroom.”

        • Susan,

          “I, ‘XY’, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ‘XX’ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

          Using the above as a preamble, even hardcore legal realists like justice Oliver Wendel Holmes would seriously disagree with your assertion: “Because judges get to do whatever the hell they want”. Actually judges don’t and may not “do whatever the hell they want”. If one were to take your contested statement as correct, one must necessarily understand you to mean that the administration of law is nothing but the Wild West where arbitrariness/arbitrarity of the judge reins. I vehemently disagree with that.

          In a given situation a judge has to ascertain (a) whether or not a violation has occurred (b) the nature of the violation (c) the prescribed sanctions for the violation and (d) determine within the margins of the general principles of proportionality and subsidiary the sanction to be imposed. In this particular instance, if the judge determines that at least a (material) violation has occurred, he (the judge) – having taken into consideration all the circumstances of the violation in particular and the case in general – would have to answer the question whether or not –revocation of bail is warranted.
          Granted, judges do have a reasonable margin of appreciation when making decisions (not always though), but the exercise of that power may not be to the detriment of the integrity of the judicial process/administration of justice. I do not know what judge Lester is going to do (as I do not have all the evidence). But I sure hope that he follows the law whatever he decides – no matter whose ox is gored.

          On a side note: you still have not answered the question whether or not there was a violation on the part of GZ and whether the violation – if there is any – is material. If you will not/cannot FIRST answer these questions, you could not have reasonably come to the conclusion: “I doubt he will lose his bail over this”.

          • No, judges get to do whatever the hell they want. True story. We euphemistically refer to it “judicial discretion,” but it amounts to the same thing.

            The first couple of times I showed up in court with what was 100% objectively the “right” answer, only to have the judge decided they would rather do things another way, I was full of righteous indignation over it, and all that. But on a day-to-day level, as a practical matter, the law is whatever the judge says it is. The overwhelming majority of judicial decisions made throughout the course of a case are not reviewable, and you don’t get to ask for a second opinion. (Or you can file a Motion for Reconsideration, but that’s basically just asking for a judge to slap you down again, because the first time wasn’t quite hard enough.)

            Judges aren’t blind to the fact that lawyers sometimes (haha, okay, you caught me, all of the times) manipulate court rules in ongoing rounds of legal one-upmanship, or even just simple juvenile pettiness. So they manage their docket by selectively handing out smack downs to litigants that have crossed whatever that particular judge’s threshold for time-wasting minutiae is. Because judges don’t like dealing with disputes that they expect the parties to be able to work out on their own.

            As for “the question whether or not there was a violation [of bail terms] on the part of GZ and whether the violation – if there is any – is material”, the answer is it depends on whether or not the prosecution is willing to bring a motion over it, and if so, whether the judge is inclined to grant it. The judge could sufficiently justify a decision made either way, such that either result seems a pretty feasible outcome. But given the relative pettiness of the violation, the sensitive nature of the case, and the rampant accusations of judicial bias that are being thrown about, I think it is most likely that, if a motion were brought, the consequences of revoking bail would be annoying enough that the judge would probably conclude it is not really worth it. So he would settle instead for growling at GZ and making it explicit that, by GZ pulling his little stunt on Hannity’s show, GZ has used up any sort of leeway that he may have had.

    • Susan, I wish there was a like button on this. I love this answer “Now both of you gtfo of my courtroom.” LOL I think you may be right.

      It’s not that I want GZ back in jail, it’s far more fun having him out and doing crazy stuff with his lawyer. I just asked myself what reasons they had for so quickly entering it into evidence. I do see your point of it being a little frivolous, but it was Lester’s rule that he made if I am correct? I still can see him getting miffed at the Defense in general about them blatantly going on national TV and making comments to the Martin family via an interview when I think his bond directions clearly stated this was not allowed. It was also made worse IMHO that MOM sat next to him and allowed it. It would be understandable for GZ to say he didn’t understand it, but MOM can’t claim that he didn’t understand the bond order, he is a lawyer, I think, right? LOL

  42. HP

    I think he was saying that he moved while waiting for the call to be answered. If the goal was to figure out what happened, they would have let Zimmerman listen to the tape before asking him what he was doing at the time.

    In the walk through, he indicated that they somehow moved 40 feet.

  43. Susan, please explain why PeterO’s comments were deserving of having him booted off your blog while Sandbagger’s are not? That person’s latest post misstates the law and is chock full of comments that anybody who doesn’t agree with him/her is an idiot. Since I have often said that I think it is 50-50 whether or not Zimmerman committed manslaughter or worse that night (and thus is not guilty under the law) I have been subjected to abuse from both sides. Sort of like an agnostic being abused by Richard Dawkins.

    • PeterO got booted because he proved himself to be a nasty piece of work that was incapable of learning how to play nicely with others. And also he thought posting personal information regarding witnesses and sexual abuse victims was acceptable behavior.

      But I am completely confused about why you think Sandbagger is in need of moderation…?? I’ve never seen Sandbagger be anything but respectful here, let alone call anyone an idiot. (Except possibly Zimmerman.)

      I try to avoid being overly aggressive about moderation when I can, so I do let some bickering go by; I figure that, to a certain degree, commenters’ rudeness will speak to the quality of their argument. You’ve done a good job of not rising to the bait yourself, though.

      • The post I was referring to is https://viewfromll2.com/2012/07/16/zimmerman-open-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-5268 .

        The degree of certainty expressed in posts like that is not warranted by the evidence in this case. In particular statements like the following show an inability to profitably discuss the case with others of a different point of view:

        “But I just don’t see how he gets there with a jury of people that have working brains.”.

        “I Doubt that any judge in this country could find this to be the case in a SYG hearing. I also find that no juror could find this to be reasonable. And even the most unintelligent prosecutor could with ease tear this apart.”

        “Something I am having trouble with talking to many of the GZ supporters is there inability to distinguish between what “reasonable doubt” is and “lies”. It seems that too many people have been led to the understanding that these two things are one in the same. They are not. This is not a movie”.

        • There is a huge world of difference between a personal attack and expressing an opinion. I have zero problem with someone expressing certainty with regards to their position, whether justified or not.

    • Hey Ricky, If I have, or ever do attack you, or say something that you find utterly offensive please call me on it politely and I will be more than happy to apologize. I am sorry that you feel, or have been subject to abuse from anybody here. It is far to easy to get wrapped up in the discussion and forget that this is a group of people and we should try and show a little more respect. I will read and edit my posts more carefully in the future.

      But when I make a comment about the JURY, like “have working brains” about the ability to recognize the difference between someone walking in the same direction in a park and someone following someone like GZ did. I think what I am trying to say is that if you are to expect a person of reasonable critical thinking abilities to believe you, making outrageous statements like “i was walking in the same direction” is going to backfire on you by irritating a juror. If you can suggest who I have attack by saying this I will gladly apologize. But I am sure that the prosecutor is going to be far more harsh than I am.

      Also can you point out were I mistook the law? Most of that post was simply looking at how a over simplistic couple of questions could show, IMO, the absurdity of GZ claims. The only part that had to do with law is the SYG part. And I may be wrong. It was my understanding that if he is granted a SYG hearing before trial that in order to win at this he would have to have more of a degree of certainty about the beginning of the fight and who the aggressor was, that the burden of proof lay on him? Am I wrong in this?

      • To be granted immunity from further criminal and civil action at an SYG hearing you have to convince the judge that it is more likely than not you acted in self defense. I have been recommending Jeralyn Merritt’s articles as a good place to find out what the self defense law is in Florida. This post of mine gives a link and summary. https://viewfromll2.com/2012/07/16/zimmerman-open-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-5189 From that you can see it is possible for Zimmerman to be given self defense immunity even if the judge thinks he might have been the initial aggressor. However he won’t get self defense immunity if it is judged that he was committing a separately charged crime at the time of the killing. So far, the prosecution has not added that additional charge.

        • Ok, I thought we had all agreed on this. Here is what I thought you had meant in the past.

          In a SYG hearing

          ” The burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that stand your ground immunity applies.”

          I thought we all agreed that this was not going to happen and that it would go to a jury. This is still my opinion. I just don’t see how a judge can grant immunity with the amount of impeachable witnesses and evidence (my opinion)

          At trial you have a jury (of only 6 in Florida I believe unless it is a capitol offense, though most defense attorneys would rather 12) and again I don’t see how they get to a SYG claim with the murky beginning of the fight, and again the impeachable witnesses and evidence.

          It seems that a jury will decide that GZ did follow/chase TM, and that he had no reason to do so (lack of a crime being committed) and that GZ put himself in a situation were he was (possibly unintentionally) the aggressor. Again, I think this fails a SYG claim for a jury.

          SO we move on to a traditional self defense claim. I think there is a lot to discus here, but I will in short give some limited opinion as to why I think he may fail here as well.

          His story as to the events that night are hard to believe (for me, and many others). There seems to be both witnesses and evidence to impeach his story. In light of his story being impeachable the jury is left with GZ mistakenly thinking TM is a bad guy and following him, getting into a confrontation with him (without letting TM know he was a NW captain) and then unjustly (I feel that a jury will find that his wounds do not justify fear of death and that he knew the cops would be there any second), that he shot and kill TM. Once the jury has reach this point I feel that they will be willing to accept the NEN statements about “these a**hols always get away” as just enough for depraved mind and convict him on 2nd degree, if not the lesser crime of manslaughter.

          Now, I am not sure if it was you or not. But I remember a lot of us all agreeing that had GZ never talked to the police he would have walked on this no problem. It is his unbelievable story that will hang him. And his continuing comments like “walking in the same direction” that will be his undoing. IMHO.

          BTW, Jeralyn, as a lawyer is far more guilty of what you were saying about me than I ever have been. She is as bias as I have ever seen anyone. She absolutely refuses to comment on any of the impeachable evidence of this case and has become almost useless other than her links to the law.

          BTW, Ricky, I have always found your posts to be fair, interesting, and a challenge to us that sometimes to easily look at this case from only one side. Frankly I think you do a far better job than Jeralyn.

          Thanks

  44. Not sure if this has been discussed yet, but I could not find it here. But MOM said during the SH interview that he feels the SYG law applies in this case and that now he has seen all the evidence he is willing to affirm this. It appears that he is going to try and mount a SYG hearing first. We always wondered about this and I thought that it was unlikely that he would go for it and stick to a traditional self defense claim. I also thought that it had become widely excepted that SYG did not apply in this case. Has something changed that I am not aware of?

    It seems that failing a SYG hearing will only lessen the chance of a successful self defense claim at trial. It also suggest that MOM may not want to do this but has no choice, it is what he is being told to do behind the curtains.

    I mean no sensible judge is going to make a decision on SYG in favor of GZ that basically states to the general public, it is ok to follow people and if a confrontation starts you may SYG. Nor is a jury going to make that assessment for the same reason. Now being that the being of the fight is murky, I can understand a traditional self defense claim.

    Is anyone else baffled by this? Especially with the recent Texas SYG decision.

  45. http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/State's%205th%20Supplemental%20Discovery%207%2025%2012.pdf

    New Discovery from 18th website

    W4 – Brown, Cheryl 2761 Retreat View Circle
    W5 – Cutcher, Mary 2031 Retreat View Circle
    W7 – Green, Brandy c/o SAO
    W14 – McClendon, Austin 2761 Retreat View Circle
    W16 – Mora, Selma 2031 Retreat View Circle
    W42 – Wibker, Cynthia 1240 Retreat View Circle

    I says there is a Media Access FTP website, this would be nice to have for all of us to skip the Media Twisting of facts if anyone can find it.

  46. Susan, I was looking at how the jury was going to come together in this case. It is my understanding that Florida has only 6 jurors unless it is a capitol offense?

    Also how many peremptory challenges do they get in jury selection? Is it 6, even though the jury is only 6?

    And one last question, how many people do they start with in a jury selection?

    I know my questions are rudimentary, but if it makes it to a jury trial, will be very interesting. I wonder what kind of question MOM is going to ask of them.

  47. Maybe I am a dummy but I find it very difficult to navigate this site and also to make posts in the proper place but the same is true for me at other worldpress sites.

    This link probably best summarizes my current views on the case except that I believe that O’Mara is a huge liability for George.

    http://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/the-trayvon-martin-case-update-14-crumbling-foundations-and-disqualification/

    I also value Jeralyn’s input at talkleft.

    If a condition of George’s bond is that O’Mara must remain on the case, then I will not be surprised to see him go back to jail.

    It is very doubtful that he will receive enough in donations to pay for his living expenses, security and for his parents. They recently set up their own website which clearly reveals how desperate his family has become. None of them have any place safe to live and Barr made sure the parents could not live in their own home which was also used for bond collateral. I guess they can forget about their retirement.

    I have issues with the way O’Mara structured the defense fund and wonder what is the truth behind doing it the way he did.

    In fact, I have a lot of other serious issues with him.

    At this point, George needs a new judge first and my sense is that Lester would prefer to not even be on this case. It would be good to see an out of county or out of state lawyer come to George’s rescue but his wife also needs one soon. No one in Seminole County is likely to throw O’Mara under the bus.

    I have a question for anyone: What has happened to that full toxicology report and Dee Dee’s complete cell phone records?

    • It’s not just you.

      WordPress is so bad that it makes the atrocity which is the comment software at Huffington Post look good by comparison.

      About 15 years ago some college kids came up the open source code used for the comment system at slashdot.org and although not perfect I have yet to see anything better.

      unitron

      • I am finding that now there is a reply button at the end of each post. It you always use that, you will end up close to where the posting you are replying to ends. However, when you are not replying to a post, all bets are off as to where your post will end up. Has anybody figured out the algorithm they use for that?

    • I don’t seem to be able to reply to people, and yeah the post are all over the place. I have been hitting control f to do a word search on the page, then I put in the date and find all of today’s posts. .

  48. “Why would you rather see a SYG hearing vindicate GZ rather than a Jury?”

    Exactly! A jury of “peers” is supposed to be guaranteed. Especially for an accusation of a crime so serious. This is no parking ticket level infraction. It’s criminal!

    • Let’s see if this can reply to CommonSenseForChange post;

      ““Why would you rather see a SYG hearing vindicate GZ rather than a Jury?”

      Exactly! A jury of “peers” is supposed to be guaranteed. Especially for an accusation of a crime so serious. This is no parking ticket level infraction. It’s criminal!”

      One has to ask themselves, if they really want a SYG hearing, their true motive is simply that GZ gets off regardless of right or wrong. Shows a disinterest in the process of law IMOH.

      I think GZ is guilty as hell, that is my personal belief. On a side note what upsets me is if this guy gets off we are going to have to make a bunch of laws that make it so no one ever gets away with it again. Every time the NRA nuts get involved with one of these cases, they never understand the realty of of the law.

      The Law is a living document. The 2nd amendment is not set in stone. The second you hold some words on a piece of paper to a higher standard than human life, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. Try and show some god damn respect for Americans in this country and make sure the law protects human life above an inanimate object. If you are such a wimp that you can’t protect yourself with your fists, stay home. I love guns, and I used to shoot match. But what the GZ supporters and NRA people don’t get is this, if the current law dose not put GZ behind bars for life then we have to make new laws to ensure that this never happens again. It is people like GZ and the people that support him that are the fule that chips away at the 2nd amendment. That is my rant.

    • A Jury of his peers should have decided if there was enough evidence to arrest him in the first place. Before his life was forever ruined by the arrest and the events so far involved in this trial. We are going to try to close the loophole Corey used to bypass having a Grand Jury look at the evidence, and deciding if there is enough Probable Cause to overcome 776.032 Immunity and arrest someone in a self defense shooting.

      The whole point of immunity is that a Prosecutor or a Muggers Family can’t destroy you for defending yourself. What if Zimmerman is exonerated by the Jury? What can Corey possibly do to undo the damage she has done to Zimmerman, his wife, his family and all. What can she possibly say to give them their lives back “Congrats Dude, you won :)” just isn’t going to cut it. These laws are in place to protect “US” the people of Florida from Prosecutors targeting you for whatever their own personal reasons are. Just ask Marissa Alexander what she thinks of Angela Corey, she is easy to find she is serving a 20year sentence for daring to use a gun to defend herself from a psycho ex-boyfriend in Corey’s district, the Judge and Jury wanted leniency, but the way Corey wrote the charges it forced the Judge to sentence 20 years Mandatory Minimum Sentence. Her 11yo daughter will be 31 by the time she gets out of Jail because of Corey. What if Corey or anyone like her decides they are going after you next. On the other hand if you want revenge instead of justice you will probably be happy that his life is destroyed regardless of the outcome of the trial.

      • You really need to save a lot of that blame you’re heaping on Corey for the governor.

        Wolfinger announced on March 20 he was taking the case to the grand jury.

        Two days later he’s recusing himself and Scott is appointing Corey.

        Wolfinger got kicked to the curb so they could throw Zimmerman to the wolves.

        (which doesn’t mean Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, only that in the great scheme of things the powers that be down there, including the NRA, find him expendable)

        unitron

        • Scott is a separate fight in a different arena, but it is definitely in progress. Unfortunately the choice between Scott and Alex Sink was a choice between Bad and Far Worse. His time will end just like Chuckie Crist’s did.

          I would be perfectly content with this situation if a Grand Jury had decided to go forward with this. Heck, I would probably still be cheer-leading for the prosecution of Zimmerman, but the bond hearing opened my eyes to what was really going on with the prosecutors office. That bothers me for the sake of all the citizens of Florida, the least of which are Zimmerman’s. Most people wanting Zimmerman hung don’t care about our rights in Florida. A large number are willing to win at any cost and throwing charges of Racism to get their way is fine by them even if it has been discredited by the FBI. Yet we are the ones that have to live with prosecutors bypassing our protections under FL law if this is allowed to continue. Oddly enough it is a lot of the same people that argue that a hundred criminals should go free so 1 innocent person does not go to jail.

          • “A Jury of his peers should have decided if there was enough evidence to arrest him in the first place. Before his life was forever ruined by the arrest and the events so far involved in this trial.”

            You suggest that his life has been ruined and that it is unjust because he is innocent? I say his life was ruined by the misconduct of the police department and DA’s office for not charging him in the first place.

            My question to you is, if a grand jury had found that he should be arrested, would you still think his life was unjustly “ruined” ?

            Also do you think James Holmes or Jared Lee Loughner should have had a grand jury? or just people that claim self defense with a gun? How would you decide what the cut off point was?

            For me people that walk around in the public with a ccw and shoot someone, then get more than 50% of the country against them, even when this much of the evidence is out, sort of asked for whatever they get. At this point I think it is fair to say that public opinion was his grand jury and the answer is in. The public wanted him charged and arrested. And even TM parents recently stated that they are ready for whatever decision the court hands down. Even if that mean GZ walking.

            Again I will ask. People want a grand jury or a SYG hearing to exonerate this guy. Why is everyone so scared of a jury in this case if you feel he is so innocent. Just sit back, wait, and then tell us all “I told you so” in a year or two. He will get what is promised to him by law for taking the life away from an America boy. A jury of his peers will decide his fate. That is fair. Why does anyone have a problem with this? TM lost his entire life, for this we ask that GZ give a year of his to answer to his just, or unjust, cause to it. Such a small price to pay for taking a life. He had a right to a speedy trial, this could have been all over with by now.

          • inspgadget365, sorry I did not see this,

            “I would be perfectly content with this situation if a Grand Jury had decided to go forward with this. Heck, I would probably still be cheer-leading for the prosecution of Zimmerman”

            So please take my response with a really small,insignificant piece of salt.

          • While I am not a lawyer, I do know lawyers that are finessing this and then sending to our Representatives. The changes we would see made are in bold “A GRAND JURY” in Subsection (2) at the bottom of this comment. This should block a prosecutor from destroying someone in an apparent self defense shooting unless they can prove to a Grand Jury that it is not self defense.

            There is no statute of Limitations for Murder in FL so there was no immediate rush to arrest before the statute of Limitations runs out, if they had waited they could have built a stronger case, presented it to a Grand Jury and most of these questions would not have been asked in the first place. The threats “No Justice, No Peace” $10,000 Bounty on Zimmerman’s life etc… should have been dealt with by the Governor and AG Bondi as well, instead they led to a rush to arrest and the legal shenanigans that are happening now. Gov. Crist’s Political Career was ended among other things when he appointed LeMeiux to hold “His Senate Seat” for him. He didn’t count on us choosing Rubio instead. Gov Scott bowing to threats will cost him way more than that Politically, when this is over he can join Chuckie Crist and Elliot Spitzer in a Political wash-ups late night talk-show.

            Under Immunity in FL the family of a mugger can not sue civilly after you defend yourself from a mugger like they can in other states. Consequently the Ambulance Chasers do not usually swarm around a normal self defense case. For the lawyers in these cases this means that they can not just walk in and start suing everyone until after there is a conviction, so they have to rush the arrest to make it worth their time in Civil Suits against the city, the HOA, the maker of his Truck, the maker of his shoes, and anyone that ever sold him a hamburger.

            —–

            http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

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

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

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

          • Sorry Inspector that I can’t put this reply at the end of your post on changing the Florida law to make sure indictments require a Grand Jury but I think there is a limit to a reply chain with the software used on this site.

            Grand Juries have the terrible reputation of being willing to indict a ham sandwich. This famous phrase was first seen in the book “Bonfire of the Vanities” by Tom Wolfe and credited to NYS Chief Judge Sol Wachtler. I have talked to several people who served on them and all said that during their month of service, all requests from the prosecutors for indictment were granted. One problem is that as far as I know, Grand Juries set up for indicting people (as contrasted to investigative Grand Juries) only hear from the prosecution. Is Florida different? It is the height of arrogance that the US remains the only country in the world that uses Grand Juries. Great Britain, where they originated, abolished the institution in 1933.

            In all other countries, a judge investigates police reports and decides if indictment is warranted including listening to both sides. Prosecutors don’t get involved until the judge decides to indict. In all countries besides the US, judges and prosecutors aren’t elected, by the way. That a prosecutor can act as a policeman and get biased interviews of witnesses into the court record is another “Only in America” idiocy. In many countries, Bernardo de la Rionda would have been fired and perhaps indicted himself for his conduct in this case.

          • I would have sworn that phrase about prosecutors being able to get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich was around a lot longer ago than ’85.

            Maybe it just sounded like something that would have been said during the Thirties (which was before my time).

            unitron

          • Ricky,

            If there is a problem with the way a Grand Jury is set up then we need to fix it legislatively, I will have to find out about that. As far as the way other countries especially European Countries go they are taking the power out of the hands of the people and putting it more and more in the hands of appointed officials that are accountable to no one. Look at the EU itself, no one in power in the EU is elected yet they have the power to override laws within member states if they so choose, these enlightened individuals running the EU are crashing all of the economies (some worse than others) and destroying the rights of EU citizens. There are people here in the US that want the UN, also a body with no officials elected by the people to have the power to override US laws and the US constitution itself if they choose. There is a way to change the constitution written into the constitution itself through the amendment process. If you want the Second Amendment changed you write a new Amendment and go through the ratification process, since the anti-gun crowd can not get enough support they try to backdoor the process and get changes in other ways. Bad ideas, and just general oversights have been in the constitution and corrected, Prohibition (both enacted and repealed), Ended Slavery, Enacted Presidential term limits, etc…

            The Grand Jury system gives “We the People” oversight of the Judicial system. If there is a way to fix it we should, but doing away with it like other countries have gives the power to an Appointed Judiciary and creates a more and more powerful government whose appointed officials do not answer to us.

          • New York State chief judge Sol Wachtler was famously quoted by Tom Wolfe in The Bonfire of the Vanities that “a grand jury would ‘indict a ham sandwich,’ if that’s what you wanted.

          • Ricky Jimenez said:
            “(…) In all other countries, a judge investigates police reports and decides if indictment is warranted including listening to both sides (…)”.

            Ricky, I think that the above statement yours is FLAT OUT WRONG (especially with regard to all Western countries founded on the so-called principle of Trias Politica). Your statement don’t even apply to China!

            Is it possible for you, Ricky, to throw more light on your opinion with EXAMPLES (i.e. the names of the “all other countries)?

            I also find your attack of Sandbagger disingenuous on the following ground. On this site you, Ricky, have used the words: “self-righteous clowns” to refer to those who disagree with you, while Sandbagger has been one of the most reasonable participants here.

    • Ricky, Good point. I grew up in Scotland and England. There are problems with there system too that people dislike. But the changes you talk of, I think make some sense (GZ would still be facing a jury trial, I don’t know if you have seen any of the legal opinions from England, he may have been convicted by this point). I understand someones dislike for the process of how this case came to be. I don’t feel that it is unique to this case or has brought injustice upon GZ anymore or any less than anyone else in the system at this time. So I say get involved and change the system, this is your country.

      I still think people feel there is little difference between Gz and a person who, if had a ccw, was walking in a park, was attacked by someone and used their gun to defend their life. Guilty or innocent of murder, GZ has not disputed that he shoot and killed TM. His story is unbelievable to many and at very lest I believe this case strongly warrants a jury trial.

      I have tried to grasp onto any kind of understanding of why people believe this didn’t warrant a jury trial. I can’t, not on legal grounds or moral grounds. With the shear amount of uncertainty in this case (just look at this form and the amount of valid arguments on both sides), the options that I have heard many call for like, allowing the police on the scene to make the judgement to not press charges, or the DA’s office to not push charges within less that a couple of hours after the shooting, (talk about the system not reviewing the facts) or even a SYG hearing that could find there is such strong evidence to support self defense that a judge would feel comfortable dismissing the case. None of these things seem to warrant any consideration for me.

      Guilty or not, a person deserves to defend them self in court against a charge of murder, I take that very seriously. On the one hand you had a teenager who has lost his life and a family who is forever ruined and deserves to have a judicial system to respect their loss and their sons life. On the other hand you have a man that to his credit seems to thoroughly believe that he is completely innocent, he is facing the second worse punishment our system has, life in prison. This is essentially taking away a persons life and it should be taken with a great deal more seriousness than many are showing, I hear too many people saying, “just lock him up and through away the key” GZ is a human being, and even if found guilty has rights and should be treated with dignity.

      The other thing I dislike in this case that I feel we can all agree on is the way the media is totally disrespecting both sides of this, and I feel that many people have followed right behind them, taking sides and disrespecting the system and these two people. It has become an all to typical circus and embarrassment to this country. The way that both GZ and TM have been portrayed is disgusting IMHO, and is the reason that we have a court system in the first place. Just look at how the public handle things, they are all little emotional, racist, children (on both sides). Our court system may not be perfect, but regardless of the outcome it is way better that what the general public is capable of, or a single police officer, a lone DA in the middle of the night, or even a single judge.

      GZ, IMHO, has a good and fair judge, he has the best legal counsel and even a supply of money for their war chest. He has far more than many in his situation, and good for him. I am highly confused by some of the recent legal choices he has made, but I am not his counsel and he is free to defend himself any way he chooses.

      • Lets step away from Zimmerman and look at the law itself that seems to be the entire heart of the dissagreements at the beginning of this situation when Tracy Martin was told Zimmerman was not going to be arrested and why.

        Whether you get here from SYG, Castle Doctrine, or Justifible Homocide, here is where the argument seems to center, and without this paragraph SYG, Castle Doctrine, and all are just pretty words on paper:

        776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

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

        —–

        On various of Susans blogs I have given specific examples but to sumarize here, a man in another state without immunity was defending himself, he was arrested and could not afford bond. While he was in jail awaiting trial he lost everything, his apt, car, belongings, every sentimental thing he had. He was quickly cleared by the jury but the damage was done.

        This immunity sets a high bar for arrest in case you have to defend yourself from a Mugger, Rapist, Home Invader, Carjacker, Psychotic Ex, even a Movie Theater Shooter, or any number of threats out there. It is supposed to prevent them from arresting you (the victim of an attempted Rape, that successfully defended yourself) unless they have enough evidence against you to overcome probable cause that the shooting was unjustified. It also prevents the Family of Robbie the Rapist from suing you Civilly for taking away their beloved angel that “All the girls really loved but just didn’t know it”. We want to make this bar higher through a Grand Jury because this Prosecutor bypassed a Grand Jury under political pressure to arrest. This doesn’t have to do with Zimmerman it has to do with the prosecutors decisions under political pressure, and the “There by the grace of God, go I” factor. Illonios State Police once put on their website that you should imagine the rapist is your boyfriend and be a good witness, instead of using a gun. It took less than a day for the outcry to force them to take it down, yet they will still arrest you for defending youself from a rapist by using a gun.

        The Comissioner explained why Sanford did not arrest quite well:

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

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

        • Inspector Gadget, I think there are probably two major differences in our point of view.

          1. I feel that everybody charged with a crime, whether it be unnecessary use of force, kidnapping, robbery, tax evasion or whatever can be ruined by the accusation and there is no reason to single out those claiming self defense, to counter a murder accusation, for special privileges. All accused should be accorded the right of having charges against them dismissed, and forbidding civil action by producing enough evidence of their innocence at a hearing.

          2. Civil and criminal procedures differ greatly between the US and the rest of the world and often in ways that make the US inferior in fairness and accuracy of the results. “The Civil Law Tradition” by John Henry Merryman and “Trials Without Truth” by William T. Pizzi are two short books that will get you up to speed on this. The differences date back to long before the current European welfare state problems and internationalism. In fact, the efforts of right wing Republicans in this country towards tort reform are directed at making US justice more like that of the rest of the world.

        • inspgadget365, I agree with you on this and the actions of that night, it makes sense. I think people have gone over the investigation with a microscope and been highly judgmental about it. There are good things that happen due to that in the long run, like people becoming more aware of their local laws and judicial procedures. But in the short run it has been great for a lot of highly exaggerated distractions from the law, the facts and the real people that are involved in this.

          But in light of what we know to this date, I think regardless of some of the mistakes made along the way, we are where we should be with Zimmerman. Even if everything had been done right I think we would find our self’s with GZ being charged with a crime and out on bail facing a SYG hearing (I feel that any judge would pass on this give the evidence) so we move to a trial where he tries a SYG defense, which is just part of a traditional self defense. Though my personal feelings are that he is guilty of some crime (I really don’t feel he deserves to spend 25 years in jail) I think had he asked for a lawyer from the get go he would have had a fair chance at a SYG hearing and a extremely strong chance of a self defense claim at trial. This brings me to the other point that I find disappointing and disingenuous about many GZ supporters, they seem to blame everyone but GZ for the situation he got himself into. Without me making the typical rhetoric of “he could have stayed in his car” yeah hindsight is great isn’t it, LOL, I will say that since the shooting the only person that has done the worse amount of damage to GZ is himself and his bizarre ability to tell stories.

          • My biggest takeaway out of this entire situation and with my personal knowledge of self defense and gun laws, and it could have ended any of this destroying his life as he knew it regardless of the outcome of the trial is my modified statement about what to do in a self defense situation:

            GET A FRICKING LAYER!!!!!
            TALK TO YOUR FRICKING LAWYER!!!!!
            LISTEN TO YOUR FRICKING LAWYER!!!!!

            This has already been added to my list of things to tell people trying to get a CWL in Florida.

          • All together now!

            GET A FRICKING LAYER!!!!!
            TALK TO YOUR FRICKING LAWYER!!!!!
            LISTEN TO YOUR FRICKING LAWYER!!!!!

            GET A FRICKING LAYER!!!!!
            TALK TO YOUR FRICKING LAWYER!!!!!
            LISTEN TO YOUR FRICKING LAWYER!!!!!

            GET A FRICKING LAYER!!!!!
            TALK TO YOUR FRICKING LAWYER!!!!!
            LISTEN TO YOUR FRICKING LAWYER!!!!!

    • Many of us here in Florida would have preferred that the grand jury made the decision as to whether or not there was enough evidence to charge George with anything.

      Being found immune is not the same thing as being found not guilty at a trial. Crump must have a jury trial to make any money by filing civil suits. Immunity means NO civil suits but not guilty opens the door to a ton of money.

      • Yes, it opens to door but is it clear to you that he can find somebody to sue that has lots of money and that he can win the suits? The fact that Florida even allows immunity from charges stemming from self defense cases, and probably for no other kind of case, indicates it is not such a friendly place for such litigation.

        • Inspgadget, Ricky Jimenez and Jordan222, If the arrest and indictment of GZ are NOT based on evidence but rather politically motivated, etc. as you have repeatedly stated, why has MO’M (a) not asked the Court to throw out the indictment (b) waived GZ’s right to a speedy trial, etc.? Surely, if you are right, then MO’M must be an imbecile for letting this GRAVE INJUSTICE stand until now and maybe the middle of 2014? If that is not the case, I wonder why you continue to state as true what you yourself know to be complete nonsense.

          I think it is also good to remind ourselves that there is a huge difference between this site and the conservativetreehouse where people can rant ad nauseam (Jordan222 and inspector know very good what I am talking about). Here we want to discuss facts and law not politics (that is grounded on confused thought-process). Pls. argue the facts and the law, and I will engage you squarely on both. While you are at it, pls. leave Crump & Co, Obama, etc. out of the discussion and avoid ghetto languages such as ‘fricking this’ and ‘fricking that’, etc. (that make people uncomfortable). On the side bar, inspector, Ricky is NOT a lawyer as you claim! (and that’s not at all difficult to figure out).

    • As predicted, the Court threw out the Motion to Disqualify. The way the Court presented its reasoning also make the Order air-tight for an successful appeal. MO’M does not have to wait until after (possible) conviction before appealing. He can appeal the Order now. The question is, would he dare to? I think he won’t. But again, I would very much like to be surprised. I love this legal drama. What are your thoughts on the Oder, inspector? Do you think the Court made (a) convincing argument(s)? If yes, why? If no, why not?

    • I predict the following will happen before Wednesday next week:

      1. MO’M will appeal the Order to dismiss Motion to Disqualify and request for a writ of prohibition to stop judge Lester from moving forward with the case while the Appellate Court has reviews the appeal.

      OR

      2. MO’M will announce that he shall no longer be representing GZ; that he and GZ have decided that it is in GZ’s best interest for him (GZ) to seek new counsel.

      The scenario in which MO’M continues with this case in the absence of the first alternative is kind of hard for me to imagine (bearing in mind all that has happened in the past especially with regard to who when knew what about the tens of thousands of dollars in PayPal account that were misrepresented to the Court, etc.).

      Anyone with different views/predictions?

  49. Remember the first bond hearing?

    Quote

    GILBREATH: He suggested, I don’t know about testified to, he mentioned that his head was being physically bashed against the concrete sidewalk, and that he…this was just prior to him firing the shot, and that he managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk, and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found.

    Quote

    GILBREATH: We have Mr. Zimmerman’s statements, we have the shell casings and we had Mr. Martin’s body at the scene.

    Well we now have what Mr. G had, I think. If I understand him correctly, there are inconsistencies between the physical evidence and Zimmerman’s narrative. It seems that he is referring to something besides the severity of the injuries versus Zimmerman’s description. What is it?

    • Ricky, would you like to present the (whole) context of the quotes (i.e. the questions that led to the quotes/answers given by Gilbreath)? I think that we will be able to glean out the answer(s) to your question from the full context within which the quotes/answers were given.

      I believe ‘the shell casings’, ‘the location of the shell casings’, ‘the body’, ‘location of the body’, ‘the position of the body’, etc. belong to the body of objective evidence that told investigators that the (self-defense) story of GZ is not true. These, inter alia, amounted to probable cause to arrest and indict GZ. I think this is what Gilbreath was saying. Maybe the full context of the quotes will aid in better examining the point(s) you raised.

  50. Long time lurker, first time poster, thanks for all the great discussion.

    GZ was presented with a map during his second interview with Singleton on the night of the killing. It seems foolish to speculate endlessly about his positions when he himself marked a map showing them. Of course, the marks he made are similar to his statements – inconsistent and unable to align with the NEN call recording, but he DID mark his position in a map.

    I’ve posted my thoughts here in a flickr set, and am curious to hear comments from the regulars here.

    minimum distance TM travels until GZ leaves car according to reenactment

    Be sure to look at the accompanying notes – if you view in slideshow mode, click “show info” to see the notes.

    If you care to examine the map itself first before getting mixed up with my own speculative opinions, I suggest you look at this image, which is downloadable. It’s just the map, with a little boost in contrast from photoshop to bring out the shoddy quality of the image.

    GZ'sMap

    IMO the prosecution can and should prove in court that GZ is lying about the way the two traveled fro clubhouse area to the cut thru area. The only person the defense can try and impeach to refute the idea that GZ is lying here is GZ himself. He’s given contradictory statements, and by definition he’s lying about one account or the other, or both. I think it’s both, and I think it can be proven with deductive reasoning and the laws of physics that GZ parked somewhere in the middle between the two positions he’s claimed – the clubhouse parking lot (impossible to align with the NEN call) or the straightway right before the cut-thru – impossible as well to align with the NEN call recording AND his repeated insistence that he was “at the clubhouse” when the all important question was put to him: is he near the clubhouse now/ yeah, now he’s coming towards me.

    GZ occupied a physical position on the planet when he told the dispatcher TM was near the clubhouse. GZ told investigators he himself was AT the clubhouse when he was played the recording and asked where he was. It seems he was elsewhere, and NOT at the cut thru, either. Where was he? Is it possible he was at the spot he marked on the map, but quickly crossed out?

    • I will repeat here Willis, approximately the same thing I said to you on Talk Left. I just can’t take the time to try to figure out what you are saying unless you really motivate me by explaining how this stuff about the clubhouse may explain what happened after Martin and Zimmerman met up at the T. I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that the latter is what this case is all about.

      • Just in case willisnewton doesn’t get to your post right away, consider…

        If Zimmerman is either inaccurate or deliberately misleading about what happened, and where, and when, in the minutes before he and Martin came into physical contact, does that not affect how much credibility is to be given to his account of how they came into physical contact and what happened after that? Especially given how vague he is about how they went from the east-west sidewalk, where he was supposedly punched, all the way down to where Martin’s body wound up?

        unitron

        • I agree that everything Zimmerman has said about that evening is to be taken with a grain or two of salt. But it seems that he has been caught garbling the sequence and location of various events rather than manufacturing them. I am focused on the bottom line. Is it reasonable that Zimmerman did not start the physical confrontation with Martin? Is it reasonable that Zimmerman could not withdraw from the struggle with Martin after it begun? Is it reasonable Zimmerman felt he could do nothing to escape serious harm besides shooting Martin? There is enough to go on besides Zimmerman’s narratives to answer these questions. However, I realize that somebody might say that the jurors might not be as sophisticated as I am. I have no answer for that. I don’t think anybody reading this will be on the jury.

          • As far as the technicality of who first laid hands on whom, I can see it going either way for various reasons and under various circumstances, but I’m going to hold out for a few more days to see if Susan starts up a new Zimmermartin thread before getting into any long, involved posts in this one.

            unitron

          • Ricky Jimenez posed the following questions which I shall try to answer.

            A. Question: “Is it reasonable that Zimmerman did not start the physical confrontation with Martin?”

            – The answer is no, it is not reasonable that Zimmerman did not start the physical confrontation with Martin. On the contrary, it is reasonable that he did. For, it can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Martin “was running away” from Zimmerman while Zimmerman was following him. It can also be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did indeed follow Martin in an effort to detain him after he (Martin) “ran”. Furthermore, when Zimmerman was asked by Hannity: ‘do you regret chasing Marin that night?’ Zimmerman answered: no, sir. From there, among others, it follows necessarily (a) that Zimmerman started the confrontation by following and trying to detain Martin and/or (b) that it does not matter at all if Martin threw the first punch (considering that Martin has every right to defend himself from a sneaky stranger who menacingly first followed him in a car and then on foot wanting to at least grab him).

            B. Question: “Is it reasonable that Zimmerman could not withdraw from the struggle with Martin after it begun?”

            – The answer is again no. If you conclude that Zimmerman started the confrontation, the question as to whether or not Zimmerman could have withdrawn himself from the struggle with Martin becomes IRRELEVANT (the aggressor cannot claim self-defense).

            C. Question: “Is it reasonable Zimmerman felt he could do nothing to escape serious harm besides shooting Martin?:

            The answer again is no – considering (a) that an aggressor cannot claim self-defense, (b) Martin was unarmed, (c) Martin was – in the words of Zimmerman – “a kid” who weighed considerably less that Zimmerman, (d) when the shot was fired Zimmerman and Martin were nowhere near the concrete sidewalk upon which Zimmerman falsely claim his head was repeatedly being bashed on at the moment he fired the shot, (c) Zimmerman according to his own account, did not even fight back, he just went straight for his gun! etc.

            D. Question: “Is there enough to go on besides Zimmerman’s narratives to answer these questions.”

            – The answer is yes, there is MORE THAN enough to go on: (a) there is no doubt as to who killed Marin. Zimmerman admitted to the killing, (b) there is no doubt that Zimmerman profiled Martin as a criminal before following- and finally killing him, (c) there is an abundance of objective evidence that contradict Zimmerman’ self-defense storieS, (d) there are at least 5-versions of Zimmerman’s self-defense storieS. Those stories change with each telling. Those stories contradict one another. Those stories are in serious conflict with the laws of time, space, elementary physics, forensics and other objective evidence, etc. (and discovery is still ongoing). Bottom-line: if the self-defense story of Zimmerman is not truthful, then that story is not believable. If the said story is not believable the only conclusion then is at least: ‘the homicide is unjustifiable’. That’s the way the game is played and won in the Courts. The above is also the best way to explain in lay-man’s term what is “reasonable” and what is not (for I suspect you are still quite confused as to how ‘reasonability’ is determined within the context the science of the Law).

            E. “However, I realize that somebody might say that the jurors might not be as sophisticated as I am. I have no answer for that.”

            – Waoo, Ricky Jimenez. Well, I DO have an answer “for that”: you are not at all sophisticated and copying/rephrasing the questions posed by Jaralyn et al. on TalkLeft, etc. and pasting the same on this site does not make you so either. On the contrary, describing yourself as “sophisticated” (and all your comments on the Jeralyn site where you post as “Ricky Jim” and on this site where you post as “Ricky Jimenez” paint a wholly different picture) comes across as being pretentious and presumptuous – to say the least.

    • You made a very good analysis, Willy. Regarding: “GZ occupied a physical position on the planet when he told the dispatcher TM was near the clubhouse. GZ told investigators he himself was AT the clubhouse when he was played the recording and asked where he was. It seems he was elsewhere, and NOT at the cut thru, either. Where was he? Is it possible he was at the spot he marked on the map, but quickly crossed out?”, I would say that I think that the prosecution has enough objective evidence that will impeach literary every component of GZ’s stories AND show with a comfortable degree of scientific certainty where GZ was located when he first called the NEN. That’s all that is – from my experience – possible (unless GZ opens up and tells the whole story in exchange for whatever is offered to him). Beyond that, anything I would say would be based on sheer guts/speculation (and that would not be appropriate).

  51. Susan, would you please comment on this:

    During the final struggle, witness #6 came out, yelled at TM and GZ, and said he was calling the police. Yet, TM did not get up and flee. According to GZ, TM, despite this warning, continued relentlessly pounding, smothering him, uttered a death threat and reached for GZ’s gun. It seems to me that this sets up a situation in which the jury will have to decide between 1. TM is utterly, recklessly insane without any concern about being caught for murder or 2. TM was not the aggressor, was not attacking GZ, GZ is lying, and GZ murdered TM.

    However, is it still possible that the jury could decide that although TM was not attacking GZ, GZ reasonably though mistakenly believed that TM was reaching for his gun and would shoot him with it, and thus GZ, like any reasonable person, though stretching the truth and completely wrong in all his suspicions and assumptions about TM and what was happening, was justified in thinking he was in immediate danger of great bodily harm or even death, had no other means of escape, couldn’t wait for the police, etc?

    It seems the answer might be maybe, which brings us back to the incredible absence of struggle over the gun, the impossibility of GZ drawing, aiming, and shooting in the way he describes, GZ’s possession of an alternative, non-lethal weapon (the larger flashlight found near TM’s body), and so on.

  52. Oh Schucks, My Bad. he he he

    Seriously this is exactly what I have a problem with. Corey has information the Judge has placed restrictions on in a case and has a convenient accident. What if she does this with your private information that a judge has said is not supposed to be released. I don’t care what was released, what matters is that she had a convient accident and released it anyway against the Judges orders to further her case in the court of public opinion. We have legal restrictions placed on Govt Officials at all levels in this state and she is flaunting the fact that she ignores them.

    Trayvon Martin corpse photo accidentally released by Florida prosecutors as part of botched evidence dump.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-seeks-stand-ground-hearing-defense-killing-trayvon-martin-article-1.1132501

    • I know I sound like a broken record (vinyl, remember them?) but in Europe, this sort of thing is less likely to have happened. There all evidence is passed to the president of the tribunal for the case and forms a common dossier that everybody refers to. It is unlikely that the press would see much before the trial. However you could have a sunshine law under such a system, but having a judge doing the dispensing would cut down on such “accidents”.

      • Ricky Jimenez, “in Europe” there are NO uniform procedural laws in the adjudication of private/criminal/constitutional cases. One wonders what exactly you mean by “Europe”. “Europe” is not a country. Which European countries are you talking about? Can you give at least ONE example (and maybe also cite the laws/rules upon which your opinion are based)?

        In most European countries [e.g. The Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, etc.] the privacy laws and the legal principles of due process and fair trial prohibit publication of private information such as the on(s) “accidentally” released by team Corey. However, those laws cannot prevent “accidental” release of private information such as the one(s) “accidentally” released by team Corey.

        In most European countries [e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, etc.] the Court, the prosecution and the defense have each a copy of the ‘process-dossier’ (best translation I can give). The complete ‘process-dossier’ is compiled by the prosecution team and contains all the relevant results of the investigation and the (reasons for) indictment. The prosecution aided by the police has the monopoly of investigating crimes and indicting suspects. The prosecution provides the Court and the defense each a copy of that dossier upon indictment and “AT THE SAME TIME”. Any of these three parties might go rouge and “accidentally” leak information to the public. No (European) legal system (not even the Chinese or the Saudi Arabian system) can prevent “accidental” leakages.

        The above are general information. If you have specific questions regarding specific EU-countries, I shall be very happy to address them.

  53. Susan,

    The family of Trayvon are filing a claim against the HOA insurance company, we have hashed out 776.032 Immunity plenty of times but they are suing the HOA for something they were not allowed to control at all under;

    790.33 Field of regulation of firearms and ammunition preempted.—

    (1) PREEMPTION.—Except as expressly provided by the State Constitution or general law, the Legislature hereby declares that it is occupying the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, storage, and transportation thereof, to the exclusion of all existing and future county, city, town, or municipal ordinances or any administrative regulations or rules adopted by local or state government relating thereto. Any such existing ordinances, rules, or regulations are hereby declared null and void.

    (2) POLICY AND INTENT.—

    (a) It is the intent of this section to provide uniform firearms laws in the state; to declare all ordinances and regulations null and void which have been enacted by any jurisdictions other than state and federal, which regulate firearms, ammunition, or components thereof; to prohibit the enactment of any future ordinances or regulations relating to firearms, ammunition, or components thereof unless specifically authorized by this section or general law; and to require local jurisdictions to enforce state firearms laws.

    (b) It is further the intent of this section to deter and prevent the violation of this section and the violation of rights protected under the constitution and laws of this state related to firearms, ammunition, or components thereof, by the abuse of official authority that occurs when enactments are passed in violation of state law or under color of local or state authority.

    —–

    If the Law (790.33) prevents them from saying he can or cannot carry in the area they are responsible for, and he is covered by immunity it seems like they should not be able to sue, they can always threaten to sue and get the company to settle due to the threat but I do not believe there is actualy a case.

    I do not think this applies here but they could try to protect themselves through;

    790.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.—

    (5) DUTY OF CARE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EMPLOYERS; IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.—

    (a) When subject to the provisions of subsection (4), a public or private employer has no duty of care related to the actions prohibited under such subsection.

    (b) A public or private employer is not liable in a civil action based on actions or inactions taken in compliance with this section. The immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to civil actions based on actions or inactions of public or private employers that are unrelated to compliance with this section.

    (c) Nothing contained in this section shall be interpreted to expand any existing duty, or create any additional duty, on the part of a public or private employer, property owner, or property owner’s agent.

    • Inspector, in contrast to Florida’s view of the right to bear arms, here is what Nicolas Sarkozy said in his successful run for the French Presidency in 2006.

      “I would like to say one thing, in what is my conception of the Republic, security is the responsibility of the State, I am against militias, I am against the private ownership of firearms, and I’m trying to make you think about that. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he’ll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway so you’re risking your life. If the criminal is not armed and you are and you shoot, your life will be ruined, because killing someone over a theft is not in line with the republican values that are mine. The private ownership of firearms is dangerous. I understand your exasperation for having been burglarized two times, I understand the fear that your wife and daughter may have but the answer is in the efficiency of the police and the efficiency of the judiciary process, the answer is not in having guns at home”.
      http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1596

      Different strokes for different countries, I suppose.

      • I understand your exasperation for having been burglarized two times, I understand the fear that your wife and daughter may have but the answer is in the efficiency of the police and the efficiency of the judiciary process, the answer is not in having guns at home”.

        The problem with that mentality that is shared by many in the US is that it would turn us into a police state. In Colorado the police arrived in an amazing 90 seconds, that was 89 seconds to late to be in the room with the shooter. In the Sikh shooting they were there almost as quickly and were still there too late. If we have enough police to be there when you need them, where you need them then we are no longer a free country. I fully reject the US becoming a police state, I have seen countries that are police states and it is pretty scary.

  54. This one caught me completely off guard, The Fifth District has granted the appeal to disqualify Judge Lester

    Order Granting Defendant’s Verified Motion to Disqualify
    http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Order%20Granting%20Defendant's%20Verified%20Motion%20to%20Disqualify.pdf

    From the Media Advisory

    Following the ruling by the Fifth District Court of Appeal, Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester
    has executed an order disqualifying himself from further proceedings in the State of Florida v.
    George Zimmerman.

    Chief Judge Alan Dickey has reassigned the case to the next judge in the normal
    rotation of the criminal division, Criminal Administrative Judge Debra S. Nelson. Judge Nelson
    will preside over all future proceedings in State vs. Zimmerman.

    • Here is the actual ruling from the Fifth DCA.

      http://www.5dca.org/Clerk/George%20Zimmerman%2012-3198/5D12-3198.op.pdf

      PER CURIAM.
      George Zimmerman petitions for issuance of a writ of prohibition. This is the proper mechanism for challenging the denial of a motion to disqualify a trial judge. See,
      e.g., Lusskin v. State, 717 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Reviewing the
      matter de novo, see R.M.C. v. D.C., 77 So. 3d 234, 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), we grant
      the petition.

      Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.330 requires a trial judge to grant a motion to disqualify without determining the accuracy of the allegations in the motion, so long as the motion is “legally sufficient.” R.M.C., 77 So. 3d at 236. “A motion is legally sufficient if it alleges facts that would create in a reasonably prudent person a well founded fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.” Id. (citing MacKenzie v. Super Kids Bargain Store, Inc., 565 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1990)). Although many of the allegations in Zimmerman’s motion, standing alone, do not meet the legal sufficiency test, 1 and while this is admittedly a close call, upon careful review we find that the allegations, taken together, meet the threshold test of legal sufficiency. Accordingly, we direct the trial judge to enter an order of disqualification which requests the chief circuit judge to appoint a successor judge.

      PETITION GRANTED.

  55. 15 days and no one seems to be talking about Zimmerman on here, I’m surprised. In case anyone is still interested the new Judge, Judge Nelson, has signed off on three subpoenas of all of Martins school records. It appears that Omara is going to try to show that Martin was the violent type of person that would attach Zimmerman for Disrespecting him. The discovery will probably be public so if it shows he was the Angel he is presented as, it will also show in the records. Depending on what is in these records it could help or hurt Zimmerman.

    http://www.flcourts18.org/presspublic.html

    Entire school file records, including, but not limited to, disciplinary notices and reports, suspension notices and reports, attendance records, tardiness records, awards given, documentation of involvement in sports, documentation of extracurricular activities, documentation of after school programs, progress and report cards, meetings/conferences held and notes, transcripts, SAT scores, FCAT scores, applications, class schedules, book fees, and any and all other documentation.

    • On the GZ Legal website they did answer my question without me even asking it of them. The Public School Records are protected and will not be released, but apparently the information in them may be presented at either a SYG hearing or at actual trial with Judge Nelsons approval.

      http://gzlegalcase.com/

      It has become our practice to post to our website legal documents related the case as they become public record, and this will continue to be the case with our discovery requests. Moreover, any discovery we submit that becomes public record will also be posted on our website. In the case of Trayvon Martin’s school records, they are protected and will NOT be part of the public record, without appropriate court order.

    • Hmmm… MOM is only going after these records now, at such a late date, because he has nothing better to do. But, it does give GZ supporters something to rant about, but I’m afraid that like the wmd’s in Iraqi, there won’t be anything here either.

          • The Civil Rights division did start an investigation, and some of that investigation is part of the Discovery. This is where it gets tricky for the Prosecution. CRD was sent in to look at a possible Civil Rights Violation being the cause of Zimmerman’s identifying Martin as a Criminal, according to what I have seen, they cleared Zimmerman of a Civil Rights violation and said he did not accuse Martin of being suspicious because of his race. But during that investigation, they discovered that 4 Officers possibly had a Civil Rights violations against Zimmerman. This investigation was not closed, but it also was not pursued, it was left open and CRD effectively went home. If I had any faith in CRD after the New Black Panther debacle in Philly when they closed a case that was already won, I would say send them in back in. I would advise the people at the Fredrick Letherman website to be careful what they ask for.

            For Susan and the other lawyers, if the prosecution has a Civil Rights violation in the prosecution of Zimmerman. How does that effect the case against Zimmerman, is that dismissed on a technicality/conviction overturned on a technicality. This is into a gray area for my Non-Lawyerin mind.

            As a side note there are new rulings under the new judge (Judge Debra Nelson) you all may want to review at the 18th ckt website:

            http://www.flcourts18.org/presspublic.html

            ———-

            I can’t copy and paste from the PDF of the report, so I retyped the report a few months back during a discussion on this blog.

            Sanford Police Investigator, CHRISTOPHER SERINO, work phone number XXX-XXX-XXXX, personal cell XXX-XXX-XXXX was interviewed at Sanford Police Station on March 3, 2012 at approximately 11:00 am. After being advised of the identities of the interviewing agenda, SA Elizabeth C Alexander and SA Matthew Oliver, and the nature of the interview, he provided the following information:

            Investigator Serino reviewed the police report dated 03/12/2012 in which he wrote, “The encounter between GEORGE ZIMMERMAN and TRAYVON MARTIN was ultimately avoidable by ZIMMERMAN, if ZIMMERMAN had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to MARTIN as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party’s concern. There is no indication that TRAYVON MARTIN was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter. ZIMMERMAN, by his statements made to the call taker and recorded for review, and his statements made to the investigators following the shooting death of MARTIN, make it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to MARTIN’s purpose for being in the neighborhood.”

            Agents asked SERINO about the above statement and he replied that just the act of following him (MARTIN) was the instigation (of ZIMMERMAN) and nothing else. SERINO believed that ZIMMERMAN’s actions were not based on skin color rather based on his attire, the total circumstances of the encounter and the previous burglary suspects in the community.

            Serino explained to agents that the local gangs, referred to in the community as “GOONS”, typically dressed in black and wore hoodies. Serino believes that when ZIMMERMAN saw MARTIN in a hoody, ZIMMERMAN took it upon himself to view MARTIN as acting suspicious. Serino described ZIMMERMAN as overzealous and having a “little hero complex”, but not as a racist. Serino explained that on numerous occasions he asked ZIMMERMAN specifically if he followed MARTIN based on his skin color and ZIMMERMAN never admitted to this fact.

            Serino told agents that he talked to ZIMMERMAN on numerous occasions and feels he knows him fairly well. Serino thinks that ZIMMERMAN does not want to be a cop because cops have a bad reputation and are bullies, but he wants to be a judge. Serino described ZIMMERMAN as being a “soft guy”. Serino believed that ZIMMERMAN’s story appeared “scripted” as in ZIMMERMAN knew the right things to say to the police. For example, he said he feared for his life, claimed self defense, etc.

            Serino reached out to several sources in the white supreamicist community and no one ever heard of ZIMMERMAN. Serino thought that there had been approximately five burglaries in the Retreat at Twin Lakes within the last year and a half.

            Serino is concerned that, any of the leaks in this case are coming from within the Sanford Police Dept. He listed Sgt AUTHOR BARNS, REBECCA VILLENOVE (phonetic), and TREKELL PERKINS as all pressuring him to file charges against ZIMMERMAN after the incident. Serino also stated that Barns is friendly with TRACY MARTIN and Barns asked Serino for Martin’s phone number but ended up getting the phone number from another source. Serino believed that after his conversation with Tracy Martin regarding the death of his son, Tracy Martin left the police station understanding why charges against ZIMMERMAN had not been filed. Serino was not sure why or when Tracy Martin changed his views and Martin believes the shooting was racially motivated.

          • Thanks for your response. I will pass it along to fellow posters @ Leatherman’s.
            Enjoy the rest of your Holiday.

          • Yeah, right, the clothing… But hey, that clothing only has meaning if it’s worn by a black person, eh? Nice try! Isn’t Serino the guy who wasn’t there, but told the witnesses who they heard screaming for help? It was the guy with the firearm, right? Yelling Please, Help, Moma?

            The Martin white house petition asks for what is already happening anyway, so there’s no danger involved, it merely shows additional support for the investigators. Best yet, it answers the counter petition that the proZ people have up. And we’re beating the pants off of them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s