Home > Uncategorized > BCClist diaspora, part 3

BCClist diaspora, part 3

Continuing the continuance of the ongoing general discussion, trying to keep the thread lengths managable… and because willisnewton suggested it.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. February 8, 2013 at 11:02 AM

    Thanks for the new thread, and happy president’s day to all. I posted a couple of potentially discussion worthy flickr photo-illutrations this AM regarding the ongoing debate about GZ and the clubhouse parking lot. Links are in the last thread at the end.

    And, just to start the thread off the way I like to, keep in mind: Many things are possible; what GZ claims happened is not possible.

    • nomatter0nevermind
      February 10, 2013 at 11:44 AM

      I would keep in mind that Zimmerman may have been driving without lights.

      In the video of Taaffe and David Knechel, posted on the previous page of this forum, one of them says, without explanation, ‘George probably didn’t have his headlights on’. Taaffe’s back is turned, so I’m not sure which one. To me it seems more like something Taaffe would say, but it sounds more like Knechel saying it.

      Below, I’m re-posting from TalkLeft.

      An FBI report on 111/284 states that a resident of RATL ‘would see ZIMMERMAN drive around the neighborhood with his car lights off.’

      One of the inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s SPD interviews, is on whether he could see Martin in the cut-through area. In the the earliest statements he indicated he could not. In later statements he claimed that he could, and sometimes said explicitly that his headlights were on.

      I’m thinking the most likely explanation for this pattern, is that Zimmerman was driving without lights. He began to claim otherwise when he realized it undermined his claim to be afraid of Martin.

  2. February 8, 2013 at 3:23 PM

    RE: the mysterious possible “second call” from GZ and his telephone records in general

    In the previous thread unitron wrote:
    “What the prosecution and defense are obligated to share with each other prior to trial isn’t necessary the same as what they have to share with all of us perspiring minds that want to know out here in the public, especially before it’s presented at trial.”

    To which I’d say, yes and no. Florida is a “sunshine state” and many things become subject to the open records laws surrounding the sunshine philosophy. Still however, IANAL and I’d need one to explain it to me better before i could claim to understand how this works.

    • onlyiamunitron
      February 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM

      How about that, as soon as I got here I found that I had already arrived.

      unitron

      (who made a previous reference to Professor Leatherman’s Lounge which willisnewton missed seeing in it’s original form)

  3. onlyiamunitron
    February 8, 2013 at 6:52 PM

    Apparently I have to post a reply to the initial post to get email notifications about all new posts to this thread.

    So here it is.

    unitron

    (who low opinion of WordPress.com comment software continues)

  4. blushedbrown
    February 8, 2013 at 7:00 PM

    Ahoy there matey!
    Shiver me timbers, there’s a Uni on board! Arrrrgh!

    • onlyiamunitron
      February 8, 2013 at 7:14 PM

      Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum…

      unitron

      (who’s really more of a gin and tonic and tonic guy)

      • blushedbrown
        February 8, 2013 at 9:49 PM

        Gin makes me sin. 🙂

  5. onlyiamunitron
    February 8, 2013 at 9:54 PM

    Food fight in progress over in the lounge.

    http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/02/08/i-support-bettykath

    unitron

    • blushedbrown
      February 8, 2013 at 10:07 PM

      Oh good lord, Go away for two hours and have 200 emails from the lounge.
      BRB, after I catch up, hopefully I won’t get food in my hair. 🙂

  6. nomatter0nevermind
    February 8, 2013 at 10:31 PM

    I also appreciate the new thread.

    It’s a good time for me to say some things that have been on mind.

    Thanks again to everyone who has made a point of welcoming me to the forum.

    Thanks to Willisnewton for his kind introduction. A couple of points call for clarification.

    I’m not unbiased, and I’ve never claimed to be.

    Because of the way this case has been politicized, a conviction means a victory for political agendas that I don’t agree with. For that reason, I am biased in favor of Zimmerman’s side of the case, if not in favor of the person himself. From the beginning of the discussion I have been the first to say so.

    From the beginning, I have thought that the media treatment of this case was a replay of the Duke lacrosse team. That is my opinion still.

    At the beginning, I was mainly concerned with arguing that the prosecution case would not be nearly as strong as the media made it seem

    That changed because of two things. One was the release of Zimmerman’s statements. Frankly, I was dismayed by them. I thought they would be a major problem for the defense.

    The other, not unrelated, was the development on-line of a pro-Zimmerman ‘camp’, with its orthodoxies and tendencies to group-think, mirroring those on the ‘other side’. One of those orthodoxies was, and is, that Zimmerman’s statement are not the least bit problematical.

    This view prevails at TalkLeft, so I find much of my time there has been arguing that the prosecution’s case is stronger than many believe. I have not, however, changed my view that the prosecution’s case is generally weak, and that on the whole, the defense’s witnesses are more credible than the prosecution’s. (I don’t count Zimmerman himself, because I don’t expect him to testify.)

    So I am neutral, at a least in the sense of being often at odds with both sides.

    That’s my bottom line on myself, with apologies for taking so much time on such an uninteresting subject. I’m not unbiased, but I am, in a sense, neutral.

    There is one more point I want to address, which has been touched on by Willisnewton and Whonoze. That is my reason for participating in this forum at this particular time. I will take that up in another comment.

    • onlyiamunitron
      February 8, 2013 at 10:48 PM

      NM, were you a previous BCC List’er?

      Ever hang out over at LL2?

      Or do I just know you from TL?

      (where there seems to be a little more tolerance lately for stepping outside the groupthink, oddly enough)

      unitron

      • blushedbrown
        February 9, 2013 at 8:49 AM

        @Uni
        I have relayed the message, and provided the link, I think I did. No response given.
        I did go in without any Kevlar on, and I wasn’t hit with anything, food included. 😯

        • February 9, 2013 at 9:22 AM

          I always survive there, mostly by keeping out of the emotional bits. Was born with Kevlar skin though.

        • blushedbrown
          February 9, 2013 at 9:34 AM

          @aussie,

          I like that, born with Kevlar skin.
          I think I did a good job of staying out of it.
          This is what my Aunt told me, Opinions are like a**h**es, everyone has one.
          She is a firecraker!

    • wassointeresting
      February 9, 2013 at 8:30 AM

      NMNM says “The other, not unrelated, was the development on-line of a pro-Zimmerman ‘camp’, with its orthodoxies and tendencies to group-think, mirroring those on the ‘other side’. One of those orthodoxies was, and is, that Zimmerman’s statement are not the least bit problematical.”

      I have always thought that if GZ had only lawyered up that he might have a fighting chance in court. His very own “problematic” statements are what’s bolstering the prosecutions case. Perhaps it’s a kneejerk reaction for some to deny everything. You get forgiven if you’re a 5 year old with sprinkles….

      You don’t get forgiven when you’re 28 with a gun…

      • blushedbrown
        February 9, 2013 at 8:44 AM

        I’m sticking to my story! That’s his motto! I love this kid! The proof is all in his mouth and face. I love how he said , “Its not empty, He’s right! Love the video. 🙂

    • ada4750
      February 9, 2013 at 3:01 PM

      @nomatter0nevermind What are the political agendas you disagree with? I suppose the main one is the racial agenda. Well, of course it is very easy to think that if GZ was black and Trayvon white then GZ wouldn’t have been released, at least for that night.

      But overall, it is very sad that many people think about political issues before this terrible human tragedy. A teenager got killed and maybe without even knowing why. For Trayvon, his family and his friends it was imperative that a complete professional investigation occurred.

  7. nomatter0nevermind
    February 9, 2013 at 12:34 AM

    onlyiamunitron :
    NM, were you a previous BCC List’er?
    Ever hang out over at LL2?

    No to both.

    Or do I just know you from TL?

    AFAIK

    I used to post at Bloggingheads, as ‘nomatter_nevermind”, and before that as ‘graybeard’.

  8. blushedbrown
    February 9, 2013 at 8:51 AM

    @Uni

    IIRC, you have written about the smileys that you were not familar on how to post, at least something to that effect. Correct me if I am wrong, I know you will. 🙂

    Link to WordPress and Smileys…..

    http://codex.wordpress.org/Using_Smilies

  9. wassointeresting
    February 9, 2013 at 1:35 PM

    OK this is off topic but I just have to mention my amazement at the treehouse. They’re calling Massachusetts a ridiculous nanny state for instituting a ban on driving after 4pm yesterday in the wake of a historic blizzard that dropped more than two feet of snow. Their reaction is not only the $500 fine and year in jail maximum charge that could be levied on someone breaking that ban, but also to the Governor of Mass (Patrick) who issued it and happens to be African American and a friend of the president.

    Connecticut issued the same ban but the treehouse did not comment on that state, wonder why? As far as I know right now, no one has been arrested and no one has died as a result of a traffic accident in Massachusetts. This ban saved at least a dozen lives that surely would have been lost due to people not heeding the warnings. Any of you ever notice that during a regular snow/ice storm, there happens to be a disproportionate number of SUVs in the ditches. Always bound to be some idiot who thinks that they’re invincible with a big vehicle or at the least it leads them to do stupid things.

    I’d hate to stereotype, but I shouldn’t be surprised this kind of thinking comes from the same crowd that’s against gun control. Sure this is America, we get to drive our big cars and own our guns, but it doesn’t mean you get to wield them senselessly and put others in danger.

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/02/08/massachusetts-bans-yes-bans-driving-after-4pm-500-fine-one-year-jail/

    • February 9, 2013 at 3:15 PM

      You are so right, WSI. It is off topic. lol

      Second guessing the minds of idiots makes you… A second guesser of nothing.

  10. nomatter0nevermind
    February 9, 2013 at 6:45 PM

    ada4750 :
    Well, of course it is very easy to think that if GZ was black and Trayvon white then GZ wouldn’t have been released, at least for that night.

    It’s easy to think anything. It’s a little more work looking for facts.

    http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/daniel-adkins-murderer-cordell-lamar-jude-black-man-finally-indicted/

    I don’t agree with all of DiwataMan’s editorializing.

    For Trayvon, his family and his friends it was imperative that a complete professional investigation occurred.

    Who opposed that?

    The people shouting in the streets weren’t calling for investigation. They were calling for arrest, regardless of investigation, regardless of facts.

    • wassointeresting
      February 10, 2013 at 10:29 AM

      I think an “arrest” is a formality that people felt needed to be had in order to get a full investigation. Sure there were people who condemned him on the outset, but people marching in the streets are not part of the justice system. They for the most part however (including the Martin/Fulton family) wanted the justice system to work. They would have accepted it if GZ were arrested for an hour and let out on a small bail early on and no one would have been marching. It was the SPD that did GZ no favors by NOT arresting him initially.

  11. February 10, 2013 at 9:15 AM

    ada wrotre

    For Trayvon, his family and his friends it was imperative that a complete professional investigation occurred.

    NMNM asked in trply

    Who opposed that?

    Tim Smith, Ricardo Ayala, Michael Wagner, Bill Lee, Norm Wolfinger. Rick Scott (initially), Sean Hannity, Wayne Lapierre, Dan Linehan, Alan Dershowitz, Jeralyn Merrit, just for starters.

  12. ada4750
    February 10, 2013 at 10:02 AM

    @nomatter0nevermind It looks like you skipped my main point. This was a terrible human tragedy and all the politics around is not important as long it doesn’t interfere.

    Who opposed to a complete professional investigation? I would answer Sanford’s authorities. Serino conducted, at best, a semi-professional investigation for a short time but the case was on his way to be swept under the carpet. This why the Martin’s family hired Mr. Crump. We know the rest.

    I agree, there was some confusion between a complete investigation or an arrest but this was mainly on street level. Mr Crump and others were asking for a much more serious investigation with possible consequence an arrest.

    • ada4750
      February 10, 2013 at 10:08 AM

      Oh, i didn’t see whonoze’s explicit and direct comment. Not much more to say.

  13. February 10, 2013 at 1:52 PM

    NoMatterNeverMind wrote a good piece on why he first became interested in the case. I think there as probably as many different paths to this blog as there are posters. I didn’t follow the Duke Lacrosse case and I’m only an off-and-on court follower/ true crime buff but the case stuck out to me because of the “all he had was skittles and ice tea” aspect, and yes, the fact that the admitted killer of an unarmed teen was not arrested due to the supposed provisions of a “stand your ground” law that seemed to be PRECLUDING an investigation.

    Once the facts were better known, it seems like a lot of the initial outrage was slightly misplaced, but that’s just the way the cookie crumbles, IMO. It’s not possible to say where the case would have wound itself had the Martin family not hired Ben Crump to try and bring in some publicity.

    I tend to think Serino would have kept investigating, but absent the cell phone records he probably would not have found w8/ Dee Dee on his own, but that Tracy Martin probably would have. It’s possible that absent national publicity, eventually Tracy Martin would have brought the cell phone records to Serino and the SPD would have had enough of a case that Wolfinger would have been ready to press charges, likely manslaughter ones, mind you, against GZ.

    As much conspiracy theory as one would care to see in all of Wolfinger’s supposed actions, it’s likely the biggest reason he did not press charges is that prosecutors don’t like to lose cases. Absent a reliable witness to the start of the physical altercation, despite the lies GZ was telling about how he arrived in w6/John’s backyard and the relatively minor injuries he displayed, it would have been very hard to prove his (false) narrative wrong.

    The case on the local level is one of mediocre or average level law enforcement vs a mediocre level suspect, who didn’t even have a lawyer at all.

    Crump used the “race card” to bring national attention to the case but “racial profiling” is not something the State cares to try and prove. So there is some irony there, for sure. Irony, but not injustice, IMO.

    • ada4750
      February 10, 2013 at 3:23 PM

      @willisnewton The outrage started days before we knew about DeeDee because it seemed clear that SPD wanted to classify the case without anymore investigation. Of course, the new data about DeeDee may had changed the situation even without the national attention. But there was already matter of scandal.

      Also if i may. Sometimes, i read CTH just to get a fast view of different opinions and very often i am outraged by what they say about Trayvon’s family. I wonder if the most virulent have kids. If my kid was shot in a mysterious way, i would move heaven and earth to find out the truth. I am positive that even if GZ’ story was confirmed (which of course i doubt) for the essential, Trayvon’s family will not regret their efforts.

      • onlyiamunitron
        February 10, 2013 at 4:23 PM

        “…because it seemed clear that SPD wanted to classify the case without anymore investigation.”

        The operative word there being “seemed”.

        Later we found out that this was not the case, that they were continuing to investigate all along, they just weren’t jeopardizing the investigation by divulging all of the details every day.

        unitron

        • ada4750
          February 10, 2013 at 5:02 PM

          I seriously doubt about this but if you have some links proving it i will be happy to read them.

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 10, 2013 at 5:31 PM

          Have you seen none of the pdf’s of the various reports generated during the investigation?

          They were still investigating when the case was taken away from Wolfinger to keep him from taking it to a grand jury.

          unitron

        • wassointeresting
          February 10, 2013 at 5:30 PM

          “seemed” that way, but we only “….later we found out….”

          Hindsight is 20/20 isn’t it?

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 10, 2013 at 5:38 PM

          If you mean my hindsight, yes, I was unfairly critical of the Sanford PD’s investigation at first, before I knew better.

          (there are still aspects of it deserving of criticism, especially with regard to not gathering evidence from Zimmerman right away)

          unitron

        • wassointeresting
          February 10, 2013 at 9:09 PM

          Your hindsight, anybody’s hindsight….I guess one can always go back and criticize what was done way back with what is known now. But the climate at the time was red hot, and every player in this had their own agenda or at least their own butts to cover, but no one had the full picture. We still don’t have the full picture, and that’s exactly the point of having GZ go through a trial. Regardless of what knucklehead cops, attorneys or political figures did back then, we know now at least that this was not an open and shut case. So moving forward, really only what are relevant to deciding GZ’s guilt or innocence are evidence, witness statements and expert analyses relating to 2/26/12. Anything else is peripheral.

        • ada4750
          February 10, 2013 at 6:02 PM

          Who took if from Wolfinger and why they didn’t want him to try the case with a grand jury?

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 10, 2013 at 6:27 PM

          Did you just find out about this case last week?

          Wolfinger said he was taking the case to the grand jury.

          Two days later the governor announces he’s turning it over to what’s her name and Wolfinger’s mumbling something about conflict of interest and spending more time with his family.

          unitron

        • ada4750
          February 10, 2013 at 7:40 PM

          unitron Are you always so arrogant? I follow this case when i have enough time. Wolfinger called for a grand jury only when the water started to boil.

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 10, 2013 at 10:21 PM

          You seem long on opinion, but rather short on actual information, which made me wonder just how much familarity with the facts in this case you actually have.

          For instance

          “Wolfinger called for a grand jury only when the water started to boil.”

          How much experience do you have as a district attorney?

          Does it include making decisions about the disposition of cases where the police investigation is still ongoing?

          How many cases do you know about that are submitted to a grand jury within one month of the initial occurrence?

          Wolfinger got what the police had up to that time on March 13.

          On March 15th, he asked for help from the state, specifically the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, in the investigation.

          On the 20th he announced he was submitting it to the next scheduled grand jury.

          This was before Crump’s press conference that was the first mention of the young lady

          on the other end of Trayvon’s last ever phone call.

          unitron

        • February 10, 2013 at 8:36 PM

          I agree w unitron here. Serino acted in a fashion to keep on GZ’s good side and to keep him making statements to the SPD as a tactic to build a case against him. THis is what cops do. They give a suspect enough rope to contradict himself and introduce inconsistencies into a story so that at trial the prosecution can portray the suspect as shifty and a liar. In GZ’s case, he was clearly lying about his movements from clubhouse area to cut thru area. Serino alone established enough of a record of that, and I think he was still going despite all the media and public attention all the way up until he was removed from the job by the appointment of the Special Prosecutor. Keep in mind he had phone calls w GZ that were ongoing and even seemed to be acting a bit as a broker to George’s abortive overtures to the SP.

        • ada4750
          February 10, 2013 at 9:25 PM

          @willisnewton I was frankly surprised when i first listened Serino and Singleton interviews. Yes, they tried to catch GZ and they were getting close. But like a fish, GZ was always sliding from their hands. This was very frustrating and was mainly due to the high level of improvisation of these interviews.

          Now to conclude my point on this. My comprehension is that Serino wanted to go further but did not have the support of his superiors. At least before the 911 tapes were released.

        • ada4750
          February 10, 2013 at 11:05 PM

          I maintain my point. Only the public fast growing public pressure caused by the 911 tapes release made Wolfinger move. And anyway not much people were paying attention to him after that.

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 10, 2013 at 11:19 PM

          ” Only the public fast growing public pressure caused by the 911 tapes release made Wolfinger move.”

          Would those be the recordings only made public 2 days after Wolfinger contacted FDLE to get them involved?

          “And anyway not much people were paying attention to him after that.”

          Well, the governor was paying attention to him, alright, when, on the 20th, before we knew there was a “Dee Dee”, he announced he was going to submit it to the grand jury that was going to be meeting on April 10th, because 2 days later Wolfinger’s out and Corey’s in.

          unitron

        • February 28, 2013 at 6:22 PM

          I don’t know Unitron,

          Depo seems to suggest they were meeting every day, yet the deposed cop says they didn’t have things pending…yet they were meeting every day.

          They didn’t do drug/alcohol testing on GZ, or fingernail scrapings…why not?

          What on earth were they “continuing” to investigate if nothing was pending?

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 28, 2013 at 8:35 PM

          “What on earth were they “continuing” to investigate if nothing was pending?”

          It’s been a while since I read specifically about that, but I think they were still conducting witness interviews.

          unitron

      • February 10, 2013 at 9:25 PM

        Yes I was interested in the case before the news of Dee Dee was out, and actively following the developments at the time.

        And yes, once Tracy Martin learned that his son was talking on the phone around the time he was killed it was obviously clear to him that this was an important clue. He wanted however to get the feds involved instead of returning to the SPD, of whom he was not holding in high regard. His son was dead and the admitted killer was free and not facing any charges at the time. You or I cannot imagine how frustrating that had to be for him, knowing his son was not a violent person and that he was found with snacks in his pocket, only a few dozen yards from home.

  14. nomatter0nevermind
    February 10, 2013 at 5:42 PM

    willisnewton :

    The case on the local level is one of mediocre or average level law enforcement vs a mediocre level suspect, who didn’t even have a lawyer at all.

    onlyiamunitron :

    Later we found out that this was not the case, that they were continuing to investigate all along, they just weren’t jeopardizing the investigation by divulging all of the details every day.

    unitron

    One thing I would add to this, is that if ‘professional investigation’ is code for appointing a special prosecutor, I think it’s pretty laughable to suggest that it was Bernie de la Rionda who brought professionalism to the case.

    • nomatter0nevermind
      February 10, 2013 at 5:44 PM

      Sorry, bad blockquoting again. I didn’t mean for it to look like unitron was quoting willisnewton.

      • onlyiamunitron
        February 10, 2013 at 6:22 PM

        Well, now it looks like you replied to a non-existant post.

        Where did the words

        “One thing I would add to this, is that if ‘professional investigation’ is code for appointing a special prosecutor, I think it’s pretty laughable to suggest that it was Bernie de la Rionda who brought professionalism to the case.”

        come from?

        unitron

        • nomatter0nevermind
          February 10, 2013 at 8:10 PM

          Sorry. I thought it was clear that I was alluding to the post that kicked off the investigation discussion.

          ada4750 :
          For Trayvon, his family and his friends it was imperative that a complete professional investigation occurred.

        • February 10, 2013 at 8:25 PM

          And yet it never did. The crime was investigated (as well as coould be after the police missteps in the initial investigation were wrapped up and handed over to the SP) but the actions of the SPD and Norm Wolfinger were NOT investigated by any credible outside agency as far as anyone can tell.

        • February 10, 2013 at 8:45 PM

          boy, am i confused. Where (and who) are YOU quoting these words from unitron? I think this wordpress thing is screwy.

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 10, 2013 at 9:31 PM

          “boy, am i confused. Where (and who) are YOU quoting these words from unitron? I think this wordpress thing is screwy.”

          This is the notification email I received.

          “New comment on whonoze
          nomatter0nevermind commented on BCClist diaspora, part 3.

          in response to nomatter0nevermind:

          One thing I would add to this, is that if ‘professional investigation’ is code for appointing a special prosecutor, I think it’s pretty laughable to suggest that it was Bernie de la Rionda who brought professionalism to the case.

          Sorry, bad blockquoting again. I didn’t mean for it to look like unitron was quoting willisnewton.”

          unitron

          (who really hates WordPress)

        • February 10, 2013 at 11:39 PM

          That’s odd. I see only the SECOND paragraph on my computer screen. It is comment number 48 currently by noMatter and reads like this to me:

          ———–
          February 10, 2013 at 5:44 PM | #48 Reply | Quote
          Sorry, bad blockquoting again. I didn’t mean for it to look like unitron was quoting willisnewton.
          ——————-

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 10, 2013 at 11:58 PM

          I don’t see it on this page (or anywhere else), either, only in the email notifying me of a new comment posted.

          unitron

        • February 11, 2013 at 9:31 AM

          The earth swallowed it I guess. Chalk one up to wordpress gremlins.

          And again, please excuse my militant tone in the post above about Wolfinger. I’m not upset with you, unitron. I’m madder than a wet hen about the things we will never know and IMO deserve to know at the heart of this case. I’m outraged and feel that the public was fooled (potentially) here and distracted by a two bit liar and a killer like George, when the possibility was that the real outrage should have remained directed at the sloppy and possibly corrupt and racially biased set of public officials who bungled the case from the get-go. SPD Police Chief Bill Lee, Jr mishandled this case any way you slice it IMO. He was eventually fired and deserved to be fired IMO and in the opinion of his bosses, the city council and the city manager they appointed, along with the mayor.

          Norm Wolfinger, however has not answered to anyone but himself.

    • February 15, 2013 at 10:40 AM

      I’d classify BDLR is one step above mediocre. But likely sufficient for the task at hand. It’s not possible however to judge his performance yet, really as a trial lawyer. He’s got to protect his trial strategy from being revealed prematurely in order to keep the defense guessing.

      As an investigator, he missed a very important point Dee Dee made to Crump, and that was her seeming tale that GZ chased TM with his car. In his own interview with her, he failed to ask her specifically about this point, which is a major point IMO.

      He also seemingly discounts what’s visible on the clubhouse videos, which I also see as foolish and negligent. There is only one car in the area around the time GZ claims to have been driving on TTL and in the clubhouse parking lot, and the car doesn’t behave in the manner GZ has told investigators. A recreation can and should have been staged to establish what likely is happening in the clubhouse videos since it seems to destroy the defendant’s improbable tale of how he traveled from FT’s to cut thru without ever once moving his vehicle behind a moving teen with both traveling in the same direction.

      As for much of the rest, he’s following in the wake of Serino’s work. I’m not sure what else he’s missed. He wins most of his fights pre-trial and the one’s he’s lost haven’t been major AFAICT.

  15. nomatter0nevermind
    February 10, 2013 at 11:16 PM

    willisnewton :
    the actions of the SPD and Norm Wolfinger were NOT investigated by any credible outside agency as far as anyone can tell.

    Wolfinger’s role is something I haven’t looked at closely. Are there really any grounds to investigate him, other than anonymous media gossip?

    • onlyiamunitron
      February 10, 2013 at 11:25 PM

      “Wolfinger’s role is something I haven’t looked at closely. Are there really any grounds to investigate him, other than anonymous media gossip?”

      At this point, I’d say the grounds to investigate him are for the purposes of exonerating him.

      People keep saying he showed up at the police station that night or the crime scene, and that he and Zimmerman’s father knew each other in Vietnam (or in the CIA), but no one ever has anything with which to back it up.

      unitron

    • February 10, 2013 at 11:37 PM

      Re:Wolfinger

      Yes, the most frustratingly obscure reason he gave for withdrawing from the case was that he cited an unspecified “conflict of interest.” No one yet has figured out what he meant by that in his letter to the governor. Generally, however that phrase is used when someone in the court system has a personal friendship with someone involved in the case and/or accused of a crime where the person who recuses themselves was or is in a position to affect the case based on this personal connection. This is no rumor or gossip. It’s odd, unexplained behavior at the center of a controversial case.

      And it makes people want to know more but Wolfinger refused even the New York Times’ Pulitzer Prize winning reporter when asked to talk about his role in the case. If he has nothing to hide, why can’t he specify what this “conflict of interest” is? Also, why did he decide not to run again for re-election as the case heated up? That’s another action that is not a rumor or “media gossip.” It’s the end of a long career of a man who usually ran unopposed for his office after decades of service.

      I hope I’m not editorializing too much, but Wolfinger is a publicly elected official and owes the people an explanation IMO.

      • onlyiamunitron
        February 10, 2013 at 11:50 PM

        “Yes, the most frustratingly obscure reason he gave for withdrawing from the case was that he cited an unspecified “conflict of interest.” ”

        Because there can be circumstances where someone has to say “I have a confict and can’t …” but cannot explain the conflict without giving out info that has to remain confidential.

        That makes it the right thing to hide behind when you need a reason you don’t want to have to explain.

        On March 20 he’s announcing that he’s already called in FDLE and that he’s taking the case to the next grand jury that pulls into the station.

        Two days later the governor is announcing that Corey’s taking over.

        Do you really think it was Wolfinger’s idea to quit the case and end his career?

        He didn’t tell the governor he was getting out, the governor told him.

        unitron

        • February 11, 2013 at 9:21 AM

          It’s certainly a possibility that Rick Scott threw Wolfinger under the bus so HE could appear to be the one who rode in on a white horse to save the day. However, you are speculating to say that, and the resignation/ retirement announcement is an added step that went beyond “I’m taking you off this case, Norm,” and also remains unsatisfactorily explained and thus draws speculation and scrutiny.

          Guess away, unitron. Me, I’ll stay outraged that we the people have no facts in the matter.

          And when you say Wolfinger had a great and compelling private reason to leave his “conflict of interest” a secret, you are saying that a public official has the right to say “trust me,” in a case like this with “police missteps.” and intense public pressure brought to bear. We live in a land where a few of our most sacred principals are freedom of speech and of the the press and the right to bear arms (and be in a militia, apparently). And he lives in a “sunshine state” where the actions of government are supposed to be transparent. How are his actions in line with these principals and how are they at odds with them? Speculate about that, please. And when you are done speculating let me know if there are any more facts that have come to light about whether it was incompetence, racial bias or corruption that may have been at the root of his non-action in this case. Because his actions were working towards no charges being filed it seems, and the newly appointed special prosecutor thinks it was Murder.

          I agree it is a conundrum. I disagree that two fools like us on the internet are the ones who need to supply the answers here.

          I feel it is only natural to remain skeptical about Norm Wolfinger’s actions in this case and since he won’t speak to the press, and he isn’t apparently going to be investigated by a credible outside body with the power to compel him to either testify or plead the fifth, then IMO he belongs in the column of names I’ll reserve judgement upon until further notice. That translates as “person of interest” in an ongoing murder investigation in my book.

          He is LITERALLY hiding something.

          Here is my speculation: he only started to appear to move to appoint a grand jury when it was obvious he was about to be thrown under the bus by the governor, and he cares more about his own skin than he does about justice and the man is a racially biased, incompetent and thoroughly corrupt coward to the core of his being. (People love to speculate. And one guess is as good as the next.)

          I can appreciate that you are the resident skeptic, unitron. But here you are acting as the resident speculator, and honestly your guess is as good as anyone’s I suppose so please excuse my militant tone to this post. It’s not really directed at you.

          Wolfinger is a public elected official and IMO deserves to be accountable to the public and has not acted in that manner but instead has hidden things that may or may not have had a material affect on how the case was handled, and deserves to come clean either voluntarily or by force in the wake of a full investigation. THEN his name will either be cleared or removed from a list of persons of interest in a murder case and placed where it belongs, which yes, includes the list of innocent victims of political pressure in a high profile case. Or, some other column.

          Absent a credible outside investigation with subpoena powers however, this remains likely a (shady) political action that occurred behind closed doors that has allowed Wolfinger to “save face,” when he STAYED on the case at first, seemingly until removed by his boss the guv, despite having a self-admitted conflict of interest. That’s the actions of a corrupt public official IMO. The time to announce a conflict of interest and recuse one’s self is not when the case is taken away from you, but when you are first appointed to it.

        • February 11, 2013 at 8:01 PM

          He didn’t have the conflict of interest at first.

          That only developed when he had to choose between taking action or losing his job. Big conflict. Big self interest.

          He had to go anyway in the end, but big difference between not standing for re-election or getting fired.

  16. nomatter0nevermind
    February 11, 2013 at 1:04 AM

    willisnewton :
    Re:Wolfinger
    Yes, the most frustratingly obscure reason he gave for withdrawing from the case was that he cited an unspecified “conflict of interest.” No one yet has figured out what he meant by that in his letter to the governor.

    Sorry to be blunt, but this popular talking point is a huge pack of nonsense.

    Here’s the press release from Governor Scott’s office. Wolfinger’s letter is linked at the bottom.

    http://www.flgov.com/2012/03/22/governor-rick-scott-announces-new-state-attorney-and-task-force-in-response-to-trayvon-martin-incident/

    Wolfinger didn’t cite a conflict. He wrote that he was asking to be replaced ‘to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest’.

    The expression ‘even the appearance’ makes it abundantly clear that he was not conceding the existence of an actual conflict.

    His reason for doing so is equally clear from the press release.

    ‘The Governor and Attorney General reached out to State Attorney Norman Wolfinger today. After the conversation, Wolfinger decided to step down from this investigation and turn it over to another state attorney.’

    Were you born yesterday, along with all those other people who claim they can’t figure it out? He didn’t quit. He was fired. All the BS about requesting a replacement to avoid the appearance of a conflict, is routine face-saving.

    • February 15, 2013 at 6:38 PM

      Okay, let’s assume the obvious – that he was fired.

      Why was he fired? Does anyone know? Either it was routine politics and PR, the governor making a gesture to assuage the masses, or else there was another reason that only Wolfinger and the Governor know about.

      I’ll concede the point that Wolfinger says in his letter that he is withdrawing “to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest,” but I still find it an off statement to make, especially since it is coupled with the idea that “the interest of public safety” that he do so. What’s that even supposed to mean? Did Wolfinger anticipate race riots if he stayed on the case? That’s a wild statement to make, and shows a great deal of cultural insensitivity.

      If the “popular talking point” is indeed popular – no one else here mentions it — perhaps the New York Times is partially to blame since they reported it in a similar fashion.

      And my main point remains – he is a public official who felt Zimmerman should not be charged with any crime, and has never explained his position. Other public officials (Angela Corey to be precise) feel that murder charges are the appropriate reaction. This conflict throws Wolfinger’s actions into sharp relief, and IMO suggest that he is either racially biased, incompetent at his job or else corrupt in some way.

      • onlyiamunitron
        February 15, 2013 at 8:08 PM

        I’m not sure if he felt Zimmerman shouldn’t be charged so much as he felt he didn’t yet have enough evidence to take to court and get a conviction, and wasn’t willing to play the game so that the state could tell everyone “There’s going to be a trial, so shut up already and quit scaring the tourists”.

        He was going to submit it to the grand jury, however, and I can’t help feeling that the extremely sudden change in his career trajectory had to do with keeping the case away from the grand jury. Not sure why, but without the young lady on the phone the state didn’t have nearly the case it supposedly does now, and all of this fell into place just as she was being found out about and long before the state could properly vet her and be sure her testimony would be of value, so I don’t think it was her appearance on the scene that prompted anything the governor did.

        Would Wolfinger have called in the FDLE for investigative help on the 15th and held a press conference on the 20th announcing he was taking the case to the next upcoming grand jury if he’d known he was going to be lame ducked 2 days later?

        unitron

  17. nomatter0nevermind
    February 11, 2013 at 1:25 AM

    willisnewton :
    . I see only the SECOND paragraph on my computer screen. It is comment number 48 currently by noMatter and reads like this to me:

    [snip]

    That’s #46 on my screen.

    Anyway, what happened was that I tried to blockquote two comments in the same response. Like many things that work at TalkLeft, that doesn’t work on WordPress. I will never, ever, do it again.

  18. nomatter0nevermind
    February 11, 2013 at 11:43 AM

    wassointeresting :
    Regardless of what knucklehead cops, attorneys or political figures did back then, we know now at least that this was not an open and shut case.

    Still a weak case, surely within a prosecutor’s discretion not to charge.

    It’s a prosecutor’s duty not to bring cases he doesn’t believe he can win. That means he has to look beyond what witnesses say, to how credible a jury will find each witness. That leaves a lot of room for reasonable disagreement about whether a case should be charged.

    • blushedbrown
      February 11, 2013 at 12:17 PM

      @nmnm

      Thank you for finding the back up to my earlier assertion, Sean the operator called GZ back. Looking at event #1671, at the top “shooting inquiry routine” gives me more confidence in saying that Sean called him not the other way around. Also pointed out as well is the time of photo by Manolo matching the connection time and created time with event number ending #1671

      Good Job.

      • nomatter0nevermind
        February 11, 2013 at 6:16 PM

        1671 is W-3’s 911 call, taken by T. Beckman. His name is in the first box on p. 12.

        Compare audio of W-3 with either report. It’s easier to use the Event Detail on p. 10, because it reads top to bottom. Look at the remarks that begin with COMPL, without a number after it.

      • nomatter0nevermind
        February 11, 2013 at 6:28 PM

        I see now that you mean 1681.

        That’s not ‘shooting inquiry’. It’s ‘shooting injury’.

        The next line under the event number is RECEIVED.

        I doubt these phone lines are ever supposed to be used for outgoing calls. If they are so used, I doubt the calls would be documented in the same format as incoming calls.

        DiwataMan pointed out to me that the call record for 1681 is different from Zimmerman’s calls.

        • blushedbrown
          February 11, 2013 at 6:34 PM

          Boy did I flubbed that post.
          Thanks for the corrections

    • February 11, 2013 at 6:12 PM

      I disagree that it is a weak case. GZ is clearly caught dead-to-rights lying to investigators and that in itself is a crime. In a case where a killer claims self defense credibility is paramount. George has NONE.

      But to each his own, and this blog probably isn’t the best place for a debate on what may or may not happen in the future if and when a trial happens. I feel it’s best use (this blog that is) is to discuss what clues and information are in the public realm and how this can inform us about evidence, logic, narrative etc as it says a the top of the page.

  19. February 11, 2013 at 8:06 PM

    Forget block quotes. Just go

    Willis says “Sorry, bad blockquoting again. I didn’t mean for it to look like unitron was quoting willisnewton.” Or even just the quote by itself….highlight, copy, paste, add quote marks each end. Always works.

    • onlyiamunitron
      February 11, 2013 at 8:10 PM

      Maybe that’s the problem.

      The less mature posters are eating the paste.

      unitron

  20. onlyiamunitron
    February 11, 2013 at 8:07 PM

    What did Wolfinger do that was so terrible?

    It was not immediately apparent beyond any and all doubt whether or not it was a case of self defense.

    Even if Zimmerman followed Martin, both by vehicle and then on foot, if he never actually laid a hand on him or brandished the pistol or acted like he was about to hit him with the larger flashlight, and it was Martin who initiated physical contact, a case can be made for self-defense, especially if Zimmerman was unable to retreat.

    Sorting out those details requires investigation.

    Investigation that’s not necessarily going to be all wrapped up in a couple of hours or even a couple of days.

    Assuming for the sake of discussion that Zimmerman is guilty of something more than really bad judgement, if you make it easy to bring the entire weight and resources of the state crashing down on a lone individual like him, then being innocent may not be nearly enough to save the next guy that someone thinks is guilty of something.

    The state versus some individual isn’t Goliath versus David, it’s Goliath and the entire 82nd Airborne versus David after they soften him up with some Hellfire missiles from tactical air support.

    unitron

    • February 12, 2013 at 12:05 AM

      “re: What did Wolfinger do that was so terrible?”

      We don’t know what he did or didn’t do. He won’t talk, and has left his job. But according to him, he had a conflict of interest in taking the case at all so whatever he was doing was wrong. The only right thing would have been for him to recuse himself from the start, according to HIS own proclamation.

      Serino and Singleton established within 48 hours that GZ was pushing a false narrative. In hindsight, it would appear that perhaps Wolfinger simply pushed for more proof. But we don’t really know what he thought, did or didn’t do.

      I agree that a real break in the case came when Dee Dee gave her account, but even without her story George was obviously telling an inconsistent, contradictory tale that did not match the level of injuries he had. More importantly, the NEN call established a timeline that when coupled with his words about TM being near the clubhouse and “coming towards me now” prove his story was clearly a lie, which is a crime in itself.

      His repeated insistence that he was struck to the ground by the first blow stands at great odds to the location of the body, and shows he isn’t telling the truth about what happened between the buildings either. Imagine yourself “stumbling” from home plate to the base of the pitcher’s mound without a credible explanation for what you did with your own hands or what your “assailant” did at all and then tell me it’s a credible story.

      The ironic thing is that Serino seemed to have handled GZ quite well – and kept him giving his inconsistent and contradictory statements for a long time, racking up the ammunition to destroy his credibility while police chief Blll Lee and Norm Wolfinger both would have been happy if the whole thing blew over quietly.

      What did Wolfinger do that was so terrible? He stayed involved in a case where he had a conflict of interest, for starters. Perhaps a different prosecutor would have handled things differently. We won’t ever know because Norm Wolfinger screwed it up.

      • February 28, 2013 at 6:27 PM

        @Willisnewton

        Did Wolfinger ever say what the conflict was?

    • ada4750
      February 12, 2013 at 4:12 AM

      @unitron The question is not who initiated physical contact but who is considered the agressor. For instance, let’s pretend the chase scenario described in whonoze’s video actually happened.

      Trayvon ran away from GZ because he was scared (dixit DeeDee). GZ look for him, found him and pursued him until he was very close (dixit DeeDee again). Professor Leatherman and many others are formal. This makes GZ the agressor, no matter what.

      I fully agree. In this scenario, It is dark, the area is empty, Trayvon had no idea who was GZ and why he was pursuing him. Trayvon was in self-defense mode.

      One thing though. Many don’t agree with me, but i believe that the prosecution has to explain somehow (the best way is probably via DeeDee) why Trayvon didn’t go in his house.

      • onlyiamunitron
        February 12, 2013 at 5:29 AM

        While we’re at it, let’s pretend that Wolfinger and the cops were free to ignore Florida law as it actually is written.

        Then you can claim they were all bigoted because Zimmerman made it to the police station alive instead of being taken on a one way trip to the nearest alligator farm.

        But back in the real world it was not immediately apparent whether he had a legitimate self-defense claim or not.

        And that means they had to operate under certain constraints.

        unitron

        • ada4750
          February 12, 2013 at 6:49 AM

          Oh boy! So you pretend to not understand!

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 12, 2013 at 7:16 AM

          I freely admit to having difficulty understanding your posts or following whatever logic you’re employing in coming up with them.

          It would seem your difficulties with mine are caused at least in part by not noticing when I use the word “if”, and failing to understand that I’m employing hypotheticals for the purposes of illustration.

          Whether Zimmerman was the aggressor, and whether it rose to the level of illegality, will be determined at trial, but that night, long before anyone knew there was a young lady on the other end of Trayon’s phone during at least part of the time for which the only surviving witness was thought to be Zimmerman, there was a great deal of uncertainty as to exactly what happened.

          unitron

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 12, 2013 at 7:24 AM

          And furthermore, there are circumstances under Florida law (and likely many other states as well), where the initial aggressor may still have a valid self-defense claim.

          You can disagree with the law all you want to, that does not change Wolfinger and the cops being legally obligated to abide by it, even if that means they can’t just arrest someone on a snap judgement but actually have to undertake a thorough investigation.

          And we will never know what would have come of the case had they been left alone to pursue and complete that investigation instead of getting bigfooted by the governor.

          unitron

        • ada4750
          February 12, 2013 at 8:19 AM

          @unitron I certainly agree with the uncertainty, specially the day right after. I also agree that a aggressor can also have a valid self-defense claim.

          With his injuries, GZ would probably have a valid claim if Trayvon went back to him for whatever reason. On the other hand, if GZ pursued Trayvon all the way then his injuries were not sufficient for is claim. I am positive on this.

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 12, 2013 at 9:07 AM

          “With his injuries, GZ would probably have a valid claim if Trayvon went back to him for whatever reason. On the other hand, if GZ pursued Trayvon all the way then his injuries were not sufficient for is claim. I am positive on this.”

          And unfortunately we do not have a whole bunch of totally impartial people who were there and saw it all to tell us exactly what happened.

          We have the various versions of Zimmerman’s story and the recording of his NEN call, which are not totally irreconcilable (although comparisons amongst them leave me baffled by those convinced that George is some kind of criminal mastermind capable of concocting an elaborate false scenario in the two minutes before someone showed up to slap the cuffs on him, and the notion that it was all planned in advance strikes me as fevered delusion).

          And what really happened may be vaguely similar, enough so that he has a valid self-defense claim, in spite of really poor judgement on his part that night.

          On the other hand, we have what we’ve heard so far from the young lady, which, assuming no deliberate attempt or intention to deceive, is still her interpretation of what she heard as drawn from her by 2 different interviewers, neither of which I found particularly impressive, and both of whom seemed content to obtain just a general overview of what she had to say.

          What she says about the other voice and the “pushing” sound suggest that maybe Zimmerman’s account of those few seconds when he and Martin first exchange words isn’t completely accurate, but she only heard, and did not see, and she hasn’t been through examination and cross examination yet to get a good, carefully laid out chronologically, version of her version of events.

          So although she seems to contradict Zimmerman, we’re going to need the actual trial to be sure if she does, and to fully establish her credibility.

          They didn’t have enough to arrest him on that night, so they didn’t arrest him that night, but they didn’t close the books on it, either, but kept investigating.

          They say that justice delayed is justice denied, but that doesn’t mean it has to be instantaneous for justice to be served.

          unitron

        • wassointeresting
          February 12, 2013 at 9:10 AM

          @ada4750, I’m not a lawyer, but I’m not sure that the prosecution has to explain why TM didn’t make it all the way home. We CAN”T just say that there were only TWO scenarios, either GZ chased him straight on foot until he overtook TM and killed him, or that TM doubled back to beat the crap out of GZ. Also, “All the way home” is a relative term. TM did run at least part of the way home and was much closer to his own home than GZ was to his own or to his own stated path of going shopping. TM is not alive to tell us why, and it is GZ’s burden to prove his story that TM attacked him without provocation. I’m going to put my money on GZ putting his hand on his holster instead of “going for his cell phone in a different pocket”. Unfortunately no one saw the actually initial confrontation (unless that mysterious 8 year old witness who supposedly saw it all exists and can be found), so it’s just “GZ said/TM’s dead”.

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 12, 2013 at 9:26 AM

          “…and it is GZ’s burden to prove his story that TM attacked him without provocation.”

          Technically it’s the prosecution’s burden to prove that Zimmerman’s claim is inaccurate.

          They have to do more than say “He shot him” to prove beyond a resonable doubt that the shooting was murder and not justifiable homicide.

          You are correct that the number of possible scenarios is greater than 2, although how they came to “meet up” isn’t nearly as important as exactly what happened when they did.

          unitron

        • wassointeresting
          February 12, 2013 at 10:53 AM

          @ unitron, Oh this legal stuff makes my head spin. In a classic whodunnit case, “innocent until proven guilty” is clear to me where prosecution has to prove beyond a doubt that the defendant is guilty before they send him to jail. When it’s a self-defense claim, we know who dunnit, so shouldn’t the defendant have to prove it’s self-defense? I know the state charged murder so they have to prove murder 2 to get the sentence that goes with it, but IF the defendant doesn’t quite clearly convince the jury of strictly self-defense (i.e., they find that GZ’s negligent actions led to TM’s death), do they get find him guilty of manslaughter in florida? Or does he simply get the jail free card because the state fails to prove murder 2?

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM

          “When it’s a self-defense claim, we know who dunnit…”, but in that instance it’s the definition of “it” that’s the point of disagreement.

          If the state wants to claim that “it” is murder and not justifiable homicide, they should have to prove it.

          As to whether the jury will be able to return a verdict on a lesser charge, you’ll need to check with someone who knows Florida law.

          unitron

        • ada4750
          February 12, 2013 at 1:42 PM

          @unitron For sure there is a lot of scenarios far-fetched. The self inflicted wounds is one of them. Also, i am unconfortable with the scenarios with GZ on top and murdering Trayvon in cold blood. Mainly because GZ would have to be very very stupid to do that. How could he be sure that nobody (neighbors or policemen en route) would see him? Unless he did that in a moment of sudden anger. But the exact position of the shooting is extremely technical and not at all under my scope.

          I disagree with your evaluation of DeeDee’s account. If the jury believe what she said to BDLR then they have to find GZ guilty of at least manslaughter. But for that she will have to be more precise about “the couple of minutes” when Trayvon was out of GZ’s sight.

          @wassointere. I misspoke. Actually, only DeeDee can explain why Trayvon didn’t go in his house. Unless, quite unlikely, Trayvon was speechless for more than two minutes, he must have said something about what just happened. Did he think the incident over? DeeDee would know it. She has to be more precise at the trial. Otherwise the jury may conclude they can’t be sure she is telling the truth.

          You and unitron are saying that there is more than two scenarios but you don’t say more. I can imagine one more but it is quite unlikely. Maybe Trayvon went back to the T simply to ask GZ why he was looking for him and then situation degenerated.

          @unitron ” although how they came to “meet up” isn’t nearly as important as exactly what happened when they did” You keep writing that. IMO there is only two key points.

          — How they “met”
          — GZ was under Trayvon or not when he shot.

          The first one is sufficient for the manslaughter, the second one for the second degree murder.

        • wassointeresting
          February 12, 2013 at 2:27 PM

          @ada4750, I’m not sure DeeDee knows why TM didn’t go in his house or where TM was exactly other than him saying that he was “right by his dad’s house.” That’s a relative term because turning the corner and going down the dogwalk could be considered by his dad’s house. There are things from DeeDee’s testimony that I take for facts such as what she heard someone else saying “What’re you doing around here” and TM responding “Why are you following me for.” But it is strictly her interpretation that someone pushed TM and that she heard the “grass thing”. All she heard were probably rustling sounds and then the phone shut off. I also take as facts when she said that she talked to TM at the mail shed when she called him back and that was where TM told her a creepy guy was watching him. Other things that she seemed to “interpret” were reasons why TM didn’t run anymore, she says “because I knew he was tired, he was breathing hard” when in fact I think he told her that he was going to walk again (after running) because he was by his dad’s house (could be anywhere along the dogwalk, IMO). My personal guess on a scenario is that he hung out somewhere between the T and John witness 6’s house watching GZ’s movements. To TM, it would have looked like GZ was looking for him regardless of what GZ claimed he was actually doing. TM may have “stepped out of the darkness” to ask GZ why he was being followed, but I don’t think he had made it all the way home and then came all the way back up to the T. Again, just how I see it in my head.

        • amsterdam1234
          February 12, 2013 at 2:00 PM

          @unitron
          That young lady has some independent evidence to back up her claims. If GZ takes the stand none of his statements back up his claims.

          At the time Dee Dee said Trayvon was at the mail area, and GZ was making his nen call saying Trayvon was near the Clubhouse, the videos show a car stop on TTL facing the mail area. Trayvon tells Dee Dee this white dude on the phone was watching him from a car. Trayvon tells her he is going to start walking again. GZ tells the dispatcher “now he is coming towards me. We can hear GZ making remarks about assholes like Trayvon always getting away. Dee Dee says the telephone disconnects and she calls back. We’ll have to wait for the exact telephone records, but the records we are within 30 sec.

          When Dee Dee calls back, Trayvon tells Dee Dee GZ is following her in his car, and he is going to run, next she hears the wind. Jury will understand what she means, when they hear GZ saying “shit he is running”, hear him getting out of his car and hear the wind on the nen call for the next 28 seconds. They will also hear GZ say yes, when the dispatcher asks him if GZ is following Trayvon.

          Next the jury will hear , that GZ doesn’t want to wait for the police at a fixed spot.

          Dee Dee will say Trayvon thought he’d lost GZ, and started walking back home again, and that Trayvon tells her GZ is following him again. She will describe the verbal exchange, followed with what she describes as Trayvon gasping, and either the telephone disconnecting from the headset, or the headset falling of Trayvon’s head. She can hear Trayvon at some distance saying get off, before the call disconnects at approx the same time the first 911 call is made by W11.

          W11 tells in her statement to Serino and Singleton, that the confrontation began with a verbal exchange. About 3 exchanges that sounded like “what are you doing” “wat are you”, before she can hear the struggling in the grass. She was sitting on a sofa next to the sliding glass doors, that was wide open. She doesn’t describe hearing hitting sounds.

          W6 only watched for 10 seconds, and he made essential changes to his statement. Any highly trained person in jiu jitsu, judo, wrestling or mma, will say the same thing about how John describes the fight on the ground; Impossible.

          W18 who was the only witness watching when the shot was fired, will testify that the person on top when she heard the shot, was the same person that got up and walked away. Selma will testify that she was outside seconds after the shot, and that GZ was on top of Trayvon.
          W12 will testify that the larger person was on top.

          I don’t think Austin was able to see color, but he saw only the back of one person. He most likely couldn’t see the person on the bottom.

          Trayvon’s body was found 40 ft south of the T, right next to the shell casing. His phone was a couple of feet east of his feet. GZ’s flashlight was east of his head. Trayvon was less than a 100 yards from his home. He had skittles and a can of ice tea in his pocket. He was not in the process of committing a crime.

          GZ was supposedly driving to target, carrying a loaded gun. He had no business being on that walk way between those houses. He was not a police officer.

          If you believe that GZ was defending himself, you have a serious bias against black teenagers. You may try to convince yourself that this isn’t the case, but in order to believe that a 28 year old man weighing 204 lbs, carrying a loaded gun, and who had been arrested for assault previously, was attacked by a 17 year old, 158 lbs teenager, who had no history of violent behavior is rediculous, especially with all the evidence, and GZ’s recorded lies.

          I don’t mind having a vigorous debate about evidence, but I suggest you keep the other stuff at Talk Left.

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 12, 2013 at 10:26 PM

          Trayvon carrying a bag of Skittles and a canned drink no more guarantees that he was not committing a crime than his wearing of a hoodie guarantees that he was.

          Depending on exactly how the physical interaction began, Trayvon may or may not be legally in the right or in the wrong.

          Same for Zimmerman.

          And as either a resident or the guest of one, both had an equal right to be, or “business being” on that sidewalk behind the houses.

          “If you believe that GZ was defending himself, you have a serious bias against black teenagers.”

          I never said I believed or disbelieved it, I considered whether it was a possibility and pointed out that there are circumstances where he could legally claim it even if he began the physical struggle, but thanks for your unfounded accusation of bigotry and racism.

          And I suggest you feel free to keep to yourself your suggestions about where I should or shouldn’t post what.

          unitron

          (who wasn’t aware that whonoze died and left amsterdam1234 in charge)

        • ada4750
          February 12, 2013 at 2:38 PM

          shortly to complete. Two logically independent statements and therefore four possible outcome.

          — GZ reached TM. GZ not under TM. Second murder.
          — GZ reached TM, GZ under TM. Manslaughter.
          — TM reached GZ, CZ under TM. Not guilty.
          — TM reached GZ. GZ not under TM. I can’t tell.

          @amsterdam Bravo for your rich comment, I just want to add something. You and many others are saying that Trayvon couldn’t attack GZ because it defies logic. This is not a proof. There is many people in jail who defied logic.

          @willisnewton I didn’t see your last comment. I will add later, maybe late tonight.

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 12, 2013 at 10:11 PM

          “You and many others are saying that Trayvon couldn’t attack GZ because it defies logic. This is not a proof. There is many people in jail who defied logic. ”

          And now you’re actually employing logical thinking.

          Two judges out driving in the country, one looks over at a field and says “Look, those sheep have just been shorn.”.

          The other ones says “They appear to have been.”

          “On this side”.

          unitron

        • amsterdam1234
          February 12, 2013 at 4:15 PM

          @ada4750

          If GZ doesn’t take the stand none of that matters. GZ doesn’t get to tell that he was looking for an address. He doesn’t get to tell how Trayvon attacked him at the T, and that Trayvon was smothering and beating him. The last thing the jury will hear GZ say is on the nen call. After listening to him calling Trayvon an asshole and the other expletive. After that they hear him running after Trayvon, and hear he is not willing to commit to being at a certain spot. Then they will hear the screaming and the shot on the 911 call.
          Trayvon was killed very close to his house. GZ won’t be able to explain what he was doing there.

          The only witness that claims to have seen Trayvon on top was John, and that was only for a very brief time. Four of the eyewitnesses saw GZ on top.

          If GZ does decide to take the stand, he will be confronted with all the verifyable lies he has told. I think the prosecution has some really good evidence we don’t know about yet. I think they will be able to proof Trayvon was at the mail area at least 10 minutes before GZ showed up. I think GZ’s phonerecords will show he was contacted by someone about Trayvon.
          If they can show that, it would proof GZ left the house in search of Trayvon, and he took his gun with him.

        • ada4750
          February 12, 2013 at 11:33 PM

          @unitron in reply for February 12, 2013 at 10:11 PM

          My friend, you definitely have a problem to follow lines of thinking. Good night.

        • amsterdam1234
          February 13, 2013 at 12:48 PM

          @unitron
          Present your evidence that Trayvon was the agressor.

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 13, 2013 at 1:18 PM

          The “evidence” is that Zimmerman said he was.

          Since the cops couldn’t immediately disprove that, they couldn’t immediately arrest him because of the way the law is worded in Florida.

          To quote someone with whom I’m usually in agreement–

          “You can disagree with the law all you want to, that does not change Wolfinger and the cops being legally obligated to abide by it, even if that means they can’t just arrest someone on a snap judgement but actually have to undertake a thorough investigation.”

          unitron

        • amsterdam1234
          February 13, 2013 at 2:03 PM

          @unitron

          That is a solid case you got there. Thanks for your insightful contribution.

      • amsterdam1234
        February 12, 2013 at 2:22 PM

        @ada4750

        People have been assuming that Trayvon ran south. There is no evidence that he did. Dee Dee said that Trayvon was trying to lose the guy. He ran until he was out of breath.
        Dee Dee said she told Trayvon to run to his father’s house, but Trayvon told her he was going around the back, because it was easier.
        After Trayvon thought he’d lost GZ, he changed from running to walking, and according to Dee Dee he was walking back again. This is when Dee Dee tells him to keep running, and he tells her he is close to home and he’ll just walk fast. Then Trayvon tells Dee Dee, GZ is following him again.

        I think Trayvon didn’t want GZ to know where he was living.
        I think this is the path Trayvon took. I think GZ was somewhere on RVC or TTL and saw Trayvon heading back to the T on his way home, and followed Trayvon onto the dog walk.

        http://www.showme.com/sh/?h=F9g3C2i

        That path is about 950 ft. A combination of running and walking would have taken Trayvon to the spot where he was killed between 3.5 and 4 minutes after he started running. That would have been 7:15:30 to 7:16:00, the time the altercation began.

        • ada4750
          February 12, 2013 at 2:42 PM

          @amsterdam Your hypothesis deserves my attention. I’ll do it soon.

        • ada4750
          February 13, 2013 at 12:13 AM

          @amsterdam1234 GZ in his NEN call indicated that Trayvon ran Down towards the back entrance. He wouldn’t said that if Trayvon was running directly North. Also, DeeDee had suggested that Trayvon did a pause near his father’house not long after he eluded GZ.

          More information from DeeDee and also maybe from the cells phone would be welcome.

        • amsterdam1234
          February 13, 2013 at 6:25 AM

          @ada4750

          I don’t think GZ saw where Trayvon went. I think he assumed that Trayvon went to the back entrance, because as he’d stated before in one of his calls ” that was what they always did”.
          Think about it. GZ was in his car when Trayvon started trunning. If he’d seen Trayvon running south, why not drive there and cut him off.

          I think the “right by his father’s house, as been misinterpreted to give an exact location of where Trayvon was.
          It is not exact but relative.
          This is the sequence as told by Dee Dee:

          Dee Dee: No, he say he lost the guy…
          BDLR: OK.
          Dee Dee: And then he ran from the back…
          BDLR: Right.
          Dee Dee: He say he lost him.
          BDLR: OK.
          Dee Dee: He started walking back again…and I told him ‘Keep runnin’.’
          BDLR: So Trayvon said he started walking because he thought he had lost the guy.
          Dee Dee: Yeah.
          BDLR: OK.
          Dee Dee: I say, ‘Keep runnin’.’
          BDLR: OK.
          Dee Dee: He say he ain’t goin’ run, cause he say he right by his father house…
          BDLR: OK.
          Dee Dee: So, and in a couple minutes…he say the man followin’ him again, behin’ him. And I
          say, ‘RUN!’ You goin’ to run? He say he not goin’ run cause…I could have known he not going
          to run, cause he out of breath. and then, he told me, he say this guy getting’ close to him. I told
          him ‘RUN!’ And then, and then… I tol’ him ‘Keep runnin’.’ He not goin’ run. And then he
          say…I told him, ‘Why you not runnin’? He say, ‘I’m not go’ run,’ cause he tired, but I know he
          tired.
          BDLR: I’m sorry…Trayvon said he’s not running because…he’s not going to run he
          said…because you could tell he was tired?
          Dee Dee: Yeah.

          Trayvon told Dee Dee he was right by his father’s house after he’d thought he’d lost GZ and he slowed down from running to walking. He was out of breath, but Dee Dee urges him to keep running.

          I think he felt a little safer and was too tired to continue running. At least that is what Dee Dee thought. I think the ” I am almost home” may have been said to comfort Dee Dee and not admit to her he was just tired.

        • February 15, 2013 at 2:02 AM

          If he’s gone that far out of his way and is on RVC why doesn’t he continue on RVC to the front of the house???

          And where do you figure GZ is all this time? HE claims he was at RVC&top path looking for an address, so surely he’d see Trayvon coming down RVC from the top corner?

          You had some great maps early, Amsterdam. I think you made up this one just to throw in an argument; there is zero evidence for it and close to zero likelihood.

          By the time he tells DD he’s going to go the “back” way (which we have NO IDEA what route that means to him) it is near the END of the call, so that decision could not have made him take the northern scenic excursion 2 minutes earlier.

          So now we have a victim going north and a killer going east, yet somehow they end up in a fatal fight halfway south????

        • February 15, 2013 at 2:27 AM

          Let’s assume for a moment GZ did actually see Trayvon RUNNING, as he claims on the NEN call.

          IF he was parked/crawling facing the top path, with lights on, as he claims, he would SEE if Trayvon ran into that path and WHICH WAY HE TURNED, left (north) or right (south).

          IF Trayvon indeed runs south on the centre path, GZ can NOT just follow him by car, it is a pedestrian area.

          He cannot drive south on TTL to “cut him off” because of the CUT-THROUGHs. So if he drives down, and sees no Trayvon. How does he know which of FIVE available cut-throughs he ducked into? towards TTL? towards RVC? and while he speeds around looking at one, the quarry is going to slip away on the other. The quarry’s going to sit in a TTL space, watch him roar up RVC, then cross over to RVC.

          You can only cut someone off if they entered an area with only one single exit point. The dog path has 5.

          But walk to the T, good view down the whole middle, walk down RVC checking the cut-throughs on the way, if the quarry is not there then he’s either in the middle (again) or on the TTL side. Already half trapped.

          Even if Trayvon ran down TTL itself, which I favour, GZ would not be able to drive after him IF he is standing parked FACING THE MAIL BOXES as he’d have to do a u-turn first. And again, the same problem, once the quarry ducks into the centre path area, he can hide all night, zig-zagging from side to side, from a single motorist cruising around looking for him.

          So the moment Trayvon gets within striking distance of the dog path, ON FOOT is the only hope of catching him, or at least not “losing visual” on him.

        • amsterdam1234
          February 16, 2013 at 6:22 PM

          @aussiekay

          I am definitely not just throwing this out. I actually have been quite convinced Trayvon did not go south for a very long time.
          I tried for days working out the south path, and I came to the conclusion it just doesn’t fit the evidence we have. There was a time gap between the moment Trayvon ran and when the altercation began of approx. 3.5 to 4 minutes. Dee Dee has Trayvon moving during that time. First he ran until he was out of breath, and then he slowed down to walking speed.
          That is just not consistent with Trayvon just running around the corner and hiding there. It would also have meant he would’ve been able to see and hear GZ, and know that he got out of his car.

          If Trayvon ran further south, I just don’t see a logical explanation for him being killed close to the T.

          Take a look at this video. Notice where Trayvon was when he started running. I think GZ’s car was hugging that curb facing the mail area, when Trayvon started to walk. If Trayvon passed GZ’s car on the street side, I think we should’ve seen him in the eph video, but we don’t. I think he must have walked on the grass. We can hear GZ moving in his car and we can hear the gearshift, but we don’t see rearlights in the ep video. I think GZ was following Trayvon in his car, driving close to the curb.

        • amsterdam1234
          February 16, 2013 at 6:51 PM

          @aussiekay

          I think the first written statement made by GZ and his first interview with Singleton probably give some good information. Those statements actually got him into a lot of trouble. This was before he was confronted with his nen call.

          In the written statement Trayvon disappears in the darkness of the sidewalk, reappears from the dark, circles GZ’s car, then disappears between the houses and suddenly shows up at the T again after GZ “got the address”.

          In the interview with Singleton, Trayvon ducks between 2 houses, reappears circles his car, then disappears on the dog path and again appears from the dog path when GZ comes back from looking for an address.

          GZ has a tendency to use real events and change them around. Have you ever wondered where this rediculous story of Trayvon disappearing and reappearing comes from. It doesn’t serve any purpose and we know it is impossible that this happened before Trayvon ran. He also doesn’t know wher Trayvon went the first time.

          I think Trayvon didn’t want GZ to follow him home. I don’t think GZ saw where Tayvon ran the first time. I think he assumed he ran to the back entrance. I don’t know what GZ did. He may have wandered south on RVC or walked back to his car, and suddenly saw Trayvon at some distance walking back to the cut through and started following him again. This time he sees him going onto the dog walk and he follows him there. He was so close this time and the dog walk was really dark, so Trayvon may have thought it was better to turn around and face GZ, which describes GZ’s last tableaux.

          The path I drew is about 950 ft. A combination of running and walking would’ve taken about 3.5 to 4 min. The confrontation took place about 2 minutes after GZ got off the phone.

          This hypothesis matches the evidence. The south path doesn’t.

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 16, 2013 at 10:49 PM

          “…and suddenly shows up at the T again after GZ “got the address”.”

          In any of his versions given to authorities, does he actually come right out and say that he actually got the address?

          unitron

      • February 28, 2013 at 6:31 PM

        Is it possible that Tray broke that corner(at the T), saw how pitch black it was and decided it was too dangerous to continue further with a “creepy” guy following him?

        That is one possibility…

        I speculate in this vid that Trayvon might have been disoriented and thought W6’s house was his….:

  21. February 12, 2013 at 6:47 AM

    Gang:

    ARGUE all you like about each other’s COMMENTS, but can the insults, snide jabs, ad hominem attacks, mind-reading etc. etc. or I’ll start deleting posts.

    If there are missing posts, that may be because I can’t moderate them. I type this from a motel just West of Omaha.

  22. February 12, 2013 at 5:21 PM

    unitron wrote:

    “We have the various versions of Zimmerman’s story and the recording of his NEN call, which are not totally irreconcilable (although comparisons amongst them leave me baffled by those convinced that George is some kind of criminal mastermind capable of concocting an elaborate false scenario in the two minutes before someone showed up to slap the cuffs on him, and the notion that it was all planned in advance strikes me as fevered delusion).”

    While I agree that is is conspiracy theory and insanely unlikely that GZ had a “master plan” to shoot someone that night, I heartily disagree with the notion that GZ’s contradictory narrative and inconsistent statements can be “reconciled” with the NEN call recording.

    The easiest and shortest way to prove they are at odds is to ask “where was George and where was TM when the following exchange occurred:”

    Zimmerman: Now he’s just staring at me.
    Dispatcher: OK—you said it’s 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?
    Zimmerman: That’s the clubhouse…
    Dispatcher: That’s the clubhouse, do you know what the—he’s near the
    clubhouse right now?
    Zimmerman: Yeah, now he’s coming towards me.

    George inconsistently and variously claims he was in the clubhouse parking lot, and parked by the cut thru facing away from the mail kiosk when Trayvon approached him. The timing doesn’t work out for either to be true.

    When someone makes a contradictory statement then by definition they are already lying once. In George’s case he was lying about BOTH locations.

    GZ also claims he was directed TWICE to move closer to observe the teen. This never happened, period.

    The easiest way to explain all of GZ’s inconsistencies and contradictions is to assume he is lying to cover up the fact that he parked facing the mail kiosk, then drove in pursuit of the teen during the NEN call, and tried to omit and obfuscate about this aggressive activity. It’s important to note that he marked a map near the exact spot where all the timing works out easily, but quickly amended it to instead push a story of TM doubling back from the T to ominously circle his vehicle, yet another activity that cannot in any way be reconciled with the NEN call.

    Does this prove M2? No. It proves GZ has a pattern of lying and omitting and obfuscating important elements of his narrative, and this pattern can and should be examined by a jury when contemplating the veracity of his tale of the physical struggle.

    I’d ask you unitron to either reconcile the narratives GZ gave the SPD with the NEN call yourself here on this blog, or retract that statement or else lose any credibility with me.

    IMO GZ’s statements are indeed TOTALLY irreconcilable with the NEN recording.

    The few parts that seem credible at all include the idea that he exited his vehicle and took off on foot after the teen, and acted on the assumption that the youth was “up to no good or something.”

    • onlyiamunitron
      February 12, 2013 at 10:18 PM

      Befuddled thinking after getting one’s head banged around does not automatically equate to a deliberate intention to mislead, especially if that head tended towards befuddled thinking to begin with.

      I said that the various versions of Zimmerman’s story and the recording of his NEN call are not totally irreconcilable.

      I never said the reconcilliation would be pretty.

      unitron

      • amsterdam1234
        February 13, 2013 at 6:06 AM

        GZ was only “befuddled” about inconvenient details, and his vital signs were just fine right after the incident.

        Let’s talk about the supposed head banging. What GZ describes is impossible. I invite you to give it a try. The neck will lock up. You can’t do it.

        While your at it, find someone who is about 46 lbs heavier, sit on that person in a mounted position and pretend hitting this person in the face. Now without changing your mounted position move the person on the bottom 90 degr and then still without moving your position move the person 4 ft to the side.
        You have 10 seconds to accomplish this, at leat that is what John said happened in the 10 sec he was watching.

        After you’ve managed to do that, stay in the mounted position and place both your hands on top of the face of the person at the bottom while the other person has to try to reverse the position. Now take one hand of the face and attempt to remove a gun that is inside the waistband on the hip of the person at the bottom.

        Please make a video of this endeavor and upload. I may take you serious again after that.

        GZ and John obviously got their martial arts training from Hollywood.

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 13, 2013 at 6:19 AM

          George was befuddled before he ever left the house that night.

          That’s what led to all his poor judgement that night.

          Unless that was someone else’s blood on the back of his head it’s a pretty safe bet that something hit his head or his head hit something at least once that night, so technically everything he said to the police after the shooting is post-trauma.

          The extent of the trauma is open to discussion.

        • ada4750
          February 13, 2013 at 6:29 AM

          @amsterdam1234 I suspect from the beginning that the two cuts on GZ’s head came from the edge of the sidewalk. But these cuts are perpendicular. This is possible only if GZ moved 90 degr.

        • ada4750
          February 13, 2013 at 6:42 AM

          GZ did admit that he was trying to get free from Trayvon’s grip. It was probably a simple struggle and Trayvon was likely just trying to keep his position. Doing so, he may had hit GZ’s head on the edge of the sidewalk a couple of times. It hurts for sure and i guess GZ got scared but nothing to legitimate self-defense if GZ was the aggressor.

        • amsterdam1234
          February 13, 2013 at 6:47 AM

          @unitron,

          How do you know he was befuddled before he left the house? Or are you saying he was befuddled before he left the womb?

          One thing I know for sure is that he didn’t get his injuries the way he described it. That is physics.
          He was never on his back after he got the injuries on his head. Blood doesn’t stream upwards towards your face, that is physics.

          Trayvon never had his hands near GZ’s face after his nose started to bleed. The only GZ blood smears on Trayvon’s clothes was found near the bottom left seam of Trayvon’s bottom shirt. They were most likely transfer smears made by GZ himself.

          A fist would’ve left marks on his cheekbone and around his eyesocket. I think his nose was hit by the gun. He shot with one hand, his non dominant right hand like some of these jokers.

        • amsterdam1234
          February 13, 2013 at 7:11 AM

          @ada4750

          I’ve practiced judo for years. If you practice a sport that includes ground fights like judo, you learn everything about what you can and can’t do. You learn how to use the other person’s weight, height and movements and turn them to your advantage, even if you are smaller or lighter.
          What John and GZ describe is not possible. You can’t move or constrain a person the way they said happened.
          According to John they were first on the grass perpendicular to him, next they moved up to the sidewalk and were parallel to him.

          The only way that may have happened is if Trayvon was trying to get away by attempting to get up and move towards the sidewalk, while GZ was holding on to him and moving with Trayvon in that direction. It is not impossible that he may have hit his head against the curb of the sidewalk. But in order for GZ to be partially dragged towards that sidewalk, his head and shoulders must have been in an elevated position.

          The only other way would’ve been a reversal through a rolling action, but that would’ve meant GZ was on top when they got to the sidewalk.

          Some people have been speculating the sprinklerheads may have caused the cuts on GZ’s head.

      • February 13, 2013 at 9:42 AM

        Fine, befuddledness granted. Please continue reconciling the call and his statements to SPD. Prettiness need not be included.

        Here is a portion of his written statement to get you started:

        “Tonight, I was on my way to the grocery store when I saw a male approximately 5′ 11″ to 6′ 2” casually walking in the rain looking into homes. I pulled my vehicle over and called SPD non-emergency phone number. I told the dispatcher what I had witnessed, the dispatcher took note of my location + the suspect fled to a darkened area of the sidewalk.

        “As the dispatcher was asking me for an exact location the suspect emerged from the darkness + circled my vehicle. I could not hear if he said anything. The suspect once again disappeared between the back of some houses. The dispatcher once again asked me for my exact location. I could not remember the name of the street so I got out of my car to look for a street sign.”

        “The dispatcher asked me for a description and the direction the suspect went. I told the dispatcher I did not know but I was out of my vehicle looking for a street sign + the direction the suspect went. The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect + that an officer was in route.”

      • February 28, 2013 at 6:34 PM

        What evidence is there that George’s head was “banged around”? And how would police know George’s head tended toward befuddlement to begin with?

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 1, 2013 at 8:09 AM

          “What evidence is there that George’s head was “banged around”? ”

          Well, there was all that blood on the back.

          (You cannot have absolute proof without any evidence, but that doesn’t mean that all evidence all by itself always is, or has to be, absolute proof. Failing to be absolute proof is not necessarily evidence that any particular evidence is false, however)

          “And how would police know George’s head tended toward befuddlement to begin with?”

          Other than listening to him try to give directions? : – )

          I don’t know if it matters if they knew. Their job is to investigate and see where what they learn leads them.

          unitron

        • March 1, 2013 at 10:15 AM

          I don’t think blood on his head makes it evident that his head was banged around. That blood could be because of gouges etc…

          Maybe George is just bad with relating directions, like many people. I don’t think it means he is a befuddled person generally. There are other details that George is very clear on. Details like the difference between non-emergency and 911, which might suggest that he isn’t befuddled generally speaking.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 1, 2013 at 10:41 AM

          “I don’t think blood on his head makes it evident that his head was banged around. That blood could be because of gouges etc…”

          I suppose it’s theoretically possible he remained perfectly still and allowed someone to gouge it, but it does strike me as unlikely.

          unitron

  23. nomatter0nevermind
    February 12, 2013 at 5:39 PM

    willisnewton:

    The fact that nomatter is posting here IMO is a subtle tip of his hat to the work that has gone on here by the “usual suspects” that have formed a consensus about so much regarding this case.

    I wasn’t intending to be subtle. I had intended to explain my presence here in my first post. Before I got to that, however, some other issues popped up that I wanted to address.

    The short answer is, I’m here because of Whonoze’s video.

    I checked out BCClist the first time Willisnewton recommended it, a few months ago. I found posts full of factual errors, and commenters saying ‘right on!’ instead of challenging those errors. Echo chamber.

    Now the video. I was impressed by the thought and effort that went into it, but also especially by it’s lack of gross factual errors.

    So, I decided to get a WordPress account and start posting here, both becuase I wanted to discuss the video with it’s makers, and because it seems BCClist has improved, and is worth another look.

    It was a few days before I acted on the decision. I wanted to review the video again first. Then AghastInFL decided to visit the complex, and our joint photo project was born. So I suddenly had two things, the video and the photo project, that I felt called for my time and attention.

    It was during this time that Whonoze came to Talkleft to discuss the video. I appreciate him doing that, but it wasn’t the reason I came here. That decision was already made.

    So, that’s it. I’ll have more to say about the video soon.

    • February 13, 2013 at 9:54 AM

      Pity you didn’t go and and challenge those errors yourself, then.

      Whonoze’s video is the result of a lot of work by a lot of people on bcclist, which was the first (and still is the only) blog to seriously look at the evidence in detail. There’s no serious errors in that video because it’s all been checked and rechecked and argued and counted and measured and paced out all over again and adjusted down to seconds of timing.

      Most other blogs are all opinion, not even claiming to be facts (or claiming as fact things they’ve just made up) , and the same applies to a large number of videos made on various aspects. Even among ones claiming an interest in what really happened, there are some to this day asking questions about details that came out in the FIRST evidence dump.

      So, pity you didn’t speed up the process by challenging the errors you thought you saw back whenever it was. Seems from the results it all got sorted without you, anyway. If you still see factual errors, now might be a good time to start discussing them….the errors themselves, not their existence.

      • nomatter0nevermind
        February 13, 2013 at 10:40 AM

        ‘Pity you didn’t go and and challenge those errors yourself, then.’

        Not a pity at all, from my standpoint.

        I could have done that, but it would have been tedious. Stenography work, for which I would get little or nothing in return. I prefer spending my time at a place where the discussions are interesting, where other people are also consulting the sources themselves, and will challenge my
        errors and fill in the gaps in my research.

      • nomatter0nevermind
        February 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM

        ‘If you still see factual errors, now might be a good time to start discussing them….the errors themselves, not their existence.’

        I’ll get there when I please.

        Has someone made you the boss of me?

        • February 14, 2013 at 11:02 PM

          Take your time.

          Just seems odd to me you keep mentioning errors, even gross ones and factual ones, that you’ve not tried to correct.

          Therefore nobody knows what errors you may be referring to.

          Therefore nobody can discuss or dispute your version of the “facts”.

          Therefore you can keep believing the thing is full of holes and being critical about it with no fear of being contradicted, which I can see may suit you to prolong.

          Be my guest, take your time, take as long as you need …………

  24. nomatter0nevermind
    February 13, 2013 at 12:03 AM

    wassointeresting :
    When it’s a self-defense claim, we know who dunnit, so shouldn’t the defendant have to prove it’s self-defense?

    I think this is something that varies between states. In some states, affirmative defenses carry a burden of proof for the defendant, to preponderance of the evidence or maybe some lesser standard. Other states require the defense to present only a bare minimum of evidence for an affirmative defense, which then puts the burden on the prosecution to prove it false beyond reasonable doubt. Florida is one of the latter.

    Jeralyn did a post on this at her blog some time ago, but for the moment I can’t find it. It wasn’t just her assertion. She cited sources.

    I know the state charged murder so they have to prove murder 2 to get the sentence that goes with it, but IF the defendant doesn’t quite clearly convince the jury of strictly self-defense (i.e., they find that GZ’s negligent actions led to TM’s death), do they get find him guilty of manslaughter in florida? Or does he simply get the jail free card because the state fails to prove murder 2?

    In Florida lesser includeds are automatic. The jury can find Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter if they don’t think the evidence supports M2.

    In Florida, homicide by negligence is a subcategory of manslaughter, and self-defense, or more precisely justifiable use of deadly force, is an absolute defense to manslaughter.

    In other words, your expression ‘not strictly self-defense’ is meaningless, at least as far as prosecution for homicide goes. The statutory requirements for justifiable use of deadly force are either met or they aren’t. If they are, the jury should not convict of manslaughter, regardless of whether they believe Zimmerman was negligent.

    That’s how I read the statutes.

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Index&Title_Request=XLVI#TitleXLVI

    See 776 on Justifiable Use of Force, and 782 on Homicide.

    • nomatter0nevermind
      February 13, 2013 at 12:38 AM

      One link, no hypertext, and still ‘awaiting moderation’.

      I’ll repeat the comment without the link. Whonoze can delete one or the other when he gets back.

      wassointeresting :
      When it’s a self-defense claim, we know who dunnit, so shouldn’t the defendant have to prove it’s self-defense?

      I think this is something that varies between states. In some states, affirmative defenses carry a burden of proof for the defendant, to preponderance of the evidence or maybe some lesser standard. Other states require the defense to present only a bare minimum of evidence for an affirmative defense, which then puts the burden on the prosecution to prove it false beyond reasonable doubt. Florida is one of the latter.

      Jeralyn did a post on this at her blog some time ago, but for the moment I can’t find it. It wasn’t just her assertion. She cited sources.

      I know the state charged murder so they have to prove murder 2 to get the sentence that goes with it, but IF the defendant doesn’t quite clearly convince the jury of strictly self-defense (i.e., they find that GZ’s negligent actions led to TM’s death), do they get find him guilty of manslaughter in florida? Or does he simply get the jail free card because the state fails to prove murder 2?

      In Florida lesser includeds are automatic. The jury can find Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter if they don’t think the evidence support M2.

      In Florida, homicide by negligence is a subcategory of manslaughter, and self-defense, or more precisely justifiable use of deadly force, is an absolute defense to manslaughter.

      In other words, your expression ‘not strictly self-defense’ is meaningless, at least as far as prosecution for homicide goes. The statutory requirements for justifiable use of deadly force are either met or they aren’t. If they are, the jury should not convict of manslaughter, regardless of whether they believe Zimmerman was negligent.

      That’s how I read the statutes.

      Google ‘Florida Statutes’.

      Click on ‘Title XLVI’ (Crimes).

      See Ch. 776 on Justifiable Use of Force, and Ch. 782 on Homicide.

      • wassointeresting
        February 13, 2013 at 8:30 AM

        NMNM says “In Florida lesser includeds are automatic. The jury can find Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter if they don’t think the evidence support M2.”

        Thanks for the clarification, and this is what I wanted to know. I know my terminology is off. I’m a scientist, but need remedial education in legaleze.

        • February 13, 2013 at 11:11 AM

          It’s common human psychology to think that a jury may decide that if GZ is not credible, but there lacks a clear eyewitness to the start of the physical altercation that they might chart a “middle ground” or compromise position and vote for a guilty verdict on the lesser charge of manslaughter. There are lots of pundits who predict this outcome, but I am not in agreement. I think the case is the prosecution’s to win or lose. With the right strategy at trial, they can PROVE murder 2 to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, I feel.

          How they get there is the subject for a longer post, but it involves playing by the “rules of the game” in court but not being impartial, or acting above the level of never taking advantage of an opponent’s technical weaknesses at the expense of “fairness.”

          Keep in mind a HUGE part of “the game” between the competing legal teams is for the prosecution to shield their ultimate trial strategy from the defense. On the defense side, the almost opposite approach is taken; get the defense strategy as much pre-trial publicity as possible, and keep adding to it with anything and everything that can introduce “reasonable doubt” by any means necessary.

  25. February 13, 2013 at 8:43 AM

    The difference between manslaughter and murder isn’t a question of self defence. It’s a question of degree of premeditation (Murder 1) or acting with a depraved mind (murder 2) or just happening to kill someone when intending them lesser harm (manslaughter); negligent homicide is when you intended them no harm at all (eg many motor vehicle deaths).

    If the use of the force is found justified on self-defence grounds, that’s that; it covers all possible degrees of killing. BUT the requirements of proving justification are tougher on someone who was the original aggressor. Much tougher. This is why the GZ stories twist and turn in every direction to AVOID ADMITTING ever following Trayvon.

    If self-defence is out, then it’s up to the jury to decide how premeditated or depraved they believe the shooting was. For that they would certainly take into account who started the hostilities.

  26. February 13, 2013 at 8:20 PM

    Don’t expect NoMatter to reach a firm conclusion on much of anything before trial, if even then. That’s never been his style. Not to denigrate his work, but he’s more of a “sniping at the margins” type person. At his best, he serves to keep things accurate and that’s a valuable service.

    It might drive one crazy wondering “when is he going to admit (this or that conclusion)” but in the end neither his opinion nor anyone else’s here matters. If and when this case finds itself in front of a jury only a few opinions will matter – those of the jury members and the legal opinions of the judge. That’s just the way it works in this land of ours.

    At the heart of this issue is the timing / sync of the clubhouse video, esp the two that show what appears to be the only vehicle in the proximity to the clubhouse on the TTL side. This vehicle seems to behave in a manner that contradicts GZ’s (inconsistent and contradictory) statements to police by visibly trolling the mail kiosk, then possibly returning after an OFF SCREEN u-turn to face the mail kiosk from an indeterminate distance. Of course, if this is not the vehicle GZ was in that evening it’s difficult to know how he was ever in the area to begin with as there are no other cars seen that even remotely could be shown to reconcile with the known timings of events that evening, not just the NEN call recording but the arrivals of first responders.

    NoMatter was not participating in the discussion surrounding how the sync point of the video was arrived at by consensus opinion. It’s foolish to assume he has been able to (or even cares to) fully vet the reasoning behind how various conclusions were arrived at from only looking at whonoze’s video alone – the video mostly presents conclusions, not the reasoning behind them.

    If you seek his opinion on the conclusions of the video, don’t hold your breath. If you care to present elements of the reasoning that went into establishing the (aprox) sync point and hear him vet the facts cited, I’m guessing you can have a lively discussion on the merits and accuracy of such reasoning.

    But no one here is anyone’s “monkey.” I’m carping at unitron myself right now but he is under no obligation to answer my challenge to reconcile GZ’s NEN call recording with the inconsistent and contradictory narrative he gave SPD.

    Regarding Nomatter, I can’t be expected to speak for him, but I did point out my opinion on his style, worth and veracity on all this a long time ago as a “heads up” when he was just joining the discussion. And I’m glad he’s part of that discussion.

    • nomatter0nevermind
      February 14, 2013 at 5:12 AM

      Thanks again for the welcome and the positive thoughts.

      Is this in response to a post that has been deleted, or maybe one I can’t see? It seems apropos of nothing.

      • February 14, 2013 at 11:19 AM

        It’s in response to people badgering for conclusions – see above. But don’t go thanking me just yet. I’m sure there were a couple of “backhanded compliments” in there somewheres, lol.

        I too wish people would either accept or refute my own arguments – it’s a natural desire when one becomes emotionally attached to a pet theory, and is met most often with either being ignored, impartially refuted or improperly contradicted.

        All in all though I think as I said the value to be found here is in holding a lively discussion, which we seem to be managing with the help of an occasional moderator’s corrections or admonitions. E.M. Forester famously quipped “How do I know what I think until I hear what I say?” I hope we are all flexible enough to keep an open mind as facts keep coming in and good arguments are presented. I’m trying to be. (Boy, do I want more data points to aggregate!)

        I get the feeling the best of us here are always willing to recognize a good argument for a point of view when we see one. So let’s hope the discussion continues to be productive for all involved.

        As for me, I’ve no particular opinion on “what exactly happened” after the end of the NEN call recording. I don’t find any of the evidence there more than simply circumstantial at most, and that includes who is yelling for help, where the DNA is and isn’t found, and any other forensics, and ESPECIALLY any witness statements about what they saw happen between the two persons involved in the struggle.

        What I feel certain about is that GZ has no credibility and that he moved between clubhouse and cut thru in a way that is utterly different from what he chose to try to present to the police, and that there MAY be a pattern to these lies that strongly suggests he is also lying in a similar way about the physical altercation and what led up to it in the “missing minutes.” The location of the body seems to be an enormous challenge to his narrative.

        And going on from there involves forming an OPINION based on circumstantial evidence and judgements of the character of the individuals. However the start of forming that opinion begins with the idea that, without a doubt GZ profiled and pursued an unarmed teen who was walking home with skittles in his pocket and speaking to a girl on the phone. So WHATEVER happened I’m certain beyond a reasonable doubt that any violence that occurred is George’s fault. If Travon hit first it was to “stand his ground.” He’s the one who practiced self-defense. He just didn’t have a gun to do it with.

        • nomatter0nevermind
          February 14, 2013 at 12:24 PM

          ‘However the start of forming that opinion begins with the idea that, without a doubt GZ profiled and pursued an unarmed teen who was walking home with skittles in his pocket and speaking to a girl on the phone. So WHATEVER happened I’m certain beyond a reasonable doubt that any violence that occurred is George’s fault.’

          What if the unarmed teen had been walking home with no telephone and nothing in his pockets? What difference would that have made, and why?

          I’m not trying to be cute. You have chosen to list those things, apparently declaring them to be decisive. Are they really? Why?

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 14, 2013 at 12:34 PM

          You don’t understand.

          The telephone doesn’t matter.

          It’s only the Skittles that are important.

          That’s why everybody feels compelled to mention them all the time.

          If it had been Starburst or a 3 Musketeers bar, everything about this case would be totally different.

          It probably wouldn’t even have been raining that night.

          unitron

        • wassointeresting
          February 14, 2013 at 1:36 PM

          @unitron, regardless of certain people being sick of hearing about them, the skittles are a piece of evidence along with the 7-11 video of what TM was doing out that night. He walked to the store and walked back, talking to his friend. A mundane activity as you can get. Additionally, GZ mentioned that “He’s got something in his hands” and “I spread his arms out because I felt like he had something in his hand when he was hitting me.” (Not exact quotes but close enough). These statements could have indicated that GZ thought that TM had something EITHER dangerous or was subsequently used as a dangerous weapon, when in fact nothing like that was found in TM’s possession. And nope, the story would still be the same if he had Starburst. Now if TM were wearing “black on black on black” (clothing) as indicated by Serino as being typical burglar attire along with having a ski mask, a crowbar and a pillowcase on him THAT would be a different story.

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 14, 2013 at 2:47 PM

          Okay, so I’m going to assume that your sarcasm detector is still in the shop.

          But seriously, “everybody” seems to feel compelled to mention the Skittles.

          Nobody can just say “He was just walking back from the store, minding his own business, not hurting anybody”, they’ve got to get the Skittles mention in there somehow.

          Even if they don’t say a thing about the canned drink, they’ve got to mention the Skittles.

          unitron

        • wassointeresting
          February 14, 2013 at 7:01 PM

          Oh my dear unitron, nope I may have borderline aspergers but I got your sarcasm, perhaps you missed mine?. I myself cringe when I hear TM being described as a child. So I understand the mention of skittles may elicit a related response in some people who are still a bit stuck back in the days when we saw a young TM in a red shirt next to the rotund GZ mugshot wearing an orange shirt reminiscent of jailhouse garb. Yeah yeah yeah, the media made it look like GZ was a crazed KKK member hunting down a 12 year old. I think we’re past that now. Yes TM was a tall 17 year old, he smoked pot, but still he was only carrying a cell phone, skittles and a canned juice drink, It’s just a fact, and unless the defense can come up with any other evidence, it still stands that TM was doing nothing but walking home when GZ decided to not just observe but engage in behavior that at the least would have caused apprehension and at the most mortal fear. I guess what I’m saying is that the skittles represent TM’s innocence, as in not being guilty of anything to deserve suspicion at the time GZ decided to call the cops. Yep, people are gonna keep mentioning it, and you’ll just have to deal with whatever gag reflex that you might have when you hear it.

        • February 14, 2013 at 4:08 PM

          Skittles are the most popular candy with American children, according to wiki. If perception is important, and if potential jurors identifying with the parents of the deceased is an important thing to consider, the mention of skittles will “ring a bell” with them. It’s a real factor to consider and serves to portray Trayvon as an “average kid.” whether he was or not.

          As for your question, NoMatter, what is “decisive” about the profiling is that it occurred despite all of the things that GZ didn’t know about, and had no business speculating about. The “up to no good” and “acting suspicious” and “something’s wrong with him” feelings he conveyed may have been in part because TM was speaking into a headset / earphones setup. We’ve all had the experience in modern times of having to wonder if that person on the sidewalk near us is dangerously mentally ill and hearing voices and speaking in tongues or else just talking to his girlfriend on a hands-free device. The solution however is not to get out of your car and find out by chasing the person into a dark alley while they are running away from you, but to leave them alone since they aren’t hurting anyone. If you have extreme concerns, then by all means call the authorities and report it, but if you pursue them, it’s likely they will “stand their ground” in self defense.

          So it’s “profiled and pursued” that is important/ decisive, not the particular innocuous activity that the teen was engaged in. He could have been knitting a sweater or playing a banjo, but there is PROOF of him having a phone call and there is a person seemingly willing to testify about that which may prove decisive to a jury.

          And that’s what I like about you, NoMatter. You ask good questions. Trayvon could have had nothing in his pockets and not been on the phone but the skittles leads to the 7eleven video, and the phone call leads to W8/DeeDee. The defense will hope to introduce “reasonable doubt” about Trayvon’s intentions and character but the phone call and the skittles lead to evidence the prosecution can argue is corroborative of the theory that he wasn’t “up to no good,” and didn’t have “something wrong with him” and use this to their advantage when making the claim that GZ acted in ill regard towards someone who was innocently walking home.

          George is innocent until proven guilty, but Trayvon should be treated in a similar manner it seems to me.

  27. February 14, 2013 at 4:14 PM

    I posted something to the SPD thread I meant to put here – there’s a new book out called “Intermediate Range” by a Florida LE guy who sometimes has acted as an expert witness for Angela Corey. Looks worth checking out, even if it may not be much new to this gang.

  28. nomatter0nevermind
    February 14, 2013 at 7:53 PM

    willisnewton :
    If perception is important, and if potential jurors identifying with the parents of the deceased is an important thing to consider, the mention of skittles will “ring a bell” with them. It’s a real factor to consider and serves to portray Trayvon as an “average kid.” whether he was or not.

    I give jurors more credit than that.

    Evidence of what the juice and candy were really for is irrelevant and prejudicial. It will be interesting to see if the defense can backdoor it.

    The “up to no good” and “acting suspicious” and “something’s wrong with him” feelings he conveyed may have been in part because TM was speaking into a headset / earphones setup.

    Zimmerman told Serino he thought Martin might be on drugs because he kept changing the direction of his gaze. If the things you mentioned were also factors, why wouldn’t Zimmerman say so?

    if you pursue them, it’s likely they will “stand their ground” in self defense.

    I don’t think that is likely. This case is unusual. That’s a big part of why it’s getting so much attention.

    But what if it is likely? That doesn’t make it lawful.

    Pursuit is not aggression if it has no unlawful intent. Informing police about a person’s whereabouts is not unlawful, no matter how innocent the person may be. If Zimmerman had any more hostile intention toward Martin than keeping the authorities apprised of his whereabouts, it is the prosecution’s burden to prove it.

    ‘Pursued’ is a Crump/Julison buzzword. It has no legal force.

    So it’s “profiled and pursued” that is important/ decisive, not the particular innocuous activity that the teen was engaged in.

    It’s not illegal for a private citizen to profile. Profiling is what a Neighborhood Watch is for.

    George is innocent until proven guilty, but Trayvon should be treated in a similar manner it seems to me.

    You are entitled to your opinion about how it should be. That is not the law in our society.

    Unlike some known to history, our law does not try or punish the dead. There is no more for our law to do to Martin. It is the living person, accused, who is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

    • nomatter0nevermind
      February 14, 2013 at 7:58 PM

      This time I managed to get all the block quotes right except the last one.

    • February 14, 2013 at 11:45 PM

      GZ could not mention the drink and Skittles
      (a) he would not have seen them as they were in a bag and a pocket respectively
      (b) he was saying things that make TM look bad, not things to make him look harmless
      (c) he was probably totally unaware of the phone/headset

      So, you don’t believe it “likely” someone being pursued might stand their ground in self defence? what DO you think is likely? they’ll let themselves be kidnapped or robbed, without saying a word? lifting a finger? Don’t forget there is evidence from a witness that he was TOO TIRED to keep running to try and outrun the pursuer.

      You say “Pursuit is not aggression if it has no unlawful intent.”. Sorry, that is a gross error of legal fact.

      Pursuit is aggression (technically an ASSAULT) when it creates reasonable fear in the person pursued, regardless of unlawful intent or otherwise from the pursuer. The legal-force word for the activity is STALKING.

      Florida Statute 784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.—

      “(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
      (b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
      (c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat”

  29. nomatter0nevermind
    February 14, 2013 at 8:06 PM

    wassointeresting :
    Yes TM was a tall 17 year old, he smoked pot, but still he was only carrying a cell phone, skittles and a canned juice drink, It’s just a fact

    It is not a fact. Martin also carried a lighter.

    The lighter has no more legal significance than the candy or the beverage, but it is not a fact that Martin did not carry it.

    • wassointeresting
      February 15, 2013 at 3:03 AM

      NMMN says, “It is not a fact. Martin also carried a lighter.The lighter has no more legal significance than the candy or the beverage, but it is not a fact that Martin did not carry it.”

      Absolutely right, and we mustn’t forget the forty dollars and some change, that button on his shirt, maybe some lint in those pockets as well,… OK, I’ll have to put my sarcasm aside before unitron implodes…..
      .

      • onlyiamunitron
        February 15, 2013 at 5:19 AM

        So now I know why I woke up with a splitting headache a couple of hours ago.

        unitron

        • blushedbrown
          February 15, 2013 at 8:46 AM

          @Uni

          You crack me up. 😆

      • blushedbrown
        February 15, 2013 at 8:45 AM

        @WSI

        hahhahahhahaha

        I only have smelling salts.

      • nomatter0nevermind
        February 15, 2013 at 11:33 AM

        He wasn’t carrying the button, or his watch. He was wearing them.

        It was you who chose the word ‘only’.

  30. nomatter0nevermind
    February 14, 2013 at 8:26 PM

    onlyiamunitron :
    The telephone doesn’t matter.

    It matters that he was talking to a girl on the phone.

    That’s because girls are always nice and sweet and well-behaved, and expect the same of the boys they talk to.

    In the whole history of the human race, no girl ever thought a bad boy was sexy. No girl was ever impressed by a boy doing anything wrong or mean or dangerous. Certainly no boy ever expected a girl to be impressed by that kind of behavior.

    Girls never egg boys on to do bad things, for fun or profit.

    Girls won’t talk to boys when they’re being bad. As long as a boy is talking to a girl, you know he’s not getting into trouble.

    • February 15, 2013 at 12:00 AM

      And no killer ever thought to tell a few lies to get himself out of 25 to life, at the cost of smearing and blaming the only other participant, who is conveniently dead. Because everyone loves 25 years locked up, that’s why American prisons are so full.

      • nomatter0nevermind
        February 15, 2013 at 1:29 PM

        Oh, boy, is this wrongly directed. You can ask Willisnewton what I think of Zimmerman’s credibility.

        Where I disagree with him, is on how important Zimmerman’s credibility will be. I don’t think he will testify.

        I think the strongest evidence for Zimmerman is the screaming on the 911 recording.

        It isn’t plausible that Martin is the screamer.

        If someone is pointing a gun at me, considering whether to shoot me, I would like for that person to feel he has all the time in the world to reflect on that decision. I would want him to feel as relaxed and comfortable as a person can feel. The last thing I am going to do is provoke the gunman by yelling for help from strangers who probably won’t, and if they did would not be getting there sooner than a bullet.

        I doubt that Martin and Zimmerman were struggling over the gun for over 40 seconds. Every moment would be a chance for one or the other to prevail. It’s just statistically unlikely such a struggle would last so long.

        If Martin was calling for help, why didn’t he enlist it when it was offered? When W-6 asked what was happening, why didn’t Martin say ‘He’s got a gun’? If W-6 came in response to Martin’s pleas, it’s damned ungrateful of him not to warn him about the gun.

        The last possibility, is that Martin didn’t know about the gun, and was yelling for help because Zimmerman had grabbed him.

        Listening to those screams, I hear more than pleading and fear. I hear pain, over and over. Martin was barely injured before the shooting.

        Zimmerman’s injuries might be explained by one punch in the nose and two slams of the head on concrete. From those screams, I think Martin did considerably more.

        • February 16, 2013 at 4:01 PM

          Listen to this and compare with the 911 tape

          and THEN come back and say it can’t have been Trayvon. Not plausible, eh?

        • February 17, 2013 at 9:08 AM

          I’d like to discuss trial strategy but I’m unsure this is on-topic for this blog, which has an emphasis on evidence. Please excuse / ignore this post if it’s not really on topic.

          I think MOM is intelligent enough to admit he can’t risk putting George on the stand for anything anymore, and I also think he’s known this for quite some time. I think it was a deliberate bluff to let him testify early in a pre-trial hearing to send a message that “we are not afraid to put our defendant on the stand” in the run up to the actual trial.

          I also see the recent maneuvering to “roll in” the SYG hearing to the trial proper as little more than a face saving stunt to continue the ruse that the defense isn’t afraid to put George on the witness stand to face cross examination. But this is only a pose and come April the defense will waive the SYG hearing all together since George is clearly not a credible person and therefor should not ever be presented by the defense as a witness for himself.

          And here’s where I tie this back to our discussion of evidence: the evidence in the case shows that George lied to investigators to obscure omit and obfuscate his actions in his car and on foot for certain – beyond a reasonable doubt he lied and the evidence shows it IMO.

          Without George being on the stand how can the defense present a case for acquittal? I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that the best they can hope for is simply that the state cannot prove it’s case.

          I’ll be devils advocate here- what evidence will the state present to prove the portion of thier M2 case that covers the missing minutes and physical altercation? Will it all be circumstantial or will they rely on eyewitness testimony heavily or both, etc?

        • wassointeresting
          February 17, 2013 at 10:06 AM

          @willisnewton, I would not try to bet whether or not GZ will take the stand. I agree it would be incredibly stupid if he did, but then again, I’m not sure he has a choice if he needs to explain away inconsistencies. It’s gonna be a Catch 22 for him. As far as him taking the stand earlier, I would guess early on that he was holding the reins and not O’Mara. Especially with the Hannity interview as well. I think GZ thought he was going to be able to charm his way through this as he has been able to deal with people his whole life. Problem is, in real life, he probably does it with humor and cracks jokes to put people at ease. When it’s a serious situation, he just ends up looking like a sniveling teeth sucking liar (whether or not he’s lying at any given moment).

          As far as M2, I keep thinking about what constitutes “depraved mind”. Everything that happened was born out of GZ’s mind that TM was a bad guy up to no good. I think they do have to heavily rely to DeeDee’s account of a crazy creepy guy pursuing TM. The rest I think is up for interpretation either way.

          But to me, whatever that went on in his mind set the stage for the tragedy to happen. I think his actions immediately afterwards (not asking for neighbors help in doing CPR), at the police station (calling TM “the suspect” in his statement) and until this day (emotionless “apologies” to the family) says that he never respected TM’s life. We’ll have to see how the jury sees it.

        • amsterdam1234
          February 17, 2013 at 10:23 AM

          @willisnewton

          If I look at what the defense is doing right now, they seem focussed on finding material to impeach Dee Dee, desperately hope they can find a voice recording of Trayvon and get material obtained from Trayvon’s phone, disqualified.
          Prosecution has to present the evidence using good visuals and easy to understand timelines. Get the jury to know the lay out of RATL as well as we do. I’m hoping for some good additional evidence like GPS records showing Trayvon at the mail area at 6:54 and GZ’s phonerecords.

          I think they will keep GZ’s statements out and only use them during the rebuttal.

          I don’t see how the defense can win without GZ taking the stand, and I don’t see how they can win with GZ being cross examined. But you’ll never know in a jury trial.

        • amsterdam1234
          February 17, 2013 at 10:32 AM

          @willisnewton

          If the jury finds GZ guilty, they believe that it is Trayvon they hear screaming. If they think it was Trayvon begging for his life, I think depraved mind has been shown. I think the angle of the shot will show Trayvon couldn’t have been on top.

    • amsterdam1234
      February 15, 2013 at 8:50 AM

      Present the evidence for that.
      We know GZ was arrested for assaulting a police officer, and blaming the police officer for that. We also know his ex-girlfriend asked for a restraining order against him for domestic violence, GZ then asked for a restraining order and accused his ex of domestic violence. There is a pattern here. You are just offering speculation without any evidence to back that up.
      Or are you claiming that it is the norm for all teenagers to go on a murderous rampages because their girlfriends tell them to? If so please cite at least on studie showing that.

      Stick to to the evidence please.

  31. onlyiamunitron
    February 14, 2013 at 8:34 PM

    Okay, now it’s time to put my sarcasm detector in the shop.

    Right after I scoop up its smoldering ruins with a very long handled shovel.

    It was never meant to handle all that much at once.

    unitron

  32. nomatter0nevermind
    February 15, 2013 at 12:34 PM

    aussiekay :
    GZ could not mention the drink and Skittles

    I wasn’t talking about the drink and Skittles at that point. I was just alluding to Willisnewton’s speculations about how Martin might have been acting because he was on the phone. Sorry my wording wasn’t clearer.

    So, you don’t believe it “likely” someone being pursued might stand their ground in self defence? what DO you think is likely? they’ll let themselves be kidnapped or robbed

    The prosecution isn’t alleging that Zimmerman intended to do either of those things.

    As for the stalking statute, we’ve discussed it at TalkLeft. I don’t think it applies, and the prosecution hasn’t charged Zimmerman under it.

    But the point is moot. I agree that Zimmerman would be the aggressor if he threatened Martin. What evidence is there that he did?

    According to Dee Dee, Zimmerman inquired about Martin’s business, indicating he had a non-threatening purpose. That he did so rudely is irrelevant. Rudeness isn’t aggression.

    Serino argued that it was Zimmerman’s failure to do this that was incriminating.

    • amsterdam1234
      February 16, 2013 at 6:29 AM

      We had the opportunity to ask Dave Marinade to film driving his car on TTL, like we thought we saw the car moving in the Clubhouse videos.

      I aligned the two. We will see how the jury will judge GZ’s behavior.

      • onlyiamunitron
        February 16, 2013 at 7:04 AM

        Now if only someone could have been inside the clubhouse video recording from about the same angles as the security cams when Dave did that driving so that we could see in daylight what would have been causing the light patterns that night.

        And I’d like extra cheese, free fries, and unlimited drink refills with that as well. : – )

        unitron

        • amsterdam1234
          February 16, 2013 at 11:06 AM

          Not needed for this sequence of light events. But if you want show your work, I’ll take a look at it.

        • blushedbrown
          February 16, 2013 at 11:06 AM

          @Uni

          Will that be for here sir, or take out?

          🙂

      • February 16, 2013 at 4:28 PM

        Excellent video. Of course we can’t be exact on the sync, give or take a period of time that is quite short, but I noted how it seems the car is in the final position facing the mail kiosk when GZ says “he’s here NOW” as though he wasn’t HERE a few seconds ago (by virtue of GZ making his uTurn etc.)

        And if the car was there, facing the mail kiosk then GZ moved it soon after, chasing the teen down TTL. Anyone who has a problem with that notion needs to put up or shut up about where the two persons were when GZ indicated to the call taker that TM was near the clubhouse and approaching GZ himself.

    • February 16, 2013 at 4:20 PM

      I brought up the stalking statute because YOU said “Pursuit is not aggression if it has no unlawful intent”. It is not a matter of whether GZ was charged with it, it is a matter of you making statements that are legally incorrect.

      “I agree that Zimmerman would be the aggressor if he threatened Martin.”
      Read that statute again. There is nothing in it to say the threat has to be verbal. The very act of stalking itself it threatening by legal definition.

      What one person overheard, at the beginning of a confrontation the rest of which they did not hear, is NOT the whole story. That question overheard by DeeDee came AFTER several minutes of GZ following Trayvon, by car and on foot, which is what constitutes the stalking/pursuit.

      And for that following there is PLENTY of evidence. Partly DeeDee says Trayvon told her he was being watched and followed. Partly GZ openly states he did, in the NEN call. And partly both of them ended up in a location that Trayvon had business to be in on his normal path home, and which GZ has no reasonable explanation for. (Forget about him having the “right” to be in any public part of the estate — at the time he had no REASON to be 40 ft south of the T except to be confronting Trayvon.)

      Early on here you admitted you have political reasons for hoping G is not convicted. You have every right to HOPE that, and I respect that you KNOW you have a bias and are open about it.

      But twisting the facts to fit in with your hopes is not going to wash in a forum where everyone else is working on REALITY. Especially coming from someone who claims to be concerned about FACTUAL ERRORS.

      The court won’t be looking at your wishful-thinking interpretations, they will be looking at what really happened. You are in for a very big shock when GZ is convicted, if you keep dreaming that events happened the way you wish they had.

      • February 16, 2013 at 4:50 PM

        Lots of people seem to be dreaming events happened a certain way. I’m curious if any of them care to demonstrate how GZ’s statements about his movements from clubhouse vicinity to cut thru vicinity can be aligned with the NEN call recording.

        And since IMO his statements do not at all conform to the logic suggested by his own words in the NEN call, and since the defendant does not possess an ability to bend space and time, then he was indeed SOMEWHERE on the planet when he agreed that TM was near the clubhouse and coming towards his present position.

        And yes, I also agree that the location of the body is very important to the case. TM had an innocent reason to be there south of the T, and GZ did not. His tale of “returning to his vehicle” is contradicted by his wish to be contacted and then update his position INSTEAD of meeting officers at his car.

        I myself may be “returning to Capistrano” with the swallows according to my own delusional statements, but until and unless I GET THERE I’m merely saying words that mean next to nothing. He’s engaged in a PATTERN of lies, omissions and obfuscation, as well as substitution of his own acts for those of the teen that can and should be demonstrated at trial to show that he acted with bad intent, lied to investigators and chased the teen down TTL with his car, then got out to jog/fast walk after him and ANYTHING that the teen did after that was in a manner of “standing his ground” against an unknown aggressor.

  33. nomatter0nevermind
    February 15, 2013 at 12:46 PM

    amsterdam1234 :
    You are just offering speculation without any evidence to back that up.

    I did not offer a single speculation. I was just mocking the claim that Martin couldn’t be doing anything wrong because he was talking to Dee Dee.

    http ://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html

    • amsterdam1234
      February 15, 2013 at 1:24 PM

      Mocking it with unsubstantiated filth. I don’t speculate about GZ’s family and friends. They are off limit as far as I am concerned. It makes me sick every time I see the despicable insinuations about Dee Dee and a dead 17 year old, who will never be able to tell his side of the story. Yuck, it makes me physically sick.

    • nomatter0nevermind
      February 15, 2013 at 1:36 PM

      I forgot to say, if you follow that link, scroll down to the bottom for Crump’s remarks.

    • amsterdam1234
      February 15, 2013 at 1:58 PM

      I don’t give a damn what Crump says or RZ jr. They weren’t there. I care about the evidence and what people who actually saw or heard anything have to say. I don’t watch them or read about them. I don’t blame them for campaigning for their side, but their opinions are irrelevant to the case.

      • nomatter0nevermind
        February 15, 2013 at 9:45 PM

        amsterdam1234:

        ‘I don’t give a damn what Crump says or RZ jr.’

        That is your prerogative.

        Both of them are witnesses in the case.

        • wassointeresting
          February 15, 2013 at 10:10 PM

          @NMNM, Is Robert Jr. really a witness in the case? I mean is he officially listed and categorized as a witness by either side?

    • ada4750
      February 15, 2013 at 9:07 PM

      @nomatter “But the point is moot. I agree that Zimmerman would be the aggressor if he threatened Martin. What evidence is there that he did?”

      Are you serious? I doubt a lot about it. A adult followed a teenager by car and after by foot. It was dark and nobody visible outside. The teenager ran to loose the adult . This one found him again pursued him until he got very close. All this without ever mentioning who he was and what he wanted. Let’s stop there.

      Do you really think that does not make ipso facto the adult the initial aggressor?

      • onlyiamunitron
        February 15, 2013 at 9:51 PM

        The deal is, does that make Zimmerman the initial aggressor, not in our opinions, but in the eyes of the law, which may be a different story.

        And as mentioned previously there are circumstances where one could be the initial aggressor and still have a viable self-defense claim.

        When it comes to the law, there’s the way people may think things should be, and then there’s the way things actually are.

        unitron

  34. nomatter0nevermind
    February 15, 2013 at 9:53 PM

    ada4750 :
    It was dark and nobody visible outside.

    It was Martin’s choice to be in the dark. He could have gone to RVC, and walked to the front of Brandy Green’s residence on a well lighted street.

    All this without ever mentioning who he was and what he wanted.

    According to Dee Dee, Zimmerman indicated that he wanted to know what Martin was doing in the area.

    Do you really think that does not make ipso facto the adult the initial aggressor?

    I do not know of any Florida case law to that effect. Can you cite any?

    • ada4750
      February 15, 2013 at 10:28 PM

      @unitron You know that for a initial aggressor it is much more difficult to claim self-defense it things turned bad for him.

      @nomatter “It was Martin’s choice to be in the dark” Isn’t it like blaming the victim again? Anyway, i meant it was night time.

      According to DeeDee Trayvon asked a question, GZ answered by a question and then the struggle started right away. So he never made himself clear.

      To both of you. I am not a law specialist and neither do i know a similar case but maybe this one will make jurisprudence.

      On this, good night.

  35. nomatter0nevermind
    February 15, 2013 at 10:56 PM

    wassointeresting :
    @NMNM, Is Robert Jr. really a witness in the case? I mean is he officially listed and categorized as a witness by either side?

    I don’t know.

    O’Mara has already called Robert Sr. to testify to recognizing George’s voice on the 911 recording. Robert Jr. can testify to the same. I would say that makes him a witness, whether the defense decides to use him or not.

  36. nomatter0nevermind
    February 16, 2013 at 12:05 AM

    ada4750 :
    The teenager ran to loose the adult.

    There is no evidence that Zimmerman knew why Martin was running. He told Serino that he did not.

    This one found him again

    And at that time would likely have concluded that Martin wasn’t trying to get away from him. He could have been long gone had he wished.

    pursued him until he got very close.

    Listening to Dee Dee as if she were narrating a suspense thriller on the radio, it is easy to imagine the menacing stranger breathing down the hero’s neck. But we don’t know if ‘real close’ means two feet or ten feet or ten yards. Martin may have spoken as soon as they were close enough to converse comfortably.

    I don’t think it is plausible that Zimmerman got within normal conversation range, then just kept bearing down on Martin without either of them speaking. If he wanted to question Martin, he would have. If he wanted to grab Martin, I think he would want to lull his victim with some friendly conversation. ‘Good evening. I’m happy to see I’m not the only one who likes strolling in the evening rain.’

    I think I should clarify that I don’t think Dee Dee is very credible. I’ve been putting that aside for this discussion. When I asked for evidence, I didn’t specify credible evidence.

  37. nomatter0nevermind
    February 16, 2013 at 1:36 AM

    According to DeeDee Trayvon asked a question, GZ answered by a question and then the struggle started right away.

    The subtext of Zimmerman’s question was an answer to Martin’s. Zimmerman was following because he wanted to know what Martin was doing in the area.

    • onlyiamunitron
      February 16, 2013 at 2:15 AM

      “The subtext of Zimmerman’s question was an answer to Martin’s. Zimmerman was following because he wanted to know what Martin was doing in the area.”

      He seems to have omitted the part that explains how it’s any of his business, possibly because he was sure that he knew everybody in the neighborhood and therefore knew for certain who didn’t belong, ignoring the possibility that even if he was right, he had no way of magically knowing in advance who every legitimate guest of every resident might be.

      If Zimmerman answered according to what the young lady said, then it was something like “What are you following me for?”, “What are you doing around here?”, which I suppose technically could be considered a version of “I’m following you to find out why you’re here”, although in a much less well-mannered form.

      But if it went the way Zimmerman says, it was “What’s your problem?” “I don’t have a problem”, which means Martin asked, in a much more brusque fashion, “Why are you following me?” and got a non-informative answer.

      Either way, he, Zimmerman, possibly (unless Trayvon had irrevocably decided to attack him) missed an opportunity to defuse the situation, perhaps because he’d already decided he knew what the deal was with this kid and it never occurred to him to consider that he might be mistaken.

      When if comes to exercising good judgement, I’m thinking this wasn’t one of George’s better nights.

      unitron

  38. February 16, 2013 at 4:16 PM

    If a jury believes TM really did say “why are you following me?” then it is clear he felt he was being followed and was disturbed by the activity. So I can understand why people who want an acquittal on whatever grounds to wish that Dee Dee won’t be found credible by a jury.

    see:
    Florida Statute 784.048 Stalking

    So actually what we are arguing about is, will Dee Dee be taken as a credible witness. But in point of fact, the clubhouse video ALONE shows that GZ was stalking. It establishes that GZ trolled the mailboxes (and omitted this in his statements to SPD) and that the only car on TTL at the time before the 911 calls was FACING the mail kiosk. This leads to the NEN call recording and the “long tail” theory that demonstrates that car-to-pedestrian chase was likely even if Dee Dee is never taken seriously by a jury. George agreed with Sean the call taker that TM was near the clubhouse and said he was in motion towards GZ’s present location.

    Where was GZ when this happened? I’ll tell you where he wasn’t, and that was either place he said he was. He was somewhere else then, and the ONLY place that could be that reconciles with the NEN call is where he would have had to chase the teen down TTL.

    Unless you can reconcile the NEN call and GZ’s statements then you need to admit that he was in a place where he marked on a map (before quickly crossing it out and amending it to the FT “according to George” position where (excuse my while I laugh myself silly) TM miraculously emerged from the dog walk to circle his car in defiance of the laws of time and space. Because no other potential positions are possible to reconcile with the timing of the call. He chased the teen with his car and HIS OWN WORDS prove it.

    Dee Dee is a support witness. Her words back the logic of deductive reasoning, that’s all. The reasoning stands with or without her. She’s the lemon next to the pie, not the keystone to solving the case, or ensuring a conviction. George cooked his own goose all by his lonesome when he chose to lie to the SPD about his movements from clubhouse to cut thru. He HAD to lie, since what he did he knows is proof that he was harassing the teen.

    • ada4750
      February 16, 2013 at 5:54 PM

      @willisnewton I will be brief. DeeDee is not only a support witness. She is prosecution’s star. If she crumbles the prosecution will loose their credibility and with the current proof GZ will be set free.

      • amsterdam1234
        February 16, 2013 at 7:15 PM

        Dee Dee provides the narrative. She was very good in matching when events took place with when the calls were disconnected. The phonerecords give the time when those calls disconnected. So it is very easy to check at what time these events took place. Some of these events we know of through the nen call and the 911 call, and we also know the time they happened. She got them right.
        And for all those claiming she was coached by Crump and that the nen call was already released before she made her first statement. The nen call was released without the logs. Without those logs nobody knew at what time the call was made and when the events happened.

        She uses almost the same words and the number of verbal exchanges between GZ and Trayvon as W11 said she heard.

        That is some pretty powerful evidence to back up her testimony. GZ has nothing.

      • February 17, 2013 at 9:31 AM

        Dee dee is only a star witness if the prosecution decides to use her as such. They may or may not choose to do so at trial. Aggressive pursuit and profiling can be proven BARD IMO without her. Devastating lack of credibility by defendant can be proven BARD with only GZ’s own words, a map and a stopwatch.

        Then there is the contention by the prosecution that they have witnesses (plural) to a chase. I can’t say who this is but they said it twice in open court to the presiding judge that these witnesses would testify. Maybe one is Dee Dee and maybe one isn’t. Time will tell.

        And for the record I think Dee Dee is a credible witness and should do fine in court if she tells what she seems to know and sticks to what she’s already presented on tape.

        So it’s up to the prosecution to feature her or not, but even if she refused to testify I think a conviction is likely, or if she performed poorly and had her credibilty destroyed even, I don’t see that as preventing a conviction on M2. It would make the path to a guilty verdict steeper, yes but by no means impossible.

  39. February 16, 2013 at 6:34 PM

    Let’s forget what other people have been saying GZ told them. That’s hearsay, they might be embellishing, a person may tell a coloured version to family and friends to gain sympathy, avoid anger etc etc etc. So let’s forget those.

    GZ HIMSELF told the POLICE numerous versions, both in statements and in the re-enactment.

    There is one truth, many non-truths.

    As soon as you tell more than one story, at LEAST most of them cannot be true. One version may or may not be the truth, the rest are definitely NOT the truth. So you’ve established you are lying. It’s just a matter of when and/or if all the time. Do the lies tend towards exonerating yourself? could that be a motive? could that be a motive when facing 25 to life?

    Additionally, on many points, GZ’s statements contradict RECORDED statements he made during the NEN call. These are not subject to poor recall or he said/she said, these were recorded. The best he can manage now is oh that’s not what I meant…. ” I wasn’t following him, I was just going the same way he’d just gone…”

    Let’s even leave out DeeDee.
    * GZ in the NEN call and in some police statements ADMITS to following Trayvon both by car and on foot, but never clearly states where he saw Trayvon going to
    * GZ states in the re-enactment that he stood at the T trying to get his torch working, then got attacked there.
    * the measured time he would have been standing there is more than 2 minutes, VERY hard to believe when he
    * “don’t know where this kid is at”
    * the “kid” is someone he’s suspicious and afraid of
    * he utterly fails to explain how he got to be 40 feet SOUTH of the T where the shooting happened.
    * The laws of physics (and total absence of drag marks) would indicate he was not dragged there (by Trayvon or anyone else) NOR transported through the air
    * therefore he got there on his own 2 feet voluntarily

    He may or may not have moved those 40 ft south to follow or search for Trayvon… but then why has he not given his reasons for being there, if they were innocent reasons? indeed by claiming he was attacked at the T he is denying having gone further south, WHEN IT IS CLEAR THAT HE HAD DONE SO.

    Just taking GZ’s various statements (including the NEN call), and known timings of the NEN call and of the shooting, add up to VERY STRONG circumstantial evidence that GZ did in fact continue to follow Trayvon. Otherwise they COULD NOT have ended up in the same place at the same time.

    The total absence of GZ blood or DNA on Trayvon’s hands is positive proof that Trayvon had NOT touched GZ’s face or head in the manner that GZ claims. Neither in attack nor in self-defence. Just plain DID NOT TOUCH. So that makes a lie of GZ’s claims of his injuries being caused by Trayvon.

    Leaving aside the minor nature of the injuries, even had they been serious ones, if they were NOT caused by Trayvon, GZ had no reason to fear for his life from Trayvon. Therefore no legal excuse to SHOOT HIM.

    The absence of DNA in itself is enough to destroy any claim of self-defence. The issue of the prior stalking goes only to showing what motives GZ may have had.

    But a random motiveless murder is STILL A MURDER.

    • nemerinys
      February 17, 2013 at 7:16 AM

      This is an excellent summary, aussiekay. I haven’t seen much discussion of GZ having had the use of his legs; that TM could not have mounted and battered him as alleged, or indeed attack in any way if GZ was able to stand up and move about; that a supposedly frightened GZ did not run towards his truck, but, rather, moved freely southward (as you noted, skinny 158lbs TM could not have dragged or shoved stocky 204lbs GZ some 40 feet). All witnesses at least agree on one thing; the altercation and wrestling were south of the T.

      One item that truly bothers me is that GZ was able to discern the color of TM’s hoodie. When asked by the NEN dispatcher (about 30 seconds into the call) if he could describe the clothing, GZ responded that TM was wearing “a dark hoodie, like a gray hoodie.” Later that night, in response to a similar question from Singleton, he stated that TM was wearing “a gray hoodie.” When GZ made that NEN call, the evening was dark, cloudy, and wet. Obviously, TM had made it to shelter before getting rained upon, otherwise the hoodie would have appeared black or simply ‘dark.’ And, obviously, GZ observed TM standing in a well-lit area, such as the mailbox area, while situated close enough and time enough to discern “dark gray” – well before he made that NEN call, and nowhere near Taafe’s house.

      I’ll also add that TM never had physical control of GZ as alleged. GZ voluntarily moved southward, indicating that TM had moved in that direction. If W6-John is correct, their wrestling was dynamic enough for them to have rolled up a slight incline to the dogwalk, moving to a 90° angle from their previous position, and then back down onto a different area of the grass in yet another position. W6-John alleges that GZ was able to lift his torso, and, as we know, GZ’s hands were free and he was able to roll onto his left hip to retrieve his gun.

      As for the screaming in the background, it’s simply unreasonable to believe that a man with minor injuries and physical freedom, and armed with a 9mm semi-automatic, would scream with such evident fear.

  40. nomatter0nevermind
    February 17, 2013 at 12:35 AM

    aussiekay :
    Listen to this and compare with the 911 tape

    Thanks. That’s an interesting video. The sounds are similar.

    Do you have one of the person getting his arm twisted straddling the person doing the twisting?

    • February 17, 2013 at 2:45 AM

      No, I haven’t.

      Would you like me to find you one of the straddling person getting his balls twisted????

      Of course the only witness who said Trayvon was straddling GZ was JohnW6, and he changed his story several times, so maybe we don’t need to be too sure he was actually ever straddling.

      One thing always troubled us about that claim, and perhaps you could try to throw some light on it — if they were in that position when the shot was fired, how did GZ avoid Trayvon falling onto him and getting ANY of Trayvon’s blood on him?

      Oh and another, if GZ was on the bottom, how did SelmaW18 see him getting up FROM ON TOP immediately after the shot?

    • amsterdam1234
      February 17, 2013 at 3:30 AM

      You can’t control a person by sitting on him in a mounted position with your hands on his face even if you are the same weight, let alone if you are 46 lbs lighter. A trained person couldn’t do that. That has nothing to do with strenght. I’ll invite you to find a trained martial arts or wrestling expert that will claim otherwise.

      You also can’t slam someone’s head into the ground by grabbing the head.
      Just ask, or even better try it.

    • amsterdam1234
      February 17, 2013 at 3:50 AM

      And while you are trying out GZ’s story, put something of similar shape as the gun in your waistband on your right hip. Have someone sit on you in a mounted position, see if they can see what you have there. Now clutch this person’s hand with your right arm against your body, take it out of your waistband with your right hand and aim it at the top person’s heart.

    • amsterdam1234
      February 17, 2013 at 4:07 AM

      Check out the photos of the houses without the screened in patios, facing the dog walk. The window’s are the kitchen windows right next to the sliding glass door.

      Selma and Mary were in the kitchen when they heard what they called the whining. They were walking to the sliding glass doors to take a look outside, when they heard the shot. They were outside within seconds. They saw GZ straddling Trayvon.

      According to GZ, after he shot Trayvon, Trayvon sat up and said “you got me”. He then turned his body 90 degrees to not soil GZ with his blood and fell face down on the ground. GZ jumped on top of him and spread his hands to the side.

      Why don’t you try that out too.

      And by the way, if GZ is not testifying he won’t even be able to tell that story. W12 and witness 18 will testify that the person on top when the shot was fired, was the same person that got up and walked away. Selma and Mary will testify that seconds after the shot was fired, they saw GZ straddling Trayvon.

  41. bgesq
    February 17, 2013 at 1:21 AM

    follow please. I am so offended by theat gzlegaldefense.com site, that i considered starting a gzlegaloffense.com site.

  42. nomatter0nevermind
    February 17, 2013 at 3:40 AM

    onlyiamunitron :
    “…and suddenly shows up at the T again after GZ “got the address”.”
    In any of his versions given to authorities, does he actually come right out and say that he actually got the address?
    unitron

    No.

  43. nomatter0nevermind
    February 17, 2013 at 6:37 AM

    onlyiamunitron :

    “The subtext of Zimmerman’s question was an answer to Martin’s. Zimmerman was following because he wanted to know what Martin was doing in the area.”

    He seems to have omitted the part that explains how it’s any of his business

    Maybe Martin asked him that before punching him. Maybe not.

    If Brandy Green had taken the time to explain to Trayvon why some people prefer living in gated communities, he might not have been surprised by a resident questioning an unfamiliar presence. And he might have surmised that Zimmerman was a resident, because another visitor wasn’t likely to have such a concern.

    The common areas of the community are common property. Martin didn’t need to know that Zimmerman had an official Neighborhood Watch position, to appreciate that Zimmerman was probably a concerned resident who had a legitimate interest in questioning his presence.

    That isn’t to say that Zimmerman shouldn’t have identified himself, and asked his questions courteously. I used to be a security guard, and I always addressed people as ‘sir’ and ‘ma’am’, even when I had to give them a bum’s rush.

    My point is, even in Dee Dee’s story, Zimmerman didn’t demand money from Martin. He didn’t say ‘Hey, little boy, come back to my truck and I’ll give you a better kind of candy.’ He didn’t say that he wanted Martin to wait for the police, and if Martin didn’t want to then Zimmerman would make him.

    Even in Dee Dee’s story, Zimmerman didn’t say anything to suggest he posed a threat to Martin, and Zimmerman did say something that suggested that he wasn’t a threat.

    But if it went the way Zimmerman says, it was “What’s your problem?” “I don’t have a problem”, which means Martin asked, in a much more brusque fashion, “Why are you following me?” and got a non-informative answer.

    In Zimmerman’s story, it was Martin who closed the distance, against the inclination of the other party, who was walking in the opposite direction.

    Either way, he, Zimmerman, possibly (unless Trayvon had irrevocably decided to attack him) missed an opportunity to defuse the situation

    Do you mean that you don’t think Zimmerman’s response was an attempt to defuse the situation? Or do you mean that he missed an opportunity to actually defuse the situation, because in hindsight he failed to guess the right thing to say?

    When if comes to exercising good judgement, I’m thinking this wasn’t one of George’s better nights.

    Of the two, I think l Martin exercised worse judgment.

    At least in hindsight.

    • nemerinys
      February 17, 2013 at 7:57 AM

      I’m not unitron, but I can’t ignore this.

      The evidence points to Zimmerman having observed Martin for a time before making the NEN call, an observation Martin was aware of. Zimmerman then proceeded to follow Martin, driving slowly enough so that he kept his truck behind Martin; and, immediately subsequent to Martin running away, Zimmerman exited his truck and followed on foot without direction or encouragement from the NEN dispatcher (and for alleged reasons not supported by the NEN call). Anyone who is the subject of this intentional and yet inexplicable pursuit would be intimidated and frightened. Let’s be clear: Zimmerman went after Martin, not the other way around, and his purpose is clearly delineated in the NEN call, the SPD interviews, and Zimmerman’s written statement. He obviously knew he was armed, and it is equally obvious that he wasn’t afraid that Martin would be.

      If we were to believe Zimmerman, Martin approached Zimmerman, calling out “Hey (or yo), you got a problem?” (Note that an ambush doesn’t begin with the ambusher strolling towards the ambushee and calling attention to himself). Zimmerman responds, “No, I don’t have a problem,” while simultaneously patting his pockets and looking downwards. He states that he was looking for his cell phone to call 911. Martin could not have supposed that this guy would be reaching for his…cell phone. If Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose – well, good for him, he was standing his ground against a man who had watched him, followed him by truck, followed him/looked for him on foot, lied when asked a simple question, and patted his pockets/looking for something while responding with said lie.

      Zimmerman was armed, and followed Martin with the mindset that Martin was a burglar and/or thief – a “punk,” one of those “assholes that always get away.” That mindset and concurrent actions were criminally reckless. If Zimmerman’s story holds any truth, it was Martin who behaved rationally, wanting to know why this guy was following him and responding logically given Zimmerman’s idiotic behavior.

    • onlyiamunitron
      February 17, 2013 at 7:58 AM

      “…do you mean that he missed an opportunity to actually defuse the situation, because in hindsight he failed to guess the right thing to say?”

      Yes, actually.

      “What’s your problem?” “I don’t have a problem” comes across, to me, as more of a refusal to admit that there was an issue between them, if the words exchanged went the way George said and not the way the young lady said.

      He could have said “Hi, I’m with neighborhood watch, and I don’t think I’ve seen you around before” or something along those lines.

      According to both the young lady and George, George was following Trayvon, not the other way around, so Trayvon would be more entitled to feel “put upon”.

      “Martin didn’t need to know that Zimmerman had an official Neighborhood Watch position, to appreciate that Zimmerman was probably a concerned resident who had a legitimate interest in questioning his presence.”

      And yet when Trayvon walked right past George’s truck, George didn’t say a thing to him.

      I don’t know why Trayvon was still up around the T, or returned to that area, whichever it was, and that bothers me, but the seeming urgency with which George exited his truck when, according to him, Trayvon “ran”, makes it hard for me to shake the suspicion that he was intending to make sure that this one didn’t get away, and that perhaps when they met he grabbed Trayvon by the arm to hold him for the police, but failed to explain himself, at which point he may indeed have brought a sock on the nose upon himself.

      And I’m not certain that George remembers everything exactly how it happened in the exact order in which it happened.

      Maybe Trayvon really did attack him out of the blue, for whatever reason, but George wasn’t in the position for that to happen because he’d made a series of really smart decisions, but rather because of a series of stupid ones.

      unitron

    • February 17, 2013 at 10:54 AM

      “..Maybe Martin asked him that before punching him. Maybe not…”

      There is ZERO evidence that Trayvon punched GZ, so please don’t state that as if it were a fact.

      Trayvon may not have been surprised by a resident QUESTIONING his presence, had they identified themselves AS A RESIDENT, to explain their right and reason to be asking. GZ specifically denied ever having identified himself.

      “,, even in Dee Dee’s story, Zimmerman didn’t demand money from Martin. He didn’t say ‘Hey, little boy, come back to my truck and I’ll give you a better kind of candy.’ He didn’t say that he wanted Martin to wait for the police, and if Martin didn’t want to then Zimmerman would make him.,,”

      DeeDee’s story ENDS at the FIRST EXCHANGE, when the phone disconnected. None of us have any way to know what was, or was not, said after that, unless a few words can be made out of the 911 recording. All or any of those could have been said, for all you know, so you can’t state that they were NOT said.

      “..Zimmerman didn’t say anything to suggest he posed a threat to Martin,..” he didn’t have to SAY anything, 8 minutes of following all over the place, unexplained, is plenty to appear threatening, without saying a word….precisely BECAUSE it was unexplained, a mystery, BUT not what normal people normally do.

      “..In Zimmerman’s story, it was Martin who closed the distance..” story, yes, one of them …….. he said this happened 41 feet away from where they ended up fighting, with no explanation of how they got to that position.

      “.Of the two, I think l Martin exercised worse judgment…”

      So, you’re saying it is poor judgement to ask someone who’s been following you WHY they are doing so? what do you propose as a better thing to do? let them keep following without asking? offer them your wallet in case that is what they’re after? apologise for existing, like a good little n****r??????? WHAT??? Please enlighten us.

      NMNM, get real, please. For someone criticising others for gross factual errors, you are starting to bring in way way too much pure invention. When are you going to get around to dealing in actual facts, rather than wishful thinking?

      • blushedbrown
        February 17, 2013 at 12:02 PM

        @aussiekay

        Aussie quoted:

        “..In Zimmerman’s story, it was Martin who closed the distance..”

        I am aware this was a quote from someone else, not yours.

        For his own mouth, GZ says he walked backed towards him…..

        Recording number 1 part 1

        http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/audio/george-zimmermans-statements-sanford-pd-audio/

        Earlier in the interview he stated he jumped out from the bushes @ about 14:35
        Then he says he walked back towards him @ 22:16.
        Which is it, he’s hiding in the bushes, or did you find/see him and walked backed towards him?

        I say he was the one who closed the distance.

        • amsterdam1234
          February 17, 2013 at 12:19 PM

          40 ft south of the T is the evidence GZ closed the distance.

        • blushedbrown
          February 17, 2013 at 12:21 PM

          YES!

  44. February 17, 2013 at 8:30 AM

    If a jury is going to make or break thier descision on the concept of who to believe – George or dee dee, then they will have to consider that George starts off with lies and Dee Dee starts off with the truth.

    She said it was raining and they had been calling one another all day. She said GZ had a car. She said (in so many words) that there was a back way and a front way to the brandy green unit. And she said the teen’s path home was sporadic due to the rain.

    George on the other hand claims TM passed him while he waited in the clubhouse parking lot, speaking on the phone to the NEN call taker. He also claims TM re- emerged from the T and circled his car. These are lies.

    So to side w George a jury would seemingly
    have to conclude that in describing the physical altercation George suddenly switched from lying to telling the truth, and when Dee Dee described the events of the “missing minutes” she switched from telling the truth to lying.

    Believe what you want but I don’t predict that switch will occur.

    • ada4750
      February 17, 2013 at 9:31 AM

      @nommater “Of the two, I think l Martin exercised worse judgment”
      How dare you miss respect like this without any kind of proof.

      @unitron and willisnewton Fully agree. Can’t say better.

      The clubhouse videos analysis are very useful for highlighting GZ’s lack of credibility. I hope the prosecution will use it. I wonder if they would have done this on their own. I guess we will never know.

      • onlyiamunitron
        February 17, 2013 at 9:47 AM

        “@nommater “Of the two, I think l Martin exercised worse judgment”
        How dare you miss respect like this without any kind of proof.”

        One is entitled to one’s opinion, even if it conficts with yours.

        Although I consider Zimmerman to have been by far more guilty of poor judgement that night, and the onus to exercise good judgement much more on him for several reasons, that doesn’t mean Martin might not have chosen his own actions more wisely as well.

        • ada4750
          February 17, 2013 at 10:21 AM

          Trayvon is dead. My conception of respect urges me to not make any judgement about him without solid proof.

  45. blushedbrown
    February 17, 2013 at 10:44 AM

    @nmnm

    You wrote:
    >>>If Brandy Green had taken the time to explain to Trayvon why some people prefer living in gated communities, he might not have been surprised by a resident questioning an unfamiliar presence. And he might have surmised that Zimmerman was a resident, because another visitor wasn’t likely to have such a concern.

    Are you saying that all black parents must teach their children/stepchildren that gated communites are mostly for ” some other people”, so they should know where they are at? Are you stating that black kids/teenagers should always know their place? Are you saying, that black mothers and fathers, should still and always have that “special talk” to their children about how they will be perceived by other people. Are you actually putting the responsilbilty of a judgement call on a unarmed 17 year old, against the mindset of a armed 28 year old man? Are you saying, Trayvon should of known what GZ was thinking, anticipated his actions, countered his actions, and put things at ease for the 28 year old man with the gun?

    You wrote:
    >>> Of the two, I think l Martin exercised worse judgment.

    At least in hindsight.

    Serino’s report stated, GZ had not one but two opportunities to identify himself to dispel any concerns that Trayvon may of had, he did not take those opportunities. Instead we have a dead teenager.

    All the data, discovery, timing, statements, walk thrus, videos, interviews puts GZ as the initator of all that transpired.

    Uni wrote:

    >>>
    One is entitled to one’s opinion, even if it conficts with yours.

    He’s right. You are entitled to your opinion.

    Uni wrote:

    Although I consider Zimmerman to have been by far more guilty of poor judgement that night, and the onus to exercise good judgement much more on him for several reasons, that doesn’t mean Martin might not have chosen his own actions more wisely as well.

    I respectfully disagree with your last sentence, Uni.

    • February 17, 2013 at 11:11 AM

      Well yes, Blushed and uni, and we’re entitled to our opinions of his opinions.

      Tray? yes, he could have feared the worst and kept running, instead of having a bit of faith in human decency and taking the reasonable step of asking WHY. He was too innocent and naive to fear the worst, and now the whole world is asking WHY??????

  46. February 17, 2013 at 1:04 PM

    Hello folks:

    Again, I respectfully ask the commenters here to refrain from negativity directed at other PARTICIPANTS as persons, and to direct critique to their CIOMMENTS. For example, some of NMNM’s comments have drawn fire. When ada4750 responds “How dare you miss respect like this without any kind of proof?” that’s a challenge to NMNM’s character. That’s not appropriate. We are interacting through text messages here. No one here truly knows what is in the heart and mind of other participants. I ask you to re-read your comments before hititng the post button, and make sure the remarks you disagree with are the subjects of your sentences, not the person who posted them. E.g. “I find your comment disrespectful, and all the more so because I can see no proof for it.”

    Regarding willisnewton’s question about whether trial strategy id off-topic: These threads are intended as a home away from home for BCClisters, given that I’m able to pay more attention to maintaining things and opening new threads than NLME is these days. So they are “hosted” by the whonoze blog, but not governed by it’s rubric. They belong to “the community”, so post about whatever you like. FWIW, I find trial strategy questions interesting. It’s a bit frustrating for non-lawyers here to seek information on how the legalities will work in this case, because the legal ‘experts’ readily available for interpretation — Merritt and Leatherman — are both so partisan as to be unreliable.

    • ada4750
      February 17, 2013 at 1:31 PM

      Got the message. I lost my temper a bit because the phrase “Of the two, I think l Martin exercised worse judgment” sounds very offensive to me.

      • February 18, 2013 at 5:38 PM

        ada: It’s not a major sin, and none of us are ‘pure’. I thought I should give an example, and yours was most readily to hand, that’s all. And I have no problem with people expressing their feelings here, including taking offense. I simply ask you direct your comments to the comment, not to the person who made it. You all may think this is splitting hairs, but I think the distinction is important. For example, various participants on the Leatherman blog regularly read things into my comments that I did not intend, and take offense at things they imagine I meant, when I meant nothing of the kind. This pisses me off. As I said, we don’t know each other, we are interacting through the very limited channel of the hastily typed written word. To assume we know what it behind someone else’s post is folly. However, our words are what they are. If you take offense at something I have written, your reaction is what it is. I think it is perfectly legitimate for you to express what you felt in response to my words as long as you don’t try to read my mind and divine what motives, thoughts or emotions my words sprung from.

        So, as far as I’m concerned, there’s a difference between saying, ” ‘I think l Martin exercised worse judgment’ sounds very offensive to me,” which is a response to the words and thus perfectly fine, and calling NMNM himself disrespectful. Unload on words all you like. Amsterdam had a pretty strong reaction to one of NMNM’s comments, referring to it as “unsubstantiated filth.” That passed my little test because it leaves open the possibility that NMNM may see things differently. To accuse NMNM of intentionally gumming up the discussion with things he knows to be unsubstantiated or things he recognizes as filth would be to accuse him of trolling, and in the overall context of his comments here, I doubt that’s his aim.

        But if anyone’s comments cause you to be upset, It’s probably a good idea to let them know that in a non-accusatory way.

    • nomatter0nevermind
      February 17, 2013 at 2:54 PM

      For whatever it is or isn’t worth, I’m not offended by Ada4750’s remark, and I don’t consider it a personal attack. It seems like fair comment to me. Certainly I’ve had far worse directed at me.

      I have a taste for gallows humor, which I understand many people find quite distasteful.

    • bgesq
      February 17, 2013 at 3:25 PM

      @whonoze- hi- how is your move going? I’m curious as i am about to do the same-re legal questions: I am not admitted to practice in FL (just NY & CT), but to the extent legal questions are generic, I’m happy to help-

  47. nomatter0nevermind
    February 17, 2013 at 3:15 PM

    blushedbrown :
    @nmnm
    You wrote:
    >>>If Brandy Green had taken the time to explain to Trayvon why some people prefer living in gated communities, he might not have been surprised by a resident questioning an unfamiliar presence. And he might have surmised that Zimmerman was a resident, because another visitor wasn’t likely to have such a concern.
    Are you saying that all black parents

    I said nothing about race.

    This is offensive.

    • nomatter0nevermind
      February 17, 2013 at 4:04 PM

      On reflection, I’m thinking Blushedbrown’s response was making an interpretation of my allusion to ‘why some people prefer living in gated communities’. I doubt anyone here will believe this, but I had momentarily forgotten that this is the liberal stereotype about gated communities.

      Early on, some commentators jumped to the conclusion that The Retreat at Twin Lakes is overwhelmingly white, just because it is gated.

      That is called ‘prejudice’.

  48. nomatter0nevermind
    February 17, 2013 at 3:44 PM

    willisnewton :
    I’d like to discuss trial strategy

    WN, have you seen this?

    http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2272.0. html

    I’ve been meaning to point you to this since you said something about wondering what was happening at TalkLeft. You might find it amusing to see me try to wear the prosecutor’s hat.

  49. nomatter0nevermind
    February 17, 2013 at 3:52 PM

    @willisnewton

    ‘I’d like to discuss trial strategy . . .’

    Have you seen this?

    http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2272.0.

    • February 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM

      No, perhaps you could summarize. lol

      That’s a seriously long thread with a few of the regular posters at talkLeft. I’ll give it a look-see.

      My two cents are that there seem to be two broad ways they can go – one is to leave out anything statement-wise the SPD gathered as they present their case, and the other is to start with that.

      By leaving out all GZ’s statements, contradictory and inconclusive as they are, the prosecution can present a simple case using only the NEN call recording and a stopwatch and a map to destroy GZ’s credibility regarding his movements early in the event, and then proceed to present whatever circumstantial evidence that suggests that GZ tried to chase or detain TM in the dog walk, and tie the two up with a bow quickly.

      This would seemingly force the defense to put GZ On the stand or else have little to use to refute the prosecution with. If the defense didn’t put GZ On the stand then they would have to use his statements to SPD to refute the prosecution’s charges, at which time the prosecution could then continue to destroy GZ’s credibility by using his own statements to rebut his basic narrative.

      A lot of their case would be made stronger on rebuttal that way, and they would be “winning” hearts and minds of the jury in both phases of the trial, IMO. The credibility issue is one I see as almost a unbeatable card to play. “If GZ says it happened that way, and you believe his is a liar, then you can be sure it did not happen that way.” Even when and where it did.

      But I am not a lawyer or prosecutor so I dunno how that would really go.

  50. February 17, 2013 at 10:44 PM

    My understanding of how it can go:

    Character can’t be brought in by the prosecution. They can’t list all the near-arrests that GZ had, because they are not evidence for the actual events of Feb 26. However, if the defence brings up anything as evidence of good character, then the prosecution can rebut it with evidence of past wrong-doings. To exaggerate this idea, prosecution can’t say “this person did THIS murder because he has 2 previous murder convictions”. But they can bring those up if the defence takes a “he’s a loving father and husband elder of his church pillar of society who’d NEVER do a murder” line.

    For immunity, the burden of proof is on the defence. They have to get up and say “this is what happened and that is why it was self defence and so he should not have to face trial for it”. They can use the tapes, statements GZ made to police, witnesses, the forensics etc to back up this claim. The prosecution can use the same to rebut, ie to show it was NOT self defence.

    Basically, GZ would need to prove he had good reason to fer for his life (that is what “reasonble fear” means) and that Trayvon was the cause of that fear.

    A problem with this is, there are no witnesses regarding the initial attack (who started it) and none to GZ showing or claiming huge fear before the shooting, and now none who agree it was GZ calling for help (JohnW6 having recanted on this point). He has injuries which were not medically assessed until next day, and not judged to be life threatening. Further that assessment (by a PA) provides no evidence as to how he got the injuries.

    If there were forensic evidence that GZ’s DNA was all over Trayvon’s hands, he could use that to show the source of his injuries. But there is no such evidence. He cannot introduce character evidence against Trayvon, either, as that is hearsay to this case.

    So there is no physical evidence and no witnesses to say Trayvon injured GZ, nor that the injuries would reasonably create a fear for life. So the ONLY way GZ could hope to claim this is with his own words — taking the stand to tell his story.

    He cannot afford to take the stand.

    The moment he does, he is open to cross-examination on every half-word he uttered in every interview, and on why there are so many versions.

    He cannot afford to take the stand. There is no forensic or witness evidence that would be enough to prove self-defence without his taking the stand.

    So he can’t have an immunity hearing. He has to go to trial. The prosecution can introduce his statements to police, and their version of timings/measurements to show those statements to be inconsistent with other facts. At trial, he can hope that cross-examination will be enough to destroy the prosecution case against him, without his having to give evidence himself.

  51. February 17, 2013 at 11:04 PM

    Willis, I can’t see the prosecution leaving out GZ’s statements.

    Without those, they lose the biggest evidence of his lie, the fact that the body was 41 ft south of where he says they first tangled. Without his statements the prosecution has
    * DeeDee saying Trayvon said he’s being followed (by someone, nothing to say it was GZ)
    * a few witnesses to conflicting versions of a wrestling match the start of which they didn’t see or hear
    * a body found 41 ft south of the T with no evidence how or when the person got there
    * GZ standing there saying he had to do it.

    Even admitting the NEN call, but not his statements, leaves the prosecution way short of showing how the incident may have started. It is GZ’s statements that open the door to explanations of the Missing Two Minutes, which GZ utterly fails to supply.

    • February 18, 2013 at 10:03 AM

      I disagree. Plus, the statements and/or George on the witness stand would be introduced by the defense and rebutted by the prosecution during that phrase of the trial, so the jury hears it all anyway. Just not FIRST from the prosecution.

      WIthout the statements to SPD they have a cop arriving who arrests a man who admits shooting the teen. Whatever he said to the cop is neither here nor there. It identifies him as the killer. The only question is, was it self-defense or not?

      Then, without even using Dee Dee, or the clubhouse videos, the prosecution can prove using a map, a stopwatch and the NEN call recording that GZ was near the clubhouse when TM approached him from somewhere near the clubhouse as well. GZ has to be somewhere, and the prosecution can declare that he was at the first bend of TTL, and the defense would have to refute that somehow or let it stand as uncontested fact. This timing can be testified to by an expert on walking, I suppose but a country lawyer with hayseed accent could do the same. The timing shows that GZ moved his car, chasing the teen down TTL. Again, the defense has to introduce something to refute this, which is either the statements to SPD or GZ himself on the stand. This establishes that GZ profiles and chased the youth, causing the teen to run away in fear. “He’s running” on the NEN recording followed by the sounds of GZ moving rapidly establish the foot chase.

      Whatever happened after that can be logically attributed to the actions of a man who was harassing an unarmed guest of the gated community.

      It’s the KISS principle, in essence. The only thing the defense can rebut is their own client and the laws of physics, along with the word of a police officer. He was there, he followed the kid with a depraved mind, calling him names and cursing all the while, and then shot him when they came together, HOWEVER THEY CAME TOGETHER, and admitted it. That’s M2. IF TM closed the gap between them and punched first it was in self-defense after being harassed by a stranger in a car and on foot.

      Then when it is the defense’s turn to present a case, whatever they throw out to introduce reasonable doubt the prosecution utterly destroys with the clubhouse videos, Chris Serino attacking his credibility, veracity and level of injuries, Dee Dee’s phone call and appearance on the witness stand, and forensic experts along with the residents who saw what they saw.

      I realize this isn’t at all likely to happen, but I think the core principal is sound – the prosecution need only use as much force as necessary and limit the number of things the defense can rebut or introduce at all. But whatever they throw out there, the prosecution needs to treat it as the distraction that it is.

      Here is what happened they would be saying: GZ shot an unarmed kid after displaying a depraved mind while chasing with his car and on foot into a dark area where the teen died defending himself from an aggressor. And, he utterly lacks any credibility when trying to present himself as someone who acted in self defense. All that he brings into court to introduce reasonable doubt are distractions that can be dismissed easily.

      • February 18, 2013 at 7:11 PM

        Willis, I understand any SYG hearing is before a judge only. The jury hears none of it.

        But I think if they just go with lights/map/stopwatch, the defence can cross-examine them on the possibility that GZ was at the scene for some innocent purpose.

        The Missing Two Minutes are really missing. Through cross-examination the defence could throw in a million evidence-less red herrings to put doubt in the jury’s mind (think poor Caylee and her “abusive” father).

        Really, just about anything could have happened in the Missing Two Minutes.

        What convicts George is there is no way on God’s green earth it could have happened the way HE SAYS IT DID, as provable by the lights/maps/stopwatches.

        So they MUST introduce his statements, for this reason and to stop them implying anything else with the questions on cross. With his statements IN, the jury won’t ever believe an ostrich with a gun fell from a passing plane, if for no other reason than “surely George would have mentioned it, but he didn’t”.

        They need the NEN call (map, stopwatch) they need DeeDee, and they NEED GEORGE, even if only second-hand through the police telling what he told them.

        • February 18, 2013 at 8:30 PM

          If and when this comes to trial, we’ll see what the prosecution does. I hope to heck they paid attention to the stopwatch and the lights. We don’t have much indication yet that they care about the clubhouse video, or that they are running comparison tests to establish what is on them.

          My guess is that they will use anything and everything to throw the book at GZ, but that they are going to rely somewhat crucially on the mother of the teen to claim that it is her son crying for help, and that this will be an emotional high point of the trial that will not decide the case but it will be a point in the “game” for the prosecution. I don’t have any opinion on whose voices are heard on the 911 call, but if it is expert vs expert, the jury may in the end look to GZ’s overall credibility and the emotionalism of the mother to decide for themselves.

          I’m still not sure why they “need” Dee Dee however since by the time the two have met up, IMO GZ is already established to be of a depraved mindset and in pursuit of the teen.

          OTOH, I find Dee Dee to be credible and don’t see why they shouldn’t put her on the witness stand. I just don;t see her as a star witness. I think she was a star CLUE to the investigation. But I think the conviction will come on other evidence, mostly.

        • February 18, 2013 at 8:38 PM

          There isn’t going to be any SYG hearing, I predicted months ago. GZ can’t and won’t ever testify in such a setting. He MAY have to take the stand as a last chance effort if the defense feels it might work, but they are fools if they think they can get away with that. But perhaps George will insist, stubborn to the end believing that he can fool people.

        • February 18, 2013 at 9:33 PM

          DeeDee establishes that Trayvon was aware of being followed and found the experience at the very least “creepy”. This means
          * he was in fact followed despite GZ’s attempts to pretend otherwise
          * it did make him feel threatened, which is a necessary part of proving “stalking” which is what makes GZ the aggressor.

          All GZ then has to do is prove HE felt threatened in turn — which his “injuries”, absence of DNA to show Trayvon caused them, and zero attempt to fight back EXCEPT with a bullet, make into a lie beyond reasonable doubt.

          We don’t know what they’ve made out of the 911 tape. If their experts can hear what people are saying, “noooo!” “Momma” “I don’t know” etc etc there’s no need for Sybrina to say whose voice it is. In that case, they wouldn’t need DeeDee, either.

          “… IMO GZ is already established to be of a depraved mindset and in pursuit of the teen…. ” You think so? with the Missing 2 Minutes? (which DeeDee helps fill in some of, btw).

        • ada4750
          February 19, 2013 at 12:26 AM

          @willisnewton For Trayvon it is around four minutes and half (not two) that are missing. IMO, DeeDee’s testimony is essential to prove that GZ was the initial aggressor. Without her and despite GZ’s lies, it would be real tough to prove it under reasonable doubts.

          DeeDee will face serious challenge.
          — Explain her strange reaction after she lost definitely contact with Trayvon.
          — She will have to be much more explicit about Trayvon’s state of mind during those four and more minutes. As well of his actions, Ie, was he running, walking or at rest between the time he lost GZ and the time GZ found him again?
          — I suppose also that the jurors will expect that she gives at least an indication of why Trayvon didn’t enter in his house.

          The prosecution and the jurors can not act like if she never existed. She got to stand and be convincing. Otherwise i let you imagine the devastating effect that would cause.

        • onlyiamunitron
          February 19, 2013 at 9:06 AM

          “…DeeDee will face serious challenge.
          – Explain her strange reaction after she lost definitely contact with Trayvon…”

          Now you are beginning to analyze this case with dispassionate logic instead of partisan emotion.

          Congratulations.

          unitron

        • ada4750
          February 19, 2013 at 7:56 AM

          To be more schematic. It needs GZ’s lies + DeeDee acceptances to obtain a guilty verdict. But an outcome like GZ’s lies + DeeDee’s lies will produce a non guilty verdict.

  52. February 18, 2013 at 6:07 PM

    nomatter0nevermind :

    Early on, some commentators jumped to the conclusion that The Retreat at Twin Lakes is overwhelmingly white, just because it is gated.

    That is called ‘prejudice’.

    This is another example of what I’m complaining about. You have no warrant to look into the hearts of commentors who jumped to this conclusion or apply the loaded label of ‘prejudice’ to them. Do those conclusions display a degree of prejudice? Of course, but the dictionary defintion of ‘prejudice’ is quite innocuous. We have a prejudice whenever we start from given assumptions that may prove false, which as a practical matter we do all the time. To be utterly without prejudice of any kind would make us unable to act or think. So, most of the time when we speak of ‘prejudice’ in the pejorative sense we mean a certain form, certain degree, and certain persistence of assumptions. I don’t think assuming a gated community is overwhelmingly white rises to that level.

    I will admit making that assumption when I first learned about this case. However, i was not particularly surprised to learn that the community was integrated. but then, the stereotype of ‘Gated Community’ isn’t a development of townhomes either. I do know. though, that areas other than the little enclaves of McMansions for the 1% have security gates, but that’s still the first thing I think of when someone says ‘gated community.’ That doesn’t tell you anything about me other than that I’m a member of contemporary American culture and am thus familiar with the dominant use of the term in public discourse. As it happens, I’ve just moved into a community with a security gate — a mobile home park with a very significant non-white population. But I bet the next time I hear ‘gated community’ I’ll still think of the kind of privatized burbclave where Hiro gets trapped in Chapter 1 of Snow Crash, but if somebody said ‘gated condominium complex’ I’d imagine RATL.

    • wassointeresting
      February 18, 2013 at 6:23 PM

      Rikers island is also a “gated” community….I’m not responding to anything, just had an urge to say that…..

      • February 18, 2013 at 7:49 PM

        LOL………….trying to keep bad people OUT, are they?

        Actually if you look at satellite and Google street views of the area around RATL, you’ll see some with no gate, or some with gate but no fences. The name comes from the fact that they’re entitled to close off the street with a gate because it is a PRIVATE ROAD, owned by the community.

        Even if the buildings are McMansions on 1/4 acre blocks, they are not owned freehold. They are “condos” with joint or body-corporate ownership of the common areas, including the roads.

        The advantage is not the gate itself. The advantage is, the HOA can make RULES — who can live there, may they rent or not, what colour they may paint their walls, what time visitors must leave etc etc etc. THAT is how they keep the undesirables out, not with a gate.

        Places like RATL and its neighbours, I guess they thought anyone who can afford to buy is “okay”, so they ended up mixed. In fact if the developer wants his money, he’ll even sell to Martians, and this before there is a HOA to start making restrictive rules.

        Renters are always a notch below owners, because by definition they are temporary, so have less incentive to develop “communal spirit”. And they clearly have less money.

        RATL had no choice but to allow renters — without them the near-foreclosed owners cannot pay their HOA fees, and without that the HOA cannot pay its county rates & taxes — unless the remaining owners double what they charge themselves.

        We are starting to see a lot of these in Australia now. It is cheaper for the developer, as he doesn’t have to build the private roads to the same standards he’d have to keep if he were going to hand them over to the local authority as public ones. Then he can add a premium to the prices for the “added security”. Dunno about the US, but here there’s a legal reason for the gate, too — a private road has to be shut off from public access one day a year, for it to remain private.

        • February 19, 2013 at 4:37 PM

          Exactly. The RATL is a cheap Florida development that lacked sidewalks in many places, and has narrow streets and too-dark alleys. And it was beset with foreclosures, debt and vacancy. Another failed exercise in suburbia.

          The gates didn’t work right and the cameras were broken in places as well. No one who witnessed anything seemed to know who George was, really. Some community.

  53. February 19, 2013 at 9:33 AM

    Regarding TM’s “missing minutes:” What evidence do we have of where TM went in his missing minutes? We have his body, a tan bag and his cell phone. He went to 7Eleven, seemingly then on to the mail kiosk and TTL, and JohnW6’s backyard. The rest is speculation, even with Dee Dee’s story of “from the back” and running, and being too tired, etc. I fail to see why the prosecution need place him in any other places. Wherever he went, the defense can’t prove it and where GZ claims he went there is ample evidence to refute.

    Were I the head of planning the strategy for the prosecution I’d say TM ran around the corner away from the car that was chasing him and finished his phone call in John’s back yard. There’s solid evidence for that and little reason to go elsewhere into the land of guesswork.

    And I’m fully aware of what Dee Dee can do for the prosecution, I just think that by the time her testimony adds to the narrative the state will already have proven “depraved mind” and a car-to-pedestrian chase followed by a foot chase, and have utterly destroyed GZ’s credibility. Then there is the location of the body, on a path where GZ had no innocent reason to travel. IMO Dee Dee is the icing on the cake, not the main course.

    • February 19, 2013 at 5:36 PM

      How do you plan to prove a CHASE without any indication of where either party was at the relevant times?

      All you have is they saw each other near the mailboxes/when Trayvon passed GZ’s car (both according to GZ and to DeeDee), and then many minutes later they were in JohnW6’s backyard.

      The first sighting could be a normal coincidence, ie any two people in the same area at the same time can see each other without anything sinister being involved.

      Then according to the NEN call, GZ ran after him for a short while then STOPPED. This was AFTER Trayvon started running, so can’t be used to show Trayvon ran out of fear of GZ running after him. Trayvon may have run because of the rain.

      After that, we don’t know where either of them was, so where’s our evidence of a car-to-pedestrian and foot chase?

      The crux of the matter is who was the aggressor.

      GZ was within his rights, as NW, to to watch Trayvon and call the police. We need DeeDee to show Trayvon was aware of this and it caused him fear for his safety. Without that, we only have the short running after him to give possible cause for fear, which being a single incident, which he stopped doing, doesn’t add up to aggression.

      Unless we have GPS data accurate enough to show us where BOTH parties went, maps and stopwatches can only show several combinations of movements which would be consistent with their ending up at the final scene. ONE of those has to be what really happened….and that could as well have been Trayvon approaching GZ.

      The NEN call+stopwatches can show that GZ is not telling the truth about HIS route, because it shows him spending an inordinate amount of time on the top path that is not explained by the activities he claims kept him there. His statement about being attacked at the T, and the eventual location of the shooting, also show he’s not telling the whole truth — but still don’t show a car-to-pedestrian and foot chase.

      Several witnesses claim a moving argument before the cries for help started. So how were either of them THERE at that time, to start that argument? Trayvon had no need to be near the T at that time, if he was heading home and had no cause to divert from a direct route. GZ’s explanation for still being there doesn’t hold water.

      However, if GZ was in fact on the top path the whole time, and so was Trayvon, then GZ would not have “lost him” and had “dunno where this kid is” problems. If GZ was NOT up there as he claims, how did both of them get in that vicinity for the arguments the witnesses heard approaching from there? did GZ turn around and head north to the T again and Trayvon followed him? did GZ follow Trayvon up that way? and if so, was Trayvon headed that way voluntarily or because he was being chased/followed?

      But we DO need DeeDee to show Trayvon felt he was being followed, and was being followed AGAIN just before the verbal confrontation. From witness statements that began near the T and headed south.

  54. February 19, 2013 at 4:28 PM

    Unitron wrote:

    “…DeeDee will face serious challenge.
    – Explain her strange reaction after she lost definitely contact with Trayvon…”

    to which I reply: explain how anything she did after the phone went dead has any bearing on the case. Unless the phone records are forged, it seems pretty sure that she was speaking to TM around the time of the incident that led to his death. Either she gave an honest rendition of what she heard or she didn’t, but to suggest she did not with THAT as “proof” would make a cat laugh. Not everyone thinks calling 911 is a great idea.

    Also explain how trying to call back to the only number she had, then giving up until she heard more news constitutes “strange behavior” for a teenager.

    (Then explain what “definitely contact” is… for extra credit.) lol

    Then explain how attacking a simple girl will endear a jury to the idea that somehow she was “coached” into telling a story that only helps the prosecution so far, when she could easily have been “coached” if indeed this is the case – into saying quite a bit more to ensure a conviction. MOM better tread very carefully if he plans on attacking her character based on rumors and innuendo gained by “doxing” and the like. It’s likely to backfire spectacularly.

    • onlyiamunitron
      February 19, 2013 at 6:46 PM

      I did not write that.

      unitron

      (who was quoting someone else who’s perfectly capable of defending themselves)

  55. February 19, 2013 at 4:44 PM

    Ada ….”..“…DeeDee will face serious challenge.
    – Explain her strange reaction after she lost definitely contact with Trayvon…”…..”

    What strange reaction?

    She tried ringing back again and again.

    What do you expect her to do? ring her local police and say “My friend who was being followed by somebody isn’t answering his phone now and I’m worried? and no, sorry, I don’t know where he is, it’s in Florida somewhere” ????????????????????

    “..– I suppose also that the jurors will expect that she gives at least an indication of why Trayvon didn’t enter in his house….”

    She already did. She said he was nearby (whatever distance that means to her or to him) and then the creepy guy was following him again so he walked away fast (though she told him to run). He gave her no reason for not going to the house instead, so she cannot give any evidence on his possible reasons. She can only testify to what he told her he DID do.

    • wassointeresting
      February 19, 2013 at 5:22 PM

      I agree that there wasn’t more that DeeDee could have done at the time other than calling back. Although she told him to run, she didnt’ know the seriousness of the situation at the time. If you listen to her interview with Mr. Crump, I think she said something to the effect that she thought it was just a fight. What she heard GZ saying was “What’re you doing around here?”, not what was actually going through his mind which was “You’re a burglar, I’ve got a gun and I’m not afraid to use it” How could she have known that TM was going to be killed? She also probably thought he was safe enough being near his dad’s house whatever she imagined might have happened after the phone went dead.

      • February 19, 2013 at 5:39 PM

        Yeah, and when she found out he’d been killed and the cops knew who did it, she had no reason to think he’d not be charged and what she heard might be crucial to showing what had happened.

        • ada4750
          February 20, 2013 at 12:59 AM

          Aussiekay did explain well the necessity of DeeDee’s testimony, at least with the current evidence.

          About DeeDee’s behavior. She knew a crazy and creepy guy found and reached Trayvon even if this one eluded him before. She knew he was scared. She knew that a confrontation started and after radio silence. Sorry but anyway i look at it, if find it very strange. But as i wrote before, i can’t imagine that prosecution did not clarify this with her before going with their accusation. Unless maybe if the prosecution got hidden high value cards.

          About Trayvon and his dad’s house. DeeDee’s account is quite clear on this.

          Dee Dee: So he say he about to run for the back cause its mo’ easier, he said. So, next thing I hear, he gettin’ run. And I can hear that the wind blowin’…
          Dee Dee: And then…he say he lost him.
          Dee Dee: I know he was scare. He…
          Dee Dee: He started walking back again…and I told him ‘Keep runnin’.’
          Dee Dee: He say he ain’t goin’ run, cause he say he right by his father house…
          Dee Dee: So, and in a couple minutes…he say the man followin’ him again, behin’ him

          According to DeeDee and the timeline, Trayvon past maybe more than three minutes close to his house and out of GZ’ s sight. For sure the jurors will expect some explication from DeeDee why Trayvon did not enter his house. The prosecution won’t necessarily fail If she can’t, but it will be a point for the defense.

        • amsterdam1234
          February 20, 2013 at 9:18 AM

          @ada4750,

          I really see nothing strange in her behavior. After the phone disconnected, she called and send messages a couple of times. She probably knew Trayvon was in Sanford, but it is unlikely she would have had an address.
          It is unlikely she had a phonenumber for Tracy, Sabrina or Brandy. It is unlikely she knew Sabrina’s last name or Brandy Green’s. Sabrina had heard about her, but never met her. She may not have known Trayvon’s address.
          I don’t see what she could have done even if she would’ve realized the severity of what had happened.

        • amsterdam1234
          February 20, 2013 at 9:36 AM

          @ada4750

          Dee Dee can only testify to what Trayvon told her, and only that what will pass the hearsay rule. Nobody can require of her to know things she can’t know. We don’t know where Trayvon was, when he told her he was right by his father’s house. That is a relative statement.
          When I am flying from the west coast to Europe, once we’ve passed Greenland, I know I am almost there eventhough it is still 3 hours flying away. When I was flying from Amsterdam to Istanbul, a 3 hour flight, halfway through the trip my destination was an eternity away.

          Also according to Dee Dee, Trayvon never stopped moving. There is no evidence Trayvon was that close to his house, and besides all that, he had no obligation to enter his house. I don’t think it happened the way you described it, but if after Trayvon felt threatened enough by GZ to make him run away, and he then decided he lost the creepy dude and wanted to continue his conversation with his girlfriend without Chad listening, he had every right to do so without being murdered.

        • ada4750
          February 20, 2013 at 2:50 PM

          @amsterdam1234 As i wrote, i hope BDLR knows why DeeDee remained silent for weeks. If so, he must thinks the explication acceptable.

          II never wrote that Trayvon HAD to enter his house but the all defense starts with the following question. Why Trayvon stayed outside? It is a legitimate question. The jurors will expect an answer. If not, that will raise the level of uncertainty which is exactly what the defense wants.

          Yes, DeeDee’s account is outwardly contradictory. She indicates quite clearly that Trayvon took the back alley and rested near his dad’s house for “couple minutes”. But she is also suggesting that Trayvon kept moving. IMO, the first part is more evident.

        • amsterdam1234
          February 20, 2013 at 4:07 PM

          @ada

          Dee Dee is not on trial and neither is Trayvon. Without GZ going on the stand, the only statements made by GZ that the jury will hear are ” I shot him”, and what he said during the nen call, you know “fucking coons” and “these assholes always get away”.

          We speculate about Trayvon’s path, but for the trial it probably will be irrelevant, since Dee Dee doesn’t know, and she won’t be allowed to speculate, and GZ doesn’t get to say anything unless he gets his butt on the stand.

          The most significant part of Dee Dees’s statement is that after Trayvon told her he’d lost GZ, he tells her “he is following me again” and “he is getting really close”. The jury will understand what happened after the nen call.

          And the last lines Dee Dee heard before the call disconnected at approx 7:16 pm

          Trayvon: ” what are you following me for”
          Angry male voice: : “what are you doing here”
          And at a distance she hears Trayvon saying ” get off, get off”

          And w11 who called 911 at 7:16:11 pm said that before the wrestling began she could hear probably three verbal exchanges that sounded like
          “what are you doing”
          “what are you”

        • ada4750
          February 20, 2013 at 4:41 PM

          @amsterdam1234 If DeeDee’s account is taken for granted, there is no more question left to who was the initial aggressor. But the jurors will rightly not take it for granted. Also, the defense will try to rise to doubt in the jurors’s mind that her testimony had been coached (not necessarily by M. Crumb).

          Dee Dee won’t be in trial but she will have to establish her credibility and her answers to the points I mentioned can help her a lot.

  56. February 19, 2013 at 8:04 PM

    Looks like Serino has given his deposition to the defense. I wonder when if ever it will become public? I don’t understand the rules governing discovery at all… i am so not a lawyer.

    I note that for whatever reason MOM didn’t hold a press conference to announce what was revealed and how it helped his client.

    The other part that mystifies me is why MOM would depose Serino at all. What questions could he ask that he would hope to get an answer that helps his client?

    • onlyiamunitron
      February 19, 2013 at 8:10 PM

      “What questions could he ask that he would hope to get an answer that helps his client?”

      The ones that reveal what Serino is likely to say on behalf of the prosecution, so that he, O’Mara, better knows what to expect.

      unitron

  57. bgesq
  58. February 20, 2013 at 5:14 PM

    All Dee Dee “needs” to tell is the truth. And the jury needs to listen to all the evidence as it is presented by both sides, and the judge needs to be wise and rule according to the law.

    Justice cries out to be done. Because the defendant hasn’t been telling the truth.

  59. February 20, 2013 at 10:51 PM

    Amsterdam and everyone

    GZ’s statements are fully admissible BY THE PROSECUTION — they are statements he freely made, after waiving his right to remain silent, to the investigating police. They can and will give evidence abut what he said, what they asked him; they can and probably will show the re-enactment video, too.

    WE have seen and read and heard all those because they were in the prosecution EVIDENCE dumps, remember? because they are part of the prosecution’s CASE against the defendant which they have to hand over to the defence so they know what they’re defending against.

    There is a lot of emotion and many side-issues at Leatherman’s Lounge, but he DOES know his law. He usually quotes the relevant laws or rules when he says if something is allowed or not, so you can look them up for yourself. It is well worth spending some time there reading his legal-issue threads.

    All the defence can do is cross-examine the testifying officers about the quality of their recollection, and what they meant by this or that taped interview question. They cannot offer opinion. Eg Serino can’t say “I didn’t think his injuries added up to self-defence”. He can, however, say how many injured persons he’s seen in the course of his work and how GZ’s injuries were in the bottom 5% of severity (being generous there).

    What the prosecution CANNOT do is bring up GZ’s murky violent past. That is a character question. That is where, IF the defence brings evidence about what a good guy he is, THEN they can bring all that in to refute it. But they can’t lead with it.

    So, the prosecution will be able to bring in the NEN call and transcripts or oral evidence of all GZ’s statements and re-enactment. And THEN make stop-watched maps of how what he said cannot possibly be true. They will show the jury exactly what we’ve been doing here for the best part of a year (maybe without the lights evidence)…. showing the jury the closest and furthest GZ could have been when he made particular statements in the NEN call, and how that means that later he could not have been where he said he was, or Trayvon could not have been (unless he flew).

    They can do what we’re doing — eliminate the impossible, leaving only what actually happened. Currently, and with no idea where Trayvon was for some of it, neither we nor the prosecution can come up with ONE specific path…. but the few possible paths remaining all add up BAD for GZ.

    • amsterdam1234
      February 21, 2013 at 2:36 AM

      I think the prosecution will use the nen call completely, but leave out most of GZ’s statements. The defense can’t introduce them unless GZ takes the stand. Why would the prosecution tell GZ’s story for him? They use Dee Dee, forensic evidence, eye witnesses, 911 calls to make their case. They leave his story out.
      Dee Dee will tell the jury what happened after the nen call ended until the time her call is disconnected. Then the 911 calls and eyewitnesses take over.
      O’Mara will try to introduce GZ’s story by asking Dee Dee question’s like “did Trayvon tell you he was going to beat up GZ?”.
      Prosecution has to try to control this kind of questioning on redirect and objections.

      So now it is the defense’s turn. What do they have to counter the prosecution? John that is about it.

      Prosecution can sit back, and use choice statements of GZ’s, during rebuttal.

  60. February 22, 2013 at 2:30 PM

    News 13 Live@CFNews13Live
    Judge rules that defense failed to show need to depose Ben Crump, citing several precedent cases. #GeorgeZimmerman #TrayvonMartin

    Looks like the move to try and depose Crump for the defense has failed.

    • blushedbrown
      February 22, 2013 at 2:30 PM

      DENIED!!!!!!!!!

    • wassointeresting
      February 22, 2013 at 2:35 PM

      I was quite amuzed at Mr. West’s mention of corruption by Wolfinger and Lee as one of the reasons for deposing Mr. Crump.

      • February 22, 2013 at 9:15 PM

        I missed most of the hearing. Please elaborate on this mention of Wolfinger. He’s such a mystery element in all this to me.

        On a basic level his reluctance to pursue charges against GZ strikes me as odd when it seems clear that within 48 hours Serino and co had established that the admitted killer was lying to authorties. Perhaps Wolfinger wanted a sure path to a conviction and was simply willing to play for time since Serino had so skillfully managed George. The fact that he had yet to retain a lawyer for weeks after the shooting was clearly a windfall for the prosecutor but I’m unclear if this was indeed his tactic or motive.

        It can be argued that Wolfinger’s reluctance to charge GZ with a crime is evidence that he was/is either racially biased, incompetent or corrupt.

        Absent a credible investigation I don’t think we will ever know.

        • wassointeresting
          February 23, 2013 at 12:48 AM

          Judge Nelson was trying to make Mr. West say what information Mr. Crump has other than what he provided in his affidavit regarding Witness 8 and the recording that the defense still needed to depose him for. Mr. West mentioned among other things that Mr. Crump had accused Wolfinger and Bill Lee of corruption, that there was a meeting and they conspired to not bring charges, or something to that effect. So Mr. West wanted to know what evidence Mr. Crump knew of that he was able to make that statement publicly. I think Judge Nelson swatted the defense down, saying that Mr. Crump’s opinions can’t be subject to deposition.

  61. blushedbrown
    February 22, 2013 at 2:39 PM
  62. bgesq
    February 23, 2013 at 12:53 AM

    livestream over, but was recorded in 7 parts: (poor sound quality, but audible) http://www.youtube.com/user/stateoftheinternet

  63. February 23, 2013 at 9:23 AM

    willisnewton :

    It can be argued that Wolfinger’s reluctance to charge GZ with a crime is evidence that he was/is either racially biased, incompetent or corrupt.

    Not to deny some level of racism in the mix, but the FL Republicans get heavy donations from the NRA and ALEC, so I think there was more of a pro-SYG bias, and also if Malisha is correct about GZ’s ties to Bill Lee, protecting ‘one of their own’, which would be corruption, of course.

    I still think there was a cover-up, that the prosecution wants to protect the LE establishment, and wonder if the defense will go there in an attempt to blow up the case, even though it was all done in the aid of their client…

  64. February 23, 2013 at 12:03 PM

    It’s true that the Special Prosecutor has a vested interest in retaining the cooperation of the Sanford PD until the trial is completed. Any appearance of impropriety, corruption, etc doesn’t fit well with the image of a smooth, open-and-shut case that the SP wants to present to a jury. And it’s true that the governor appointed a hand-picked special prosecutor who is a dyed-in-the-wool republican as well. But I’ve always seen it as more of a instance where the Florida GOP will eventually employ the “no true Scottsman” argument when GZ is convicted.

    By that I mean that any bias towards using this case to protect the SYG laws will be played out to throw George under the bus first by claiming that his type of behavior was not why the laws were written – but that the system works and the laws should stay on the books. The “no true Scottsman” ploy is to insist that “no true Scottsman would ever go against out principles, and since that guy we seemed to be supporting went against our principles (and got caught and tried and sentenced for the crime) then it’s clear he’s no TRUE Scottsman anyway.”

    Never underestimate the ability of politicians to misdirect or turn on a dime when it suits them.

    I don’t think the prosecution wants to “cover up” for the SPD as much as it needs to simply ignore the sloppy work and bias of the overall investigation and yes, the seemingly questionable behavior of the Police chief Bill Lee, Jr. so that they can get a conviction. Anything that distracts from the basic narrative they hope to present: “profile, pursue and depraved mind, etc” is just an opening for the defense to use to sow “reasonable doubt” onto the tale. It’s not now and never will be the job of the state’s special prosecutor to clean up incompetence, corruption or racial boas at the SPD.

    But I do agree this is a GOP show all the way and that in regards to the SYG laws, and ALEC and the NRA have an agenda that they hope to keep intact. They want to see the “Trayvon Martin affair” as a potential win-win, no matter which way the verdict goes. That’s politics.

    What exactly does Malisha say regarding Bill Lee’s ties to George Zimmerman? I’m not aware of her claims in this regard. And I can’t say that I am always in agreement with her opinions, either. I think she is of the opinion that the feds are conducting a serious investigation of the SPD’s performance, and I haven’t seen any evidence of that to date.

    IMO this whole sordid affair was brought to national attention by the 2 million people who signed online petitions, and for a MOMENT had the attention of the feds and the state of Florida. But that moment is mostly gone now, and the governor of Florida did what was politically necessary – barely – and nothing more – for the fervor to be dissipated.

    Unless GZ is acquitted, which I feel is quite unlikely, the chance for this case to be the trigger for substantial change in the SYG laws has passed already. Obama and his administration weighed the odds in an election year and pulled their punch.

    In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre however, the political winds are blowing once again. But the feds are sitting this one out until a verdict is returned.

  65. February 23, 2013 at 4:35 PM

    willisnewton :

    What exactly does Malisha say regarding Bill Lee’s ties to George Zimmerman?

    I don’t recall the exact details, but IIRC it goes to internal politics in the SPD, and specifically the role of the Ware/Collison incident in the removal of previous chief of police and the subsequent appointment of Lee. Although he may not have passed out leaflets at churches as the Zs have claimed, GZ did make some public noise about the Ware beating, and how this pointed to problems in the SPD. Malisha thinks, and it makes sense to me, that this was less genuine outrage against racism in the department, and more inside baseball to get the old chief in hot water, pushing him out the door and making way for Lee, who GZ would have known, or at least known of, via Lee’s ties to Mark Osterman. Different officers in the SPD would be aligned with either the old regime or the new regime, and I believe Malisha had identified Timothy Smith as one of Lee’s peeps, though what evidence exists for that, I do not know. But there are factions and internal power struggles in pretty much any workplace, so it’s hardly wacky to imagine that the dynamics inside the SPD might have played a role in the Martin case, and the way GZ was treated.

    • February 23, 2013 at 6:43 PM

      Yep, the stories at the “pro-Ware” meeting about the lazy cop he went with on a ride-along was GZ dissing the current police management (the guy whose son(?) kicked Ware and hadn’t been charged for it. The whole thing was about removing the police chief to replace him with Bill Lee; GZ later made statements the guy shouldn’t even keep his pension.

      So Lee could in a way have had a small debt to GZ. I am not aware of Lee and Osterman being close, but Lee was Dean (or something close to that) of the college where GZ was busy failing his classes. I don’t know how Malisha worked out which side to align T.Smith with.

      So yes, GZ was an “on our side” guy quite separately from his pushy trivial phone calls.

      Ironic that GZ’s protesting the unfair protection of one person would “buy” him unfair protection for himself.

      While it lasted.

  66. February 24, 2013 at 7:56 PM

    Thanks for the info regarding Lee, Wolfinger, Ware, Malisha’s input, et al. All that seems like pretty thin material to base much of an opinion on, much less regard as “evidence” of anything other than proof that there’s not been any real investigation into all this, whether by the press or the feds. I do know that Lee was hired as a “reformer” to appease factions who were unhappy with the previous police chief. The way he handled the national spotlight however was rather poor, IMO and it seemed to get himself fired regardless of what was or wasn’t happening behind the curtain.

    It’s all been a fascinating study of “evidence” and what passes for such. Like the action of the “missing minutes,” we’ll never really know what happened, but it’s pretty clear few players were unbiased. Although we know so little about him that it’s difficult to say much, I think Chris Serino may come off in the end as the person with the least mud stuck to him.

    • onlyiamunitron
      February 25, 2013 at 12:54 AM

      “I think Chris Serino may come off in the end as the person with the least mud stuck to him.”

      They should just turn the whole city over to Singleton to run for the next decade, though.

      unitron

  67. February 25, 2013 at 10:22 AM

    Audio analysis question:

    It appears there may be a windshield wiper sound coming at regular intervals, at 15 seconds apart beginning around 0:01 in the NEN recording. I’m curious if the Honda Ridgeline has a selector for “intermittent” wiper function and if so if this is controlled by a slider that allows for any interval, or if it is a multi-position switch and if so if fifteen seconds is one of the settings.

    Sometimes the sound that some say is a gearshift being positioned and repositioned seems to land on the fifteen second interval and other times it does not. The times it does not are interesting to me, since if one goes ahead with the supposition that the wipers are going every fifteen seconds then the OTHER noises are ones to examine.

    Has anyone cared to follow this path of inquiry? I’m just about to examine it myself, but don’t want to influence others with the power of suggestion. It may prove interesting to see where the potential stray/ gearshift noises fall outside of the regular pattern of noises that may be the windshield wipers, and to examine how that does or doesn’t align with the video compiled by whonoze.

    Of course the best investigation of this question would involve a re-enactment using the same type of cell phone GZ used, or his, actually and while one is at it, the same car too. I heard he may have sold it. The noises could be recorded using the SPD call system as well, and then compared to the NEN call recording sounds. But that would have to be done by the FDLE or other LE persons with access to the phone, the car, the scene, etc.

    The best we could hope to do is to compare the 15 second interval sounds to one another and try to make a determination if they are all the same basic sound or not, and then compare those sounds to the “stray” sounds that seem like they might be gear-shifting to see which are similar if any and which are different.

    • amsterdam1234
      February 25, 2013 at 11:56 AM

      Willis,
      I think the gear sounds different. Listen to 1:09 and 1:42. I am quite sure those sounds are the gear.

  68. February 25, 2013 at 2:40 PM

    I agree that those are different. The frustrating thing about them are that they come almost right when the 15 second windshield wiper sound is due. Like so many things in this case, one cant seem to “catch a break” when it comes to figuring things out.

    • amsterdam1234
      February 25, 2013 at 4:15 PM

      Check this video at 4:36. That is what the gear sounds like.
      Just before the gear, the guy closes the storage space located in the console between the front seat. I think that may be the sound of the “2nd door” that some people were pointing out.

      • February 25, 2013 at 4:55 PM

        What’s your opinion on this noise? Again, it seem to come right at a 15 second interval but it;s also around the time the car may be making the first uTurn

        Zimmerman: Hey, we’ve had some breakins in my neighborhood., and there’s a real suspicious guy, ah, it’s Retreat View Circle,.

        (Unidentified noise)

        Um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.

        • amsterdam1234
          February 25, 2013 at 5:04 PM

          It sounds like the windshield wiper to me.

  69. February 25, 2013 at 5:19 PM

    The good thing about that noise is that it seems fairly isolated from voices stepping on it.

  70. February 26, 2013 at 7:58 AM

    Just saw TM’s parents on CNN this AM, along with Ben Crump. Crump pointed out that there have been no new SYG laws passed by any other states in the wake of the killing, and the parents stressed that there is too much gun violence in the USA. Sabrina was asked what she would tell a jury and she said she would tell them the her son was an average teen, not perfect but very loved and undeserving of his fate. Crump emphasized that the evidence will show that GZ is not deserving of immunity and that the evidence will bring justice to the case.

  71. blushedbrown
    • blushedbrown
    • February 27, 2013 at 2:36 PM

      At first glance one might think – “unfair – the FBI is holding back material the defense could use!” but in reality the FBI never investigated a killing. They investigated the IDEA that George Zimmerman may have committed a federal hate crime WHEN he killed Trayvon Martin.

      George Zimmerman is NOT currently charged with a hate crime, and whatever the FBI has doesn’t seem relevant to the state’s charges of Murder in the second degree, which is a state level case.

      • blushedbrown
        February 27, 2013 at 2:49 PM

        @Wills

        I think all agencies involved have been accommodating to the defendant. I think want O”mara is looking for is not releveant to the case at hand. It behooves O’mara to let that aspect go. He should be handling one thing only right now. IMO If the FBI is conducting a separate investigation into a Hate Crime, he can’t have any of that information until they charge him. JMO

        • blushedbrown
          February 27, 2013 at 2:54 PM

          oh boy typo *want* should be *what*

          Note to self new keyboard, maybe some new eyes. 🙂

        • February 27, 2013 at 3:28 PM

          I think MOM is “looking” for appearances sake. He hopes by his actions to create the illusion that George is being persecuted falsely – which he is by a small segment of the public who aren’t following the case closely. But he is NOT being falsely persecuted by the Special Prosecutor/ state of Florida.

          Many people felt the case was a hate crime when the news first came out. I still think race played a large part in the circumstances surrounding the case, but I also think that the prosecution is wise to sidestep that issue and seek a conviction on the basis of “depraved mind” not “racial hatred.”

        • blushedbrown
          February 27, 2013 at 3:34 PM

          @Willis
          Totally agree. I know that race was a factor, but not the only factor. I don’t think he killed him because he was black. Imo he singled him out because of it, but he killed him because he could. Depraved mind.

        • February 27, 2013 at 5:04 PM

          I don’t claim to know why he killed the unarmed teen, but I do know that he lied to investigators in the aftermath, and that his lies form a pattern of omission, obfuscation and role reversal. And that he was very likely illegally trying to detain the youth.

        • ada4750
          February 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM

          @willisnewton 6:29 PM I have all what you wrote in mind. According to DeeDee, GZ has provoked the confrontation and therefore he is criminally responsible of Trayvon’s death. But if he shot from under it is likely because he was scared and i don’t see a depraved mind there.

          I don’t forget neither that he had racially profiled Trayvon. But this is unfortunately a stigma socially acquired more than a depraved mind characteristic.

      • ada4750
        February 27, 2013 at 5:57 PM

        I really have a problem with the “depraved mind” issue. IMO to reach that state a person must be conscious that he is doing something wrong.

        It is very possible that GZ thought he was doing right (from his perception) all along. Once things went so wrong and also after having searched Trayvon he may had realized that the kid was perhaps doing nothing wrong. GZ realised then that he was in trouble. Witness Cutcher said he was holding his forehead with his hand. Which is typical.

        This is why, from the beginning, i separate the level of accusation with GZ’s position when he shot. Under Trayvon => manslaughter, otherwise => M2. This, of course, if DeeDee’s account holds. I know many disagree, including M. Leatherman and most of his group.

        • February 27, 2013 at 6:29 PM

          Keep in mind if he grabbed the teen at any time and tried to detain him, that was an illegal act tantamount to kidnapping, and whatever actions he took past that point he cannot claim self-defense. That’s why I find it so curious, let’s say, that GZ has nothing to say about what he was doing with his own hands the entire time, save draw his gun and shoot.

          Pretend you and your kid brother are playing “shoot-em up” in the park, and practicing your spectacular deaths and junior stuntman actions like children do. One of you hits the other and then they BOTH travel the distance from home plate to the base of the pitcher’s mound. What do you do with your hands while you are “stumbling?” Flail like windmill? Make swimming motions like the dog paddle? George’s “re-enactment” bears little to no resemblance to his earlier statements regarding this 40-plus feet travel. And it’s preposterous, frankly to assume he never touched the teen.

          He admitted “his” cries for help were so that someone would help him restrain the youth. And he’s a god damned liar.

        • February 28, 2013 at 7:04 PM

          So you think he searched Trayvon, huh?

          I’ve been turning that over in my mind. You see a big part of me believes George shot Trayvon to silence him.

          If he searched Trayvon, he would know he was not the burglar he suggested he was. He would know that Trayvon was going to tell the police that he was followed and that George brandished a gun. Either that or the police would search George and find the gun.

          George gets himself into trouble, then lies to get out of it… Could this murder be an attempt to avoid BIG trouble?

          He didn’t shoot Trayvon in a part of his body where it’s likely he could have survived. Trauma centers are so good a saving people’s lives these days, and they see so many gunshot wounds…had George even shot Tray in his abdomen, he likely would have survived. But that would be VERY bad for George. Once George shot the boy, he had to make sure he DID NOT survive.

          It is chilling to contemplate, but I think he pressed Tray’s face into the ground to speed his death.

  72. February 27, 2013 at 7:38 PM

    Let’s go to the dictionary….

    depraved |diˈprāvd|
    adjective
    morally corrupt : a depraved indifference to human life.

    THE RIGHT WORD
    There are many terms to describe the dark side of human nature.

    Someone who preys on young children would be considered depraved, a term that means totally immoral and implies a warped character or a twisted mind (: a depraved man who stole money from his own mother and eventually murdered her).
    While depraved suggests an absolute condition, degenerate is a relative term that implies deterioration from a mental, moral, or physical standard (: her degenerate habits eventually led to her arrest for possession of drugs).

    • ada4750
      February 27, 2013 at 8:27 PM

      Well, from that definition somebody can have a depraved mind in a permanent way. However, it is a too big step to classify GZ this way.

      I was more referring on a occasional state of mind. Like if GZ shot Trayvon without being under him.

  73. nemerinys
    February 27, 2013 at 8:30 PM

    Remember that the relevant law is objective, not subjective; it specifies that actions must by a “reasonable” person, with a rational mens rea.

    Zimmerman’s words reflect a mindset that Trayvon had either committed one of the previous burglaries or that he was about to do so. Zimmerman’s decision to see Trayvon as suspicious is not an issue, but his actions belie the definition of “reasonable;” after having called the appropriate authority, he proceeded to follow Trayvon by car, and then followed him on foot immediately after saying “Shit, he’s running.” There’s no evidence of fear, just disgust and anger, nor is he responding to any request from the dispatcher, as proven by the NEN call. He failed to even tell the dispatcher that he was following the “suspect,” and clearly failed to provide a house address if that was ever his actual intention.

    As to the struggle and shooting, Zimmerman was nowhere near his truck when he had plenty of time to reach it between the end of the NEN call and the small range of time before the first 911 call. The location of the struggle and the shooting were in the direction of Trayvon’s ultimate destination/safe place, not in the direction towards Zimmerman’s truck which, logically, is where he would have run, once he got to his feet (without, mind, any hindrance) if he had been truly afraid of Trayvon if Trayvon was really assaulting him.

    Zimmerman’s injuries, as noted by the medic’s log within 15 minutes or so of this alleged “assault,” were recorded as “minor,” and his physical stats were normal. The photograph taken that night by Officer Wagner, if allowed, will be compared to the photographs taken later that night to show that any swelling was remarkably reduced. In addition, there is his agility and ease of movement evident in the SPD video when he exited the backseat while his hands were handcuffed behind him, and his appearance on the reenactment video (if submitted by the SAO). There is also no physical or DNA evidence that Trayvon had assaulted him at all, much less in the manner described by Zimmerman. And, lastly, the prosecution will present evidence pertaining to the trajectory of the bullet, the location of the shell casing, and, perhaps, his behavior afterward.

    Witness 8/DeeDee’s testimony is unnecessary to present the scene of a teenager returning ‘home’ after a visit to a nearby convenience store only to find himself stared at and followed by a man in a truck, and to fear that man to the degree that he ran away using a route that prevented a vehicle to follow. Frankly, I don’t believe her testimony is needed at all; she was utterly unfamiliar with the entire layout of where Trayvon was at any time, and she repeatedly uses a sketchy sense of time (“a couple minutes later…”, that sort of thing which is nonsensical in the time frame of the call). Other evidence will show that Zimmerman followed him, looked for him and, obviously, found him.

    • ada4750
      February 27, 2013 at 9:22 PM

      @nemerinys I wrote over and over that is the prosecution got a solid proof that GZ shot without being under Trayvon then DeeDee’s testimony is likely not necessary.

      I am, most of the time, writing without making this assumption. In that case to refute GZ’s self-defense claim, the prosecution has to prove that Trayvon didn’t reach GZ for whatever reason. For Trayvon there is a four minutes missing. Without DeeDee, how the prosecution can convince the jury that Trayvon didn’t reach GZ? Don’t get me wrong, i certainly believe that Trayvon was a good kid but this is not a proof.

      I am amazed with the distrust about DeeDee’s testimony. The prosecution can’t hide DeeDee. She has to stand otherwise it will smell fishy. And if she crumbles then the all case will also.

  74. blushedbrown
    February 27, 2013 at 11:23 PM

    Dave Knechel New Video In the dark at the Retreat

    • ada4750
      February 28, 2013 at 7:29 AM

      Very interesting. I was hoping this kind of night video for a long time. So the “eyewitness” could really not see much.

      That is suggesting me a slightly different scenario. I still strongly believe that GZ had walked to he back entrance and looked around. Since there was no sign of Trayvon, maybe GZ had decided to go back to his truck not along the cut through but rather along TTL because his flashlight was faulty and his truck lights were then off.

      Perhaps, it was too dark to see anybody from South on the back alley and moments later on his way he might have surprised Trayvon from behind who was then taking a look on TTL toward GZ’s truck. The chase then started again.

      I know this is a lot of suppositions. DeeDee, your help is badly needed! You must know more than what you said to BDLR about the missing “couple minutes”

  75. February 28, 2013 at 1:52 PM

    I’ve been saying this for months now. IT WAS DARK BACK THERE. This is why I discount pretty much anything and everything about what witnesses say they saw regarding identification. Also, this is why I speculate according to what evidence there is on the ground as to where TM was and where GZ moved.

    IMO it’s very possible that TM ran around the corner of the building and into the vicinity of John/W6’s backyard and NO WHERE ELSE. Yes, he had plenty of time to go to x, y or z and then “double back” for whatever reason, as did GZ. The problem is, no one saw him do so and the only evidence we have to show where he most certainly DID go are the items found close to his body.

    If GZ moved east on the cut thru path following in the direction he felt TM was going, and if GZ stayed on the sidewalk I think he paused at or very near the T to bang on his flashlight. Keep in mind that he may have only been 40 feet or so away from TM, if TM was in john’s back yard, GZ was facing MOSTLY east and TM may have been over his shoulder to the rear. Unless TM was backlit against a lighted patio or window, it’s unlikely GZ would have seen him. Instead, GZ would have concentrated on looking down the sidewalk to the south, since we know he assumed the “axxhole” was heading to the back entrance. As you can see in the video, it’s difficult to tell if someone would be seen on the sidewalk or not, but at the least GZ may have been listening to hear footsteps. When he didn’t hear or see anything, perhaps then he continued to RVC, as he claims he did. Upon return to the vicinity of the T GZ would have been traveling WEST and moving his POV in a manner that may have caused TM to become visible against the backlight of John’s patio light. Or, he may have been using his keychain flashlight, in which case he may have illuminated TM’s reflective sneakers.

    • blushedbrown
      February 28, 2013 at 3:54 PM

      @Willisnewton

      >>>>>Or, he may have been using his keychain flashlight, in which case he may have illuminated TM’s reflective sneakers.

      Yes.

    • amsterdam1234
      February 28, 2013 at 5:06 PM

      We all know it was dark back there. I think GZ followed Trayvon South from the T, and that the darkness prompted Trayvon to turn around and face GZ, rather than continuing on this dark path with this crazy dude right behind him.

      Whatever direction Trayvon took, I can’t imagine him hiding on John’s patio. There is no way somebody can hide on your patio while having a phone conversation for 4 minutes without you noticing it.

      I can’t see Trayvon running where GZ could still see him, turn a corner and than hide in a patio where people are watching tv just feet away, and continue a conversation there.
      A normal human being will try to hide their fear. It would’ve made sense for Trayvon to turn the corner and then run. I don’t buy he stuck around for privacy reasons. There is no privacy on stranger’s patio.

      But let’s agree to disagree. If Trayvon ran south, he didn’t stop in a patio where people were at home at that time.

      I don’t know what kind of home you are living in, but I have a gated carport in front of my house. Behind the car port I have a patio. My bedroom is on the third floor and I have double glass windows. When people stop in front of my gate and have a normal conversation, I can hear every word they say when they are about 14 yards away.
      It is a solid new house, build with brick and concrete.

      If Trayvon ran south, he must have made it to the first gap between those houses along the dog walk.

      • February 28, 2013 at 6:39 PM

        I like that idea – that Tray was afraid to proceed down the dark corridor. He left home when it was light. The conditions had now changed drastically. I don’t think he had any idea just how dark it could be out there.

        Then, it’s possible that half of Tray’s mind is spooked and half of it is saying This is nuts. It’s just a misunderstanding. I’m in a residential area, in a safe neighborhood…

        Maybe W6 DID see him…. Maybe Tray thought it was his house

    • February 28, 2013 at 6:46 PM

      I am feeling the idea that Tray went no farther south than W6’s patio door. The item markers are clustered there.

      I speculate that Tray mistook W6’s house for his own. With recent videos posted we know for sure just how dark it was out there. If Tray entered the Retreat from a different gate than he exited it, he might have become disoriented. There are very few unique features to identify one house from another. Tray most likely did not even know Brandi’s house number. He knew here house by spatial location relative to the entrance gate. He knew Brandi’s house was the second one from the end.

      • ada4750
        March 1, 2013 at 2:28 AM

        @xy11xy DeeDee said that Trayvon has started moving again when he realized that GZ was still looking for him. It took some time for GZ to reach Trayvon. Because the encounter likely started near the T, Trayvon must have been “at rest” somewhere else.

        • March 1, 2013 at 10:33 AM

          “at rest”

          I’m willing to accept that possibility. Where was he at rest? Possibly W6’s patio?

          🙂

      • March 1, 2013 at 3:50 AM

        The debris field only shows where the final fight took place. Both parties had about 4 minutes to get there from the time GZ said “shit he’s running”.
        They could have gone anywhere in that time, that is what we’re trying to piece together.

        I don’t think W6 house can be mixed up with Brandi’s. The latter is at the very end of the whole row, with the cross-street (Oak) visible beyond. The W6 house is in the middle of a big row, only broken in two spots by the small walkways we’ve been calling the cut-throughs.

        It would have been dark, but not as dark as the videos show — Marinade Dave admits he used a poor camera, and human eyes adjust a lot better than a cheap lens does.

        Trayvon must have been somewhere, but that wasn’t W6’s patio, because GZ came up behind him, moving. To where was he?

        • March 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM

          I understand that (we) are piecing this thing together. Mostly my gut tells me he went no farther south…. My gut feeling is not necessarily mystical, it could be internal analysis of everything I’ve seen and read.

          I don’t recall residents farther south saying they heard scuffling. So, it’s unlikely they were struggling farther south. I suppose that leaves room for running alone…or a chase. But, it just doesn’t feel right. We saw how dark it was out there… do you think Trayvon would have been running full tilt out there in that blackness?

          4 minutes, you say…. Would that have been enough time for George to pin Tray to the ground and search his pockets?

          Someone said if a person had a gun held on them, they would not scream. They would want to remain a quiet as possible to not spook the armed person. It’s a good point. What if Tray remained quiet while George searched his pockets(it would have taken a terrific blow to cause his phone to fly out of those deep pockets of his)…and then began to scream when George said he was going to kill him?

          In my heart, I believe George murdered Tray to silence him. That is, to stop him telling police what happened. In the absence of Tray’s voice, George can make up whatever story he likes….and there’s no one to say otherwise….

          BUT, he wasn’t counting on DEE DEE!

          Of course, it’s speculation. But, as you said, we’re just trying to piece this thing together.

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 1, 2013 at 11:02 AM

          Not only is that a logical analysis of known facts and reasonable conjectures, it provides a possible explanation for how the drink can might have gotten taken out of the 7-Eleven bag and then put back in the pocket.

          Or you might be wrong. We don’t know yet. We might never know.

          Frustrating, isn’t it?

          unitron

        • onlyiamunitron
          March 1, 2013 at 11:08 AM

          Furthermore, this is the kind of well thought out actual discussion of the case that has begun to be crowded out over at another certain site.

          unitron

  76. onlyiamunitron
    March 1, 2013 at 8:13 AM

    whonoze,

    Any chance of a Diaspora 4?

    This one’s getting kind of long and the ashtrays need emptying and the beer coolers need restocking.

    Thanks again for the use of the hall.

    unitron

  77. March 1, 2013 at 2:00 PM
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

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