Home > Uncategorized > BCC List Diaspora part 8

BCC List Diaspora part 8

As Lonnie would say: tick tock.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. April 9, 2013 at 3:37 PM

    What antics could be left for the defense to try? I don’t think they are going to get another opportunity at deposing w8. If they really did have one hour with her, that was probably enough time to throw whatever they had at her and claim victory for their donors and leave the battlefield.

    They have an appeal pending on the decision about deposing Crump, but that may or may not be heard before the trial begins. Meanwhile the tic tock clock is marching towards Shellie as well. When’s her next court appearance scheduled?

    • April 10, 2013 at 1:33 AM

      The motion for reconsideration was an antic to depose attorney Crump before deposing Witness 8 again. When all things fail, use divide and conquer. IMO, the defense is hoping to get something from Crump that they can mis-characterize to discourage Witness 8 from testifying at trial. They don’t want to impeach her — they don’t want her showing up at trial.

    • April 10, 2013 at 1:41 AM

      There’s a docket sounding in Shellie’s case scheduled for 4/17/13. Depositions are scheduled for 4/11 and 4/17. Guess we won’t know more until the hearing on the 17th.

      • April 10, 2013 at 11:41 AM

        One wonders if Shellie is still living with George or not. I seem to recall the last time MOM described GZ’s morale and physical condition, he didn’t really mention, “but he enjoys the continued support of his family,” etc.

        Even rats know when to leave a sinking ship. When finally faced with a trial for her alleged (ha!) perjury, Shellie may be ready to take a deal offered by the state’s attorney office and testify against George.

        I do recall there was some complaint or motion trying to say that the SA’s office didn’t have jurisdiction to file perjury charges against her. That could be seen as a move hoping to quash the likelihood of a deal where she agrees to turn state’s evidence.

        How would you feel if your loser husband killed someone, lied to you about it, and then stood ready to throw you under the bus on a perjury charge to save his own neck – but you know for a fact that you have no chance at YOUR trial?

        Even if none of this ever comes to pass, the possibility has to be lingering in the back of George’s (and his lawyers’) mind.

        No wonder he’s falling apart at the seams. He has to distrust his entire family on some level. What about his father, whom he likely lied to about many aspects of the case, and most certainly was not 100% forthcoming with about the money put up for bail – the father I recall put up security against his home while his son was hiding a passport and a six figure sum of money from the court, and possibly from dear old dad.

        What about the brother-in-law who may be facing a sealed indictment of money-structuring for his efforts in moving the pay pal cash around. How deep are his loyalties to George in comparison to his desire to stay out of prison?

        What about his own mother, who had some angry run-ins with him in the past? How does she feel about putting up her own home when her son had all that money donated to him and all he did was pay back a $500 loan? Was that how strained the relationship was before the killing, that she’d be needing that $500 to keep good faith with her son who is facing life in prison? Was that essentially a bribe to mom? Was she extorting him for more?

        Anyone who knew anything about the money-structuring may be facing a secret grand jury indictment already. This also includes a sister of his. Is she willing to go to prison for someone who is going to lose his case anyway?

        How might Mark Osterman feel about facing a charge of tampering with evidence regarding his part in moving the Honda Ridgeline?

        Maybe the majority of these individuals would remain loyal, but each and every one? Especially if each suspected the other was a rat -and would be ratting out them FIRST? The first one to agree to cooperate would get some immunity from prosecution but the SECOND one to ask for a deal might be turned down flat, after tacitly admitting they feared losing their case.

        The difficulty in spinning these speculations is that I don’t think George deliberately told the whole truth to anyone, not even his wife or his best friend or his father. From what we can tell he told each one of them a slightly different story however, since his general tale is contradictory and filled with lies and omissions anyway. It’s more or less impossible to tell the same story over and over even if it is 100% true. Prosecutors know how to exploit these differences and paint a defendant as a liar, even if he isn’t. It’s just a whole lot easier to do so if the defendant is a craven liar.

        And again, maybe none of this is happening, but does George know that for certain? He could go to each and every person and look into their eyes and beg then to swear out total loyalty to his cause but would he believe the answers he got? Would you?

        Karma is real. He’s got to be suffering, bigtime. In the end a guilty verdict is going to seem like a birthday present compared to the uncertainty he’s facing….

        GPS records… BDLR’s “witnesses to a foot chase,” the clubhouse videos, Dee Dee and her FULL and sorted out recollections… whether she will testify in open court to the “get off, get off” calls she heard. His contradictory story of his parking in the front of the clubhouse pitted against the NEN call timing, and the ludicrous “doubling back” timing.

        The obvious dilemma of the idea of whether or not to take the witness stand and be DESTROYED on cross examination, vs not being able to effectively even claim self defense… having to count on the idea that the state simply cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt what happened in the missing minutes knowing that credibility is everything and that he has none…

        His cousin whom he serially molested for years, including when he was of age and she was a minor… the civil lawsuit he faces, and knowing that the HOA settled out of court.

        Forensics…. audio experts… the testimony of the mother saying “that’s my son calling for help” in front of a jury and a packed courtroom, with the trial possibly being televised worldwide…

        Imagine the regret over not running when the getting out was possible. Imagine the regret over falling victim to greed. He had to be at least contemplating the idea of fleeing from justice as he waited for the indictment to come down.

        Imagine having to worry about all of this while taking a good-n-plenty supply of pharmaceuticals each day, and not getting enough exercise. Don’t forget that GZ “fears” the New Black Panther Party is going to get him like the boogeyman under the bed will. too. And he with his dwindling rent-a-cop budget…

        Paranoia strikes deep into the hearts of the craven and guilty (and Catholic-raised, too right?). Nixon’s last days in the White House were said to have been an alcohol fueled nightmare where he roamed the halls late at night talking to the paintings.

        I’m GLAD the trial isn’t starting until June. I hope he spends every day until the guilty verdict is read having to contemplate these and a dozen other issues, all day long while feeling that GPS monitoring device on his leg every time he moves.

        On some level prison will seem like a relief compared to NOT KNOWING when and how, and how repeatedly the hammer is going to fall on him.

        • onlyiamunitron
          April 10, 2013 at 11:52 AM

          “How might Mark Osterman feel about facing a charge of tampering with evidence regarding his part in moving the Honda Ridgeline?”

          I’m sure that his attorney would point out that prior to his having moved it the police had found it and run the tag number and therefore knew that it was George’s truck and had plenty of opportunity to seize it as evidence at that time and failed to do so.

          Has there yet come a point in time at which anyone connected with any governmental agency of any level in the state of Florida has actually decided that the truck was or could have been evidence?

          unitron

        • April 10, 2013 at 4:59 PM

          Osterman is a LEO, so he knows the drill, even if the police on the scene don’t realize right away that the truck is evidence, MO knows it is and should, therefore, have pointed it out to the police, instead of assisting it’s removal from the scene.

          One can bet that if the crime had been by anyone other than GZ, MO would have quickly pointed out to the police that the vehicle should be secured.

          Or, do you think that off duty law enforcement officers who happen by a crime scene, need not concern themselves with providing any possible assistance, but should feel free to hamper the investigation, simply because the attending officers don’t realize what’s going on?

        • April 10, 2013 at 1:10 PM

          I am not all sure George KNOWS the truth. Some events he’d know more accurately than he’s been saying. But the why? he doesn’t know. He’ll never know and never much try to find out.

          Sondra Osterman, in “THE book” , talking about how devastating this was for Shellie, described how she broke down and bawled when she first heard the 911 scream tape. That I well believe. I think at least for a moment she heard a kid begging for help. Deep down she KNOWS.

          An innocent husband she’d not throw under a bus to save herself , even if it became clear that he would do so with her. But she needs more security than everyone else put together, if she decides to flip….and the more so if she DID for a moment see the truth.

          She’ll not flip until she has security that she never has to be near him ever again. So it will be the last minute. I mean right up until the trial starts last minute.

        • April 10, 2013 at 6:25 PM

          @willisnewton

          Karma is real. He’s got to be suffering, bigtime. In the end a guilty verdict is going to seem like a birthday present compared to the uncertainty he’s facing….

          AMEN! GZ is toxic. He’s been a failure all of his adult life. I don’t know when that started in his life, but on Feb. 26, 2012, karma kicked in. No one — absolutely no one — abandons their home and job after killing a person if they did it in self-defense and believe in their innocence. GZ’s fear far extends what happened that evening. He was running from something else — someone else. There are skeletons in his closet and karma is not letting go. He will spend the rest of his life in prison.

      • April 10, 2013 at 1:15 PM

        @unitron

        deciding about the value of the truck would be “work product” and so they’d not have to tell anyone in discovery.

        The LOCATION of the truck is important (let’s hope they think so too) but they already have that, if the guy who checked the tags remembers or it shows on one of their dash cams.

        • onlyiamunitron
          April 10, 2013 at 10:52 PM

          The government doesn’t get to make someone retroactively guilty of a crime.

          The Constitution prohibits both the Congress and the states from passing ex post facto laws.

          If anyone makes any noise about charging Osterman with tampering with what they only decided a year later to be evidence, expect to hear a lot from his lawyer about ex post facto laws.

          unitron

        • April 10, 2013 at 11:12 PM

          @Unitron. Although I do not think Osterman will be charged, you are confusing ex post facto laws with statute of limitations.

        • onlyiamunitron
          April 10, 2013 at 11:43 PM

          I rather think not.

          Statute of limitations is “it’s a crime, it was a crime all along, nobody ever said different, but we have to charge you with it within a certain limited time, we can’t wait 40 years and then bust you for jaywalking”.

          Ex post facto is “You know that thing you did yesterday that wasn’t against the law yesterday? Well today we passed a law that says not only is it a crime now, it was a crime then, even though the law hadn’t actually been passed yet.”

          No ex post facto means they can’t pull that sh1t on you, it’s got to already be illegal when you do it for it to mean that you broke the law. Government doesn’t get to say “any minute now when this bill is signed you’re going to have broken this law last week.” if that law didn’t exist last week.

          unitron

        • April 10, 2013 at 11:55 PM

          @Unitron. So, you understand the difference, but why is it you think ex facto applies to tampering with evidence rather than statute of limitations?

        • onlyiamunitron
          April 11, 2013 at 7:07 AM

          “So, you understand the difference, but why is it you think ex facto applies to tampering with evidence rather than statute of limitations?”

          Understand I’m speaking specifically about Osterman and the truck, and not evidence tampering in general.

          Statute of limitations only has to do with government having to bring charges within a certain time frame, and if you’re talking about actual tampering with evidence, then they’ve got whatever that length of time is to bring charges before they no longer are allowed to.

          But the question here is not whether Osterman tampered with something, but whether, at the time of this alleged tampering, that something actually was evidence.

          If Osterman has every reason not to believe the truck is evidence–the police haven’t seized it or informed Zimmerman that they would be doing so–then there’s certainly no criminal intent and if it’s not considered evidence at that time, then he cannot be considered to have broken the law against tampering with evidence.

          The prohibition against ex post facto (after the fact) laws means you can’t change an act which was legal when it occurred into an illegal one by making that act illegal later on.

          The law can apply going forward, of course, but it’s not allowed to travel back in time.

          If what Osterman did was not illegal when he did it because the truck was not considered evidence at the time, classifying it as evidence now does not make what he did retroactively illegal.

          That’s why both the Congress and the states are prohibited by The Constitution from making ex post facto laws, to keep government from jerking people around like that.

          unitron

        • April 11, 2013 at 5:15 PM

          @Unitron

          Understand I’m speaking specifically about Osterman and the truck, and not evidence tampering in general.

          I simply addressed your mistaken belief that there is no current law against evidence tampering. The rest of your post is moot.

        • onlyiamunitron
          April 11, 2013 at 6:06 PM

          “I simply addressed your mistaken belief that there is no current law against evidence tampering.”

          It is amazing the lengths to which you will go to misunderstand stuff.

          I never said there is no current law against tampering with evidence.

          unitron

        • April 11, 2013 at 8:16 PM

          @Unitron

          I never said there is no current law against tampering with evidence.

          This is what you posted regarding Osterman and tampering with evidence;

          If anyone makes any noise about charging Osterman with tampering with what they only decided a year later to be evidence, expect to hear a lot from his lawyer about ex post facto laws.

          You subsequently conceded that you know the difference between ex post facto laws and the statute of limitations.

        • onlyiamunitron
          April 11, 2013 at 8:41 PM

          “You subsequently conceded that you know the difference between ex post facto laws and the statute of limitations.”

          I’m beginning to wonder if the same can be said for you.

          If Osterman did tamper with evidence, then they’ve got until whenever the statute of limitations runs out to decide whether to charge him or not.

          But what he did has to be provable to be tampering and and what he did it to has to be provable to be evidence.

          unitron

        • April 11, 2013 at 8:56 PM

          @Unitron. My comment to you was limited to setting forth that ex post facto does not apply to tampering with evidence laws that are already on the books.

          Sorry, but you have to engage someone else in Osterman’s actions. That is not my focus.

        • April 11, 2013 at 7:27 AM

          Right. upon coming to the scene where Osterman knows that GZ is person the police will want to investigate, and he knows this because he’s a LEO himself, so he is familiar with the procedure and he knows what is evidence from what is not. He fails to advise or preserve that which he knows should be evidence. Where, he instead conceals this fact from the police and then actually assists in seeing the evidence removed from the scene, preventing it from being examined.

          That is Osterman’s crime, assisting in the destruction of evidence. Just because this is not a crime scene that he is formally responsible for, we do not expect him to tamper with or hamper any investigation by failure to inform and advise.

  2. April 9, 2013 at 5:40 PM

    follow.

  3. onlyiamunitron
    April 9, 2013 at 6:50 PM

    *

    unitron

  4. bgesq
    April 10, 2013 at 12:44 AM

    follow please

  5. April 10, 2013 at 3:44 AM

    Guys, doesn’t this “follow” business end you up with a million emails? isn’t it easier to just open the page every day and see what’s new in it?

    • onlyiamunitron
      April 10, 2013 at 4:16 AM

      “Guys, doesn’t this “follow” business end you up with a million emails?”

      Why yes, yes it most certainly does.

      “isn’t it easier to just open the page every day and see what’s new in it?”

      Because then, due to nested comments and people not always indicating, via a quote or something, to which comment they are replying, you wind up having to re-read the entire page over and over and over again.

      It’s not as bad here.

      Someplace high volume, like Leatherman’s, you wouldn’t be able to get anything else done even if you never slept.

      And even then you might not be able to keep up.

      unitron

      • April 10, 2013 at 12:51 PM

        Speedreading.

        What stops me sleeping is the thought some of them might end up on a jury some day. The April 6 thread was like walking into the Outhouse and none of them are willing to see it. In fact have escalated it. They either can’t read or they can’t differentiate between evidence and belief.

        • onlyiamunitron
          April 10, 2013 at 11:58 PM

          “…none of them are willing to see it. In fact have escalated it. They either can’t read or they can’t differentiate between evidence and belief.”

          You’ll notice I nicknamed it “Leatherman’s Lounge”, not “Logic Lounge”.

          : – )

          I’m just wondering how soon Witness 8 gets thrown under the bus or tossed from the troika in order to preserve someone’s “half of Sanford conspired before the fact to help Zimmerman commit a crime and the other half spontaneously joined together afterwards to help try to cover it up” conspiracy theory.

          unitron

        • onlyiamunitron
          April 11, 2013 at 9:55 PM

          “The April 6 thread was like walking into the Outhouse and none of them are willing to see it. In fact have escalated it.”

          One of the loungers seems to be having trouble telling us apart.

          http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/04/07/did-mark-omara-advise-the-hoa-to-settle-the-fulton-martin-lawsuit/#comment-100402

          unitron

      • April 10, 2013 at 5:11 PM

        @Unitron
        You could try doing a “search” for the today’s date so at least you may not have to “re-read the entire page over and over and over again”. Apropos, thank you for all those directions and links for which I still owe you an answer at the lounge… been a bit too tied up for a few days but I am working on it.

    • April 10, 2013 at 3:22 PM

      No because after threads get too long to open quickly, everyone eventually moves to the newer thread. On thunderbird I can set up a filter that sends all the mail to a certain folder I’ve named Trayvon and I can go there to read when I have time. So there’s no problem, If you forget to follow and miss a thread well… then you’ve got to struggle to find the latest thread, the one’s you’ve missed and catch up. It’s far easier to just stay connected. If you’ve got too much mail, then simply dump some.

  6. onlyiamunitron
    April 11, 2013 at 7:50 AM

    I’m just going to casually inquire, of no one in particular, on a hypothetical basis, how Osterman, were he for some reason to convince himself that Zimmerman’s truck was crucial evidence of that of which it was somehow crucial evidence–how he would go about convincing the Sanford Police Department of this, when they’ve all already gone off and left the truck sitting there unattended. (so much for chain of custody)

    When he tells them it’s full of crucial evidence and they ask “evidence of what?”, does he say “Well, I’m not exactly sure, but I’m absolutely convinced that it’s crucial.”?

    unitron

    • April 11, 2013 at 8:56 AM

      Hypothetically, when Osterman opened the door of GZ’s honda ridgeline for Shellie, hypothetically, and she stepped out of the passenger seat and moved over to the driver’s side to drive away he would be aware of the fact that he was hiding evidence.

      Hypothetically, when he opened the door of the honda ridgeline and three empty beer cans fell out, and a half empty one was in the console and the rest of the twelve pack was on the passenger seat, half consumed he would be interfering with evidence.

      Hypothetically, when Mark Osterman was already in the Ridgeline during the NEN call and sitting in the driver’s seat the whole time he would be tampering with evidence.

      Hypothetically, when Mark Osterman spoke to George sitting in the patrol car back seat with the door open and George told him, “go move my truck before they tow it, Shellie can help you” he was interfering with an investigation.

      Hypothetically, when Mark Osterman was driving around the RATL with GZ looking for the person they got a tip-off about, and text messaging one another back and forth during the “missing minutes” and he received a text saying “move my truck” he was interfering with a crime scene AND hiding the fact that he was a party to a crime, possibly as well.

      Hypothetically speaking , when GZ called MO moments after the shooting (while “Jon” the iPhone guy snapped the bloody head photo) and GZ told MO to “quick, get my truck outta here before they impound it and search it,” then he would be aware that he was interfering with an investigation.

      Hypothetically speaking, when Osterman aided in any way the removal of the truck, which was part of the crime by virtue of it’s being used in a car-to-pedestrian chase down TTL he was interfering with a police investigation whether he knew he was or not, and whether the police knew it at the time or not. It’s not that he was obligated to DO anything, but if you walk around a crime scene – and the area between the clubhouse and GZ’s car was indeed the scene of a crime IMO, and while you walk around this crime scene you disturb or remove valuable evidence knowingly or unknowingly, you are interfering with an investigation and can be CHARGED as doing such. Whether you will be convicted is another story, but you can easily be charged with a crime.

      Shall I continue, hypothetically speaking? Or would you just mentally remove the word “hypothetically” from the penultimate paragraph and re-read it?

      • April 11, 2013 at 1:27 PM

        Among the things we don’t know because the truck was moved:
        a) EXACTLY where and how it was parked, which would reveal, e.g. whether the headlights were aimed toward the cut-through sidewalk.
        b) whether the keys were in the ignition.
        c) what state the various controls of the truck were left in. Were the lights turned off, or had they been left on and turned off automatically?
        d) what personal items were in the truck at the time

        All of these things would be material evidence in terms of confirming or refuting GZ’s version(s) of events.

      • onlyiamunitron
        April 11, 2013 at 5:46 PM

        “Hypothetically speaking , when GZ called MO moments after the shooting (while “Jon” the iPhone guy snapped the bloody head photo) and GZ told MO to “quick, get my truck outta here before they impound it and search it,” then he would be aware that he was interfering with an investigation. ”

        Hypothetically speaking, Osterman was pretty disappointing accessory after the fact since the truck was still sitting there over an hour to an hour and a half later when the cops ran the tags.

        unitron

    • April 11, 2013 at 9:30 AM

      Very poor hypothetical there uni. you’re ignoring the fact that Osterman was called to the scene, with the knowledge that GZ had shot someone. As a LEO, therefore, he knows that GZ is under investigation and that evidence collection is what the police there should be doing. Why? Because this is what he has done himself, when he worked for the Sheriff’s office.

      Next up is, he knows how chaotic crime scenes are in reality. So, he knows that the police that have discovered GZ’s vehicle may not be aware of it’s relevance because not every police officer at the scene has a complete picture of what is going on, or even of what has happened.

      The officer who ran the tag on the truck, was not searching for GZ’s vehicle. No one seemed to be aware that there was a vehicle involved in this matter at that time. But Osterman knew, he knew where GZ lived and that if his truck was near the crime scene, then it must have been driven there, so that makes it part of the crime scene and his knowledge of law enforcement evidence collection tactics, informs him that the police should be preserving the vehicle for examination.

      How could Osterman know that the vehicle didn’t contain exculpatory evidence that GZ would need to prove his claims? Would he have taken exculpatory evidence away and destroyed it, if he knew he was doing so? If not, then how could he be so sure that, that is not what he was doing? Given his bias says that he had to know exactly the opposite for sure. Then, he knew that the vehicle contained incriminating evidence, and he therefore took it away, in order to help GZ escape discovery.

      • April 11, 2013 at 9:48 AM

        Nice reply, Lonnie. That last sentence is a guess, I’d say but of course it’s a darn good guess as to the motive behind moving the vehicle. I think it is likely that GZ asked MO to move the truck so it wouldn’t get towed off, even if that was only as a convenience in the mind of GZ, his not yet comprehending the exact nature of crime scene evidence. No one wants to pay to get a vehicle out of impound. Even if GZ were (excuse me while I throw up in my mouth a little) completely innocent he might ask his wife or a friend to move the car before the keystone cops tow it away.

        The other obvious thing to speculate about is whether or not GZ had alcohol in the vehicle. Everyone knows this is a no-no, and everyone knows that average “failing-class” ( I won’t say working class in reference to GZ) people occasionally drink and drive in the evening. GZ’s NW buddy Taaffe is no stranger to drinking and driving, certainly. If GZ had an open beer in the car he’d be motivated to ask his friend or wife to move the car.

        Like you said tho, the subject at hand is what was MO doing and thinking when he aided in the removal of the vehicle from the scene? IMO he was tampering with evidence and he knew it. And I think he may face a secret indictment for this. Heck, his whole book endeavor might be an elaborate effort to conceal the fact that he is going to testify for the prosecution at trial. One can never tell about these things. Certainly stranger things have happened in similar cases.

        • April 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM

          Yes, that last one was a guess, but a guess built on the firm assurance that, a witness who was biased in favor of the person to be charged, would not be removing exculpatory evidence from the scene. But, would instead be jumping up and down, whooping and hollering for the police to “come collect this!”

          I would say there’s a fair enough indication to support a belief that MO might just be a wee tad biased in favor of GZ. At least that’s what I believe the statement “I would die for him”, sort of hints at. Of course I could be wrong. But I haven’t yet met anyone who would die for someone they disliked.

  7. April 11, 2013 at 9:31 AM

    Don’t forget that shortly after the time of the gunshot, a car’s headlights appear on the pool video and the vehicle comes up TTL from the area near where GZ claims he parked his vehicle. Some have speculated that this was a confederate of GZ’s either driving the Honda Ridgeline or else in a second vehicle that was involved in the trolling around for the teen. If the investigators have somehow found out something of this nature is provably connected to MO then they have a wedge to drive between the two. And if Osterman claims events happened a certain way in his FDLE interview but the investigators can prove otherwise – such as the phone call he got from GZ directly (hypothetically speaking here) then he’s interfering with an investigation by lying to investigators right there.

    I’m eternally curious about the bloody head photo where GZ is holding a cell phone to his ear, and presumably NOT calling Shellie since he asked “Jon” to do so later. We simply don’t know who he tried to contact. His statements to SPD seem to leave out this event. Perhaps he simply didn’t get an answer the first time he tried Shellie’s number, we don’t really know. But the defense knows, and the prosecution knows, I’m guessing and we’ll learn more about this event at the trial.

    I’ve also wondered if GZ called or texted anyone during the “missing minutes.” Some speculate that he was in a bit of a hurry to end his NEN call in the last seconds. Maybe he was anxious to call a confederate. He certainly had time to call someone as he continued to move around the area in the dark.

    I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me that if the SA’s investigators have dash cam video of the location and direction GZ’s vehicle was facing – and if it is facing a direction opposite the one GZ claims – then this is evidence that is not exculpatory, and therefor not “Brady” evidence that must be shared before the trial.

    Evidence existing that GZ was parked still facing the mail kiosk but down by the cut thru is a pet theory of mine to speculate about. I think it’s possible the car-to-pedestrian chase took place with GZ moving in reverse, headlights off, which if you think about it is even more scary and threatening than if he pursued the teen after a Y turn, which could be misjudged as coincidence. But if you walk past a “creepy guy” on a cell phone who then throws his car in reverse and creeps along behind you, or EVEN with you and stares at you it’s going to be intimidating.

    Many things are possible.

    What Mark Osterman claims happened is highly suspicious.

    What GZ claims happened is not possible.

    • amsterdam1234
      April 11, 2013 at 12:44 PM

      Actually the car on TTL was right after GZ ended his call.
      Osterman’s story in his book has so many discrepancies.
      In the first place he writes that Shellie called him at 7:30 pm while he was out walking his dog. He said he met Shellie outside the gate, where she opened the gate with her pass to get their cars inside the complex.

      We know from Cheryl Brown that the complex was in lockdown at 7:30. Osterman describes tedious details. Here he describes how Shellie opens the gate, but he doesn’t mention the lockdown.

      He said they both parked their cars at some distance from the scene. He said they left the scene at 8:10 pm, and he describes how they walk back to their cars and go to Shellie’s place. The vehicle tag check for Shellie’s car, was done at 8:32 pm, for GZ’s car at 8:47. No mention of Osterman’s car in the area.

      The entire story gets even weirder, but since I have no evidence to compare his story with, I’ll leave it at that.

  8. wassointeresting
    April 11, 2013 at 7:22 PM

    Just now following myself…Might I suggest that we all make an effort to write something other than just “follow”? I don’t know, a thought for the day or something. Would make opening those emails worth the effort to click, read and delete.

    • amsterdam1234
      April 12, 2013 at 5:07 AM

      Oke, I have an interesting detail.

      This is from Osterman’s book, describing where he met Shellie and how they gained access to the complex.

      blushedbrown :
      @Amsterdam
      Excerpt taken from Osterman’s book
      Page 11 second paragraph
      From Rhinehart Road, Osterman took a right onto Oregon, the street leading into the Twin Lakes complex, and spotted Shellie’s car already at the gated entry. She swiped her resident’s card for entrance and the gate swung open allowing Mark to follow her inside. He then pulled in front of her to find a place to park a safe distance away from the site where the shooting took place. It wasn’t difficult to find. There were more than eight police cars at the scene with lights rotating, fire emergency vehicles had arrived and neighbors has gathered in large groups, some carrying flashlights as they stood on the lawns in between the rows of townhouses. As a policeman for the sherfiff’s department, Mark had been on crime scene sites before, but this one was eerily different. As Mark and Shellie approached on foot, you could hear bits and pieces of the neighbors’ conversations; whispers coming from out of the darkness as the steady rain continued to fall.

      According to Leland Management, there is no swiping at the gates. A remote or a 4 digit code is used for entering the complex by the inhabitants. Guests can enter the complex by calling the person they are visiting using the directory. That call is directed to the landline of the host, who can open the gate using their telephone keypad.
      http://www.lelandmanagement.com/resident.asp?id=923

      • April 12, 2013 at 9:59 AM

        We definitely need more info, like a copy of those pages containing this suspect information.
        Because first off, the east gate is on South Oregon Avenue, the front gate is on Oregon Avenue and that gate was closed, a resident who tried to enter there was forced to leave her car and walk in on foot. So MO cannot be talking about the front gate.

        Someone who also has MO’s book posted that he said he used the east gate, or, perhaps that was what he said on Dr. Phil??? In any event the police found Shelly’s car but they did not find MO’s car anywhere near it.

        The reason this point is such a stickler is, it looks like MO lied and was in the RATL all the time. He’s using Shellie to explain why he did not have to code in, when, in fact it appears, he didn’t have to code in because he came in before the gates closed. We know from what he has told us somewhere that he had a key to GZ’s house, so he also had a code to go with it.

        Are they covering for MO who was on the grounds providing GZ with assistance? Could MO have been laying low in GZ’s truck prompting him on his NEN call?

        • April 12, 2013 at 10:58 AM

          Now I see why the SP kept the MI bank cctv as evidence, if that was MO at the bank, then he clearly was in position to enter RATL before 7PM gate close time.

        • amsterdam1234
          April 12, 2013 at 12:23 PM

          I am quite convinced neither Osterman or Shellie came through that front gate, just because they didn’t know the complex was in lockdown.
          From his book it is obvious he is saying he came in through the north gate. I would think Cheryl Brown would’ve used the east gate if that one would’ve been accessible.

          The prosecution will know who called who. They also know from where and when the calls were made. They don’t need gps for that.

          I am going to read MO’s statement again.

        • April 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM

          I think it was on Dr. Phil’s where he tries to say he came to the east gate, found himself behind Shelly (what luck eh?) and “drafted in behind her”, when she “swiped in”.

          Management Co., says there’s nothing to “swipe”, all residents “code in”.

          We know that the North Gate was locked down. So I guess that’s why MO is trying to
          correct by saying the east gate.

          But, with him coming from 12 miles away, with traffic, and Shelly coming from her fathers >>>don’t know where that is, but I’ll guess it’s not so easy to match time with MO from there to the east gate at RATL<<< The coincidence of them winding up behind one another, and the east gate not being blocked as well, is just too much to be believed.

          It's much more reasonable to believe that they were both inside the complex before 7pm therefore. Meaning they would have been about the area while GZ was stalking/hunting and talking to NEN. That's why all those different sounds in the background on the NEN tape are indicative that someone else was there with him. Probably someone who was also armed.

          Look, GZ has a phone in one hand right? He's talking on that phone with a flashlight in his other hand. Now, does it really sound like he's knocking on a flashlight, with the same hand he's holding the phone in? Or does it sound like the knocking is coming from somewhere else? The noises that sound like a gun being racked are obviously someone else racking a gun that is probably not a Kel Tec PF 9.

          Well, the SP knows that Trayvon used the most direct route home from the mail kiosk and the detective has said so under oath. IIRC, the most direct route to Trayvon's home would be, up TTL, avoiding going near GZ's truck, then using a cut through to cross the dog walk corridor to home.

          Since it is clear that GZ could not overcome such a head start with just 20 seconds running, something had to make Trayvon turn away from home. He could not be "doubling back to attack" at that point in time, since GZ would not be anywhere near him. When Trayvon finally says there's someone behind me again, he's obviously not talking about GZ, whether he knows it or not. But he's eventually driven into GZ's reach, and that's when he realizes that, because he's outnumbered, his own hands are useless. Being out numbered certainly explains why Trayvon never used his hands at all. Not even to grab the hand GZ was using to hold him by the shirts.

        • April 13, 2013 at 10:12 AM

          @unitron

          Might you be confusing the “back gate” of a gated community with the “back door” of a house… or even a servant’s or trade entrance? I can’t fathom why a gated community would want a 2nd class 2nd entrance… and is the one at RATL really called the “back gate/entrance” or is that just how resident’s call it.

          In any case, the Lelend “Gate Form” notes:

          “The gate system for your community uses a remote transponder”

          which indicates clearly, IMO, they have a one for all system.

          Electronics is not my forte but I know enough to say that transponders, keypads, and swipe-cards require different physical actions, i.e. you press a button on a transponder; you punch a code on a keypad; and you draw a magnetic band across a reader with a swipe-card.

          From RATL’s gate form it is clear neither swipe-cards or keypads are used outside of a home (you can use a landline keypad to let guests in) so if Shellie swiped a card at the gate either they were not at RATL, MO lied, or MO got confused.

        • amsterdam1234
          April 14, 2013 at 12:27 AM

          @lonnie,

          The thread is getting a bit confusing and I don’t know where this reply will show up.

          Osterman would’ve been driving north on Rinehart and turned east on Oregon. So in order for him to get to the east gate, he would’ve passed the north gate on his right.

          Cheryl Brown was at Walmarts when her children called her and she rushed home. Walmart is at 1601 Rinehart, about a mile from RATL. Cheryl’s daughter called 911 around 7:19 iirc. That 911 call lasted less than 2 minutes. Her daughter could’ve called her before or after she called 911, but either way, Cheryl would’ve been back at RATL long before MO could’ve possibly made it out there.
          In Jay’s transcripts it says that when she got back, the police were blocking the gates to her subdivision, she parked her car across the street and ran home.

          I have no reason to believe the police blocked only one entrance.

        • April 14, 2013 at 5:10 PM

          Got you on that. Just a minor point or two. Even though I understand what you’re saying because I’ve seen the maps. Rinehart runs east and west. Walmart is west of the main gate.
          To come from Walmart to RATL you’d make a right turn off Rinehart onto Oregon and a right off Oregon onto TTL which lead inside the main gate to the east (rear) gate.

          But, then, Osterman was seen at the MI bank before 7pm, if that’s really him on cctv there. The SP will know because they get to look at the ATM transaction records which are time stamped. But they did take that tape into evidence so perhaps MO was at that bank. If so, he’d be approaching from the east, he’d have to make a left turn off Rinehart, cross Oregon and on in the main gate via TTL. For the rear gate he’d have to make two lefts and a right. to wind up behind Shelly going in the rear (east) gate. Extremely unlikely, and as you say, the police would hardly lock just the one gate.

          This means that Osterman is lying and that he was already inside the gate before 7pm and so was Shelly. Okay, so if Osterman was at the MI bank at 6:38? He’d be one of those cars coming into RATL around 6:40 or so. Where did the cars, that came in around that time, go?

        • amsterdam1234
          April 14, 2013 at 5:53 PM

          @lonnie,
          You got me confused here. I am terrible with left and right. It usually works like ” I am right handed, this is the hand I write with, therefore this is right and that is left. So I check that stuff quite thoroughly. I think Rinehart goes south north, Oregon west east and S Oregon north south. So Walmart and M&I bank are north of Oregon ave. Coming from Lake Mary, you’d be driving north on Rinehart and turn right(east) on Oregon.

          The clubvideos begin at 6:46:36 pm. If that was MO, and he drove straight to RATL, we probably wouldn’t have seen him.

      • April 12, 2013 at 5:27 PM

        @amsterdam1234

        According to Leland Management, there is no swiping at the gates. A remote or a 4 digit code is used for entering the complex by the inhabitants.According to Leland Management, there is no swiping at the gates. A remote or a 4 digit code is used for entering the complex by the inhabitants.

        Very interesting detail and a very interesting find the management co. info for the gate. Just one thing, and I don’t think it the case so just checking, are we sure that the block system for the gates was the same as the one now in the Leland doc or could it have been changed from the swipe type?

        Mark had been on crime scene sites before, but this one was eerily different.

        “Eerily different”? Sounds more like a novel than a factual book.

        • amsterdam1234
          April 13, 2013 at 1:10 AM

          Could they have changed the lock system? I guess they could’ve. I can’t think of a reason why they would spend money on changing from swipe to keypad, but I have no information they didn’t.

        • April 13, 2013 at 7:21 AM

          It was only to know whether we can rely on lock being the same 100% or 99.9%, because if the same, agreed the most likely, then OM is with out a doubt lying as to how he entered the complex that night… and when someone lies I have to wonder why? what purpose?

        • onlyiamunitron
          April 13, 2013 at 7:38 AM

          Are we sure that the way you get in the front (north) gate and the way you get in the back (east) gate are the same?

          I’m thinking the back gate may be a little more “utilitarian”.

          unitron

        • April 13, 2013 at 10:17 AM

          @unitron
          Sorry. I inadvertently posted my reply in the wrong place 4 or 5 comments above so hope you can find it!

        • amsterdam1234
          April 13, 2013 at 7:53 AM

          If it is just one discrepancy, but there are too many of them. The place was in lockdown, Osterman claiming there was no yellow tarp covering Trayvon’s body. He claimed Shellie and him parked their cars away from the scene, and then walk to the scene. They leave the scene walking towards the cars at 8:10 pm, but there are vehicle tag checks at 8:32 and 8:47 for a grey Honda and a white honda parked along the road on either side of the crime scene, both came back as cars belonging to people living on the complex. No mention of Osterman’s car.

          Osterman went through a lot of trouble explaining how he gained access to the complex after the shooting took place, without him leaving a record doing so. Most logical explanation is that he entered the complex before the gates were closed at 7pm.
          I considered the possibillity that GZ had given him the code, but if that were the case MO would’ve known the mechanism at the gate was a keypad.

        • April 13, 2013 at 9:48 PM

          I don’t remember where, but somewhere, someone declares that MO has keys to GZ’s house, if that’s true than he also had the code and knew the system. Obviously, if that’s true, he’d want to pretend that he had no knowledge, so he’s say “swipe” instead of “code” to make himself look clueless about details. See how everyone’s trying their level best to appear clueless? Fogen isn’t on patrol, Fogen doesn’t know about NW rules, the police don’t know about NW rules, Fogen doesn’t remember he has a gun. The police forgot how to keep records, couldn’t remember how investigations were done. Damn, the town should have been named Amnesiaford.

        • April 13, 2013 at 9:53 PM

          This claim that Osterman and Shelly left the scene at 8:10pm, is that from a document dump or is it from Osterman’s book?

        • amsterdam1234
          April 13, 2013 at 8:11 AM

          @unitron
          Do you have different information? You are speculating without offering any evidence at all. In the first place the application form talks about a gate system, not one gate. Osterman writes that he turned right on Oregon, and saw Shellie at the gate. There is no mention of him making another right turn on South Oregon. Wtf do you mean by more utilitarian? A swipe system for keycards instead of a keypad where you punch in a 4 digit code, is not what I would consider more utilitarian.

        • onlyiamunitron
          April 13, 2013 at 8:40 AM

          Is it just the front gate where an arriving visitor can call up a resident and the resident can use their phone to remotely enter the code, or is that true for both gates?

          unitron

        • April 13, 2013 at 10:06 PM

          Let it go, some people aren’t working with evidence they’re just pulling disruptive stuff out of the air, hoping to either derail discussion or make themselves the center of attention.
          We know that Leland says there was no swipe, it was code in.

          Osterman says he made a right turn. It appears to me he should be approaching from the east, so shouldn’t he have made a left turn to the front gate? A right turn sounds like he was coming from the west? He certainly doesn’t mention South Oregon, which is where the east gate is located. But, I think that on Dr. Phil’s show he says he drafted in behind Shelly at the east gate. If so, RVC was blocked with emergency vehicles, they’d have had to park on TTL or Long Oaks Way or even RVC south. But, as you say Osterman’s car was never found.

          Also, do you have a time for the yellow tarp to go down on Trayvon’s body? Since Osterman seems to be saying he was there before they covered it. Thanks

        • amsterdam1234
          April 13, 2013 at 8:50 AM

          @unitron,
          Why does it matter? I am just comparing Osterman’s story with real data. You can find the telephone number and email address at the link. If you want more details I suggest you contact Leland Management. I am sure we all like to have more details even though they are not relevant to how Osterman entered the complex in this case.

    • amsterdam1234
      April 12, 2013 at 6:08 AM

      I think we can say that Osterman provided an explanation why there isn’t a record of him entering the complex after the gates were closed that evening. If a guest were given access through the directory system, there should be a telephone record for that event.

      I think we can also say, that the story he provides doesn’t appear to give a true description about the situation at the gates after 7:30 pm( lockdown) and that he doesn’t appear to know how residents gain access after the gates closed.

    • April 12, 2013 at 7:00 AM

      We do that because we have nothing to say yet, because we’re still reading and writing on other threads. But, if we don’t make the mark when we get to the message, there’s a good chance we’ll miss it entirely.

  9. April 11, 2013 at 9:54 PM

    someone, over at FL I think once wrote “not following …just going in the same direction”.

    • amsterdam1234
      April 12, 2013 at 4:48 AM

      😃😃😃

    • April 12, 2013 at 5:20 PM

      @aussiekay

      someone, over at FL I think once wrote “not following …just going in the same direction”.

      I remember that one… it made me smile… very funny! Can’t remember who it was though… but maybe faux who IIRC sometimes changes her “follow” for things like skipping, etc.

      • onlyiamunitron
        April 12, 2013 at 5:28 PM

        Too bad she doesn’t limit herself to changing only her own words.

        unitron

        • April 12, 2013 at 5:34 PM

          @unitron
          Replies crossed. Not sure what you mean but I no longer think it was faux anyway, more like cielo62 with the cat’s whiskers.

    • April 12, 2013 at 5:29 PM

      No, not faux, maybe Cielo62.

  10. April 12, 2013 at 1:06 PM

    The bullshit is piled so high and deep in GZ and his friends’ stories one needs wings to stay above it. If Osterman is withdrawing cash from the bank, what did he need the money for? Was he going to loan George some grocery money?

    So many questions unanswered. Osterman admitted to the FDLE that he spoke with George on the scene that night. What does he say about this in his “book?”

    • April 12, 2013 at 8:04 PM

      That was my original theory, back when I first posted the bank picture of him side by side with one of the leaving-court pictures, the day the bank videos came out.

      If he’s going shopping for himself,he could use his card there. If he needs cash for himself, there’s a branch (and other ATMs) closer to where he lives.

      In one interview, and don’t ask me which, GZ says he got someone to call his wife, and she “called my friend who was there ….

      So, the theory goes, MO goes there to help out with some grocery money. After some minutes of smalltalk he casually asks something like “do you have any trouble with those gangs/goons here?” they say no not really,why? and he says “cos I just saw one going for the shortcut as I drove past”.

      And GZ says “sheeeeesh man why didn’t you say so before?” and races out to go looking for him. Which is why he has to trawl up and down the TTL/RVC intersection to find him.

      What I like about this theory, apart from it being mine, is that it explains several known points of evidence, instead of each one having a separate and different explanation.

      MO certainly seems a better candidate for the tip-off man than GZ’s sister who maybe used to live in the complex next door 8 years ago.

      • April 12, 2013 at 11:11 PM

        @aussiekay

        In one interview, and don’t ask me which, GZ says he got someone to call his wife, and she “called my friend who was there ….

        I know that because I was sure I I heard:

        “I called my WIFE and she TOLD my FRIEND who was there…”

        which made me think MO was at GZ’s house with Shellie or they were together in a car somewhere. But I remember most others heard differently although I was pretty sure of what I heard! I can’t remember which interview either.

      • April 12, 2013 at 11:27 PM

        @aussiekay

        Forget the part of my comment, “I called my WIFE…” because I might be wrong as IIRC GZ claimed a neighbour called his wife. But I certainly remember hearing “told” and not “called”. I must find the interview.

        • April 13, 2013 at 5:01 PM

          Actually I think it may have been in the “small talk” with Singleton while waiting for the lie detector. That’s one I’ve not seen a transcript of. If I’d seen it in writing I’d be more likely to remember when/where.

          “I called” can be shorthand for “I had her called”.

          Or he may have called her (the call in the bloody head photo) and got another call made when the police were there to cover the fact that he’d called already.

          Call 1: get up here and move he truck NOW I’ll explain later just DO IT.

          Call 2: background to why. Conveniently not having to tell her personally he just shot someone, and face the barrage of questions, when he needed time to work out the story.

        • April 13, 2013 at 7:18 PM

          Thanks aussieK, I think you’re right and it was in the small talk so I am going now to listen again. The important thing to me was that I am convinced he said “she told Mark who was there” which would explain how MO came to enter RATL without a trace.

      • April 15, 2013 at 12:59 AM

        @aussieK

        In one interview, and don’t ask me which, GZ says he got someone to call his wife, and she “called my friend who was there ….

        I have been looking for the video or a transcript of that interview which I think may be the small talk with Singleton, because at the time I was absolutely sure GZ did not say “called” but “told”, i.e. “she told my friend/Mark who was there” which if correct would mean MO was at GZ’s home either when he left or he speeded back there after the shot if you go with the theory that he could have been in the truck with GZ which some affirm.

        Is it me or are the comments on this thread kind of posting up and down in no particular order?

      • April 18, 2013 at 3:01 AM

        @aussiekay

        To clarify although you probably don’t need it or remember, I finally listened to the small talk and I got the wrong end of the stick. During the small chat with Singleton GZ says:

        “She called my buddy Mark that was there. He drove over.”

        By “there” he obviously meant at the scene NOT at his house as I was so convinced.

  11. April 13, 2013 at 10:47 PM

    If GZ was on the phone when the photo of the back of his head was taken, Jon would have overheard everything he said. I don’t think Jon mentions GZ making a call in any of his statements. Since i doubt Jon (W13) was part of any conspiracy before or after the fact, I can’t imagine GZ saying anything remotely incriminating in his presence. My guess is that whoever he tried to call, he didn’t get through… Or maybe he was answering a call from a telemarketer…

    • onlyiamunitron
      April 13, 2013 at 10:55 PM

      “Or maybe he was answering a call from a telemarketer…”

      So you’ll be shipping out that new keyboard to me first thing Monday morning?

      : – )

    • amsterdam1234
      April 13, 2013 at 11:48 PM

      Jon did say he thought GZ was talking on the phone.

      And when I got around the corner I slowed down and I was shining my flashlight on the guy. And I think he was on the phone ’cause it sounded like he was on the phone. And so I shined my flashlight on him and I said, “Do I need to call 911?” He says, “No, I just got off the phone with them.”

      Maybe Jon overheard GZ telling the telemarketer he was right in the middle of a shooting.

  12. April 14, 2013 at 12:01 AM

    I think the comment about “my friend who was there” may be a reference to “there” meaning on the scene of the killing, during the aftermath. In other words, GZ is dropping names – “my cool air marshall buddy who was there at the scene and vouching for me” type name dropping. At least that;s how I recalled hearing it.

    But yeah, we should listen to that again.

    But in the end what’s gonna tell us anything more is not rehashing the vague clues we have, but learning the data that was found on GZ’s cell phone.

    Many things are possible. But someone moved his car and it wasn’t him, and Shellie isn’t clairvoyant either.

  13. amsterdam1234
    April 14, 2013 at 6:07 AM

    Question. Can anyone here identify the make of the car the guy in the bank video is driving?

  14. April 14, 2013 at 6:29 AM

    amsterdam1234 :

    Jon did say he thought GZ was talking on the phone.

    And when I got around the corner I slowed down and I was shining my flashlight on the guy. And I think he was on the phone ’cause it sounded like he was on the phone. And so I shined my flashlight on him and I said, “Do I need to call 911?” He says, “No, I just got off the phone with them.”

    That wouldn’t explain GZ having the phone to his ear as Jon was 3 feet behind him, taking s photo of the back of his head. Hmm…

    • amsterdam1234
      April 14, 2013 at 8:14 AM

      Yes, you are right. I don’t know what that means. I still find it strange it took
      Jon till march 20th to remember that he took the photos. Jon talked about GZ squatting down on the grass. Do you think the photo of the back of the head was taken while GZ was squatting?
      We’ll find out at the trial.

      • April 15, 2013 at 1:18 AM

        @amsterdam1234
        Squatting he must surely be because you can even see the grass below him!

        I saw above you cant distinguish left from right. Maybe you are dyslexic which in my case affects figures and orientation but not spelling. I wouldn’t know my left from my right if I needed it to save my life. I took my driving test with a large “L” and a large “R” written in black just above each thumb so I could see it with my hands at the obliged 16:40 position on the wheel. The examiner spooked when he saw it and checked with the head but there is no law that you have to know them so I passed with flying colours! If friends want me to turn they know to say “my side”, “your side” or wave a hand in the desired direction, if they don’t I just drive on so no dangerous moves. I use the same as you when I have time to think it through but shorter, i.e. “I write with my right hand”. Good job we’re not lefties!

        • amsterdam1234
          April 15, 2013 at 2:11 AM

          @gbrbsb
          I saw a conversation between I believe you and Xena about it. I’ve never thought of myself as dyslexic, but I sometimes transpose numbers with letters, I’ve never heard anybody else do that before.
          It is terrible when I am driving and someone is trying to give me directions. One friend of mine has a habit of saying stuff like ” your other left”, or worse he will point right and say left. Guess which way I will go.

          Anyway, another friend of mine has the same problem, she likes to say ” three times right is also left”. That statement makes a lot of sense to me, it carries the ambiguity of left and right within it.

        • onlyiamunitron
          April 15, 2013 at 2:16 AM

          “Anyway, another friend of mine has the same problem, she likes to say ” three times right is also left”.”

          Another way we say that over here is “Two wrongs don’t make a right—but three lefts do.” : – )

          unitron

        • April 15, 2013 at 2:40 AM

          @amsterdam1234

          I saw a conversation between I believe you and Xena about it.

          Unlikely. I have posted that Dave’s video was a big help because it provides the actual area; I’m not a north, south, east, west person. Growing up in Chicago, we had landmarks to point the way. LOL!! For decades riding the subway, I knew the correct train to catch because of the name of the street for the end of the line. I know east in the mornings, and west in the evenings because of the sun.

          Because of Dave’s video, I was able to sort out the “dog walk” area as opposed to the route GZ purportedly took to RVC. Also, I was able to distinguish between the “north” and “south” that others referred to in relationship to the “T.”

          When people speak beyond the north – south of the T, they lose me. I can better relate to someone saying GZ turned around across from the mailboxes, than I can reading that GZ turned south on such and such street, and north on such and such street, etc.

          A great thing about the video that the Whonoze team put together is that it also provides animation for where the car lights are seen.

        • April 15, 2013 at 3:13 AM

          @amsterdam1234

          Hadn’t had time to reply before I saw your reply to Xena. It wasn’t Xena it was either Faux or Cielo, more likely Faux. Funny that, in my life I had never met anyone who had the same problem and now I met two even if in cyberspace. I don’t transpose numbers with letters only groups of numbers. I have a very good memory and can remember long telephone numbers except I generally transpose a couple. I even do this when copying them from something.

        • amsterdam1234
          April 15, 2013 at 3:05 AM

          @xena,
          I was referring to a conversation about dyslexia and a difficulty with telling left from right. I thought it was you. I am sorry if I got that wrong.

          I am oke with orientation, I have a difficult time assigning a verbal direction to it. So in my mind I can clearly see the picture, but when I have to verbalize it, I need to place myself into that picture before I can say left or right.

        • April 15, 2013 at 3:59 AM

          @amsterdam1234

          I was referring to a conversation about dyslexia and a difficulty with telling left from right. I thought it was you. I am sorry if I got that wrong.

          No need to apologize. IIRC, Colin has said that he is dyslexic and there were a few others who I don’t remember.

        • amsterdam1234
          April 15, 2013 at 4:18 AM

          @gbrbsb,
          Yes it is interesting to run into 2 other persons within this very small group that have the same problem. I am not sure if it is a problem, I think it is a different way of processing information.

          I can scan hundreds of pages of documents, without conciously memorizing what is in it. But if something comes up and I’ve read about it, I will remember it and probably the context, which will allow me to find it. But when I want to quote a piece of text, I will have to go back every other 3 or 4 words, because I can’t remember it literally.

          I’m an intuitive thinker. That doesn’t mean my thinking is based on emotion, but instead of processing information in a linear way, my thinking operates more like network would.

          I like to compare it to navigation software. Navigation software doesn’t contain linear routes between every known point, it just has a network connecting every point to its nearest known point. When you are trying to connect dots from one point to the next, both points expand their webs until somewhere the expanding networks connect, and you can just follow the path from point a to point b.

          I always find it very difficult to explain how I got to a certain solution to a person who processes information in a linear way. I either give to much information or to little, using points along the network to try mimicking a linear process.

        • April 15, 2013 at 11:13 AM

          It’s a problem when your teacher has a class sing song, like:

          You put your right foot in,
          You put your right foot out,
          You put your right foot in
          And you shake it all about.
          You do the Hokey Pokey
          And you turn yourself around,
          That’s what it’s all about.

          Then, just when you’ve managed to work that one out:

          You put your left foot in,
          You put your left foot out,
          You put your left foot in,
          And you shake it all about.
          You do the Hokey Pokey
          And you turn yourself around,
          That’s what it’s all about.

          🙂

        • amsterdam1234
          April 15, 2013 at 4:30 AM

          @xena,

          What struck me in that coversation is, I saw 2 people who I consider to be very fluent in their use of language, claiming to have a form of dyslexia. Colin writes exactly the way you would expect from someone who is dyslexic. I’ve wondered about having a form of dyslexia myself. I just never heard anybody discuss the kind of symptoms I have before, especially coupled with orientation problems.

        • amsterdam1234
          April 15, 2013 at 1:04 PM

          @gbrbsb
          😄😄😄😄

        • April 15, 2013 at 2:13 PM

          Presume the 4 square boxes are your smilies ?

          Can’t find your boxes on my keyboard, not even in Character Palette, but discovered what may be a more elegant “smilie” for me using a Katakana symbols:

          ツ or ㋛

        • amsterdam1234
          April 15, 2013 at 2:23 PM

          Are you telling me I’ve been sharing squared boxes?

        • April 15, 2013 at 2:46 PM

          Well… yes… I am telling you that f I there isn’t a hidden meaning I’m not twiggin in what you just wrote! Yes… three squares, or three boxes, i.e. squared boxes… but then I use a mac so could be everyone else receives your “sharing” in the intended form… round boxes !?

        • amsterdam1234
          April 15, 2013 at 3:23 PM

          Maybe I should stick to lol. Thanks for telling me. I’ve never been much of an emoticon user, and I just started to enjoy throwing virtual winks and smiles around. I am trying to think what other conversations I may have graced with empty boxes.

          Any advice for using them on an iPad?

        • fauxmccoy
          April 18, 2013 at 12:59 AM

          @gbrbsb — it was me who discussed dyslexia with you. i am not the dyslexic in my family; that is my younger brother whose writing looks much like colin’s. my youngest daughter has a similar learning disability called ‘mixed dominance’ which presents in a similar way (b and d look the same, as do 5 and S), but it also incorporates a complete inability to determine left from right. i think this is why i suggested that you look into ‘mixed dominance’ because what you are describing sounds much more like that.

    • amsterdam1234
      April 14, 2013 at 8:32 AM

      I do have some empathy for eyewitnesses. I must have been about 5 or 6 when I witnessed a man almost drowning in an Amsterdam canal at night. I know it was a man, because someone jumped after him and got him out. But to this day, if I had to describe what I heard and saw, I would swear I saw a soccer ball floating in the water, while a man was screaming very loud.

  15. April 14, 2013 at 10:49 AM

    W13 /Jon didn’t think his photos were important. The cops arrived less than two minutes after he did and took the man into custody, the body to the morgue and then hung around taking their own photos for quite some time.

    And you know what? The aren’t important. The bloody head pic may be important to ABC news since they showed some blood, and they may be of interest to case followers but really they don’t tell us anything we didn’t already know.

    As a case follower I personally was the first person I’m aware of who bothered to adjust the levels of the picture and comment on the fact that there was a cell phone up to his ear, and that was interesting for us all to speculate about, but the cops and the investigators for the prosecution have the phone records and know exactly when that call did or didn’t originate, and to whom it was placed and how long it lasted. We’re are still entertaining ourselves speculating.

    In addition to the bloody head photo, we accidentally saw some poor copies of the pics of the flashlight and the body and got a glimpse of where they were – right in John W6’s backyard. That was not really breaking news either.

    Bring on the trial, I say. Let’s let the jury decide what evidence is important and what it tells us about the killing and how it happened.

    • amsterdam1234
      April 14, 2013 at 10:59 AM

      I think the photos may be important, but not to GZ’s benefit. The picture of Trayvon’s body is the only undisputed position Trayvon was in right after GZ got up. It may not be important to show who he was talking to, but it shows GZ talking on the phone 2 minutes after he shot Trayvon.

      • April 14, 2013 at 11:19 AM

        The phone records alone show he was on the phone at that time. The photos are just eye candy IMO and fodder for our endless speculation. And whatever position TM was depicted in a call phone pic, GZ had already been on top of him, frisked him, and likely moved his hands/ arms in. I fail to see the significance of a dead person’s position here anyway. Perhaps proximity to the sidewalk might come into play but I kinda doubt it. He was close enough that anything is possible, and witnesses are too vague to rely upon IMO.

        I’m glad we have the photos to add to the pile, but I really do think the most important evidence is the proof regarding the car-to-pedestrian chase as it destroys GZ’s credibility, establishes the pattern of his lies and omissions, and sets up the case to show that WHATEVER happened in the missing minutes, George was already guilty of a crime and cannot claim self defense, having first chased the youth with his car, causing the teen to run off the roadway, then exited his car and followed on foot, canvasing the area until he found him someplace NOT on an innocent path to his vehicle.

        • amsterdam1234
          April 14, 2013 at 11:43 AM

          I am sure you are right Willis, but what else are going to talk about until June 10th.😊

        • April 15, 2013 at 1:27 AM

          @willisnewton
          I agree, I think your are probably right especially as I fear that for some of the forensics interpreted by laymen may have other feasible explanations so what lead up to the encounter is probably going to be the more provably indicative of his lies. But I agree with amsterdam too… what to do until June 10th?. And that only if MOM & Co don’t find some way of forcing a continuance which could mean a lot longer.

        • April 15, 2013 at 1:58 AM

          @gbrbsb

          what to do until June 10th?

          IMO, continue discussing evidence that we know, such as GZ’s NEN call, his statements, and inconsistencies in those statements. The timeline and cctv’s providing for where GZ was, at what time, and what he was saying to dispatch at that time.

          I suspect that with the start of trial, many who have had no interest will take interest. That happened with me and the Jodi Arias trial. I did not take interest until her trial started and the one thing that stands out more than anything else are her inconsistent stories.

        • April 15, 2013 at 11:07 AM

          Think so, or “Que remedio!” as a Spaniard would say. I would like to compile a list of all the “slips”, you know, “He screamed…. I screamed” type, and the “I walked through to check… I loked to see”. Apropos, you wouldn’t happen to know which interview video has the small talk with Singleton, would you?

        • April 15, 2013 at 11:25 AM

          @gbrbsb. GZ’s small talk with Singleton was when he was waiting to take the voice stress test.

        • April 15, 2013 at 11:34 AM

          Ta.

  16. April 14, 2013 at 1:42 PM

    amsterdam1234 :

    Do you think the photo of the back of the head was taken while GZ was squatting?

    Yes. From the camera angle, absolutely. (Unless Jon was carrying a step-ladder and climbed to the top to take the pic.)

    • amsterdam1234
      April 14, 2013 at 2:31 PM

      Step ladder seems only slightly more odd than walking up to a killer, who is squatting down in the grass while making a phonecall, to take his picture. You have to admit that.

      • April 14, 2013 at 3:30 PM

        GZ may have asked Jon/W13 “am I bleeding?” He seems to have been seen putting his hand back there, too.

        I do think the photo was taken with Jon in a standing position and GZ crouching or kneeling in the grass next to the sidewalk. If both were standing, it’s still lPOSSIBLE to hold a camera up high but not to aim it so carefully. The shot is well-composed and makes me think that Jon could see the live preview as he snapped the flash picture.

        Both the other shots, the flashlight and flashlight/body/JohnW6’s patio fragment photo were taken at eye level while JonW13 stood on the sidewalk it seems.

        Have we seem a version of this photo yet FULL FRAME without the ABC news exclusive logo on it? There might be a distinctive sidewalk crack right in that area that could help place the position better.

        George would have had to put his gun somewhere in order to operate the cell phone. Around two minutes plus have passed already since the fatal shot was fired, which seems like time enough for the initial verbal exchanges to have taken place between GZ and W13/Jon. There had to be some sort of conversational lull for GZ to attend to his phone.

        Jon asked about the gun but doesn’t specifically mention seeing the gun.

        Why is GZ crouching? Was he looking for his flashlight? I don’t think so, it didn’t work anyway. Was he just dazed and needed to steady himself? Was he still looking for the thing he said TM had in his waistband? He’s not crouched over the body it seems.

        For some reason I imagine that GZ is facing south, in the direction of the body but that’s just a guess. Were he facing North however, and still north of the body then it seems like Jon would have had to walk past him to look at the dying or dead teen before turning back to take the photo which strikes me as generally less likely. Both of course are possible however.

        The fact that we DON’T seem to have this photo as part of the discovery that the state is presenting to the defense makes me wonder if they intend to present it at trial or not. I think they did present it however and it was redacted for some reason. I’m sorry I can’t remember all these details. Maybe someone could refresh my memory?

        • amsterdam1234
          April 14, 2013 at 3:52 PM

          Does this video help?

          I think he is standing on the sidewalk facing south. I don’t remember this being part of the discovery, but if I remember correctly, this photo was leaked by the defense, so they must have gotten it from the prosecution.

        • amsterdam1234
          April 14, 2013 at 4:12 PM

          As soon as you play the video, the logo is on it. I downloaded the video but that still gives me the video with logo. YouTube however, makes snapshots of your video when you upload it, that is why the image you see above doesn’t have the logo. So here is a link to just that image without the logo. Download it, because I may not keep it in dropbox.

          He is standing on the sidewalk, and their seems to be a colour difference between the concrete.

          http://db.tt/U8LxHFzh

        • April 15, 2013 at 3:24 AM

          @willisnewton

          He seems to have been seen putting his hand back there, too.

          Are you saying HE put his hand “back there” or that’s what a witness saw him doing, because don’t know about you but the rivulets are so clearly delimited I would have thought they would be smudged like the smudge on the left side (looking at the picture) of his mouth in the Wagner photo if he had put his hand there.

          George would have had to put his gun somewhere in order to operate the cell phone.

          IIRC there was some confusion about where GZ put his gun, ground or holster, but I think he claims he holstered it after shooting and that the first officer on scene collected it from there.

          Why is GZ crouching? Was he looking for his flashlight? I don’t think so, it didn’t work anyway.

          Depends on which crouch or squat GZ was doing. Western or “Asian/indigenous/flat footed or whatever other names it has squat. You can’t see GZ’s knees so it may be Asian but you may like to check it out:

          http://tinyurl.com/bl9t83u

        • April 15, 2013 at 3:26 AM

          @willisnewton
          OK, so tinyurls don’t work, here’s another go at the link:

  17. April 14, 2013 at 1:49 PM

    willisnewton :

    The bloody head pic may be important to ABC news since they showed some blood, and they may be of interest to case followers but really they don’t tell us anything we didn’t already know.

    I must disagree. The photo shows that the blood trails on GZ’s head are the same as what remained of the blood on GZ’s head when the official photos were taken later at the SPD, and all the photos show the streams running forward, toward his ear, which could not have happened if he was lying on his back. Thus Jon’s photo is physical evidence that GZ was in a superior position while he was bleeding.

    • amsterdam1234
      April 14, 2013 at 2:26 PM

      I was just thinking about that. I was taking another look at those pictures, comparing Jon’s with the ones taken at the SPD. The way blood is flowing from the top wound is odd. I do wonder if that straight line at the top is because they were on their sides.

      • April 15, 2013 at 3:48 AM

        @amsterdam1234

        The way blood is flowing from the top wound is odd. I do wonder if that straight line at the top is because they were on their sides.

        I don’t think it is. If you look at the SPD photo of the back of GZ’s head he has some pretty serious ridges just around there, one in particular IMO corresponds to where the line and blood amasses i before it separates into rivulets and cascades down and around the sides. The SPD side photo also shows this but it is less evident and not as easy to see.

        • April 15, 2013 at 3:52 AM

          Scheiße! I forgot the end of blockquotes maybe. The 2nd para is my comment, it is a non quote!

        • amsterdam1234
          April 15, 2013 at 4:42 AM

          He does have a lot of bumps and ridges on his skull, doesn’t he? But yes, that would be a good explanation for that straight line. Maybe we should dig up old phrenology literature and apply it to GZ’s skull. 😃

        • amsterdam1234
          April 15, 2013 at 5:20 AM

          @gbrbsb
          I see you are you using one of our proud shared Germanic roots. The Dutch word is schijt. We tend to use the English word more often. The Dutch language is moving closer to English in general. I find it interesting when I new English words or concepts getting a new German word. We just use the English word.

        • April 15, 2013 at 10:42 AM

          My dad’s long term partner was German and we always used “sheisse” in his house where no one ever swore except for this one word, but I’d never spelt it so when I looked up the spelling I found the one with the peculiar German letter and liked it!

        • amsterdam1234
          April 15, 2013 at 5:22 AM

          Damn,
          Meant to say ” when new English words or concepts are getting a new German word”.

    • April 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM

      I disagree. A simple home test will show that the blood would NEVER have “run to the top” of GZ’s head. Stand up and balance a book on the TOP of your head. Put your finger there so you know we are talking about the same spot when we say TOP of the head.

      Next, lay down in bed without a pillow and put your finger where the BACK of your head touched the mattress. Assuming you now had a scrape of laceration or two in that general vicinity, THE BACK OF THE HEAD, and didn’t move at all for five minutes or so the blood would pool and move directly to the mattress. There is no earthly force, especially not gravity that would make it run from the BACK of one’s head to the TOP of one’s head unless you did a headstand like a circus performer.

      Even if the physical struggle happened like GZ tells it, which I highly doubt it did, but even if it did he would never have blood trails running from the BACK of his head to the TOP of his head. Instead he would have some pools of blood that didn’t go anywhere until he sat up. And to me that pretty much looks like what I see in the bloody head photo.

      This distinctive thing about it to me is the lack of severity to the injuries. I’ve bled more than that on any given day in the garden or on a nature hike. Now, that’s neither proof of guilt or innocence, or a justification for self defense either. It’s just what happened, and a jury is going to have to decide if he is credible or not when he claims he was savagely beaten and in fear for his life. Given that he will be proven a liar who was in the process of committing a crime, it won’t matter much anyways IMO.

      And, if you want to get technical about all this you can superimpose the shots from the cop shop with the blood head pic and you may see as I feel I do, that the higher injury of the two main spots DID pool a bit and spread upwards ever so slightly, before forming into single trails that go around and down, as they would when GZ got upright again.

      I see all this blood trail stuff as inconclusive of anything other than a lack of obvious severe head trauma.

      • April 14, 2013 at 10:04 PM

        I’m not talking about the TOP of his head. In the SPD pics you can see the blood trails run FORWARD, towards his ear. This would be up-hill if he was on his back. The connection with Jon’s pic, in which the direction is less apparent, is that you see the patterns of the blood trails are the same – thus establishing that the blood headed towards GZ’s ears was there at 7:19PM, and did not just drip down at some later point when he doesn’t claim to have been on his back getting his head smashed. Look at the profile CUs from the SPD and turn them 90°. You’ll see what I mean.

        • April 15, 2013 at 3:52 PM

          Well we don’t really disagree, whonoze. I just tire of people who assume GZ should have blood on the tip- top of his head somehow. The first rule of plumbing is that “stuff” runs downhill.

          But where SHOULD the blood flow if you are on your back? And how to you get an injury like that anyway? Seems to me it would flow into the grass or concrete, and not anywhere on the head at all, until of course you stood up.

          And we all know GZ rose up eventually from his “savage beating” and that the blood trickled a bit and seemed to be already drying quickly. In the iPhone bloody head pic he’s got his face down some, and his chin tucked in I think.

          If it were to run like a river from that position, where else is it gonna go? Seems like it is a lot more likely to go under your ear than over it, eventually.

          I’m not bald or short haired but maybe someone with very short hair could do a little test and post the results?

    • April 15, 2013 at 3:32 AM

      @whonoze
      Sorry whonoze, I just posted a video for willisnewton forgetting it was your blog and you may not want any not really relevant embedded here. As I also posted a tinyurl, which works as a link but doesn’t embed the video, if you prefer please delete the embedded one.

  18. April 14, 2013 at 4:36 PM

    THANKS AMSTERDAM!

    I took a screen shot of my own, plus the one you downloaded and it seems to me that the tan bag is there in the shot, in the lower left corner. The sidewalk right there where the tan bag was found was likely poured in two separate sections due to the grade of the ground leading down from the T at a sight angle and then when it get to the next portion, the part that eventually runs past John’s house it’s more level. It’s a color difference easily spotted in many of the evidence photos and a detail I used to place the evidence markers in context long ago before we had the “total station notes,” which turned out to be dead-on, by the way.

    It doesn’t really mean anything but I’d be willing to bet money that is exactly where GZ was at that moment.

    I’ll post the pics to my flickr soon. One version, the screenshot I made uses the “invert” tool to make a reverse-color version and the bag shows up pretty good there. One wonders if GZ himself wasn’t maybe looking in the bag for drugs or something, and this is why he crouched down in the first place. He may have frisked the teen after he shot him and been chagrined to find out that the “hands in his waistband” was to carry a soda, and that the “baggie” he found was nothing but a 7Eleven bag and not a bag of marijuana.

    • onlyiamunitron
      April 14, 2013 at 5:18 PM

      If the tan bag is out loose in the “just before the first cop got there” photo, that would be very interesting, as it would raise the question of how the can got out of the bag but stayed in the pocket, since it wouldn’t have been the “first-aid’ers” separating them when they pull the can out of the pocket.

      unitron

      • amsterdam1234
        April 14, 2013 at 5:25 PM

        Livingston was the person who removed the can from Trayvon’s pocket. She could only remember a can not the bag. Page 81 second dump.

        • onlyiamunitron
          April 14, 2013 at 5:32 PM

          Thanks, I probably read right past that part a half -dozen times.

          unitron

    • amsterdam1234
      April 14, 2013 at 5:30 PM

      I remember you talking about colour difference and I knew you were able to identify where stuff was located because of that, but I wouldn’t be able to find it. I’ll wait for your analysis to figure out what it is I am looking at.

      I know it doesn’t matter that much, but it helps with the picture in my mind.

  19. April 14, 2013 at 5:57 PM

    I haven’t annotated the photos but the images are all uploaded now. I’m off for some sunday fun just now tho. Look for notes later. The notes on the pics now are from as far back as a year ago, but i threw in a bunch of photos that can be used to imagine the view that Jon had of GZ as he approached from the T, and side views, etc. To help jog all our memories of the context of the space.

    Note that the tan bag moves around slightly in shot to shot, even as the evidence photog was working in the space of a few minutes. I bet they stepped all over it a dozen times. One wonders if the 7Eleven receipt is inside…. and if it’s bloody.

    EO2sidewalkDifference

    click “watch as a slideshow” to see a dissolve between shots and look in the sidewalk crack and below it in the blue box for identifying marks on the sidewalk.
    It’s kind of eerie how close the two shots are in angle.

  20. April 14, 2013 at 9:16 PM

    Hello to all from Tchoupi.

    I’m back again but this time I won’t promise anything concerning participating. I failed big time last time I did so.

    I saw the result of your work Whonoze. I’m really impressed. Bravo, l’artiste.

    Today, I checked [nearly] all of the posts and noticed healthy and sometimes heavy discussions are going on. This is great. I’m really happy about that.

    I also noticed that new discoveries brought some more information since last December. I retain DD’s later to the Martins, the possible GPS data from the cell phones, and the other cctv.
    DD’s statement about TM going through another complex is not very clear to me, unfortunately like many things that young lady says. However, if she meant that he was looking for a shorter path or shelters on his way home, that can easily explain time gaps in the early phase of the events.
    Hopefully, additional cctv and gps records can help. I’m not very clear about what has been released. Any idea?

    I also want to comment on a post by NoMatter about who was crying for help. He put forward his believes that TM was not the one crying for help as he would have followed JohnW6’s commands to stop the fight.
    I think that NoMatter makes a couple of significant hypothesis there, probably without realizing it.
    The 1st hypothesis is that TM must have noticed (heard and possibly seen) JohnW6.
    It is true that Wit # 01, 11, 12 & 19 saw and/or heard JohnW6 from the other side of the dogwalk. However, per my recollection, GZ himself never mentioned hearing the neighbor. He saw him, that’s right. There is no evidence TM has noticed JohnW6.
    The 2nd hypothesis is that TM had the power to put an end to the scuffle. If you assume that GZ was holding on TM tightly, then GZ was the one with the power to decide when to stop. The interesting thing is that, IIRC, GZ was crying toward JohnW6 for help to restrain TM. Unless my memory plays tricks to me, I can only conclude that GZ was not fearing for his life. To the contrary, he was the one with the power to stop it all, and instead chose to keep holding on TM.

    I finally my last comment is for Willi about Austin locations. I know the picture showing where Austin claims he was but I don’t believe it because it so far north, so close to the location of the scuffle that can’t believe that he saw and heard less than W19, I can’t believe that W19 and her dog could not notice him and his dog, I can’t believe that Mary Cutcher (W05) and W01 who were in there kitchens right behind him wouldn’t have noticed that boy and his dog, and finally the time for Austin to go that far north and then back south to escape every witnesses view seems far too long.

    • April 14, 2013 at 10:45 PM

      Hi Tchoupi!! ❤ ❤

      I don't know if GZ was yelling to John for help. It seems that after noticing the fight John pretty quickly headed upstairs for safety. I base this conclusion in part on John's insistence, despite recanting other elements of his statement, that he saw Trayvon on top of GZ. As the two men were "wrestling" it's logical to think that they may have reversed position at least once, and I don't see an explanation for the cuts on the back of GZ's head unless his head was in contact with something on the ground at some point. So my hypothesis is that John saw a moment when a black kid in a hoodie was on top in a struggle, damn near peed his pants, and hustled off to the second floor. I think he took this departure before W11 connected with 911. The struggle continued. GZ gained a superior position, and control. But Trayvon did not become passive and submit. He resisted, and tried to get away. Which is why GZ would have asked for help restraining him.

      On the other hand, I believe Jeremy (W20) is lying about not seeing anything. I think he was out on his screened in porch taking a look see. Had he indeed been out there, he would have been quite visible to GZ despite the screening, if perhaps only in silhouette, due to the backlight coming from the interior of his unit. So I speculate GZ may have been seeking Jeremy's help. (Of course, he could have called out to both of them…) It's even possible that the largely inaudible second voice that seems to be behind the screams on W11's call is actually GZ calling out to Jeremy.

      • April 15, 2013 at 12:06 AM

        You’re right Whonoze, GZ was not yelling for help. In the reenactment he says:
        “Somebody [here] open the door […] And I said, ‘help me! help me!’. He says ‘I call 911’. I say ‘No! Help me! I need help!.'”
        So, yeah, my memory is fading out. Not that I was not aware my poor memory. I just forgot ;oP

    • wassointeresting
      April 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM

      Hi Tchoupi! As with everyone here, glad to read you again. Totally understand about family and real life commitments keeping you busy. But please do join back in the discussion here and/or on BCCList when the trial gets underway, as your insight is always well respected.

  21. April 14, 2013 at 11:38 PM

    welcome back Tchoupi. Not sure you missed much, truly. Almost no substantial new evidence has been released to the media or the public all year.

    I’ve updated the captions and notations to the new flickr set I link to above.

    I agree that Austin may not be right about where he was, but I do feel I am right about where he stood to get his picture taken. Maybe he is one unit too far north. Those cookie cutter houses all look the same.

    • April 15, 2013 at 12:14 AM

      Thanks Willi.

      The advantage of being off for 3 months is that the progress looks more substantial. Although it is true that I haven’t seen the new cctv and gps data.

      • April 15, 2013 at 12:51 AM

        re “new” GPS and cctv data:

        Neither has anyone else outside of the case seen these materials. I’m not completely convinced there is any useful GPS data myself. Nor do I have much hope that anything useful is seen on the other cctv cameras.

        The fact that TM’s calls kept dropping make me wonder if he had good enough reception to triangulate his position from 3 towers. And what we “know” about the alleged GPS data is that MOM scores points when he complains about not getting evidence that may or may not be real, or not already in his possession,etc.

        I’m also not sure that GZ’s phone was advanced enough to store GPS info, but admittedly I’m no expert in this regard. But I’ve not seen a credible article or blog post by any real experts either that lead me to think the situation has been adequately explained to my satisfaction as to what is possible, probable and what is not. I think we’d all love to see some miracle of technology solve this case for us but I don’t think that’s likely. But that’s the cynic in me talking.

        • April 15, 2013 at 1:24 AM

          I understand your point of view.
          However, I’m more optimistic.
          For example, I’m not sure whether TM line continuously dropped because of the signal at RATL or because of the signal at DD’s place or possible because of the limited bandwidth T-mobile offers.
          I also think that the records for just one cellphone [TM or GZ] is enough. Finally, we may not need 10m resolution to get an idea of whether TM and/or GZ moved away from the T minutes before the scuffle.
          Well, I may be too optimistic. I’ve read discussions on whether there really is gps data to start with.

          The cctv data is more informative about TM’s route back home before the NEN call. I’m not sure how important it is besides helping to reconstruct the last 60min of his life.

        • onlyiamunitron
          April 15, 2013 at 1:47 AM

          “The cctv data is more informative about TM’s route back home before the NEN call. I’m not sure how important it is besides helping to reconstruct the last 60min of his life.”

          I’d kind of like to compare it to what Witness 8 has said so far, to possibly assist in getting her account to work with the NEN call and Zimmerman’s afterwards version(s).

          unitron

  22. April 15, 2013 at 12:53 AM

    TCHOUPI!!!!!

    Welcome back. Where and how have you been?

    You didn’t miss much. It’s been verbal dramas and melodramas, no real evidence.

    They haven’t given us the new cctv and GPS stuff.

    Only 2 months to go to the trial……….

    • April 15, 2013 at 1:34 AM

      I haven’t moved much. Some change professionally speaking may explain most of my absence. A family life explains a big share too. And, I have to admit that my attention has started to switch after we got to some consensus on what the clubhouse video show.
      I’m really happy we could get there. I’m impressed by the video that has been produced. In the same time, I’m sad that it doesn’t look like the prosecution really understand there is usable information in those videos. Basic stuffs can be easily demonstrated using those vids. I’m mostly referring to 1) no car ever parked in front of the clubhouse as described by GZ, and 2) there is just and only one car that can be that of GZ on that night and it was not following GZ’s narrative particularly as it stopped by the mailboxes.
      In any cases, that’s quite an achievement. I’ll do it a la Whonoze: Bcclist, GO GO!!! Bcclist uber alles!

      • April 15, 2013 at 11:41 AM

        I agree that we’ve had zero indication that the prosecution is taking the clubhouse videos seriously and that this is a disturbing trend to watch. But like a lot of things we don’t know what is in their “inscrutable minds” lol and won’t know until the trial. They have every reason to shield their trail strategy for as long as possible. There is only one car that trolls the mailbox and if that ISN’T the same car that returns and seems to park facing the mail kiosk, then where the ^&*%%#@ was GZ around that time? Waiting in John’s backyard to mug the first kid that went by, on the phone to NEN call-takers making up the most fantastic story in the universe? I tend to doubt this.

        Also, the map he marked showing a position near the first bend in TTL seems like a HUGE mistake on his part. Look at a google map of your own neighborhood, pretend you went to a birthday party at a neighbor’s house and tell me if you parked your car on a corner like that that you would mistake it for the middle of a street section as GZ seems to have. he may be ADHD, or PTSD or just plain stupid, but he knows a street corner from a straightway. It’s an obvious fudge he IMMEDIATELY tried to cover up IMO. He marked the corner position in between telling two obvious lies, and denied the truthful position. To me this is where he “cooked his own goose” completely. I hope to hell someone introduces this at trial.

        I also don’t see the prosecution YET pushing the car-to-pedestrian chase that IMO is easily provable, and fairly clearly understood by w8/Dee Dee and yet seemingly OVERLOOKED by BDLR thus far.

        If I could write a letter to the prosecution, and I’m sure they have received plenty from total nut-jobs and are tired of looking at the pile of them, I’d ask them to read this blog and watch the video whonoze produced from the consensus work done here. If they are missing this material they are missing great stuff. Its entirely possible our combined tiny voices are lost in the sea of speculation and CT. But it’s also possible they are reasonable people and came to similar conclusions without our help at all.

        As a believer in the car-to-pedestrian chase I’m stuck seeing the obviousness of it all. I’ve yet to see a plausible scenario where GZ and TM can be anywhere different, and I think Dee Dee is saying that this car to person chase happened, too. Are others here as convinced as I am that this is what happened, or am I being humored here? It’s odd not feeling one’s beliefs are validated sometimes. I hate to fish for compliments, but “can I get a witness?” Someone in the amen corner, perhaps to agree with me that GZ parked there and chased the teen down TTL and that it’s PROVABLE in court beyond a reasonable doubt?

        • April 15, 2013 at 12:47 PM

          Absolutely without a doubt he chased him along TTL. No other way the numbers add up.

          But how they’ll set about proving it, I can’t say.

          Except we know the GZ side is reading the internet. I am fairly sure the prosecution would be, also. And there was article to remind them that bloggers are doing thousands of dollars worth of mapping work.

          They don’t have to say what analysis they’ve been doing, as it’s all work product, not evidence as such.

        • unitron
          April 15, 2013 at 3:11 PM

          “Absolutely without a doubt he chased him along TTL.”

          “Chase” implies moving quickly enough to catch if you’re talking about a vehicle chasing someone on foot.

          I’d lean more towards saying that he followed him.

          If this latest adjustment works I won’t need to sign this post.

        • amsterdam1234
          April 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM

          I am 100 % with you Willis. I think I have been since our DailyKos days. I wasn’t convinced the tail was restricted to TTL at first, but the clubhouse videos, the map where GZ drew his positions, the timing and DeeDee’s statements all point to the same thing.

          The prosecution hasn’t said much about anything. I can’t imagine they wouldn’t scrutinize those videos. I am sure they had better tools than we did. I am sure they used it in their analysis, I am not sure if they will use it in presenting their case.

          I suspect they have more evidence than we know. I am waiting for those witness lists. They were supposed to turn those in on April 10th. The experts may give us a clue.

          I’ve been checking blueberry models to see which of them have a gps chip. All of the ones I checked do have them for at least a couple of years.

          I am curious if providers use that capability to collect data, I haven’t been able to find anything on that. I find it hard to imagine they wouldn’t if they could.

        • April 15, 2013 at 4:39 PM

          I cross fingers that that the information about where and how the Ridgeline was parked is not definitely lost.

          There is one person we know has seen GZ’s truck & at least 2 others who likely saw it on TTL:
          1) The ofc who check its plate (I forgot his name),
          2) Ofc T. Smith may have noticed the truck has he was initially looking for it before switching to W3 address, and
          3) Wit #3 who I know looked on TTL as T. Smith entered the complex.

        • April 16, 2013 at 6:28 AM

          Strange that you haven’t noticed that the motions and answers both sides have filed, contain their email addresses. It’s obvious to me that these email addresses are monitored carefully, which is why they were prepared for the specific purpose of being given out with their motions.

          Anyone who has been at this online theorizing/problem solving, for any length of time knows, police solve most of their reported crimes, by tips from the public. So, why would they stop or prevent any such tips from coming in? The answer is they don’t. They compare each tip with their insider knowledge, to see if author is a hit or a miss. The hits go in one pile, the misses in another, and still others go in the maybe pile.

          In any event, just go to the motions pdf and open a motion, the email addresses should be right there at the bottom

  23. amsterdam1234
    April 15, 2013 at 1:49 AM

    Tchoupi
    So good to see you back. Not much new here.
    But less than 2 months before the trial starts.

  24. April 15, 2013 at 6:48 AM

    gbrbsb :

    Scheiße! I forgot the end of blockquotes maybe.

    You have to put a slash in front of the close-blockquote tag:e.g. /blockquote

    • April 15, 2013 at 7:37 PM

      @whonoze:

      You have to put a slash in front of the close-blockquote tag:e.g. /blockquote

      Thanks for tip, and thanks for correcting it too… I assume you did because when I saw it last it looked perfect!

  25. April 15, 2013 at 11:15 AM

    regarding the position of GZ during the bloody head video: Using the still frame capture that Amsterdam was able to pull from an ABC News (video) report on You Tube I think we can now see what is probably GZ’s left KNEE on the sidewalk. IMO he is on both his knees with his posterior lowered in a paused or resting position of some sort. His left hand may be “akimbo” and on his upper left thigh to steady himself, but it is hidden. However the left shoulder seems straight and his head is tipped down which makes me think this might be what he is doing.

    Screen shot of ABC news video

    @ Gbrbsb: what you are calling the “Asian squat” some midwesterners call “hunkering down,” and it’s a “farmer thing.” Someone in poor physical condition like GZ wouldn’t likely do that, IMO.

    I think GZ was woozy from stress and physical exertion, and from having his minor injuries and he probably bonked his head at least once, either in a fall or by having his head pushed down somewhat like he describes but not as “savagely.” If he was on bottom at one point and holding onto Trayvon’s hoodie in the chest area with one or both hands and the teen tried to rise up, they may have both collapsed when their combined weight became too heavy. George would hit his head because his hands were too occupied to keep his elbows on the ground to cushion his “fall.”

    After the shooting he seems to have frisked the teen, got up and started walking north, knowing he’d heard witnesses but not yet encountering anyone. His gun was possibly on the ground or in his hand as he walked and for some reason went from standing to a position on his knees, facing the body, about fifteen feet away. He may have been examining the tan bag, which he may or may not have pulled from TM’s pocket himself after the fatal shot was fired. We can’t know absent a credible full confession.

    As for the blood trails on the back of his head, it seems he asked Jon/W13 if he was bleeding back there. He doesn’t seemed to have raked his hand over the area but he may have touched his nose first and his head second, because there are some light areas of possible handprint/bloodstains on his upper head above the obvious injuries.

    Also, witnesses describe him holding his head in a “what have I done”‘ manner as though in pain or grief or some sort of obvious distress. I’d hate to characterize what he felt and frankly I don’t believe a word he says but there is a reasonable chance he put his hand back there very lightly to see if he was bleeding, but couldn’t tell because he touched his nose first and his hand or fingers was already bloody. Again keep in mind he’s naturally left-handed, even though apparently he shoots right handed.

    Many things are possible. Blood running uphill for no reason seems unlikely. What GZ claims happened is not possible.

    • April 15, 2013 at 12:32 PM

      @willisnewton
      My squat reference was a joke, willis, just having a bit of fun with the cute video!

      That said I know well what it is. It is most often called “indigenous squat” for obvious reasons; from my travels it’s the 100% normal way in India, China, South America, North Africa, and even Spain for as you say, “farm” or country folk, and in those countries it’s done by toddlers, young, old, ancient, fat, and thin alike. I have seen elderly ground market sellers in India maintain the pose for hours and hours. That is why I must disagree with you on the fitness issue as from my experience it’s about balance not fitness with from sumo wrestlers to my sister in law, an Indian, (from India and not Hindu which is an incorrect term widely used at least here to refer to peoples from India) morbidly obese by UK standards and 55 years old, doing it all the time and my sister in law also rides, or dare I say perches, on a bike proving her balance!

      On my travels I was taught it is about doing it naturally as most kids start and continuing to do it into adulthood, but you can learn it later in life too. So contrary to your view, it’s my bet that coming from a family with afro -Peruvian heritage it would be second nature to GZ the same as for all south americans I have known and lived with.

      • April 15, 2013 at 1:14 PM

        I guess some time in the next 25-30 years we can visit the prison GZ incarcerated in and see if he squats like that in the exercise yard as a way of passing the time. We should make a pact to go spy on him and bet a nickel on the outcome. It would be like a blogger’s reunion party. lol

        Genetically speaking, there is no such thing as “race.” So the question becomes a cultural one. IMO he is not a hunker-er type given his background. Drive around Manassas Virginia and see how many kids in playgounds are doing the indigenous squat, and for that matter college age students too.

        Like you said, it’s a balance thing. GZ was not in the best shape physically even before his adrenaline was elevated. Plus he’d be taller in the photo were he on his feet but squatting. Impossible to tell, not enough data.

        If that indeed is his pants leg/ knee poking out in the bottom left corner of the frame, and I’m by no means certain it is, mind you – we need to see the original photo file before assuming anything – then he looks to be on his knees to me. Again to squat and balance and hold a phone to one’s ear is kind of a trick for a normal American person of his background I think.

        And finally there is the question of relevance but I actually think in certain ways it does matter. More on that after I’ve shot some tests.

        • April 15, 2013 at 2:06 PM

          @willisnewton
          Love it… we’re on! I can just imagine GZ in the corner of the prison yard hunkered down in the “whatever you wanna call it” squat selling “coca tea” to inmates in on a long stretch claiming it’s for “longitude” as well as altitude sickness! シ (hopefully a more elegant smilie if it works)

          Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t say, or didn’t mean to at least, it had anything to do with race (the Spaniards) and “indigenous” isn’t my invention. In India it’s not even about caste so from the Brahmins, my sister in law, down to untouchables it’s just the normal squat.

          If that indeed is his pants leg/ knee poking out in the bottom left corner of the frame…

          I think you may have something… it could be his knee, so he may be kneeling… although in that case why no wet knees in the SPD photos?

          BTW, wasn’t sure who Jean Dodge was until I joined this blog but had noseyed around your pics and maps etc. many a time. Great work!

    • April 15, 2013 at 3:15 PM

      I think GZ was in pretty good shape at he time of the shooting. He’d been doing those bouncer gigs, and working out with his bouncer buddies. He wasn’t carrying the extra weight he shows now, or in his earlier mug shot, and his upper body seems well muscled. That said, the work-outs he probably had been doing would have been for strength, not cardio, and he could have been winded after the chase and struggle, also slightly woozy from a bump on the noggin,or just emotionally gassed from killing another human being.

      Or maybe he was having an OMG WTF moment as he had frisked Trayvon, pulled out the 7-11 bag, and finding only the package of Skittles realized he’d just stepped into a major shitstream. That could bring a person to his knees. (I doubt it’s a coincidence that the bag appears in the photo…)

      Unlike many of the folks at the lounge, I doubt GZ realized he had an innocent kid on his hands and shot him in cold blood to keep him quiet. My guess is he thought he was tussling with at least a gansta wanna-be, he had Trayvon under control for awhile, during the screaming, but then the youth broke free or was obviously about to, and GZ panicked and shot him. Murder 2 all the way.

      Anyway, there had to be a point where he realized he hadn’t been struggling with a thug, realized he might be in trouble, and started making stuff up to tell the cops. It seems like a good bet that this happened just before Jon took the photo, when GZ asked him if his head was bleeding.

      I can only imagine the sigh of relief he felt when he saw that it was Tim Smith coming around the corner to take him into custody, and can only imagine what he would have felt had the arriving officer been African-American.

      • April 15, 2013 at 4:26 PM

        @whonoze
        How right you are whonoze. At the first hearing dressed in prison overalls, (short sleeves so you see his arms), GZ looks lean and well formed, on the par with the policeman standing beside him. And at the bond hearing he looks even leaner, wiry and skinny even.

        I don’t think it was planned either. I do have a niggling doubt about whether MO might have been in the truck, but if he was I’m sure he sped the hell out of there on hearing the shot. GZ was desperate to show his worth, to be the RATL hero, “el salvador”, so he probably did plan, or at least dream, about detaining one of the neighbourhood thugs, but I am sure not the rest. The rest came because he bit off more than he could chew; he got angry with a whippersnapper who wouldn’t lie down and obey him and who may even have been at the point of getting away, or dare I say, at the point of getting the upper hand. And not by using deadly force but by survivor’s instinct, and in which case GZ’s fulminating reply with deadly force can never be justified so guilty as charged on M2. The fact GZ frisked Trayvon IMO means he thought he had bagged much more than an innocent “momma’s boy” (no insult to Trayvon intended because a) I’m pretty sure he fought back, and b) I think there should be more softees in power to make this world a better place anyway!

        • April 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM

          There’s nothing at all wrong with Trayvon being either a Momma’s boy and timid and not fighting back. None of those things are illegal and in the final analysis Trayvon Martin was a magnificent hero! Think about it, although he was terrified, he did not yield to his attacker, he resisted without getting physical, Face it, if you’re struggling with someone and they grab you by your shirts, your reaction is to grab hold of the hand that’s holding you. Trayvon never even did that. Instead his hands remained at his sides with GZ continued to enjoy terrifying him. GZ kept it up until he realized the police would be there so he had to finish up. That’s when he took the kill shot so he could put his gun away.

          Remember, GZ says he didn’t realize he had killed Trayvon, so then, if he’d just been within seconds of losing his own life, why did he put his gun away so quickly?

          Wha???? The guy who almost killed you a second ago, is now laying uninjured face down on the ground… And you holster your gun and jump on top of him? Is it just me? Or does anyone else see something wrong with this story?

      • April 16, 2013 at 9:47 AM

        I’m sorry but the evidence tells me that GZ caught Trayvon and enjoyed every minute of it. he wasn’t scared of anything, believed his people had his back, so he could do whatever he wished. Trayvon’s demeanor would, within seconds inform him that this was just a helpless and terrified child, not a brazen thug. GZ just feels that blacks are so inconsequential that he can use them for target practice without fear of consequences, just as his buddies at the cop shop do. He was already aware that Wolfinger and Lee held low opinions of blacks, he knew that police generally were down on blacks and his HOA was filled with anti black people.

        Sure, he knew, the kid’s parents and relatives would whine a bit, but with the police and the prosecutors office refusing to take any action, the media would come to his side and the whole thing would be forgotten in a few short weeks. Instead the story gathered steam and the boiler nearly bursting with pressure, sent Wolfinger and Lee running for cover.

        GZ was living his dream that night. Everyone was towing the line, even the police were working with him and Chief Lee came to the scene to ensure that the troops were doing their best to help sweep this under the rug. This was either a thrill kill, or an initiation or both.

  26. April 15, 2013 at 11:46 AM

    It is also possible that, post shooting, GZ retreated from the body to get himself away from the pool of dim light that shined off of John/W6’s patio. Think of his shame, if he is capable of any, as a possible subconscious motivation to leave the lighted area for the darkness.

  27. April 15, 2013 at 4:28 PM

    Okay put on your tinfoil hats for this one… and I don’t mean just the everyday ones, I mean your sunday best ones.

    Whonoze I’d love your opinion on this, and anyone else who is familiar with Adobe photoshop and digital photography tools in general…

    I think i see something in the bloody head photo… something significant in a “material to the case” way and I’m at that point where I need some independent eyes to look at it. Is there a way to share something with you before I shoot my mouth off and lose all credibility around here?

    I’m not skilled enough at wordpress to know how to PM someone… so I’m just going to put a huge huge disclaimer on this and paste it onto my flickr page with the understanding that this probably isn’t what I think it might be. But if you still belive santa claus, take a look at my flickr page.

    Screen shot 2013-04-15 at 2.21.35 PM
    • April 15, 2013 at 6:09 PM

      What’s the URL where the screencap of the pic without the ABC banner was pulled from?

      I would say your Photoshop tweaks indicate the presence of something rectangular on the ground, and within the limits of my non-engineer’s understanding of digital photography, I don’t see how a shape that regular could appear unless something was actually there. As to your hypothesis about what that rectangle is: it seems like a logical candidate under the circumstances, and I can’t think of any alternative candidates off the top of my head.

      Tinfoil chapeau on or off, I wonder:
      a) how much detail is in the original ,jpg file that came off the iPhone. iPhone cameras have lousy contrast range, but fairly high resolution…
      b) whether it’s just a coincidence that something appears in the lower left of the frame, or whether Jon is enough of a photographer to frame the image with telling detail in the background (not that he’d know what it meant, necessarily, though if that object is what you think it is, and it was openly visible, he might have guessed). My point being that thought whatever’s there in the lower left is obscure in the photo, it would have been clearly visible and intelligible to naked eye, and also perhaps on the view screen.

      I like your hypothesis because it fits so nicely with the wholly speculative narrative of why GZ might have knelt down that I posted earlier.

      And I agree that looks like his left knee on the sidewalk, just peeking out from behind the shoulder of his jacket…

      • April 15, 2013 at 7:38 PM

        amsterdam poster the abc news video report url from you tube above… i think. Credit goes to her for finding this video version that shows more of the original photo, if only barely and very compressed.

        at the time of this posting it was still up

        For the record, its ABC News Matt Gutman reporting on the morning of a bond hearing. I think around a year ago exactly – circa april 20th 2012? If the link goes bad, the particulars are ABC news, the first bond hearing where GZ gave his “apology” and Matt Guttman reporting on the ABC exclusive photo of GZ’s bloody head as shot by Jon/W13 using an iPhone 4s and the built-in flash…

        In the video report ABC news maintains that the iPhone’s GPS shows it was taken on the scene. Not sure the exactl language and IIRC the print report doesn’t make this exact claim…. I’ll have to recheck the print version.

        There is a link in the you tube report to an abc news web version of the story that also covers the “apology” at the bond hearing that dates the video clips broadcast somewhat as well. Sorry I don’t keep a timeline.

        remove the spaces here to copy and paste the link.

        http: //abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-case-exclusive-photo-shows-bloodied-back/story?id=16177849#.UWyH0c1xaWF

        The story contains a link to the “original” abc web version of the “exclusive” bannered photo.

        Like we keep saying, we don’t yet have Jon/W13’s actual photo file yet, and so there are more questions than answers at present.

        The myriad of questions this idea brings up boggles my mind.

        As a photographer and a film maker, I am struck by the totality of the “mis-en-scene” aspect of how one photo could seemingly both seemingly “exonerate” and completely indict the killer. At the time of it’s publication there was much back-and-forth about what if any injuries GZ had sustained. The public had seen a leaked video of GZ arriving at the cop shop in the wake of the shooting but had not yet known that the EMTs cleaned him up on scene. he seemingly had no injuries, or very light ones. Then ABC news released this “bloody head photo” in an exclusive, and those who supported GZ felt the photo was significantly corroborating his story.

        At the same time, myself and others noticed the photo showed George speaking into a cell phone, seemingly not in handcuffs. Mistakenly I blogged (on Kos) that this photo might have been taken after the arrival of ofc TIm Smith. Not everything was documented yet about arrival times, etc of the first responders IIRC.

        Now the specter of the idea that perhaps the skittles package was NOT found in the deceased’s hoodie jacket pocket raises questions about how or when they were moved, etc and one can spin endless conspiracy theories about all this. I dislike conspiracy theories, and am sorry in some ways to even have to bring all this up but if it’s evidence it deserves consideration. I just don’t yet know if it is really “evicence” or not. It’s certainly fodder for internet speculation anyways.

        Some say SPD lead investigator Chris Serino is the source of the video leak of the arrival of GZ at sop shop that was much debated. I don’t claim to know the story there, but again Matt Guttman of ABC News is the one who reported it.

        One possible explanation for the rectangular thing that reflected light to the camera’s sensor could be that this is the receipt from 7Eleven inside the tan bag. To me that’s the “innocent” version that takes into account the idea that the photograph captured something real, plausible and rectangular. It doesn’t explain the reddish color. The source clip I’m working with is too degraded to know what is possible.

        Photographically speaking, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as usable image is concerned and that’s why I consider this unproven and just a weird head-scratcher at this point.

        I’m also struck by the endlessly debatable aspect of how good the source material is. To me this is like the Mary Moorman polaroid of JFK’s death that some claim shows a “badgeman” on the grassy knoll in Dealy Plaza, and others agree is way to indistinct to show anything “usable.”

        it’s like the “X-files” television shows where at each stage the screen writers make sure the “evidence” can be taken to prove or disprove supernatural events or whatever.

        Here is the whole debate in one photo – how close does one care to examine it, and how far does one’s own bias allow you to see what you want to see?

        • April 15, 2013 at 8:51 PM

          I can’t get the frame w/o the banner from the YT vid, but at the ABC link you posted, the video does a tilt up the photo while Dian Sawyer is doing the intro. The banner stays in the same place in the frame, so as the tilt goes up, what was under the banner becomes revealed. I’ve taken a series of screencaps and should be able to mesh them into a composite still w/o the banner in PS.

          It appears Jon took the photo in portrait orientation, so all the vids and stills on the web are cropping the top and bottom. Maybe my imagination is running away with me, but the portrait framing suggests a bit mores strongly to me that Jon was trying to capture the bg objects in the frame.

          FWIW, i think the rectangle is too wide to be a receipt. Receipts are also printed on very flimsy paper that would not likely have held it’s shape so well after a 15 walk inside a pocket and a struggle on the ground.

          I also don’t see a major CT necessarily in reports of where the objects were reported found. IIRC there were conflicting versions of where the can of Arizona was. If the Skittles were in his pocket and the bag was on the sidewalk when the cops logged their locations, how did the Skittles get out of the bag?

          GZ could have put the Skittles back in TM’s pocket, and Jon could have thought that innocent or proper. Or Jon could have put them back while Smith was taking GZ into custody, thinking that was the right thing to do after seeing GZ remove them from the body. Or Ayala could have found the Skittles on the ground, assumed they came out of the pocket during the attempt to revive Martin, and put them back where he thought they belonged. GZ having searched Martin’s body hardly seems incriminating enough to cover up. This is hardly Dealy Plaza stuff, or even the ‘GZ racks his gun during the NEN call’ wackiness.

          Again, maybe I’m not being skeptical enough, but it looks to me like you’ve got more than a head-scratcher there, if still less than something definitive.

          If only as a very plausible hypothesis, I think you have an amazing find. GZ could have been attempting a phone call while kneeling over his victim’s bag of Skittles…. Damn!

        • wassointeresting
          April 15, 2013 at 9:11 PM

          As long as imaginations are running wild, maybe he knelt down, not to pose for a pretty pic, but to see what his “burglar” was caught red handed with and dropped in the sidewalk, oops, nothing, “Oh, shitake, I’m in deep doo-doo”, he’s thinking, “I gotta call somebody now…..”

        • April 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM

          I usually avoid theorizing about witness involvement in GZ’s killing and I don’t believe GZ needed any help from anyone. So, I certainly don’t claim that Jon helped GZ chasing, trapping or killing TM.
          That said, Jon’s personality is striking. Although he heard the gunshot, he goes to the hot spot armed with a flashlight and a cell phone. Then he demonstrates an amazing capability of detachment to the events. Although he volunteered helping officers in their attempt to revive TM, he did not think a second of helping the boy on his own. Instead, he takes pictures of the laying body, the bigger flashlight and of GZ’s head.
          GZ’s head picture was clearly not taken without GZ’s agreement. GZ, indeed, had to lowered himself to make that picture possible.
          Where I’m going to is that somehow Jon ended up collaborating with GZ, the same way he collaborated with SPD, to collect evidence of the GZ’s wounds. But what I really don’t like about that is that this collaboration doesn’t show in the interviews.

        • April 16, 2013 at 3:51 PM

          Let’s step back to basics for a minute.

          1) the 7-11 video shows Trayvon placing the skittles in his pocket, while asking for a bag for the drink.
          2) the skittles were eventually found in his pocket. With blood on them. HIS blood.

          3) Jon met GZ fairly close to the T (by his statement and W18 statement)
          4) now by the distinct colour change in the concrete, it appears the photo was NOT taken really close to the body.

          Okay, skittles etc can fall from pockets during a fight. But how would they end up NORTH of the fight scene? when things that would fall more easily, because they were not in pockets (phone, flashlight) ended up way south of where this photo was taken?

          GZ had no opportunity to place anything on the body once the neighbours were out. The police arrived within about 30 seconds of this photo being taken. GZ was never seen touching the body after that. He may have touched the skittles while frisking Trayvon, but what motive would he have for moving them 10 or 15 feet north and then replacing them unseen by 10 people standing around?

          Who would even notice a small red packet on the grass, in the dark? Why would they think they “belong” to the dead guy? Why would they think he needs it returned to him for safe keeping, given that he’s dead?

          Who would go returning assumed lost property to someone instead of giving them first aid?

          I think the skittles were continuously in Trayvon’s pocket from the 7-11 to the coroner’s slab.

          The red square item in the photo may be of significance, if we knew what it is. It is not the skittles.

          ~ aussie
          (allergic to tin foil)

  28. April 15, 2013 at 6:39 PM

    unitron :

    “Chase” implies moving quickly enough to catch if you’re talking about a vehicle chasing someone on foot.

    I’d lean more towards saying that he followed him.

    I don’t necessarily agree with your definition of “chase”. Nevertheless, the term “pursuit” may be less loaded and thus more apropos.

    • unitron
      April 15, 2013 at 6:52 PM

      If it was his intent all along to catch him, rather than just keep track of where he was, I’m sure the truck could have gone fast enough to get ahead of him.

      And to me, “chase” implies “desire to catch”.

      • April 15, 2013 at 9:16 PM

        @unitron

        And to me, “chase” implies “desire to catch”.

        Principle definition yes, but, to be awkward, it can also mean “to follow or run after (a person, animal, or goal) persistently or quickly” and what about, “to put to flight”, except I don’t believe GZ was trying to scare him off.

        That said, as whonoze notes, “pursuit” may be better, if only by a nuance, and I like that it’s origins have “persecute” and “prosecute” attached! I also it in Spanish “perseguir”, 2nd definition, “molestar (to annoy), hostigar (to harass), fatigar (to fatigue, exhaust or to tire)”!

        • April 15, 2013 at 9:21 PM

          Sorry for worse than usual erratas. There is a forgotten full stop and u/c “A, “And” after “quckly” (2nd line), and it should read “I also like it in Spanish, “perseguir”…”

    • April 15, 2013 at 8:01 PM

      I’ll happily go with whatever term describes what can be proven happened – that GZ trolled the mail kiosk, that GZ agreed TM was “near the clubhouse now” and that GZ moved his car while on the phone w NEN as he admits, albeit by changing the locations of his point of origin and giving an unproven point of destination with the possibility of his car facing either direction as yet unproven to us. And that this move was seemingly done in concert with TM’s walking past his car on his way home, and that after GZ said “these axxholes always get away” that he MUST have moved his car in the same direction that the teen was walking, and seemingly at the same time, causing the teen to exit the roadway and run to where a car wouldn’t likely follow.

      It is entirely possible that GZ backed his car up, headlights off and PASSED the teen causing the youth to technically “circle the vehicle” in a moving ballet given the idea that he was first on once side and then the other of the car.

      Many things are possible. What GZ claims happened is NOT possible.

      I’ve often maintained that this was a “slow motion chase” and indeed it’s difficult to come up with the proper terminology. I settled on “car-to-pedestrian chase” not for the sensationalist factor but for clarity and brevity’s sake. There was a “foot chase” according to BDLR and multiple witnesses to such. We can debate all this until the cows come home but what matters is what a jury will believe beyond a reasonable doubt.

      GZ himself argues about the definition of “following” so I shy away from using that word.

      I’m open for suggestions as to the best short phrase that describes what happened.

      “The car followed the kid” seems good too but doesn’t imply the visual aspect. GZ moved to maintain a visual and he more or less admits as much. He just deliberately fudges the details in order to obfuscate the most reasonable explanations for the evidence, ascribing the activity to a non existent directive from the NEN call taker.

      Let’s not split hairs here. He chased the kid with his car IMO. Stalking is another good word and in fact has a statutory definition in the FLorida criminal code, I think.

      • April 15, 2013 at 10:03 PM

        @willisnewton

        On reflection I don’t believe you should change it willis. It is so visual… self explanatory… and GZ did “catch” Trayvon in the end, and as I just noted in reply to Unitron it can also mean:

        “to follow or run after (a person, animal, or goal) persistently or quickly”

        Furthermore, I just googled “car-to-pedestrian-chase” and up came many of your posts explaining it so if you change that could be lost.

        I also realised there is another use which I think your “car-to-pedestrian-chase” echoes beautifully, “chase” as in “steeplechase”, in Shakespeare’s time a race with a church steeple as a goal (steeple + chase). From the Oxford dictionary if used as a noun:

        noun
        • an act of pursuing someone or something:

        • short for steeplechase.

        • (the chase) hunting as a sport:

        • archaic a hunted animal.

        So if you decide to change it, my suggestion: “car-to-pedestrian-pursuit” at the most, but I personally feel it loses strength that way even though “pursuit” does fit.

  29. April 15, 2013 at 9:21 PM

    Can anyone recommend a video download plug-in for Firefox that will work on the ABC site (it uses the Kaltura Open Source Player)?

    • April 15, 2013 at 9:35 PM

      @whonoze. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/video-downloadhelper/

      I just added the video downloader this weekend. It comes with a converter but also has a separate converter that might work on the ABC site. Not that I’m a whiz at this stuff, but if you give me the link to the ABC site and the format you need, I’ll see if it works with the firefox downloader on my computer.

      • April 15, 2013 at 10:07 PM

        I tried it. Doesn’t work. Did some Googling: apparently the networks use DRM on their own sites and none of the standard downloaders work. I found one program that’s supposed to get anything, but it’s expensive, Windows only, and I’m on a Mac… Thanks anyway, Xena.

    • April 15, 2013 at 9:45 PM

      @Whonoze. I went to the ABC news site and downloaded the first video that was on the screen using the Firefox addon that was obtained at the link I provided in the other comment. It automatically downloaded it in MP4 format. I was able to play it Quicktime.

      • April 15, 2013 at 10:11 PM

        Did you get the news story with Diane Sawyer doing a VO over the tilt up of Jon’s photo?

        • April 15, 2013 at 10:20 PM

          @Whonoze. No, I downloaded the video where a person at the Boston bombing was interviewed.

          If you have the link for what you want downloaded, please post it. I’m a bit too tired tonight to concentrate to search. If I can download it, I’ll let you know, then we can figure out how to get it to you.

  30. April 15, 2013 at 9:54 PM

    whonoze wrote:

    “GZ could have been attempting a phone call while kneeling over his victim’s bag of Skittles…. Damn!”

    All amateur detective notions aside for a moment, I’m just talking about the DRAMA and symbology of it all. So yeah, yeah whonoze, that’s what I mean… the just plain “story sense” it all makes is so damn poignant to me it almost too overloaded for one image to hold it all.

    I’m wondering what a film director would do if this were a badly-made TV movie of the week, and had to “stage” this moment as dramatically as possible. Well, he’d be sure that the big crane shot with the swelling music had all the iconic elements visible – the killer, the skittles, and the dying teen moaning in the background as the guilty person fell to his knees frantically searching for the weapon or drugs he could claim gave him reason to claim self defense.

    To start the opening shot of the whole (bad) movie, I’d put the camera right where Jon did and start the shot with GZ frisking the body fifteen feet away, finding the soda can and pausing to mumble… “so this is what he was hiding in his waistband? Iced Tea?” He’d pull out the tan bag next and go, “yes, drugs! that will save me!” (I’m a very cheesy director in this fantasy, okay?) And then he’d walk into his own close up, camera still there on the 30 foot from the T mark, smugly looking inside the bag like television heroes like Starsky and Hutch used to do when they found a “key” of “horse” and dipped their pinky into it for a taste, with the “suspect” in an arm lock, just before they say “cuff him!” Only he’d pull out a pack of skittles instead and then fall to his knees like a dime store villain, desperate and defeated, until he has an AHA moment, and begins to call his secret confederate for advice on how to frame up an alibi as the crane lifted up higher and higher and the blood trickles IN SLOW MOTION. As the crane reached it’s zenith all the witnesses would be seen poking heads out their windows, and Austin’s dog would bark a lonely howl as distant sirens wailed and the opening credits flashed on the screen: DEATH RIDES A RIDGELINE: THE TRAYVON MARTIN KILLING

    That’s one way to look at it, anyways. There are of course many other ways to see this and I’m intentionally being hyperbolic for the moment.

    One could also say, “Not only did he KILL the kid, he stole his freakin’ candy too, and then put it BACK as it began to dawn on him fully that he murdered the teen.” (people love to speculate) Or, alternately complain about how the crime scene was contaminated after the fact and cast blame around that way on cops or bystanders or whatever. I mean seriously if that was the candy package who moved it and why? How did it get there (assuming it is there) in the first place? So weird, yet so totally possible at the same time.

    Gee I wish we had the original photo file.

    (ask amsterdam exactly how she got the thumbnail version she put in a drop box. I don’t really understand what she did to get that, but her version somehow excludes the graphic banner altogether.)

    Another thing I went looking for and didn’t find was an evidence photo of the candy package itself. Does that exist? Why can’t I seem to find it, is it with the autopsy materials of what? Skittles is the most popular brand of candy w kids of a certain age and the packaging changes a lot. I’m not sure what graphics it had on it, or if was the purple kind or the family size, etc. I’d like to compare.

    • April 15, 2013 at 10:09 PM

      @willisnewton

      I’m a very cheesy director in this fantasy, okay?

      Don’t know about “cheesy” but you are sure on a roll!

      • April 15, 2013 at 10:13 PM

        Roll out the kickstarter campaign. We’ll split the money and hire North Korean child workers to animate the whole thing for pennies on the dollar and retire on the profits. lol

        • April 15, 2013 at 10:38 PM

          Second deal we have today… I’m gonna get rich!

          Just searched for the Skittles… Na’ de na’… Zilch… Nothing… Nowhere, not on axiom, not even on Tchoupie’s evidence map! Could it be… could it just be the Skittles are culpatory evidence and not yet disclosed? Could it be the Skittles are culpatory because they weren’t where they should have been? Could it be they were lying on the ground near GZ’s feet? Or could it be he managed to put them back but something proves he handled them? (I forgot where were they were found?).

          Forget it… that would be too much luck… or not?

          P.S. If it is the Skittles in the photo, and they were found on Trayvon’s person, have you any idea on how GZ could have got them back with witnesses there?

        • April 15, 2013 at 10:45 PM

          Oh, just read your post again. Were the Skittles in the bag then? Did GZ put them back in the bag or were they found outside of it or on Trayvon? Why have no witnesses, those there with him as the police arrived, that he had been handling evidence?

        • April 15, 2013 at 10:51 PM

          @willisnewton

          errata:
          Please read last sentence 2nd reply: “Why have no witnesses, those there with him as the police arrived, said that he had been handling evidence?”

  31. April 15, 2013 at 11:06 PM

    Okay. the whole “is that the skittles in the bloody head photo” I think is a probably a no-go IMO. It was fun while it lasted but like I said I’d hate to perpetuate conspiracy theories.

    After looking at other versions of the ABC video report I can’t recreate the same rectangular reddish anomaly that I did using the YouTube version. Various video and web compression algorithms use “blocks” of information to make the data compress. I think we are seeing such a “block” in the ONE version where I could make it show up.

    And using the ABC.com links to see the various version of the image I agree whonoze that the original was shot in portrait mode, which was a surprise to me. No wonder they distorted it and cropped it so much… it does’t fit on a tv screen that way!

    I’d still love to see the original file from the iPhone to make sure about all this. I can’t even make out if that’s really the tan bag down there or not. But I do think this is the sidewalk break where the tan bag SHOULD be. The little details in the sidewalk crack DO match from version to version despite the various methods of compression that have been applied. And that murky stuff does seem to be sorta looking like a tan bag. It seems to be different than the concrete at least.

    I also am sticking to the idea that I see his left knee probably on the sidewalk.

    And I think we can make a composite of some sort that recreates a simulation of the full image, at least. What a ridiculous enterprise – sure wish we had the whole, original photo file. Why has this not been made public, exactly? The media (ABC< anyways) has it. The prosecution has it. The defense has it. The public doesn't have it. go figure.

    It's odd that we can't seem to find a photo of the darn skittles package… what's up with that?

    How could the most obvious, iconic item be missing from "evidence?" There has to be an explanation.

    • April 16, 2013 at 6:38 AM

      @willisnewton

      Okay. the whole “is that the skittles in the bloody head photo” I think is a probably a no-go IMO. It was fun while it lasted but like I said I’d hate to perpetuate conspiracy theories.

      Probably safer from what you are saying about trials with other images.

      Unfortunately the absence of the Skittles is not unique. A quick look around other blogs turns up Skittles, pants, shoes, watch, headphones and photo pin as all missing and that’s just from Trayvon’s gear (I seem to recall some tests on some have been released within forensic reports). It seems we will just have to wait.

  32. April 16, 2013 at 7:21 AM

    willisnewton :

    I think we are seeing such a “block” in the ONE version where I could make it show up.

    Based on my experience with block artifacting, I’d say the odds that such an artifact is responsible for that clear rectangle in one and only one part of your threshhold trick image are zilch. There’s something in that image. But that image itself is a mystery. How did it get to where Amsterdam could capture it, and who put it there? The YT poster frame algorithm pulls stills from the body of the uploaded video, and that frame (w/o the banner) does not exist in the news story itself. (Maybe when big media like ABC put things on YT, they have the option of generating a poster frame via a different method?) I’ve already got one Photoshop CT on my plate with the Wagner photo, and in general, I’m no more CT prone than you are. But if the rectangle is recoverable in one version of the image and not another, I cannot see in this specific case how that could be the result of any chance process. It strikes me as more likely it was edited in or edited out of one of the versions. And of the two, I’d opt for editing out. Legit news organizations withhold potentially inflamatory information all the time (c.f. we still haven’t heard ABC’s full recording of Crump’s interview with DeeDee), but they don’t fabricate it. I don’t mean “more likely” to be definitive, as in I strongly suspect some hocus pocus is involved here, but in the sense that it seems like a possibility.

    Let’s say something that could be the Skittles IS discernible to the naked eye in the original unmanipulated file of Jon’s photo, if you look close. If the peg for your story is, ‘photo of bloody head seems to support Zimmermans story’ a vague rectangle in the corner of the frame is just noise, and you might edit it out, never even contemplating what it might represent. Or if you think it might be the Skittles, you might hold that back for a later time to get more play out of your purchase from John. Of course, I’m speculating wildly here. But while what Zimmerman says is impossible, many other things are possible, yes?

    (Besides, as you say, it makes too good a movie. And a good director – say Michael Haneke – wouldn’t whack the audience over the head with it melodramatically…) Even if GZ is just kneeling over the brown bag, that still seems like a very odd chance, and suggests he took the bag from Trayvon’s pocket and looked inside it, whether the Skittles are actually in the frame or not. So while it’s hardly BRD, I’m still thinking the photo captures GZ just post his realization he’s waded into the deep, deep shit.

    • unitron
      April 16, 2013 at 7:42 AM

      If ABC had an exclusive picture of the bag of Skittles, they wouldn’t have hidden that fact, they’d have done a one-hour special and charged premium rates to the sponsors.

      • April 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM

        Not if it’s not obviously clear that it is a bag of Skittles, and even so, they withheld a lot of their recording of the W8 interview, hitting only a few selected highlights. The highlight of the Jon pic was the blood, not something blurry in the lower left of the frame. The W8 interview could have been a one-hour special if the Martin case was that important to ABC news, but it isn’t. And you never know, they might be saving “new” disclosures until the trial when viewer interest will pick up. That’s when it will matter to their ratings book. IIRC Neilson sweeps are in May.

    • amsterdam1234
      April 16, 2013 at 8:37 AM

      It is strange isn’t it. When I saw the thumbnail without the banner but with the banner on the video, I thought like you, that ABC must have added it after uploading it to YouTube. You can add stuff like comments to your video. But in that case the banner wouldn’t be on the video when you download it, but it is.

      YouTube used to offer an editor for your videos iirc, maybe that is what happened.
      I wanted to try to capture the frame in the video where it is sort of peeking under the banner to see if I can capture that area from the video itself. But my video editing software doesn’t like H264 files.

    • April 16, 2013 at 9:48 AM

      Keep in mind the image where I could see a reddish rectangle was taken NOT from “amsterdam’s thumbnail” (aka the thumbnail You tube generated to represent the story after she downloaded it through means I’m not yet aware of) but instead from a frame capture I “snapped” as the you tube video played full screen on my mac via safari and flash. The banner graphic is contained in this version, and contains a red stripe. Also the “reddish” color may be some sort of weird “bleed’ from the color of GZ”s jacket reflecting onto the wet sidewalk below.

      The reddish rectangle artifact emerges from the bottom of the frame, as though only part of it was captured in the photo.

      In ANOTHER version, the one on ABC news from later in the day when Diane Sawyer was showing a version of the photo, areas BELOW the rectangle are visible and there is NOT the continuation of the rectangle as one might expect. The animated move that zooms in on the injury was produced through one means during the morning broadcast, the one with Matt GUtman reporting and a male news anchor back at the news desk. Later, with Diane Sawyer (I guess this may be the 5:3o evening news version?) a different graphics editor produced a different animated move on the photo. Also, at the END of the Diane Sawyer version they show a smaller but “full frame” version of the photo in portrait mode but again with an ABC NEWS EXCLUSIVE banner.

      So we are talking about at least four versions of this pic, and only ONE seems to have shown a rectangle artifact. Keep in mid we are NOT looking at “a digital photograph” we are looking at a digital photograph that has been shot in one format which includes digital compression already (the iPhone itself) , imported into another that simulates motion picture for television broadcast at NTSC broadcast standards, manipulated to have a virtual camera pan across it, with a banner floating above it, possibly cropped, stretched or shifted to force it to fit a different aspect ratio, and then once again converted to a web video that plays using “flash” on a platform that “hates” flash. Apple does not own or endorse flash and in fact is engaged in a turf war to replace it with proprietary means to show web videos. Then the web video plays on this hodge-podge platform, and ANOTHER program is used to make a screen capture happen while the video played stretched to full screen size. Then THAT still was imported into Adobe photoshop and brightened to the utmost degree possible, and then and only then did a small artifact appear.

      We’re lucky we don’t see Bigfoot by the time it gets to me.

      If and when we ever get a digital copy of the original photo file we can revisit this issue.

      What I am still semi excited about is that the ABC NEWS /W13/Jon “bloody head” iPhone photograph, in pretty much every facsimile version we now have seems to reliably be able to be placed as having been shot on the sidewalk at the point where the tan bag was later found, thirty feet south of the T and around 15 from the shell casing found under the body post first responder efforts to revive the deceased teen. There are distinctive areas of light and dark within the sidewalk crack itself that are easily visible in an evidence photo of the tan bag taken a relatively short time later on the same evening, a photo that “we the people” have a much higher resolution copy of. (keep in mind even that is just a digital scan down-res’ed to a size for a web release to the public. This pic was shot using a film camera and contains, in the original, much higher resolving power than the original iPhone photo and is good old american analog kodak film. It just doesn’t have the bleeding killer in it, however. It has the sidewalk and a tan bag instead.)

      What’s the significance of this spot on the sidewalk? We don’t really know why George stopped there and kneeled down to make a call, facing the body and likely at least noticing the bag if not being in the process itself of dumping it there. But as near as I can tell he seems to have done this action before Jon/W13 saw him. We don’t know who he called, or if he reached them. But we do know he failed to mention trying to make a call or calling someone in the aftermath, even tho he recalls meeting Jon/W13 and asking him to call his wife. It’s a tiny piece of new information, but I’ll take it. It may figure in later as more data emerges, one never knows.

      • amsterdam1234
        April 16, 2013 at 10:56 AM

        The thumbnail is the image YouTube posts with the videos in their lists. So if you go to YouTube and you do a search for
        ” Zimmerman’s injuries martin’s death” the ABC video is included in the search result and the thumbnail you see next to the result is the one I saved.

        YouTube creates these images from the video when you upload a new video. That is why I think ABC must have added the banner after the video was uploaded.

        So it is possible that that specific clip was processed on the youtube server.

        • April 16, 2013 at 11:27 AM

          I think you are close amsterdam but the actual order of the materials upload would have been that ABC News producers prepared the report for broadcast, and then a different employee uploaded it to You Tube and at the last moment realized he or she had to designate a frame to represent the video in a thumbnail. I think they used either a still jpeg or else a video that was done before the graphics department stepped in to put the final touches on the piece and include the ABC NEWS EXCLUSIVE banner every time the image was used.
          .
          In any case, the thumbnail was chosen from a file, photo or video, that was NOT the same file that YouTube used to process into a YouTube video. When You TUbe automatically generates a thumbnail it picks a frame from the video and uses a “frame grab’ to copy what’s on screen, graphics and all.

          We get so tantalizingly close to seeing the actual image but we never have…. and maybe we never will.

          I think it;s odd that there is no clear evidence photo of the skittles package in the discovery materials we’ve seen. Obviously an inconsequential item in the pocket of a dead guy isn’t very useful evidence, but wasn’t it sampled/ swabbed for blood and didn’t they find TM’s blood on it? I thought that was in one of the very first evidence dumps. I’ve not made a close study of the forensics of this sort but can someone help me recall what was said about the skittles package?

          A

        • amsterdam1234
          April 16, 2013 at 11:38 AM

          The bag of skittles and the tactical flashlight were sent together to the lab to test for blood. The flaslight came back negative, skittles came back positive. The DNA test showed the blood on the skittles was Trayvon’s. I do wonder how that got on the bag. I don’t recall bloodstains around the pocket area of Trayvon’s sweater and shirt.

  33. April 16, 2013 at 11:40 AM

    Okay yes, here it is in the FDLE report: the bag of skittles had traces of blood and so was swabbed and tested. Trayvon’s DNA is in the blood, and there is the POSSIBILITY that another person’s blood was on it as well.

    Excuse me if this has been discussed already, but how would Travon’s blood get mixed with someone elses and when or why would the teen have ever taken the time to put his hands on the candy after he’d been shot? How did this blood get there? Did it soak thru the shirt and hoodie? Or could it be that GZ transferred it there after he shot the teen and wanted to see what was in his pockets? If George had his own blood from his nose on his hands first, then got Travon’s blood on him as he frisked the dyiing or dead teen and touched the candy while it was in the hoodie pocket then that is one possible explanation.

    Of course GZ never said he frisked the teen or went thru his pockets. Yet the candy wrapper has mixed blood on it. Hmmmmm… kinda makes me want to say GZ might not be telling the whole truth here. Imagine that.

    • April 16, 2013 at 11:52 AM

      Willi, it is likely that the possible other dna comes from someone (the 7-11 clerk?) touching the bag rather than from blood. The way I understand FDLE work is that, they tested samples for dna only where they found evidence of blood or at some specific locations such as sleaves. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the dna comes from someone’s blood.

      Concerning TM’s blood on the bag of skittles, I was wondering, month ago, if it was not coming from the cuts on TM’s finger rather than from the gun wound. Paper cut caused by the bag of skittle may actually explain the finger cut on TM’s hand.

      • unitron
        April 16, 2013 at 12:06 PM

        If Trayvon had a cut, the autopsy would have called it a cut or a laceration.

        They called it an abrasion.

        • April 16, 2013 at 1:30 PM

          This is true.
          Autopsy report page 3/21:
          “1/4 x 1/8 inch small Abrasion on the left fourth finger”.
          Thanks Unitron.

        • unitron
          April 16, 2013 at 1:38 PM

          Welcome back, by the way.

          If you ever need any more nitpicking done, just let me know.

          : – )

        • April 16, 2013 at 2:08 PM

          Thanks Unitron. I appreciate you correcting me. I hope it will help me get up to speed quicker.

        • April 16, 2013 at 4:25 PM

          @unitron

          They called it an abrasion

          Abrasions bleed. Tiny bubbles/droplets of blood and serum as if through each pore.

        • unitron
          April 16, 2013 at 9:09 PM

          “Abrasions bleed.”

          Not the point.

          They aren’t made the same way a cut is, which is why they tend to be wider.

          And why there is a different word for them.

          And even a mediocre medical examiner can tell the difference and come up with the right word.

          So why is everyone convinced that the autopsy is wrong or deliberately falsified?

        • April 17, 2013 at 12:17 AM

          You are right Unitron, absolutely right, and having just read the conversation again I realise I shouldn’t have put my oar in anyway because I had the wrong end of the stick, (or oar), believing the problem to be about blood and/or bleeding and how it got in the bag when it wasn’t.

        • unitron
          April 17, 2013 at 2:16 AM

          There has been and continues to be so very, very much misinformation about this case that those of us who want to look at the case with our brains and not just our hearts need to watch out for each other.

          By watch out, I mean assist, not be fearful of.

        • April 17, 2013 at 6:50 AM

          And rest assured I am wholly with you on that, Unitron, here and at the lounge. That’s not to say I don’t, as others, entertain speculating, researching, and following a hunch, because that’s like brain storming to me and may, just may, come up with something not yet thought of, but always on the basis it is speculation unless there is enough evidence to prove otherwise.

        • April 18, 2013 at 6:34 PM

          You off for a weeks fishing Unitron… missing your contributions and the fun and games that can ensue 😉

        • unitron
          April 18, 2013 at 6:42 PM

          “You off for a weeks fishing Unitron… missing your contributions and the fun and games that can ensue 😉 ”

          ??????????????????????????????????

        • April 18, 2013 at 6:57 PM

          Just testing if you still had your eye on the ball, last I saw was your “follow”, spelt “ignore”. The lounge has been pretty quiet too.

        • unitron
          April 18, 2013 at 7:05 PM

          “last I saw was your “follow”, spelt “ignore”. ”

          There was a “smile” emoticon following “ignore” to indicate that the “ignore” was intended humorously, based on someone somewhere recently saying something about not posting until one actually had something to say other than “follow”.

          I take it you haven’t seen Fauxmccoy’s guest column over at the lounge.

        • April 18, 2013 at 7:27 PM

          @unitron
          I did notice the emoticon with “ignore” but admit I didn’t link it to the comment about someone getting p****d off opening emails with “follow”. I would too.

          Fauxmccoy’s post… oh yes I have, and read it too… well mostly. Suffered two assaults on my email from the Philippines some 15 days ago, attackers sent promotions to all my contacts.

          Nothing moving on the case. I have rediscovered nomatter_nevermind’s stream and been noseying around there, especially the pics from a local poster of RATL and the other two complexes; interesting for the “another complex” idea with the “guard hut” you linked to.

        • unitron
          April 19, 2013 at 1:21 AM

          So you didn’t get to the comments, then?

          Not quite as calm over there as you might have thought.

        • April 19, 2013 at 11:01 AM

          @Unitron
          No I hadn’t read the comments. I know the problem, and went to bed early anyway, but have just now read the one I assume you are referring to. Sad. I wish I hadn’t made my comment now as this is absolutely NOT what I was referring to nor what I was about. I am surprised and disappointed PL has done that. I can see it wasn’t his “love thy incisive and nitpicking poster” day and you have before, and if you are correct yesterday, cut close to the bone, but if PL did say what you claim then IMO he should have have either stood behind it as something he believes in or corrected it if when he said it he did so without thinking it through; and if it was you who had misunderstood him, then he could have pointed out your mistake. If finite, and sadly it looks like it may well be, I shall miss your contributions there trying to prevent fact and fiction from becoming too blurred and complacency and emotion turning substitute for truth and justice.

        • April 19, 2013 at 11:49 AM

          @Unitron
          On copying and pasting my reply the emoticons didn’t paste and I didn’t realise until too late and the sentence should have read:

          “I can see it wasn’t his “love thy incisive and nitpicking poster” day 😉 😉 😉 and you have…”

          with the three winking smilies, (I don’t know how to do the more elegant version you do), so you could see that no offence was intended on my part. OK ? 🙂

        • unitron
          April 19, 2013 at 12:03 PM

          I just type a colon, hit the spacebar, type a hyphen, hit the spacebar, and type a closing parenthesis.

          If I think it necessary I use the HTML “bold” tag on it.

          Of course now that I’m gone the post count over at the lounge will probably drop by half.

          : – )

        • April 19, 2013 at 12:45 PM

          @Unitron
          I do the same, i.e. I type : – ) but never thought of a space between as I have done now, so after “I type…” you will either see a colon, space, dash, space and end parenthesis or a darned smilie. I had even tried using a Katakana character, comme ci, シ and comme ça, ㋛ !

          Don’t know how to ascertain the count drop… but would only a few hats in the air from the known few confusing you with a troll do ?

        • April 18, 2013 at 6:38 PM

          Ok, retract, no offence, shouldn’t have said “fun and games”, was my badly chosen euphemism for interesting comments!

        • amsterdam1234
          April 16, 2013 at 9:55 PM

          So why is everyone convinced that the autopsy is wrong or deliberately falsified?

          Can you even come up with one person here who made that claim?

          Pointing out that the term used in the autopsy is abrasion instead of cut is nitpicking but a valid criticism, claiming that everyone is claiming the autopsy is falsified is hyperbole.

      • April 16, 2013 at 12:07 PM

        Thanks. So many possibilities. A photo of the candy bag might help show how MUCH blood was on the bag. I wonder what we haven’t seen that? Are we talking about a tiny dot of blood or was the thing soaked like it was dipped in the proverbial bucket o’ blood?

        It’s odd that the “iconic” image of a dead unarmed teenager killed with “skittles” in his pocket can be covered extensively by the media, defended and examined in the blogosphere for over a year, investigated by FDLE, SA, SPD and even the FBI and third parties and all done in a “sunshine state” and arguably the most famous object associated with the entire story lacks a photograph for the public to examine, and no one has really taken notice of this. Not that there is anything “sinister” or suspicious, its just a comment on the ability of things to be hidden in plain sight, as it were and a reminder for all of us to remain as objective as possible and don’t presume to know or have seen things we haven’t.

        • amsterdam1234
          April 16, 2013 at 12:17 PM

          The fact that the ice tea was in his pocket and the plastic bag on the sidewalk has bothered me from the very beginning. There may be a very simple explanation, but I haven’t heard one that satisfies me yet.

      • amsterdam1234
        April 16, 2013 at 12:11 PM

        Tchoupi,
        You probably forgot, but it has been driving me crazy. The last time you were on Bcclist, we were talking about the possibillity that one of the drivers of the cars that were passing the mail area, may have contacted GZ. You said you thought you saw something in the eastpool video when the cars around the 14 minute mark were passing. Do you still remember what caught your attention?

        • April 16, 2013 at 12:52 PM

          HI Amsterdam, Nice to read from you again.

          It’s pretty well buried in my memory. So, I have to dig a bit. However, one thing comes to me which is that I was wondering whether what I initially thought was one vehicle coming in from eh north gate was not in fact 2. However, I don’t know if that’s what you’re talking about.

        • amsterdam1234
          April 16, 2013 at 2:32 PM

          Hi Tchoupi,
          Good to have you around again. I think you pointed out that there were 2 cars earlier. We counted the number of cars that had passed the mail area after the time we thought Trayvon arrived there and before GZ got there. We counted 6 cars, and that included 2 cars around the 14 minute mark.

          You pointed out that the 2 cars that passed at 19:01 and 19:31, were probably to late to contact GZ and get him near the mail area.
          Hope this will refresh your memory a bit.

      • April 16, 2013 at 2:52 PM

        The finger cut on Trayvon’s hand was tiny only 1/8 th inch long and it was old, no bleeding.

        • unitron
          April 16, 2013 at 9:24 PM

          “The finger cut on Trayvon’s hand was tiny only 1/8 th inch long and it was old, no bleeding.”

          The autopsy found no cut and did not not speculate on the age of the abrasion.

        • April 16, 2013 at 9:46 PM

          Unitron,
          1) I think Lonnie is confusing two elements reported in the autopsy report that are the small abrasion on the left hand and the scar on the right hand.
          2) I believe everyone here understand the difference between abrasion and cut.
          3) I’m not sure why you’re convinced that everyone thinks that the autopsy is wrong and falsified.

        • unitron
          April 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM

          “I’m not sure why you’re convinced that everyone thinks that the autopsy is wrong and falsified.”

          Because the autopsy always said “abrasion” and even those not likely to believe that his knuckles were busted and bloody still keep saying “cut”.

        • April 17, 2013 at 1:49 PM

          People aren’t enamored of making finer distinctions about this small injury because, either way, cut or abrasion, neither make it more or less likely that Trayvon used his hands in defense of himself or assault of GZ. Since no one has advance any theory that required this distinction be made, we’ve devolved to calling it a cut an moving on. Have you a reason why we should be fastidious about the description of this injury?

        • unitron
          April 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM

          The sloppier you get with the little facts, the sloppier you get with the bigger facts, until you aren’t talking facts at all.

          And calling the abrasion a cut just gives ammunition to those who insist Martin’s knuckles were bloody from beating Zimmerman.

        • April 17, 2013 at 12:54 PM

          Didn’t the funeral director or someone there about mention that the injury to Trayvon’s finger was old?

    • April 16, 2013 at 4:13 PM

      Was it another person’s BLOOD? or another person’s DNA??? if the latter it could be from the 7-11 clerk’s sweaty hands. Surely he is not a suspect now.

      At the time someone said the blood probably soaked through the back of the pocket (so not visible on outside photos) but I never looked into that. I do think its more likely transfer from GZ’s hands while doing the frisking. I think the blood EMT said they washed off his hands would have mostly been Trayvon’s too, after all GZ claimed no injuries to his hands and arms, and the nose bleed wasn’t bad enough to transfer enough blood to his hands to require washing off.

  34. April 16, 2013 at 12:34 PM

    Folks,

    I’m trying to recover my memory. I’ve decided to start with working on the witness’ statements. I may attempt extracting commonalities in the statements order to reduce the noise/signal ratio.

    In the Sept. 19th Discovery (33pages) on page #3, there is a drawing which I believe was made by Wit 18 (Teacher). It is dated on April 4th. I don’t have or cannot find any recording/transcript of the interview on April 4th. Can any help me with that?

  35. unitron
    April 16, 2013 at 1:20 PM

    I suspect ABC purchased exclusive rights to that back of the head photo and got an exact digital copy of the iPhone file, and if there was anything to find in it their engineers would have.

    Judging by the photos of the sweatshirt and hoodie, Trayvon didn’t do a lot of external bleeding, so the amount of blood on the Skittles bag was probably not all that much, and it may not even be introduced into evidence at the trial, since about all it proves is that he bought them and he bled a little externally.

    I would very much like to know how and when and where the AriZona can and the bag got separated from each other, and if either or both were tested for fingerprints.

    • April 16, 2013 at 2:03 PM

      IIRC, most of the blood stains were tiny. In many cases, the samples were even too small to get any result.

      As you stated, Trayvon did not have much external bleeding and most of it was at the gun wound.
      His hoodie had just 2 blood stains, and only one tested positive for DNA (front side near bottom edge) and it was Trayvon’s.
      His shirt had 4 blood stains all located at the front side near the bottom edge. All 4 delivered DNA. 1 blood stain had GZ’s dna, 3 blood stains had TM’s DNA, and one of the 3 may have shown GZ’s DNA too as 2nd contributor.

      So, TM’s blood transfer to the bag of skittles is not the only mystery as we also have the transfer to the bottom of his shirt underneath the sweater.
      As mysteries, we also have GZ’s dna transfer to TM’s shirt underneath the hoodie (1 stain), and the near absence of TM’s dna on GZ (1 blood stain on the righ shoulder is from GZ but contains some dna from TM).

      • amsterdam1234
        April 16, 2013 at 2:21 PM

        Did you get to see the good color pictures of GZ’s clothing?

      • wassointeresting
        April 16, 2013 at 6:30 PM

        Hi Tchoupi,
        I am pasting a couple of posts I made over on Bcclist back in Feb about the new color photos and DNA, but nobody replied to me so there was no discussion. My mind is all over the place right now, so I don’t remember much about my own analysis, but the links are below for you to use.

        wassointeresting on February 1, 2013 at 11:28 pm said:
        ***DNA ANALYSIS ALERT!****
        Here’s a reminder of why BCClist rules. I just had a look at the pictures of GZ’s red jacket with the stains marked for DNA testing attached at the very end of the defense’s latest motion to continue.
        http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/defendants_motion_to_continue.pdf

        And then I doubled checked the DNA evidence (see page 124-125 of the FDLE bio evidence file.)
        http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/static/cfnews13/documents/2012/09/GZ-FLDE-bio-evidence-2-0919.pdf

        As noted before, most of the stains found were from GZ. Only 2 stains showed TM as a possible contributor:
        Stain U is found on the underside of the cuff of the right sleeve of the jacket. This stain has a mixed DNA profile of at least 2 individuals. TM is included as a possible contributor, while GZ cannot be determined (not ruled in or out) as a contributor.

        Stain N is found on the upper right front of the jacket at the shoulder. This stain has GZ as the major contributer and TM as the minor contributor.

        I think we were able to see Stain N before. So that is not new. I think our previous takeaway message was that there was little or virtually none of TM’s blood on GZ. That is still true.

        BUT HERE’s the kicker!!! (See page 141 of the FDLE bio evidence link above) I checked more closely on how these stains were identified. Stains A-Q on the jacket were “visualized”. By this, I think they either mean that you could see it by eye (seeing dark red spot) or with luminol (luminol when applied to blood reacts with the iron in the hemoglobin of the blood and produces a blue light that can be seen by the naked eye in the dark). Now, Stains R – EE (which of course includes stain U found on the cuff of the right sleeve) were detected with “ALS” or an alternative light source, which is basically a UV lamp. The UV lamp will help to pick up DNA that is NOT blood, The fact that we DON”T see TM’s DNA picked up via the “ALS” all over GZ makes me think that this Stain U on the cuff has to be more than just TM’s dry hand touching GZ’s sleeve (otherwise you’d seen TM’s DNA all over GZ as they were in close contact). I’m guessing it had to be more like a body fluid like saliva.

        Who wants to speculate??? Remember the re-enactment slip? “He put his hand on his mouth…uh..my mouth….” Who was suffocating who???

        Reply ↓
        wassointeresting
        on February 1, 2013 at 11:36 pm said:
        Oh, and the other tidbit/observation that could be seen from the color photos was that a few blood droplets were found on the front chest area of GZ’s longsleeved shirt that he wore underneath the jacket. It’s all his blood. I’m guessing the defense will add that to the bloody nose picture to say that he had blood “dripping” from his nose. (which of course had to have occurred after the medics unzipped his jacket.) Although the word “dripping” is relative. The dna report stated that there were in all “16 small RBS” (red blood stains) on the shirt.

        Reply ↓

        • April 17, 2013 at 12:21 AM

          WSI, what you wrote looks interesting but I cannot access the pdf. The link is broken.
          Does anyone of you have a copy of the “defendants_motion_to_continue.pdf”?

        • unitron
          April 17, 2013 at 2:08 AM

          “Does anyone of you have a copy of the “defendants_motion_to_continue.pdf”?”

          It looks like you have to load this into your browser

          http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0113/defendants_motion_to_continue.pdf

          and let it load as best it can, and then click on File, Save and then open the saved file from your hard drive with the separate Adobe Reader, version 10 or thereabouts, instead of relying on the PDF plug in your browser usually uses.

          Or now that it’s a clickable link in my comment (at least it should be, hate the lack of a preview function in WordPress), you can right click and click Save as… and download straight to hard drive and open with Adobe Reader from there. Maybe.

          If that fails, I can shoehorn it in with the TiVo images in my DropBox public folder I guess.

        • April 17, 2013 at 2:50 AM

          Thanks Unitron. It now works in a straight way.
          The server the file was on must have been down for a some time as I had the same connection error message.

        • April 17, 2013 at 3:11 AM

          I finally got the image (thanks again Unitron). I wish all images given as evidence were of that quality. Anyhow, I’m happy I located correctly stain N given the poor xerox copies we had back then.

          What I understand from your post is that stain N was found using ALS. Are you sure that ALS observed stains don’t involve blood? In my summary figure (http://i.imgur.com/kKUMI.png) stain N is marked positive for blood.

          I really don’t remember where I found this information (sorry again for my poor memory) I may have make a mistake.

        • amsterdam1234
          April 17, 2013 at 5:52 AM

          @tchoupi
          Here is the link to the fdle report. Analysis of GZ’s clothing begins at page 122.
          http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/FDLE-Reports_R.pdf

        • April 17, 2013 at 12:39 PM

          Thanks Amsterdam for the report.
          On page 122 pointed by Amsterdam, there is that statement that says that Stain N (among others) gave chemical indication of presence of blood. This is probably why I marked that stain positive for blood back then.

          That said, stain N shows TM as secondary dna contributor and GZ as primary contributor.
          Since we’re talking about blood droplets that can’t be seen without special techniques such as ALS (which I’m still not clear what it is), I have to conclude that the droplet that makes stain N must come from GZ the primary dna contributor. Because that stain also contains TM’s dna, then GZ’s blood droplet in stain N just happen to overlap something TM’s body left on GZ’s jacket. That something could be saliva, as you suggested.
          So, moving on with the reasoning, because there are tons of tiny blood stains spread on GZ’s jacket and all come from GZ’s wounds and none but stain N have traces of TM’s dna, we can reach what I believe is your conclusion that TM virtually left no dna on GZ’s jacket. More specifically, we can may be able to conclude that TM left no blood given that FDLE went all the way to working on the tiny blood stains that need special techniques to be seen.

          Now, moving on stain U which is also positive to blood test, is at the very tip of GZ’s right sleeve. This is the stain you’re the most interested in because of it’s position and the fact that the blood stain is not of GZ and is possibly of TM. The report says that the dna in the stain is from at least 2 individuals including at least one male (page 125/262). It also says that major & minor contributors cannot be determined, GZ is excluded, TM is possible contributor.
          So, I checked the details of the bio analysis and it is pretty clear that TM is a possible contributor since all tested loci match TM’s dna and even on loci where the signal has been rejected for being too low, it matches TM’s primarily.
          I don’t want to start a discussion why/how FDLE decides to keep or reject a signal, so I keep their conclusion as written in the report. However, I believe it is a fair assumption to say that stain U is from TM’s blood.

          How, a tiny blood droplet with barely detectable dna could come from TM’s body and end up on the very tip of GZ’s right sleeve? The question is interesting knowing that TM left no blood anywhere else on the jacket.
          The only two wounds on TM body that I know of are: 1) the gunshot wound on the chest, and the small ABRASION to the 4th finger of TM’s left hand (which we don’t know if it was even bleeding).

        • unitron
          April 17, 2013 at 12:44 PM

          “How, a tiny blood droplet with barely detectable dna could come from TM’s body and end up on the very tip of GZ’s right sleeve?”

          When the bullet left the gun held in Zimmerman’s right hand and entered Martin’s body, it’s not impossible that a little bit of Martin’s blood squirted back out of the bullet hole and through the holes in the sweatshirt and hoodie.

        • April 17, 2013 at 2:13 PM

          Unitron wrote: “When the bullet left the gun held in Zimmerman’s right hand and entered Martin’s body, it’s not impossible that a little bit of Martin’s blood squirted back out of the bullet hole and through the holes in the sweatshirt and hoodie.”.

          I like that hypothesis. I’m certainly not a specialist of blood sputtering but I like that one. It is not free of questions though. I would expect sputtering to lead to a gradient type of blood distribution from the tip of the gun (the closest point) to GZ’s harm. In other words, I expect more blood droplets coming from TM’s gun wound and landing on the gun than on the sleeve. The gun is free of blood excluding GZ’s blood on the grip.

          I have another hypothesis which I believe you will love that is that stain U is from TM’s skin abrasion on the left 4th finger. That can happen during some kind of fight for wrist control.

          There is another possibility that is that stain U is from GZ putting his hands on TM’s chest maybe while looking for something. That could also explain how GZ’s blood ended up on TM’s under-shirt. That’s killing 2 birds with the same stone, isn’t it?

        • unitron
          April 17, 2013 at 2:18 PM

          Considering that some blood escaped the wound in Martin’s chest and got into the sweatshirt and hoodie in the area of the bullet holes, Zimmerman’s sleeve brushing against that area could easily have picked up some of it.

      • wassointeresting
        April 18, 2013 at 7:01 PM

        “What I understand from your post is that stain N was found using ALS. Are you sure that ALS observed stains don’t involve blood? In my summary figure (http://i.imgur.com/kKUMI.png) stain N is marked positive for blood.”

        @tchoupi, I couldn’t find the email to reply to you so I’m putting this response to your question here. ALS does pick up blood as well as other biological fluids. I guess my assumption was that they used Luminol first to detect blood. ALS is much more sensitive than luminol so that it can pick up traces of any biological material. I assumed that when they detected a stain by ALS, it had to have been very faint, could be very faint/light blood stain or some other biological fluid. The determination of what comes from what wavelength is used to pick up the signal.

        Again, I’m not in the frame of mind to go back and see what I meant in my original post but hope this link helps.

        http://www.enotes.com/alternate-light-source-analysis-reference/alternate-light-source-analysis

  36. April 16, 2013 at 4:05 PM

    Here’s the composite I made of Jon’s photo, in the form of a .psd file:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2816030/JonPhotoABCcomposite.psd

    Process:
    1. Downloaded 360p file from ABC website as an .mp4 using FlashGot.
    2. Opened video file in Quicktime and exported a series of still frames from the tilt-up in .tiff format.
    3. Opened the stills in Photoshop and combined them into a single document with multiple layers.
    4. Removed the area of the banner and logo from each frame.
    5. Carefully aligned each frame into the same position.
    6. Made the composite using just enough frames to fill in the holes (3 or 4, I forget already).

    I didn’t do any blending or feathering at the edges of the seams. Just a hard edged matte basically.

    —-

    Thus from the original iPhone file, we can assume this image has gone through the following processes:
    1. Tweaked in Photoshop by ABC’s graphic’s department to make sure it ‘pops’ on TV. This could involve, e.g. color correction or ‘enhancement’; application of a gradient to make the shadow fall-off even greater than that generated by the flash, thus subtly increasing the highlighting of the blood on the back of the head; minor editing to remove or diminish background distractions.
    2. Scaled by the ABC video editor to fit their HD master. (The image would also be re-rendered into their HD codec at this point, but that wouldn’t cause any significant degradation.)
    3. Scaled down to 360p and compressed fairly heavily to create the Flash file uploaded to the website.

    The still exports I made and the compositing should not have added any further degradtion, unless there are some telltale edges at the seams.

    —-

    Playing with the image in Photoshop, I think I see two things of interest.

    1. There appear to be corners defining a a rectangular shape in the middle of the area we think is the brown plastic bag. These could be compression artifacts, or random effects of the light from the flash bouncing off different spots of the wrinkled bag. But in either of those cases it would be highly unlikely for these effects to create such a marked rectangular shape. So the marks could also be the traces of a rectangular something sitting on top of the bag, or possibly showing through the translucent skin of the bag from the inside.

    2. The lower right part of the area we think is the bag appears to bleed into the sleeve of GZ’s jacket. Again, this could be a compression artifact, but I only see this effect in that one spot, and one would expect any type of compression distortion to appear in several places within the image. Also, bringing the midtone level way up in Photoshop, the area of the bag appears more regular and even-toned than I would expect it to be. I cannot say anything remotely definitive about this, but these two things together seem to me to be consistent with the Photoshop Blur tool having been applied to that area.

    —-

    What do you think, Willis?

    • amsterdam1234
      April 16, 2013 at 5:02 PM

      Good job Wonoze.
      I don’t think I have anything substantial to add. If your compilation would have been presented to me with the other bloody photos and I had to pick the one that wasn’t photoshopped, I would’ve picked yours. That tells you how much I know about Photoshop.

      • April 16, 2013 at 5:22 PM

        Well, if it is ‘photoshopped’, it isn’t photoshopped that much, all things considered…

        • amsterdam1234
          April 16, 2013 at 6:12 PM

          I guess you could call it reconstruction. The photo just looks more natural than the original image.
          I think the blue is his knee. It looks like he is squating. What I like in this photo is that the reflection of light on his head is diminished and because of that you can see the light of the camera reflecting of the pavement.
          I still don’t see the 7 eleven bag or the skittles. Not saying they aren’t there, I just don’t see it.

  37. April 17, 2013 at 12:41 AM

    unitron :
    “I’m not sure why you’re convinced that everyone thinks that the autopsy is wrong and falsified.”
    Because the autopsy always said “abrasion” and even those not likely to believe that his knuckles were busted and bloody still keep saying “cut”.

    Unitron, have you noticed the words sequence “1/8 x 1/4 inch small” that comes before the word “abrasion” in the autopsy report?
    An abrasion is superficial. It may or may not be bleeding and usually, bleeding is minimal.

    I’m pretty sure that you already checked the technical meaning of the word. So, from where do you get the assertion you’re making of busted and bloody knuckles? Do you have any reference?

    As far as I remember, there is no reference to busted bloody knuckle. There is just just a small abrasion to the skin. In case you haven’t done it yet, I recommend you to take a ruler and check what 1/4″ x 1/8″ looks like on your finger.

    • unitron
      April 17, 2013 at 1:32 AM

      The reason anyone calling the abrasion anything other than an abrasion jumps out at me is because so often I’ve had to point out to some people, who are convinced that the proof that Martin gave Zimmerman a savage beating is the severe damage to Martin’s knuckles, that there was no damage to his knuckles, and that they’ll have to look for evidence of a savage beating elsewhere if in fact it exists.

      And even people who don’t believe the damaged knuckle thing keep calling the abrasion a cut.

      • April 17, 2013 at 2:01 AM

        I now realize how irritating the cut vs abrasion thing is to some people. I’m sincerely sorry for having hit a nerve with my post about the cut that was indeed an abrasion.

        Don’t take it as me twisting the knife in anyone’s open wound but, an abrasion is not necessarily a more “severe damage” to the skin than a cut.

        Anyhow, how do I judge the severity of that abrasion? I keep on missing that information from the autopsy report. You seems to know a lot about it and from your post, it looks like it critically demonstrates how savagely TM punched GZ.

        • unitron
          April 17, 2013 at 2:25 AM

          If Martin punched Zimmerman, it doesn’t seem to have left any evidence of that on Martin’s hands.

          Those who preferr to read rumor rather than the actual autopsy report often see someone say cut instead of abrasion and take it as evidence of bleeding busted knuckles.

          So you’d think that those who do not, repeat, do not believe Martin’s knuckles were all busted up from an extended pummling of Zimmerman would have at least familiarized themselves with what the autopsy actually says.

          But apparently not all of them have.

  38. April 17, 2013 at 12:58 AM

    great job with the composite photo, whonoze. What I now see is maybe that’s his left arm crossed in front of his body there….that I didn’t see before, i thought it was all his shoulder. The two tone jacket seems to show dark grey on the elbow side of the arms on the right arm, and so if that is the case then the left arm looks similar. It’s as though his left arm is reaching for his right thigh maybe, or, once again something weird and possibly sinister – as if he is handcuffed in front of his body and the arms are that way so his hands can be close to one another and still hold the phone to his ear? I tend to doubt this, but I have to ask others to double check because when I first saw this pic almost a year ago I wondered if that could be the case – as if the cops were taking it easy on him and giving him preferential treatment. Again I feel like I’m throwing out conspiracy theories to even bring this idea up but based on what I see here I feel obliged to ask if anyone else sees that as a possible explanation. The supposed arrival time of ofc TIm Smith doesn’t seem to suggest this as a possibility but I am so skeptical at this point…. maybe the picture is worth the thousand words and maybe it isn’t. I can’t tell anymore.

    I see the “left knee” patch of blue pretty well but I am unsure about the tan bag being there or not yet.

    I’ll have more to say about this all after ive had more time to think on it, and maybe shoot a test or two.

    • April 17, 2013 at 6:55 AM

      OMG. Curiouser and curiouser. Looking at the pics from the SPD to see the pattern of the jacket, and that’s definitely his left arm going across in the Jon photo. I think it’s too high to be his hand reaching for the right thigh though. But here’s the weird thing: that dark black patch under his left ear in the ABC photo doesn’t exist on the jacket: not on the collar, not on the cuff…It looks to me like the edge is too sharp and the angle wrong for it to be a shadow. And pulling the levels around in PS shows it’s a perfect black with no detail. My conclusion: it’s a redaction. Also, looking closer at the area we’ve thought is the bag: it’s not the Blur tool, it’s the Clone tool! Not one, but two separate things in front of GZ in that picture have been edited out! (BRD) ABC: WTF!

      • April 17, 2013 at 9:08 AM

        Holey handcuff, Batman! Could the black area under the ear be hiding the cuffs? And I mean the silver kind, not the elastic ones….

        Until and unless we see the original photo file I’m not going to say we know anything except that this is weird and deserves further study.

        But riffing on those ideas: what indeed is supposed to be making that shadow fall on the end of his left arm there, and why does it have that shape?

        When I use the images I grabbed in photoshop to examine the suspicious dark area under the ear, one thing I tried is the “invert” tool and using that I got differences in tone/color to appear. I’m not sure I agree that it is “100% black” – but I sure do wonder what is supposed to be making that shadow.

        Again I forgot to shot tests last night when it is dark, but I did pick up a fleece jacket at a thrift store and I found a friend who weighs 2:15 and has short hair… look for some tests soon.

        As to the clone stamp/ blur tool questions the common fault of using the clone stamp is that it creates redundant groupings of pixels. See any? I haven’t really looked yet because the area in question has such a poor quality source.

        Onward into the fog!

        (usual disclaimer here – I wouldn’t vouch for ANY of this yet until we know more and have the original photo file. Lots of questions, very little if no answers here IMO , folks.)

  39. April 17, 2013 at 12:25 PM

    willisnewton :

    one thing I tried is the “invert” tool and using that I got differences in tone/color to appear. I’m not sure I agree that it is “100% black”

    I’m sure. Tried the Invert. Pure white. No tone/color variation pulling the midtone level all the way up and down the scale. My image isn’t a screen grab. It’s an export from the .mp4 of the video on the ABC site (if that makes a difference).

    • April 17, 2013 at 1:18 PM

      The problem is you get a different result from different sources and none of them are the original. See below about how i think this may be a dark shadow of the ear itself.

  40. April 17, 2013 at 12:35 PM

    Okay i posted some variation on the composite photo using different settings to highlight what’s there.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeandodge/sets/72157633264438855/with/8658337498/

    Some observations, few if any conclusions:

    I don’t see any redactions. I’m a huge skeptic when it comes to CT about this or any photo.

    I think the dark spot below the ear on the photo is the deep shadow of the ear itself being cast down up the left arm somewhere below the elbow. The flash on an iPhone 4 is very close to the lens but not above it. Instead it’s to the side of the lens, to the left if one is using the camera and to the right if one looks at the lens on the back of the phone. This possible ear shadow is perplexing, I’ll agree to that much. I’m hoping to conduct test this evening when I have a model and darkness and an iPhone to play around with.

    I think the arm is for certain in the picture, and it may be that it is there for the purpose of cupping the left hand over the receiver, or it may be handcuffed to the right wrist but the latter is a HUGE speculation and brings many things into question.

    I don’t see any funny business in the sidewalk area under the ear and I don’t see the tan bag or anything else but blurry dark sidewalk. The original photo needs to be examined before ANY determination can be made about what’s here IMO but in these versions I dont think there have been any deliberate alterations. YYMV but that’s my strong opinion until we see the original.

    • April 18, 2013 at 8:14 AM

      NO HANDCUFFS.

      Jon took the picture BEFORE the police arrived. Then he took the picture of the body. By then they’d walked back to the scene. Then Smith arrived and cuffed GZ.

  41. April 17, 2013 at 12:55 PM

    New thread up, with embedded pics of the composite from ABC and the detail area where it has been edited. I’m not talking about the shadow behind his ear, I’m talking about the black patch under the ear covering his left cuff and hand. It iS solid black and there’s no way that’s a shadow pattern of anything between GZ’s body and the flash light source.

    https://whonoze.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/abchead/

    Time for a new thread anyway, so plz continue the general discussion there, not just comments on the photo.

    • 2dogsonly
      April 19, 2013 at 3:25 PM

      Oh sorry whonoze. Can you just move my comment?

  42. April 17, 2013 at 10:03 PM

    I’m trying to understand the origin of this drawing linked below.
    Does anyone knows who did it on April 4th 2012? I initially thought Jayne did it but I can’t find the interview done on that date.

    I was wondering what those circles, arrows, the cross on Jon’s house represent. I’m also wondering whether the curved lines outline the T or show trajectories.

    Any information is welcome. Whatever is known.

    Thanks

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-bmdiwobDfueUF2djBCN1F3WmM/edit?usp=sharing

    • April 18, 2013 at 8:23 AM

      @tchoupicaillo

      I’m trying to understand the origin of this drawing linked below. Does anyone knows who did it on April 4th 2012?

      According to TL’s nomatter_nevermind (link below) it’s from witness 18, no comment or explanations. He/she’s got 181 photos, maps, a few documents and I believe all the witness drawings on the stream interspersed and 3 lovely surprises… happy hunting!

      http://tinyurl.com/borjp23

    • April 18, 2013 at 8:40 AM

      That’s from W18 whose house is on RVC with the back overlooking the T. The blob at the start of the long arrow is the body. The arrow is where she saw GZ walking after the shooting to where he was met by twines Jon (the bloody head photographer); the curved line on the path at left may actually be his route, or just a scribbly way of drawing the path. I can’t recall what the short arrow and blob beside it are meant to be.

      Try reading it in conjunction with her statement from Screaming Jay’s transcription.

      • April 18, 2013 at 10:23 AM

        That was my reading of this too. However, I’m confused by the date: April 4th, 2012. I see no interview on that date.

  43. 2dogsonly
    April 18, 2013 at 12:54 PM

    Final witness list released by MOM:

    http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Defendant's%202nd%20Supplemental%20Witness%20List%20(Redacted).pdf

    Interesting is Sondra Osterman is on their list but our boy Mark is on BDLR.

    When GZ was in police station speaking with Det. Singletary and they were waiting for voice man, he says

    GZ says:My wife is a basket case”
    “So what did your wife think when you didn’t come home”.
    GZ: responds:” well, a nice eye witness called her and she called my friend Mark, WHO WAS THERE( my caps) and they were there in 5 minutes”.

    This was my very small contribution way back when bcclist started. Not technical but being a social,worker, this registered He didn’t brag or embellish who , my friend Mark was.
    But when it came out that GZ & wife were staying in a friend’s home when all hell was breaking out, and MO coming to police station there was a reason why. Shellie wasn’t home when it happened but I think MO is on that bank vid , came to visit his good buddy. Mentioned hey I just saw guy looking sus. GZ says wait here, let me go check it out and check it out he does as only GZ can.

    W13 pix shows GZ on cell, MO? Defiantly not wife so who then?
    W13 calls wife but I will bet whonoze’s cash, she already knew as GZ had called MO and being a good buddy, he called,wifey.

    Personally, I would not be surprised to see this plead out especially with MO on other team.

    Thank everyone for being so smart and unopinated. That is hard to do and I really appreciate it.

  44. 2dogsonly
    April 18, 2013 at 4:16 PM

    http://ow.ly/kckqT. Here is short link to list of Defendant’s 2nd Witness List, redacted, filed 4/10..interesting item that jumps out at me is listing of Sondra Osterman on list but no Rzimmermanjr and no Mark Osterman. Apparently, he is on Prosecution List.

    • April 18, 2013 at 5:02 PM

      And no experts ???

      • wassointeresting
        April 18, 2013 at 5:38 PM

        Who’s Mike Smith?

        • April 18, 2013 at 6:12 PM

          @wassointeresting

          No idea, but coming under “Civilians” I presume not an expert in anything as I was under the belief that experts were listed separately under the heading “Experts”. But then IMBW and haven’t got the prosecution list to hand where I thought I saw “Experts”.

        • wassointeresting
          April 18, 2013 at 6:16 PM

          His name just stood out since his address was listed as OLG, kinda like how the Martins are listed as SAO. Just wonderin’ if he’s a friend that’s talked to the media before. There seemed to be a paucity of friends of GZ who did talk to media. Only people that came to mind were Taaffe, Osterman and Joe Oliver, all of whom have not done their buddy any favors.

        • April 18, 2013 at 6:30 PM

          @wassointeresting

          Could be friends but it may also be people like, say, the shooting range manager or gun shop owner with something to say… “GZ, yes, what a careful and responsible gun owner… will always be a pleasure to sell him more guns!” Grrrrr!

  45. 2dogsonly
    April 19, 2013 at 3:16 PM

    OS reported guess who is on Prosecutions List??i should make you smarty pants wait but I won’t;-). Brother, mother, and wifey. FL’s blog explains witness list and what they each actually mean. His knowledge on law is so great but the comments following don’t seem connected to it. Today was the first time I’ve been there in months. He must scratch his head, wtf, I just typed an entire law lecture and my followers want to discuss anything but the subject.

    He says the prosecution list is the one that is usually followed as they go first and the defense then, can just cross them.So match them up and the ones just on Prosecution’s list are the lucky campers. Further, he said the expert witnesses are the important ones on Defense list.

    So, brother, mom, and wifey are just on Bernie’s list but not on MOM’s.

    Bernie,IMHO, totally set her up because case didn’t look,air tight and they needed her to flip. I do believe that’s why they moved her motion to after hubby’s trial. Checking her attorney on Martindale site, he is A rate. Spousal immunity is absolute so she has finally done what she should have done.

    She took the fall for him, now she’s agreed to testify against him, I call it over and done …pled out..

    Who wants to bet whozone’s bit coins, your social,worker granny has Nailed it!!

    • unitron
      April 19, 2013 at 3:26 PM

      “…but the comments following don’t seem connected to it. Today was the first time I’ve been there in months. He must scratch his head, wtf, I just typed an entire law lecture and my followers want to discuss anything but the subject.”

      Nothing new about that.

      If you look in last year’s archives, the columns he wrote on subjects other than this case got very little response, although at least through about August the ones about the case got replies discussing the facts of the case.

      After that it kind of devolved into a “who can hate the defendent the most” contest.

      • 2dogsonly
        April 19, 2013 at 3:45 PM

        Unitron: says After August blog devolved into who can hate GZ the most contest”

        That’s our job on twitter..@princss6, me(@puffytuffy) and others.

        Remember that great work princss6 did on the first bcclist. She’s the reason I started twitter .

      • April 19, 2013 at 7:30 PM

        @unitron

        “After that it kind of devolved into a “who can hate the defendent the most” contest.”

        Sorry but I have to disagree with you on that, it’s more a “who can hate the defendant and MOM & co the most” contest. Did I say something about missing your contribution?

        • April 19, 2013 at 7:57 PM

          Blogs should be judged by the content of the blog administrator — not the comments posted.

          The professor’s blog cannot be judged by those posting comments, anymore than a news report on a newspaper’s or magazine’s site should be judged by the comments of readers. As a blog administrator myself, there is no way of controlling when visitors post comments that are not associated with the article.

          People are different. We are not robots nor clones of each other. Some have an interest in the case from a people perspective of relating to the loss of a child. Others are interested in released discovery. Still others are interested in current events. Therefore, when motions are filed, or press conferences are held, or Junior tweets, it becomes current event for people to express their opinions.

          There are quite a few blogs that report on this case and each one appears to have their area of concentration or focus. For instance, I perceive this blog to focus more on technology and applying it to discovery material.

        • unitron
          April 19, 2013 at 8:06 PM

          Well, I just judged the Professor by what he himself said about me last December.

    • April 19, 2013 at 7:22 PM

      @2dogsonly

      You have lost me, but just in case I might be wiser if I understood the terms you use:

      1. What are “lucky campers”?

      2. Who/what is “…your social, worker granny”?

      3. What are “whozones’s bit coins”?

      4. Whose “brother, mother and wifey” are you referring to when you write:

      “So, brother, mom, and wifey are just on Bernie’s list but not on MOM’s.”

      because from what I am reading it appears at least two of GZ’s family if not all three ARE on MOM’s witness list, but that even if they were only on “Bernie’s list”, under the clause the Defence has cleverly included on the last page of its filed list, i.e.

      “Other
      Any witness identified through State’s discovery not otherwise disclosed herein.”

      it appears that any “just on Bernie’s list” as you write are automatically included in the Defence’s list even though not specifically named there.

      Totally confused!

      • 2dogsonly
        April 20, 2013 at 10:49 AM

        @gbrbsb asks me
        1.what does “lucky camper” mean? Bernie has issued a subpoena for your appearance. Just my way of writing

        2. Your social worker granny would be me. I’m a LCSW and a granny so again just poking at myself a bit before…

        3. ..”bit coins” are a virtual currency. Didn’t think Whonoze would let me bet his actual money. Joke is all

        4. Bernie has added wifey, mother, and brother is –Shellie, Gladys ,and brother Robert.

        The important one is Shellie.,As his wife,she cannot be court ordered to appear. If she is on Bernie’s list she has consented to testify for prosecution. In other words, she has ” flipped” .

        I did not see Shellie on defense list but the fact she’s a witness on BDLR ‘s list means she will be a state’s witness

        • unitron
          April 20, 2013 at 4:48 PM

          Shellie being called isn’t necessarily Shellie being willing to, or forced to, or allowed to, testify.

          Apparently, outside of Federal court, spousal privilege varies from state to state regarding whether a spouse may refuse to testify against the other spouse, or whether the other spouse may prevent the testimony regardless of the spouse’s wish to testify, and Florida seems to be a hybrid where George could legally block Shellie from, if she wanted to in the first place, testifying as to the content of any of their conversations, but could not block her from, if she wanted to, testifying about any of his actions that she witnessed.

          Unless revealing the action reveals the content of the conversation, maybe?

          So even if she wanted to testify, expect Bernie and O’Mara to argue over the admissibility of every single syllable, with the jury shuttling back and forth from the courtroom to the jury room ’til they wear a deep groove in the floor.

        • April 20, 2013 at 9:29 PM

          @2dogsonly
          Ok, “jargon” much more clear so I understood a bit more.
          Have just been reading PL’s new post (Spousal Privilege), and more especially Searching Mind’s comments there and in the previous post. From my reading I am not so sure it is as simple as you appear to believe for SZ to testify against GZ, even, and that is a very big EVEN, if she had “flipped” which I personally reserve judgement on, as I have seen nothing to show one way or t’other. I prefer to just wait and see.

        • unitron
          April 20, 2013 at 10:00 PM

          Leatherman seems interested not so much in exploring or explaining Florida’s Spousal Privilege law as he does in finding loopholes in it that would override George Zimmerman’s right to invoke it.

          Perhaps better to be guided by what boar_d_laze has to say on the matter:

          http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/04/20/can-shellie-zimmerman-testify-against-her-husband-in-his-murder-trial/#comment-104234

          I especially enjoyed his concluding remark-

          “It’s always a good idea to read a statute before trying to outsmart it.”

        • April 21, 2013 at 6:33 AM

          @unitron
          Thanks a thou for that. Great comment and finale. I appreciate BDL’s input and probably would have missed it as I wasn’t planning a return with the wild goose chase acting out. A bit of a dampener for some for sure but I’d rather work with reality! Do you happen to know/remember if Pyork, SearchingMind, Nef, and Leander are also lawyers?

        • unitron
          April 21, 2013 at 6:49 AM

          “Do you happen to know/remember if Pyork, SearchingMind, Nef, and Leander are also lawyers?”

          Not to my knowledge.

          I suppose it’s not impossible, but I don’t remember thinking it likely.

          In the case of Pyork, I don’t remember taking much notice of his or her posts one way or the other.

        • April 21, 2013 at 7:07 AM

          IMBW but I’m almost sure SM is of some kind, the rest I’ve doubted off and on.

        • unitron
          April 21, 2013 at 7:22 AM

          Apparently I must apologize to PYorck for not noticing the spelling of their name.

          As for SearchingMind, I’m not prepared to go with more than “maybe” without further evidence.

        • April 21, 2013 at 7:29 AM

          I must apologize to PYorck for not noticing the spelling of their name.

          Then if they are reading this, and even if they are not, I also apologise for the misspelling of PYorck. Sorry.

  46. blushedbrown
    April 21, 2013 at 10:40 PM

    @Whonoze

    Hello to you and everyone on the blog, when you have a sec check email please.

    Thanks

    • wassointeresting
      April 21, 2013 at 11:22 PM

      Whoa, Loree! Long time no read! Whonoze alluded to something about you having a day gig now. Hope all is well and glad to see you pop your head in here. Cheers!

      • blushedbrown
        April 21, 2013 at 11:33 PM

        @WSI

        Hey Girl! Yes day gig is correct. All is hectic, but slowing down a tiny, tiny bit. I am trying to catch up on various threads and blogs.

        Will be popping back in later, much later.

        Cheers!

        • unitron
          April 22, 2013 at 5:56 AM

          Congrats on your loss of free time.

          : – )

        • blushedbrown
          May 30, 2013 at 8:18 AM

          thanks, dude…

  47. bgesq
    April 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM

    follow- is this continued somewhere? I’m lost-please help! thanks

  48. April 25, 2013 at 10:27 AM
  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