Zimmerman: 13 Questions Searching for an Answer

The shooter in a self-defense case with an unarmed victim usually claims that he thought the person he killed was armed and reaching for a weapon when he shot and killed him.

GZ has not made that claim with the exception of his first “apology” to TM’s parents in court at the first bail hearing when he said he thought TM might be armed.

I have been wondering why he hasn’t been claiming all along that he thought TM was armed.

As he was sitting in his vehicle, GZ told the dispatcher that TM was reaching into his waistband as TM was approaching him. He said TM walked past the vehicle, broke into a run, and disappeared from GZ’s view. This statement set up the I-thought-he-was-armed defense.

After he shot and killed TM a few minutes later, he patted him down for a weapon, but did not find one.

He did not admit patting him down. Instead, he said TM was lying face down. He mounted him from behind, grabbed his hands, and stretched TM’s arms out to the side in a Y-position to prevent TM, who was still struggling and cursing him at that point, from reaching his (GZ’s) gun lying nearby in the grass.

We know this story is a lie because TM’s hands were underneath his body when the police arrived at the scene. Both of TM’s lungs were collapsed and he could not push any air through his vocal cords to utter a sound, much less speak a word. More important, TM would have lost consciousness and died instantly after the gunshot destroyed his right ventricle and collapsed both lungs.

A witness told the police that she saw the large man straddling the boy, who was lying face down in the grass, and running his hands up and down the boy’s back. Her description sounds like a search for weapons.

These two established facts lead me to believe that GZ thought TM was armed with some sort of weapon when he got out of his vehicle and set off in pursuit of him to prevent this particular “asshole” and “punk” from getting away like all of the others.

Because GZ believed TM was armed, I have a difficult time believing GZ did not pull his gun out of his holster before he spotted TM and approached him.

I surmise that when he realized after the shooting that TM was not armed, he decided not to claim that he believed TM was armed because such a claim would have been inconsistent with the struggle and screaming. That is, if TM were armed, he would have drawn his weapon during the fight. A claim that he believed TM was reaching for his (TM’s) weapon and he (GZ) killed him to prevent TM from killing him would not withstand scrutiny.

GZ only had a minute or two to scramble together a story to tell the police before they arrived. I think he decided to reject the I-thought-he-was-armed defense, since TM did not have a weapon, and he decided instead to go with the-psycho-Black-gangsta-Mofo-jumped-and-attempted-to-kill-me-with-his-bare-hands defense because he (GZ) had some bleeding injuries from his struggle with TM. Then he replaced the I-thought-he-was-reaching-for-his-gun narrative with the I-felt-him-reaching-for-my-gun-in-my-holster story to conceal that he had already drawn his gun before the physical encounter started.

Because he must have known that an aggressor cannot claim self-defense, he conveniently left out the part that he attacked and attempted to restrain TM. To justify using deadly force in self-defense, he claimed TM attacked him and was slamming his head against the concrete in an effort to kill him. Unfortunately for him, the wounds to the back of his head and the pattern of blood flow depicted in the photograph of the back of his head taken at the scene of the shooting disprove this scenario.

I have been wondering why GZ’s key chain and little flashlight were found next to the N/S sidewalk a few feet south of the T-intersection and close to the tree. This is Item 1 on the Total Station. The flashlight was on.

The rest of the items, including the tan 7/11 bag (Item 2), spent casing (Item 6), GZ’s black tactical flashlight (Item 5) and TM’s cell phone (Item 7) were found close to TM’s body approximately 40 feet south of the intersection.

Why is the key chain and flashlight up near the intersection instead of with the rest of the items?

I have never believed TM attacked GZ at the intersection. I suspect he was hiding in the shadows one or two houses down from the intersection talking to DeeDee on his cell phone when GZ spotted him from the intersection.

I think GZ most likely was running or jogging E/B on the cut-through sidewalk from RVC, where he went to see if TM was running S/B toward the rear entrance to the neighborhood. When he did not see him, he realized TM must have run into the area between the two rows of townhouses. He turned around and retraced his route spotting TM from the intersection.

Here are my 13 questions searching for an answer.

1. Did GZ unholster his gun when he spotted TM and dislodge or drop his key chain and flashlight?

2. Did he grab the flashlight with one hand and the gun with the other?

3. Did he need two hands to grab the gun and drop the flashlight unintentionally as he grabbed the gun?

4. Where was it?

5. Was it hooked to his belt or a belt loop on his pants?

6. Was it in a pocket?

7. Was he holding it?

8. Was it turned on?

9. Why would he risk turning it on, possibly making himself a target, if he believed TM might be armed?

10. If so, when did he turn it on and why?

11. Did he even know that he dropped it?

12. Did he run into the tree, bump and bloody his nose or did TM hit his nose during their struggle?

13. Why is GZ’s 6-inch tactical flashlight near TM’s body?

890 Responses to Zimmerman: 13 Questions Searching for an Answer

  1. Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it.
    Look advanced to more added agreeable from you! By the
    way, how can we communicate?

  2. Erica says:

    Do anyone know why the small first aide kit was out at the location they found it? and why the tweezers were on top?

  3. TruthBTold says:

    Professor wrote,

    “I recommend you take that affidavit and shove it up your ass.”

    You generally keep cool, but this was definitely frustration building up. Clearly, this person was dedicated to trying to discredit you. Sounds kind of personal to me.

    “In the end, you are what I have suspected all along: a troll dedicated to derailing thoughtful analysis and discussion under the guise of defending the presumption of innocence.”

    “Therefore, I am banning you for your dishonest and unethical behavior.”

    Yup yup. Thank you because he was beyond annoying and redundant.

  4. @justincaselawgic: This is for you, since the nest ran out? Was that you who took the time to post a similar attack on Frederick Leatherman at the Stenson article? Either way, here is my reply to you:

    The reason Darrold Stenson is not a dead man walking, but is now awaiting a new trial is that his lawyers uncovered exculpatory evidence that Frederick Leatherman had specifically requested before trial but the prosecution had falsely claimed did not exist.

    You might want to read the opinion before you spew false information on this blog. Since you have lots of time looking for ways to attack Frederick Leatherman, maybe you have some extra time to go fuck yourself.

    • TruthBTold says:

      @Crane-Station,

      Wowza (lol). Don’t mess with her hubby and the truth. That person was very annoying and it was obvious that he was trying to discredit Professor Leatherman and make us question his legitimacy, if you will.

      • gbrbsb says:

        tut… tut… Crane Station… control yourself! But he was such a pompous git wasn’t he? And I never got to tell him about the perimortem bruises forensics would have found on Trayvon’s knuckles, hand, etc. had he been punching and beating GZ as he claims.

    • gbrbsb says:

      tut… tut… Crane Station… control yourself! But he was such a pompous git wasn’t he? And I never got to tell him about the perimortem bruises forensics would have found on Trayvon’s knuckles, hand, etc. had he been punching and beating GZ as he claims.
      (repeat as posted wrong place)

  5. mataharley says:

    Sandra E. Graham: If one piece of evidence says the earphones were beside TM and another says they were in his pocket, can the defence or prosecution cherry-pick the evidence documentation …snip…

    Sandra, I wouldn’t consider it “conflicting”. One officer’s report specifically details where items were located…. what was in the pocket, where the pin was located, and where the headphones were located. The other just rattled off the list without specifics, saying they were “in or on” the body. As I said, strikes me as more sloppy shorthand after the fact.

    Things apparently got moved, as evidenced by one crime scene photo of Martin’s body I remember, with the Arizona can atop the body bag. Also I believe that the ME said that the body arrived with the headphones in the pocket.

    I doubt that the defense is going to be arguing that Zim is lying about where the altercation began. Surely they wouldn’t be that foolish as to further destroy what little credibility he has remaining.

  6. ajamazin says:

    Of the 859 Responses to Zimmerman: 13 Questions Searching for an Answer alone, guess who made 126 of them?

    hint: not me!

  7. Michael Stewart says:

    masonblue said:

    “Good question.Since he did not have any blood on his hands, how did the blood get on the Skittles?Did GZ go through his pockets after he killed him and transfer blood from his hands onto the Skittles?If so, there should be other bloody residue on the material lining the pockets.I think it’s unlikely that the blood on the Skittles is dripped or spattered blood.”

    Hi professor. Here’s a direct quote from page 5 of the July 12 document dump which may explain the blood evidence which was found on the Skittles. If I’m not mistaken, forensics determined that the blood belonged to TM.

    “On 3/29/12, 11:45 AM – Myself (Investigator T.C. O’Steen) and Bernie de la Rionda talked with M.E. Investigator Tara Malphurs at the Volusia County Medical Examiners Office. Malphurs advised that she went to the scene and the victim was covered and markers were down. She began taking photos of the victim. She wore gloves and began taking items from the victim. The Skittles was in the top front pocket of the victims hoodie.”

    Apparently TM wore a hoodie with a “top front pocket,” or a chest pocket as it were. Since we know the hoodie was saturated with Martin’s blood in the chest area, it’s concievable that blood was transfered to the Skittles via seepage.

    • masonblue says:

      Thanks. That makes sense to me.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:


        good analysis of the events leading up to T and the banging of the flashlight.

      • Michael Stewart says:

        “Hi professor. Here’s a direct quote from page 5 of the July 12 document dump….”

        Should read PAGE 35 of the July 12 document dump.

        Sorry professor.

    • SlingTrebuchet says:

      Would this not mean that everything in the pocket would have blood on it?
      What about the photo button? Serino noted that it was on his shirt. Evidence list says it was in the pocket. Did that have blood on it? The earbuds?

      We seem to have crumbs of evidence.
      We don’t seem to have a comprehensive investigation of all the forensics that attempts to tell the story of each item in relation to the others.

  8. Sawyer says:

    listen to GZ cocking keltec at beginning of 6:13 of videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVUqY3tyttc

  9. Sawyer says:

    during GZ’s call with dispatch (as he exits his vehicle saying TM is running), you can clearly hear GZ cock his keltec

    • onlyiamunitron says:

      How does one cock a gun with an internal, shrouded hammer?

      The only way to carry that gun that makes sense for self protection and defense is with a full clip and another round already chambered so that all you have to do is pull the trigger.

      unitron

  10. I have a new post up:

    13 Reasons Why Zimmerman was not the Person Screaming on the 911 Tape

    Might as well wrap up this thread and continue discussing the Zimmerman case on the new thread.

  11. gbrbsb says:

    I don’t know how to make a link but there is an interesting 4 day old YouTube video juxtapositioning GZ’s many contradictions from different interviews including some from SH. It’s called “You Got A Problem Homie? (Part 1) and is by Thisisiceman360. IMO it is a clever resume and worth having at least a peek as by splicing the actual tapes GZ’s constantly changing statements stand out even more starkly.

    • Here are two scenarios from Zimmerman’s mouth:

      1. He got out of his vehicle to follow Martin so he could tell the responding officer where he went.

      2. He got out of his vehicle to get an address to tell the responding officer, when he called, where to meet him.

      This is a perfect example of an inconsistency in Zimmerman’s story. Both could be true and both could be false. Neither changes the nature of the altercation. In other words, if Zimmerman “hunted down” Martin, as the State suggests, 2nd degree murder is fitting. If, however, Zimmerman was confronted by Martin, as he suggests, his claim of self-defense has merit. The inconsistency I described doesn’t alter either of those possibilities, nor does it prove one is more likely than the other.

      Remove Dee Dee from the equation and describe the physical and/or circumstantial evidence that could lead to a conviction for Zimmerman.

      • mataharley says:

        justincaselawgic: Here are two scenarios from Zimmerman’s mouth: …snip… This is a perfect example of an inconsistency in Zimmerman’s story. Both could be true and both could be false. Neither changes the nature of the altercation. In other words, if Zimmerman “hunted down” Martin, as the State suggests, 2nd degree murder is fitting.

        Not sure why you want to leave off the two incriminating scenarios out of Zim’s mouth, as stated to both the air marshal friend and a co-worker the day after the murder, justincase.

        These are statements found in the 7-12-12 document release.

        To the co-worker he stated that he got out of the car specifically to follow Martin. “ZIMMERMAN told him that he got out of his car to look for the suspicious person.” pg 99 of the documents.

        To the air marshal friend, pg 78, he stated that he“got out of his car and attempted to locate Martin.”

        It seems that Zim only changes his story for anything *but* following Martin for the police. Two consistent stories in the day after the murder, admitting he was unquestionably following Martin.. But when it came to the police, and the repercussions of that confession, it became (paraphrased):

        1: I was following the dispatcher’s instructions, who wanted to know where Martin was going

        2: The dispatcher wanted an address for where I was parked

        3: I wanted to give the police an address for where Martin was

        I’d say that changes the nature of the altercation, and is confessed to by Zim, himself, when relating the stories to anyone other than the police. Zim, being a student of criminal justice, knew this behavior wasn’t a good scene for his claim of self defense.

      • Hi mataharley. How are things today? I wasn’t purposely leaving them off, just posing a specific question, really.

        Zimmerman’s comments about following Martin, while being inconsistent with later dumb comments, do not indicate that either possibility, the State’s version or Zimmerman’s, of the altercation is more likely than the other. It says nothing of the altercation at all. It speaks to WHY he got out of his vehicle. It does not address his later comment that Martin ran and it says nothing of the additional time that Zimmerman was on the phone after he stated that Martin ran.

        • mataharley says:

          and a hey back yourself, justincase.

          I’d say that Zim’s reasons for getting out of the car, the time elapsed after hanging up and *still* not returning to his car, all go to the evidence for the “criminal acts” element of murder two. That is defined, as I understand it, as a series of actions that created the conditions which led to the unnecessary homicide. Obviously, the element of the death of the victim is not in question. But there is no denying that Zim’s decisions from start to death all escalated the conditions, making it ripe for this tragedy to happen.

          It’s the third – the depraved mind – that is likely to be the toughest element to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This is where his erroneous profiling, and belief that Martin was a criminal who needed to be stopped, will come in to play. How successful it will be, only time will tell.

          As for his multiple stories and wild inconsistencies… he’s going to have a hard time claiming his ADHD is responsible for his not knowing one of three streets in a neighborhood that he patrols 2-3 times weekly. Especially since he continually parrots an older supposed burglary attempt at the beginning of each version of his story…. and remembers that perfectly.

          He would also not be smart to use his ADHD as an excuse that he didn’t know there were addresses right across the street from where his truck was parked, or that he needed to find an address in a totally unrelated section of the neighborhood (RVC east) to direct the police to where he was parked.

          And then there’s the statements that he said he “forgot” he was carrying a gun, but tells Hannity that he carries daily. ???? What kind of responsible CCW person “forgets” he’s armed?

          I’m also not sure it’s wise for Zim to hang much of his defense on ADHD at all, since the side effects of the drugs he takes do not bode well for a M2 charge. If the defense decides to bring up his ailment, it’s fair game for the State to pursue as part of their depraved mind element.

          As far as combating the expected defense strategy of Castle Doctrine, I’ll be interested in seeing how that comes down. Personally what I see is a guy who, in his gusto for catching a bad guy, let a situation get out of his control, started losing a fight that he, himself, created the conditions for, and was too quick on the trigger as a panicky response.

          There’s a lot of evidence substantiating that because of Florida’s Sunshine Law. However it’s like having a box filled with jigsaw puzzle pieces, and no picture of the finished puzzle as a guide to see how the State will fit those pieces together.

          But I’m guessing that not only will Zim be denied immunity (whether in Lester’s court or an appellate District Court), but I’m not even convinced that O’Mara will trust him enough to put him on the stand. Every time Zim opens his mouth, he digs himself in deeper.

          I also think that MOM is a fool if he goes for an immunity hearing. He’ll be laying bare his self defense strategy, which will give the State an advantage in a trial response. This is why many FL criminal defense lawyers don’t like them.

      • mataharley,

        I agree that the State is using Zimmerman’s action of getting out of his vehicle as part of the “series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.” They’re going to have a hard time with the depraved mind aspect, I agree, but they will also have a tough time proving that Zimmerman exited his vehicle with the “single design or purpose” of perpetrating some criminal act on Martin. The jury instructions define the word “act”, but that doesn’t change the word it is predicated upon.

        There is no denying that Zimmerman’s actions all lead to Martin’s death, but since there is nothing criminal about them and there is nothing showing they are linked by some criminal intent, stating this is the case is meaningless. If we discarded time and space as a constraint, there are limitless actions that inexorably led to Zimmerman and Martin meeting.

        I imagine that you do not carry a concealed weapon. It becomes like a habit after a while if you carry your weapon almost everywhere. Forgetting that you have it on you, is like forgetting if you turned off the coffee pot or the iron. This would be also not be outside the realm of possibility if you were, in fact, startled by a confrontation.

        I think we already have a glimpse on how the State is fitting the puzzle pieces together and I’m not impressed. I was not impressed with Gilbreath’s answers when questioned by O’Mara in the first bond hearing. I was not impressed with de la Rionda when taking Dee Dee’s statement. Actually, I was disgusted with de la Rionda during that questioning. I have been unimpressed with Corey’s behavior and lack of knowledge about the law in prior cases, most specifically with Marissa Alexander’s case and how the admissibility of testimony in a prior case is different from a statement provided to police. I see the State’s case as weak and they’ve continued to disappoint with each new action or discovery dump. In fact, so far, I’ve yet to see anyone succinctly argue the State’s case, as they know it, without Dee Dee’s testimony. Resting everything on this young girl would be unwise.

        There is an argument both for and against an immunity hearing. I see an immunity hearing as a necessary step and I would be amazed if O’Mara does not request one. If he does not, it will be, in my mind, evidence to support your expressed opinions of both Zimmerman and O’Mara.

      • aussie says:

        justincaselawgic,

        let’s say he got out of the truck to relieve himself against or behind a bush. He finishes his business, returns to his truck, WHACK 10 yards away from it he gets attacked from behind. He’s totally innocent, done nothing to bring it on himself. BUT….that is not what happened.

        That got out of the vehicle to follow TM is proven – the sounds were recorded and he admitted it. This statement is true. It was also made before there was a shooting he might be in trouble for.

        That instead of returning to the vehicle he went looking for an address is not proven, and does not add up either with recorded statements or his subsequent actions. This was made after a shooting he could end up in prison for if he turns out to have been the aggressor. This statement is more likely to be self-serving and therefore untrue.

        (a) nobody asked him for an address (b) he never ends up giving anyone the address he supposedly gets (c) that address is not where he IS and (d) not where his truck is parked, and (e) to make doubly sure he immediately walks away from it.

        So far so good. There is sure to be some constitutional right to do senseless things on a rainy night.

        BUT — he does this AFTER TM noticed him watching him from a moving and then stationary vehicle, AFTER TM started running as soon as he passed GZ’s vehicle, and AFTER first spending 32 secs RUNNING after TM which he must have been aware of (even if we didn’t have DeeDees statements to say so).

        Can you see a pattern of behaviour emerging here?

        He does the senseless address-search AFTER all this, and does it in the exact same area he last saw TM disappearing in. He claims he was not following TM , but does admit “going the same way at the same time”. Why not get an address somewhere closer in the other direction?

        No matter what his real true intention with that stupid address business, all that TRAYVON can see in all this is that he is BEING FOLLOWED and it is starting to get scary.

        You want DeeDee out? ok, GZ himself states TM asked him what this was about. Even the expression “what’s your PROBLEM” implies the observed behaviour seems abnormal to the asker.

        He behaved in such a series of ways that the eventual victim was AWARE of being followed, felt threatened enough by it to demand an explanation, and did NOT get an explanation to set his mind at ease.

        If you call this demand for explanation “confrontation” TM is still within his rights to do it. It is mereley asking a question. It is not illegal or an assault to do so. It does not make TM an aggressor, ie GZ has nothing to self-defend himself against.

        And then on his own admission he makes a reach for his right hip in a way that can be taken as going for a gun.

        So there’s your circumstantial evidence. All entirely out of GZ’s own mouth. Under Florida law acting in a way that puts fear into another person is called “assault”. That makes GZ the aggressor. Who actually reached out first to touch the other is immaterial; the assault was already committed.

      • aussie,

        First, an aggressor can have protection under Florida’s Justifiable Use of Force statues and this has been covered extensively.

        Second, there is an insinuation that Zimmerman’s multiple stories having inconsistencies is an implication of guilt. While that may be true, it is insufficient, so far as a criminal proceeding is concerned, to cause a guilty verdict. The State has the burden of proof that the Defendant did what they claim, not the other way around. Even if the jury doesn’t believe Zimmerman, if they don’t believe the State either, then they have to find him not guilty.

        So far, the State has posited that Martin ran from Zimmerman in an attempt to get home. They’ve used Dee Dee to support this narrative. Dee Dee’s statement indicated that Martin knew where he was, did not hide, and continued to move toward Brandy Greene’s condo even after he lost Zimmerman. From the time that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, to the estimated time of the beginning of the altercation, roughly 2 mins and 30 seconds elapse. If there was a continued pursuit, a reasonable person would assume that pursuit would be conducted at a pace faster than walking speed. The average person, at walking speed, can walk 675′ in 2 mins and 30 seconds. The beginning of the altercation took place roughly 120′ from Zimmerman’s truck and 200′ from Greene’s condo. If the State decides to keep using Dee Dee’s statement, the only way the altercation happened where it did is if Martin ran in a circle around the condos and Zimmerman caught up to him at the spot where the chase began. In this scenario, one is also forced to believe that Zimmerman was faster than Martin. This seems like an unlikely scenario to me.

        Third, not receiving a satisfactory answer to a demand is not sufficient cause to attack. There needs to be a reasonable fear of an impending attack to allow a preemptive response. We know Zimmerman was armed, so that forms our opinions, but we have to leave that out to consider Martin’s state of mind at the time of the incident. Reaching toward one’s own hip is not a threatening gesture, in my view. Using the reasonable person standard, would a reasonable person think that Zimmerman was reaching for a weapon or a cell phone? Regardless of that answer, as I stated previously, an aggressor can still have the protection of self-defense.

        In a Tampa Bay Times article, they stated:

        “Since its passage in 2005, the “stand your ground” law has protected people who have pursued another, initiated a confrontation and then used deadly force to defend themselves. Citing the law, judges have granted immunity to killers who put themselves in danger, so long as their pursuit was not criminal, so long as the person using force had a right to be there, and so long as he could convince the judge he was in fear of great danger or death.”

        In a companion article by Sunshine State News, they stated:

        “A recent study by the Tampa Bay Times identified 192 cases in which the law has been invoked since, with nearly 70 percent of potential defendants going free.”

        The circumstantial evidence you offered still allows for the possibility of self-defense for Zimmerman. So does the physical evidence and witness statements. If you really remove Dee Dee, there is no element of a chase of any kind after Zimmerman says “Ok” to the dispatcher. Without a continued chase, what would Martin have to fear?

        • You said,

          “Second, there is an insinuation that Zimmerman’s multiple stories having inconsistencies is an implication of guilt. While that may be true, it is insufficient, so far as a criminal proceeding is concerned, to cause a guilty verdict.”

          This is not true.

          His false statements together with the forensic evidence are more than sufficient to sustain the judge’s decision denying his request for immunity and a subsequent guilty verdict by a jury.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          You can bet your bottom dollar, if I ask someone why they are following me as GZ was, and that person reaches into his pocket, I would take that action as a threat and act. Now tell me why GZ would reach for his cell phone to call 911 when Trayvon asks him if he has a problem. Does either statement – What are you following me for OR you got a problem – sound threatening to you. I think both questions are reasonable and only deserved to be answered honestly. No, I don’t have a problem and reaching in a pocket is provoking a quick response. Cell phone story – not reasonable.

      • Leatherman,

        I see you didn’t quote me fully. It is curious that you did not. First, I wasn’t talking about an immunity hearing. Second, I went on to say that the State has the burden of proof and if the jury doesn’t believe their version, they are obligated to find Zimmerman not guilty.

      • Sandra,

        As I said, and you decided to leave out of your quote,

        Regardless of that answer, as I stated previously, an aggressor can still have the protection of self-defense.

        Also, since we are using the reasonable person standard, it is open to interpretation. If I’m wondering what is most likely, I would look at statistics. You can look up these figures if you like, but 9 out 10 Americans own a cell phone. More than 1 out of every 4 Floridians uses a cell phone exclusively; they have no land-line. As for gun carrying, 1 out of 17 Floridians has a conceal/carry permit. So, to the idea of which is more likely, reaching for a cell phone clearly wins out.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          I didn’t leave anything out of a quote because I was not quoting anyone. Quoting is indicated through quotation marks and should be, must be, verbatim. I also do not need to know any statistics about cell phone ownership or usage. If I am alone, in the dark, and someone has obviously been following me, the hair on the back of my neck is going to stand on end and I am going to have to make choices. To ask this person – why are you following me for – deserves an explanation. To ask this person – you got a problem deserves an answer. Someone reaching into his pocket would NOT be what I would be thinking he was doing. But, you knew that anyway. I guess I would wait for an answer while the guy makes a quick call.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          I would think that this person following me would give me a decent explanation. But, by reaching into his pocket, my first thought would be a gun or a knife. My first thought would be a mugging. Certainly not, a cell phone in the middle of a quick conversation. Who cares about the difference between the number of people carrying cell phones as opposed to caring guns. I don’t know where you come from or what you do. But, where I come from, the reaching into the pocket would indicate an act of aggression.

        • mataharley says:

          justincaselawgic: Regardless of that answer, as I stated previously, an aggressor can still have the protection of self-defense.

          I’m going to disagree here… what a surprise… at least as it relates to Zimmerman.

          FL’s SYG statute 776 starts out with the statement:

          776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—

          A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

          Note the exempting phrase, “except deadly force”? In 776.041(2)(a and b), Use of Force by Aggressor:

          The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

          …snip…

          (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

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

          (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

          Per Zimmerman’s story, that being he was punched to the ground at the tee, it’s physically impossible for the body to end up so far south without Zimmerman getting back up off the ground, and reengaging Martin on a southern moving fight path. He never states that Martin hauled him back up by his jacket, and dragged him down that path in the fight. Zimmerman had to get to his feet under his own power, and opt to move further south to continue the fight.

          Ergo, Zimmerman did not withdraw and terminate, nor exhaust any reasonable means to escape such danger and use of force..

          On the flip side, if Martin decked him at the tee, then turned south to get away and Zim pursued him, as indicated by the evidence, Martin attempted to withdraw and terminate – which Zimmerman ignores.

          The evidence of the fight, using Zim’s own statements (even with the inconsistencies) clearly place him in the position of the aggressor, and exempt from immunity.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “So, to the idea of which is more likely, reaching for a cell phone clearly wins out.”

        For students of statistics, this would be reasonable.
        Take some number of Floridans at random, line them up and ask them to take out whatever it is that’s at their right hip.
        You’ll probably get a lot of phones.

        Zimmerman must have flunked statistics.
        “He’s got his hand in his waistband”
        He appears to consider this very significant. Of all the observations he made in that phase of the NEN call, it is the one thing that he remembers to mention in the walk-through.
        “And he had his hand in his waistband”

        In the Hannity interview he goes to some trouble to downplay this observation that was so significant on the night and on the following day.

        I would suggest to you that people’s interpretation of hands moving towards hips is more influenced by the circumstances than it is by a study of statistics.

        Martin is aware of being followed by Zimmerman, and then on foot – into a dark area.
        He asks a very reasonable question.
        The particular words used in the question vary depending on who reports them. Nevertheless, the meaning of the question is clear.
        Zimmerman does not explain his purpose.
        He put his hand in his waistband.

        That meant something significant to Zimmerman when he
        reported the action to the dispatcher – and recalled it the following day as significant.
        Presumably, Zimmerman was not wondering if Martin was about to make a phone call.

      • Sandra,

        You’re right. You didn’t quote me. My apologies.

        I agree that being followed is going to lead to feelings of uneasiness, even fear. Personally, I would probably pick up the pace to get to my destination and keep that pace until I reached it. I would not start walking, as Dee Dee described. That type of action doesn’t denote fear. In the off chance that I turned around and asked why he was following me and he, in turn, asked why I was there, I would state that I live there and I was calling the police. If I was trying to be belligerent, I would state that I asked him first. I would consider the latter to be a dumb move, however. If he responded with a question and gestured toward his hip, I would be suspicious, but I would not attack. In both versions, Zimmerman responded to Martin’s question. Neither was apparently satisfactory, but neither were they threatening either.

        Incidentally, I brought up the statistics to show why other reasonable people might assume the cell phone is more likely than a weapon.

        Also, you’re assuming that Martin was being followed even after Zimmerman was advised not to. There are two versions to consider. I brought this up in the comment you replied to. If we take Dee Dee’s statement, as a whole, there is only one way it lines up with the physical evidence and Martin running in a circle yet still being overtaken by Zimmerman seems like an unlikely scenario. What say you?

        • mataharley says:

          justincaselawgic: In the off chance that I turned around and asked why he was following me and he, in turn, asked why I was there, I would state that I live there and I was calling the police. If I was trying to be belligerent, I would state that I asked him first. I would consider the latter to be a dumb move, however. If he responded with a question and gestured toward his hip, I would be suspicious, but I would not attack. In both versions, Zimmerman responded to Martin’s question.

          I’m not sure what criminal case you are talking about here, but it sure ain’t Zim’s, justincase.

          In most of the inconsistent versions, Zim states the dialogue was Martin saying “you got a problem”, and Zim answering “no” and then reaching into his pocket. The “why are you following me? – what are you doing here?” exchange seems to have long fallen by the wayside in Zimmerman’s fable.

          In your own “what I would do” hypothetical, I believe you left out a more important factor… that were you in Martin’s shoes, you have now been aware of this stranger who has followed you first in his car… slowly… got out to chase you when you stepped up the pace, and then continued to hunt for you for several minutes.

          As the dispatcher’s call proves, from the time that Zim says “he’s running” (aka “skipping”) to the time Zim was actually moving himself is 10 seconds. In one of his versions, he states that Martin’s started that “run/skip” at the western end of the E-W path. Zim says his car was parked “in front of the truck” that was at the intersection of that path and Twin Trees Lane. So Martin would only be 10 seconds ahead of Zimmerman, and the distance between them would not be great enough for Martin to make it to Greene’s house – sight unseen – about 471 ft around the corner and south.

          Serino points this out to Zimmerman on the Feb 29 interview, and Zim doesn’t have much to say in counter.

        • Man! are you ever being unrealistic.

          You’re thinking this thing to death.

          It’s not an intellectual exercise when you might lose your life, if you don’t respond correctly.

          After GZ stalked TM, a reasonable person would have had every reason to fear for his life.

          Why can’t you see that?

      • mataharley,

        First, I don’t know why you’re referring to Florida Statute 776.012. Second, I don’t know why you decided to leave out the part of that statute that describes that the use of deadly force is authorized if it is reasonably assumed to prevent a forcible felony.

        And, as you’ve already acknowledged, being the aggressor does not always exempt you from protection under self-defense. Even if we assume nearly everything you said was true, if the fight eventually ended up with Martin on top and Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life or great bodily harm, then he is still protected under Florida law.

      • mataharley,

        The version of the exchange I used was from Dee Dee’s statement. Since almost everyone here doesn’t believe anything Zimmerman says, I figured I would use hers. It also goes toward the point I was making. If it has fallen by the wayside, in your opinion, you might want to ask why the State, or others, is no longer considering that part of her statement to be relevant. It was never a part of Zimmerman’s version.

        The supposed 10-second head start is meaningless in relation to the point I made. The narrative put forth is that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin. This is something you seem to agree with, hence your “10-seconds ahead” line of thinking. Regardless of the distance between the two, the fact is that we know at least a couple minutes pass from the time that Zimmerman tells the dispatcher he ran to the point of the call ending. The physical evidence indicates that the altercation happened 120′ from Zimmerman’s truck and yet one would be a lot further along, even at a walking pace, in 2 minutes. At a walking pace, one would be over 500′ away in just 2 minutes. So, if we use Dee Dee’s statement, the only way that the altercation happened where it did is if Martin ran in a circle and it ended essentially where it began. That doesn’t seem likely at all. As such, Dee Dee’s statement doesn’t logically line up with physical evidence. But, if you throw out her statement, then you have no evidence of a continued chase after the dispatcher’s advice and no reason for Martin to fear anything.

      • Leatherman,

        “After GZ stalked TM, a reasonable person would have had every reason to fear for his life.

        Why can’t you see that?”

        First, I don’t accept the premise of stalking and the law doesn’t support it. Second, in my opinion, the allegation that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin after the dispatcher advised him not to is not supported by the location of the altercation or body within the time frame given, unless we also believe that Martin ran in circles and Zimmerman was faster than Martin. The narrative of a continual chase is supported by Dee Dee’s statement and, in my opinion, nothing else. I have expressed my issues with her statement beyond just this point, as well.

        In other words, I don’t believe Dee Dee’s statement for a myriad of reasons. Without her, I see no evidence of a continual chase. Without a continual chase, I see no reason why Martin should have been afraid.

        • ajamazin says:

          justincaselawgic writes:

          “The narrative of a continual chase is supported by Dee Dee’s statement and, in my opinion, nothing else.

          Without her, I see no evidence of a continual chase.”

          So what does Zimmerman patting down Trayvon’s dead body support?

          “Without a continual chase, I see no reason why Martin should have been afraid.”

          But you clearly understand why George was afraid while sitting safely in his vehicle with a gun.

        • ajamazin says:

          justincaselawgic states.

          ” First, I don’t accept the premise of stalking and the law doesn’t support it.”

          Do you accept the premise that Trayvon is dead?

        • I did not get the impression DeeDee said TM was continually running.

          I got the impression TM ran to get away from GZ and stopped somewhere very close to the spot where GZ killed him–right around the corner in the area between the two rows of townhouses. I got the impression he stopped there to continue his conversation with her and concealed himself as best he could in the shadows, probably behind the privacy fence in John’s backyard.

          That’s where GZ spotted and confronted him.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        The problem with Dee Dee’s interview is that it does not establish a timeline. I don’t hear any attempt to take her minute by minute to reconstruct each of the separate calls.

        A confrontation up towards the North of the central pathway is not necessarily a result of Martin going South and then returning.
        All it takes is for Martin to go to ground in one of the dark back porches in that area. There is plenty of cover. There is no public lighting there.
        Whether he skipped, ran or just moved out of sight, it is not mandatory that he should continue to move.

        Zimmerman says he was attacked within 30 seconds of his ending the call. This sounds reasonable. An average walking pace from where he says he was on Retreat View CIrcle to the place where he says he was attacked would take about 20 seconds.
        The problem is that the first 911 call connected 2 minutes and 30 seconds after he ended the call.
        He had over 2 minutes in which to go searching for Martin.
        He could well have passed South of a hidden Martin and found him on his way back North.

        Zimmerman did not necessarily have to walk to get South of Martin. If he thought that Martin was a Goon headed for the back entrance, then Zimmerman heading that way and coming back up North would be a sensible way to cut the punk off. “They always get away”
        Where did his truck end up?
        There does not appear to be any record of this.

        There was a gap of over 2 minutes.
        Zimmerman’s story accounts for “less than 30 seconds” of this.

        • ajamazin says:

          SlingTrebucket writes:

          “….then Zimmerman heading that way and coming back up North would be a sensible way to cut the punk off.”

          And you expect that your analysis will be taken as unbiased?

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “Without a continual chase, I see no reason why Martin should have been afraid.”

        A following
        A going to ground
        A “think I lost him”
        A “He’s here again”
        A “Why are you following me?”
        A suspicion on the part of Martin that whereas X out of Y Floridans would pull out a phone if they went for their right hip, this particular Floridan who had followed and searched for him, and would not explain why – could well in the overall circumstances be going for a weapon.

        It’s not out of the question that a weapon was actually produced then.

      • Sling,

        The fact that de la Rionda didn’t attempt to take her statement down to establish a more accurate timeline is one of my problems with it. Having said that, we can surmise that there are certain points she describes that line up with the timeline we know and we can extrapolate from there. For instance, she described Martin going to the “mail thing” and then leaving it. This appears to be when Zimmerman made his call. This would stand to reason because Zimmerman’s call with the dispatcher, according to the time stamp, overlaps with the time stamp of Martin and Dee Dee’s call.

        I agree that it is not mandatory for Martin to continue moving, if you don’t use Dee Dee’s statement. If you do, she clearly describes Martin as continuously moving. With her, the description seems implausible. Without her, there is no evidence of a chase, only theorized, but really unknown, movements within a gap of two minutes.

      • sling,

        Do you realize that you’re quoting a statement that I made without the causative statement that supports why I made it? In other words, I said with Dee Dee, there is no continual chase ….The reason this is important is because you then use information from Dee Dee’s statement to counter my argument about the situation as it would be without her statement.

        Also, of course it is not out of the question that a weapon was produced earlier than described. Is there evidence to support the allegation?

      • ajamazin,

        “So what does Zimmerman patting down Trayvon’s dead body support?”

        It could support several things. He thought Martin had a weapon, he was placing evidence on Martin, he was taking evidence from Martin, or he liked Martin’s body.

        “But you clearly understand why George was afraid while sitting safely in his vehicle with a gun.”

        No I don’t and I’ve never said that.

        Do you accept the premise that Trayvon is dead?

        Of course. You’re insinuating, again, that I lack objectivity or rationality or that I can’t think logically. Combined with a more overt comment, I’m surprised to still see you here.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “And you expect that your analysis will be taken as unbiased?”

        To clarify:
        That was *not* an analysis.
        It was simply something that was possible within the 2minutes plus after Zimmerman’s call ends.

        It is no more based on evidence that would be an assertion that Martin “doubled back” / “outflanked” / or was even the first to get physical in an altercation.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “Having said that, we can surmise that there are certain points she describes that line up with the timeline we know and we can extrapolate from there. For instance, she described Martin going to the “mail thing” and then leaving it. This appears to be when Zimmerman made his call. This would stand to reason because Zimmerman’s call with the dispatcher, according to the time stamp, overlaps with the time stamp of Martin and Dee Dee’s call. ”

        Well accepting the “mail thing” is a big problem for Zimmerman’s account.
        In the Walk Through he describes Martin walking past him at the front of the Clubhouse and walking to disappear down Twin Trees.
        He then describes driving to Twin Trees and seeing Martin walking up at the Eastern end.
        If you analyse the timings of events reported within the NEN call, the only way in which Zimmerman’s account can be achieved is for Martin to break into a run as soon as he gets out of Zimmerman’s sight. He has to keep running and then resume walking just as Zimmerman enters the EW stretch of Twin Trees and sees him up at the E end.
        There is no time to stop at or even enter the “mailbox thing”. He would have to take the shortest diagonal route.

        This is but one of the *major* inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s account(s).

        The thing about the NEN call is that events are timed precisely (with a reasonable assumption that they are reported in a timely fashion)
        Any event reported by Dee Dee is not on a timeline. Her interview is rather like examining the entrails of a sacrificed chicken.
        Even the calls themselves are not on an exact timeline. The stamps are rounded to minutes. I have seen reports that they can in fact be up to 59 seconds out.

      • sling,

        Sorry, I think I confused you because I mistyped something. It should say “This appears to be when Zimmerman made his call, because Zimmerman’s call with the dispatcher, according to the time stamp, overlaps with the time stamp of Martin and Dee Dee’s call. According to the video reenactment, Zimmerman drove down Twin Trees and stopped at where his vehicle would remain. At this point Martin allegedly came back and circled Zimmerman’s vehicle before returning from the direction he came and running down the cut through between the town homes. One of the inconsistencies is that he never described Martin circling his vehicle to the dispatcher. I would think that would be important.

        Overall, the taking of Dee Dee’s statement was amateur, at best.

      • Leatherman,

        It’s good that you didn’t get the impression that she stated Martin was continually running. It’s also important that I never claimed that. I did say she claimed he was “continuously moving” and I see you disagree with that as well. Your impression is that Martin hid and I think that would have also made the most sense, but Dee Dee clearly didn’t state that, but instead stated that Martin decided to walk because he was tired. She also said right before the confrontation occurred, that Martin told her “the man followin’ him again.” To be followed, you need to be moving, not stationary. So, my impression is that she never claimed Martin stopped after he lost Zimmerman.

        • You said,

          “She also said right before the confrontation occurred, that Martin told her “the man followin’ him again.” To be followed, you need to be moving, not stationary. So, my impression is that she never claimed Martin stopped after he lost Zimmerman.”

          I don’t agree that what TM said means he was moving. I think the clear meaning of what he said is that he just saw GZ again as GZ approached him after spotting him behind the privacy fence.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “I got the impression he stopped there to continue his conversation with her and concealed himself as best he could in the shadows, probably behind the privacy fence in John’s backyard.

        That’s where GZ sotted and confronted him.”
        .
        .
        Despite the problems with the Dee Dee interview, I got the same overall impression. Martin stopped.
        I would have put him in perhaps the back yard beyond John’s, as John says that keeps his porch light on at all times. I’ve even seen a daytime photograph where that light is on.
        It appears to have been the only such light on in that stretch. The boy who went out to walk his dog says that it was very dark and that only one porch light was on.

        Something caught Zimmerman’s attention right at the end of his NEN call. He had agreed to meet with the patrol back at his truck.
        Then he suddenly cuts in over the words of the dispatcher to say “Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?
        His sudden interruption of the dispatcher, together with his repetition, would indicate that he had just noticed something, and that a completely new intention was forming in his mind.

        After that, there is a gap of 2 minutes 30 seconds before the first 911 call connects.
        The only reasonable conclusion is that Zimmerman went South in search of Martin.
        Whether he went South directly down the path or took a loop around the townhouses and re-entered the pathway area via one of the gaps is a matter of pure conjecture – a bit like conjecture about Martin doing exactly the same thing as it happens 🙂

        I would have to accept that there is an alternative to Zimmerman going South. The alternative to him going South is that he just stood still near the T-junction for over 2 minutes.
        The only thing that can be certain is that he is not telling the truth.

      • Leatherman and Sling,

        Both of your impressions could be true. I obviously got a different “impression,” since Dee Dee never said Martin hid or was hiding or ever used the word “stopped”. I took her statement more literally, instead of figuratively, I guess. Was this done on purpose? Could be. Based on the questions asked and the questions that were not asked, as well as the complete 180 degree misinterpretation of something Dee Dee said, I can surmise one of two scenarios: 1) de la Rionda is an amateur with limited skills or 2) de la Rionda directed the statement to concur with his preconceived narrative. If you see another, I’d be interested.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “She also said right before the confrontation occurred, that Martin told her “the man followin’ him again.” To be followed, you need to be moving, not stationary.”

        Hey! Call O’Mara with this 🙂

        As you can see on the Hannity interview, the biil of goods is that
        – Zimmerman was not following – even though at the time he said he was. Following is bad for SYG/SD
        – Martin was not running – this would be bad as it might imply that Zimmerman had given some reason to be fearful. He sort of skipped. Maybe he was happy. Martin in fear (or even in mild concern) is bad for SYG/SD.
        .

        Proof by dictionary definitions:
        Zimmerman was not following because
        – to be following, you need to have the target in sight – and Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin when he went down the central path.
        – to be followed, you need to be moving. Martin was very probably stopped. So Zimmerman was very probably not following.

        It is misguided – at the very least – to try impose our own meaning on words used by others.
        “the man followin’ him again.” could well mean ‘the guy who had been following, and lost, has now appeared again. The activity in the beginning had been following. Now he’s back again. Whether on not Martin is moving. The following activity is going on.
        It is improbable that either Martin or the girl consult dictionaries before they say something.

        How about “He’s near the Clubhouse?” Yes”
        We all know what “near” means, don’t we?
        If we accept Zimmerman’s narrative in the Walk-Through, Martin is up near the T-junction at that stage, and about to start his circling from there – because that is what the timeline of his words in the NEN call dictates.
        He’s about 400 feet from the Clubhouse. And that’s “near” according to Zimmerman.

        What about “right by his father’s house”?
        That means he is standing at the door, right?
        So if 400 feet can be “near”, why can’t it be “right by” – particularly if it’s just down a central grassy area?

        What about “he ran from the back”
        As far as I can guess from the overall context, it means “He ran *to* the back” or “around the back” of the houses. According to your dictionary, Martin was at the back and he was running from it.

        What about “Are you following him? Yeah”?
        “Following” does not mean following it seems. It means “going in the same direction”. Not many people know that.

        If lawyers, can end up in court arguing the ambiguity of contracts produced by other lawyers, it seems a stretch to expect unambiguous usage by teenagers of indifferent educational standards.
        When I listened to that interview .. “It’s English Jim, but not as we know it”.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        Oops! I should explain.

        In the last post, I wrote
        “If we accept Zimmerman’s narrative in the Walk-Through, Martin is up near the T-junction at that stage, and about to start his circling from there – ”

        I should make clear that when I used “near”, I meant the sort of “near” that would be very close to, maybe 10 feet or so, 20 max.
        I did not mean the 400 feet “near” that Zimmerman was apparently comfortable with during his NEN call.
        … If you follow me….. NO! Doh!

      • Sling,

        There is no need for clarification. Tell me, is ambiguity good for the Prosecution or the Defendant? There is only one right answer to this question.

        Also, it looks like you missed the scenarios I proposed. Is de la Rionda an amateur with limited skills or did de la Rionda direct Dee Dee’s statement to concur with his preconceived narrative? I don’t see another option. If you do, I’d be interested to hear it.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        Maybe there could be one of those Twitter hashtag things

        .. where people put “Skip” in place of “Run” in movie titles and famous quotations.

        “You can skip, but you can’t hide” ….. might be an appropriate one in the circumstances.

        .

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        All I can say about Rionda interviewing Dee Dee is that it seemed shambolic to me.
        I don’t know much else about either of them.

        It seems clear to me that the girl should have been interviewed by someone with specialist training in dealing with a young person of that background.
        What Rionda ended up with seemed to be a few spot checks on details that had emerged in the original Crump-moderated interview. I didn’t see a timeline.

        The upshot seems to be:

        – There was following from a truck. This is confirmed by Zimmerman.

        – There is some conflict over time spend in a Mailbox place. Analysis of Zimmerman’s NEN call indicates an approach to the truck from the Mailboxes works for estimated speeds and actual durations in the call
        Frank Taffee’s story matches that approach from the mailboxes
        Zimmerman’s narrative in the Walk-Through put against that timed narrative in the NEN call makes even passing through the Mailboxes at speed impossible.

        – There was Martin moving “from the back” and reporting that he had lost the guy. This may match Zimmerman seeing him “skipping” and losing sight of him.

        – There was Martin seeing Zimmerman again. This could be Zimmerman walking up the path to the T-Junction

        – Then there is a 2 minute 30 second gap between Zimmerman ending his call and the first 911 connecting.
        If the fight started as much as 30 seconds before the first 911 call connected, that still leaves 2 minutes between Zimmerman ending his call and the fight starting.
        Zimmerman has an explanation for “less than 30 seconds” of this. He says he was walking straight back to his truck.
        This 2 minutes could correspond to Martin describing a following/searching and her eventually hearing Martin ask “Why are you following me?”

        We don’t have a recording of the calls between Martin and the girl. We don’t know if she repeats his words verbatim or is describing a conversation in her own words.

        We do know that Zimmerman :

        – is lying about his movements – to the extent of at least 2 minutes

        – went in there saying “These a**holes, they always get away” and “F**king ****s”

        – reports a narrative that can not be matched in major aspects to the timing of his words and background noises in the NEN call

        – reports a struggle that is not confirmed by the level of injury to himself or to Martin
        Eyewitnesses can only confirm that two were wrestling in a very dark place – any only had that view for a very short time. No straddling seen. Any head-banging only explainable by as Zimmerman trying to raise his shoulders and falling back.

        – is in denial about any factor that would indicate him searching out Martin. This is brought to a ridiculous extreme in the Hannity interview.

        There were no eyewitnesses to the start or the end of the struggle.
        We only have Zimmerman’s word.
        His word is clearly very unreliable for the events during the NEN call.
        His word for about 2 minutes immediately after he ended the call appears to be that these minutes never happened. The clock simply jumped forward. Did the earth move for you too?

        Forensics and ballistics may have something to say about the shooting v. Zimmerman’s description.
        Details of his phone calls immediately before the incident and after he ended his NEN call might form part of the prosecution case – as might communications in the weeks following.
        .

        The fact of the phone calls as evidenced by logs – regardless of the content – would show that the connection was broken around the time the fight can be estimated to have begun. The logs are rounded to the minute, making synchronisation a problem. I don’t know if the phone companies log more exactly and round only for billing purposes.
        This would seem to require that if Martin stalked and attacked/jumped Zimmerman, that he did so with one hand holding his phone.
        Some would have opted for a full drink can in a bag as being a far more effective weapon.

        Even without the word of the girl about those phone calls, Zimmerman has some very serious explaining still to do.

        I think that O’Mara will do his utmost to ensure that Zimmerman is never faced with such questions on a witness stand.

      • Sling,

        Some of the things you’ve put forth are not “knowns”. They may be true or they may not be. There are definitely inconsistencies with Zimmerman’s several stories. I can see that you’re looking at this as an investigator for the State would, looking for inconsistencies, even jumping on those as proof of lies or what have you. There is nothing wrong with this approach and it is useful. It forgets one very important thing, though, which is that Zimmerman doesn’t have to prove his innocence in a criminal trial. His lies, if you want to call them that, provide that his version may not be true. They don’t prove that the State’s version is. The State interviewed a key witness to the event and didn’t do their best job to nail down specifics. One has to wonder why. Again, I see only two reasons why. You went so far as to call the interview a sham, but that doesn’t answer the question of why it was a sham. And, without the information given by Dee Dee, what else can the State respectively use to support 2nd degree murder?

        By the way, I was in a line this morning waiting for the place I was going into to open and some guy fainted and smacked the back of his head against the concrete. He got up, embarrassed, but there were no bruises and the skin didn’t break. The body is an amazing thing. Altogether fragile and resilient all at the same time.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        Oh dear.

        I said “Shambolic”
        You heard “Sham”

        I meant only that I thought the interview a mess.
        I don’t have a conspiracy theory on this. I simply think that the girl needed specialist handling. Whatever her teen year, she seemed like a young child to me.

        To me, even on Zimmerman’s own story, this seems a very clear case of manslaughter. Zimmerman was at the least reckless.
        This recklessness is compounded by his ignoring NW procedures.
        The “We don’t need you to do that” should have advised the action of an ordinary soul. It should have been a red flag to anyone exposed to NW training.
        Even his own account of the words exchanged at the encounter indicates extreme stupidity that could only have inflamed a situation.

        The time gap indicates that he went searching.
        “They always get away” “F**king ****s” indicate that he went searching in an aggressive state of mind
        His obsession with denying that he ever went South indicate that he is hiding something.

        What we have is a person claiming that he was attacked.
        His story of how he came to be attacked does not stand up to examination.
        His account of Martin why and how Martin reached for the gun does not seem explainable by the nature of the struggle he describes.
        http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.ie/p/the-struggle.html

        It may be that state have expert analysis of forensics and ballistics indicating problems for his story.

      • Sling,

        I’m glad you decided not to dwell on the word, as it was just my auto correct feature kicking in and me not catching it. Apparently it didn’t recognize shambolic. It does now. Thanks.

        The State may have evidence that we are unaware of and that has always been something I have allowed could change my mind in the future. However, we’re talking about the known facts and evidence as they present themselves to be now. Speculating about the “what-ifs” makes no sense.

        We know by Zimmerman’s admission, in some of his stories, and by the non-emergency call, that Zimmerman followed Martin up until the dispatcher advised him not to. His story has never changed after that point and that is where Dee Dee comes in to provide evidence of a continued chase after the dispatcher’s advice. The State and, more specifically, de la Rionda, either intentionally dropped the ball with Dee Dee or they did it out of ineptness. You would think that de la Rionda would know how to form a question, whether it is a follow-up or not, as well as repeat back words he is told to him, instead of repeating back the exact opposite. That is not, in my opinion, ineptness. It is an example of knowing what you want to hear and driving the statement to that point. A person who is looking for the truth is going to take more than 22 minutes to get to it.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        First….

        “We know by Zimmerman’s admission, in some of his stories, and by the non-emergency call, that Zimmerman followed Martin up until the dispatcher advised him not to.”

        I’ll stop you right there.
        Do try to keep up.
        Zimmerman did not stop following when the dispatcher advised him not to.
        This is because he was not ever following. Never, ever, ever. OK?
        He was at all times simply “going in the same direction”.

        If you allow that Zimmerman was following up until the dispatcher advised him not to, then he was following afterwards.
        Listen to the NEN and do the math.
        When he said “Yeah” (I’m following) he was still in Twin Trees.

        Extract:
        2:07 Zimmerman “Sh**. He’s running”.
        Zimmerman gets out of the truck immediately on saying “He’s running.”
        2:20 We hear a pattern of regular rustling/wind noises starting
        2:23 Dispatcher: Are you following him?
        Zimmerman: Yeah.
        Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.
        2:28 Zimmerman: Ok.
        2:42 The background wind/movement noises die down

        However he was facing/moving, the background sounds that started 8 seconds before “OK”, continue without any change whatsoever for a further 14 seconds
        .
        .

        Second:

        It is probably safe to accept that the calls between Martin and the girl actually happened.

        There are two extremes as to the content and events.

        a) Martin described a search/pursuit by Zimmerman ending in Zimmerman confronting Martin as the girls describes.
        The phone falls to the ground. It is found about 6 feet South of the body – which in turn was about 40 feet South of the T-junction

        b) Martin discusses the guy who had been following and describes a plan to ambush and beat the guy up.
        Martin prepares for the attack. He decides not to stash his bag of goodies. He tucks everything into his pockets.
        He says good bye to the girl. This is necessary as he can hardly hold a phone and attach someone effectively at the same time. He puts the phone in his pocket.
        Tracking Zimmerman down is easy – as he had finished his call and had been standing stock still for over 2 minutes near the T-junction.
        He manages somehow to get right up to Zimmerman and attacks him. The struggle ends up over 40 feet South.
        Of all the items in Martins pockets, the only thing that falls out is his phone. It manages to fall about 6 feet sideways.
        Alternatively –
        Martin keeps his phone in his hand while he attacks Zimmerman. He does this so that the girl can hear the attack.
        Throughout all of the fight, he manages to keep the phone in his hand. This makes the delivery of a rain of MMA-style punches difficult as he does not wish to damage the phone. It also makes two-handed head-banging difficult.
        When it comes to the stage of pressing one hand over Zimmerman’s nose and the other over his mouth so as to suffocate him, the phone becomes too much of a problem.
        He tosses the phone aside. It lands about 6 feet to the South.

        etc.etc.

        It must be this second version – that of Martin attacking – that De La Rionda was conspiring to suppress when he bullied the girl into coming up with a crazy story about Zimmerman hunting Martin.

      • Sling,

        “However he was facing/moving, the background sounds that started 8 seconds before “OK”, continue without any change whatsoever for a further 14 seconds”

        But then they stop for about 90 seconds all the way up to the end of the call. Leaving this out on purpose is unbecoming.

        I also never suggested any bullying of Dee Dee. It is, however, a fact that Dee stated one thing and de la Rionda repeated it back as the opposite. It is also a fact that this interview lasted somewhere in the realm of 22 minutes. Have you ever conducted such interviews? They take at least an hour. In many cases, it takes much, much longer. 22 minutes is a joke. The questions were a joke. The lack of follow-ups was a joke. The blatant mischaracterization of what Dee Dee said was a joke.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “But then they stop for about 90 seconds all the way up to the end of the call. Leaving this out on purpose is unbecoming. ”

        The point of mentioning the continuing noises that bracketed the “We don’t need you to do that. – OK” was simply to point out that he seems to continue on precisely the same path and speed for a further 14 seconds. That’s not “slowing down” time. That’s “carry on regardless” time.

        If you want to consider why the noises stopped and why we had a further 90 seconds of call without them, have a look at a graphic just over 1/2-way down in
        http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.ie/p/maps.html
        Under the heading “How does this truck location work with the movement distances calculated?”

        This dates back to June, when we had nothing released of Zimmerman’s account. We didn’t know where the truck was parked.
        I worked out a table of distances based on the narrative in the NEN call- and based on the assumption that Martin’s approach was from the Clubhouse
        After I had done that, I found that the position indicated by Frank Taaffe happened to coincide with what I had calculated.
        The later release of Zimmerman’s Walk-Through indicated a position a little to the East.

        For this discussion, the bit of interest in the graphic is the blue line.
        This had Zimmerman getting out of the truck and walking.
        He then begins a fast-walk/jog (the noises that he says are simply wind)
        Just as he is getting to the start of the path at the bend of Twin Trees, we get the “We don’t need you to do that”.
        He continues the fast-walk/job anyway.
        He the noises stop because he has arrived at the corner – allowing him to try and look down the central area. It’s the most natural place to stop.
        I had him standing and finishing the call there – but possibly moving slowly towards the T-junction.

        I’m updating the older parts of the blog. I will perhaps add a note and second graphic beside the original to indicate what Zimmerman indicated in the Walk-Through.
        A preview 🙂 ……..
        He has himself parked nearer the bend, and he insists that never went faster than a walk.
        It’s a simple calculation and a map check.
        He is still on the pathway in Twin Trees when he says “OK” to “We don’t need you to do that”
        When those “wind”/movement noises stop, he’s just got as far as the T-junction.

        So, whether you take my original calculations or use Zimmerman’s parked-closer-but only-walked, nothing changes after he gets to the T-junction.
        In both cases, it is unarguable that he was in Twin Trees for “We don’t need you to do that”.
        Whatever mission had taken him as far as the “OK” point, absolutely nothing changed for him as a result of “We don’t need you to do that”.

      • Sling,

        If Zimmerman was at the “T”, as you suggest and, I think, we pretty much all agree with, how was there a continued chase, if the altercation happened there, as well? Standing around in the same spot or milling about over a 50′-100′ area of sidewalk does not a continued chase make. A chase would usually be indicated by some greater distance traveled than 1/5th of what could be traveled by merely walking. There goes the fear element for Martin. Unless he was hiding, of course, like Leatherman believes. It’s too bad Dee Dee never suggested that. If only de la Rionda had some ability to question effectively.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        Zimmerman at the T
        The wind/jogging noises have stopped.

        Zimmerman says he was walking from the T to RVC.
        So he’s walking and we don’t head walking particularly.
        It’s possible that the call does not pick up the sound of him walking. We didn’t hear him walking from the truck before the wind noises started, so why hear him walking when the wind noises stop?

        2 minutes 30 seconds from the end of his call until the first 911 connects.
        That’s got to be a *minimum* of 2 minutes until the fight starts.
        I don’t suggest for a minute (or even 2 minutes!) that he just stood still for all that time.
        Do you think that he just stood still for 2 minutes?
        Considering the history, and his tone and words in the NEN call, can you suggest what he might have been doing for 2 minutes?

        I can see that I’ll have to go back and listen to that Dee Dee interview, making detailed notes.
        On memory of the first time, I don’t have great hopes of coming out of that a whole lot wiser.
        You are a cruel taskmaster.

      • Sing,

        I like your sense of humor. However, I’m really not asking for you to go back and listen to anything. Anything you do come up with on Zimmerman’s call is subjective and, as has been discussed previously, Dee Dee’s interview isn’t going to really give you much insight into the specific second-to-second movements of Zimmerman. The question is really very simple. If there was a chase, it would be indicated by the altercation happening further away than 120′ from Zimmerman’s truck. Even at a walking speed, 120′ is 1/5th of the distance that should have been traveled, at the very least. The only way for there to have been a chase and for events to unfold at the “T” is for the pair of them to have run in circles. This has created a problem for some in their minds, which is why people, like Leatherman, have concluded, regardless of the lack of any evidence to suggest it, that Martin hid and Zimmerman came upon him. This is also what has lead others, albeit without evidence, to suggest Martin backtracked. That being said, backtracking or hiding are the most probable compared to an actual chase, which renders Dee Dee obsolete in my opinion.

        There is, also, of course, the problem that is inherent in Dee Dee’s statement that she was on the phone when the altercation occurred. This is a problem because Martin’s headphones were in his pocket, not on the ground, as one would expect if he were on the phone when the struggle occurred. This would indicate that she was not on the phone with Martin when the struggle occurred and that would make her inaction after her call with Martin ended a lot more appropriate.

        • mataharley says:

          INRE the location of the headphones… jury seems to be out on that one. May doc dump… pg 20. Officer says the headphones were found “next to him”.

          After CST Smith completed her initial photographs of the scene I assisted her In measuring the items on the scene for her sketch. she then collected the Items, The Volusia County Medical Examiner’s Office arrived on scene and began to examine and move the victim. The victim had $ 40.15 in US currency, a bag of skittles candy, a red 7·11 red lighter in his pockets, headphones next to him. and a photo phi on his sweatshirt.

          Pg 80, officer says:

          After my photographs of the Initial scene Were completed, Sgt Ciesla and I measured the Items on the Scene and then I collected them, The Volusla Coonty Medical Examiner’s Office arrived on scene and moved the vlotlm. The victim had $ 40.15 in US currency, a bag of skittles. red lighter, headphones, photo pin in hIs
          pockets or on him.

          That sentence isn’t exactly clear with a run on lump of the items, and not specific as to what was where. By contrast, the pg 20 report distinctly states that the headphones were found next to the body while the money, skittles and lighter was in his pocket, and a photo pin was on his sweatshirt.

          So did someone put them into the pockets, or was this sloppy shorthand after the fact when it comes to where evidence was found? Personally, I’ll take the more detailed explanation of each piece of evidence and location as being gospel, instead of seizing on the less detailed one to assume the headphones were in the pocket and not next to the body, as originally stated.

          • Most excellent catch, Mataharley.

          • Sandra E. Graham says:

            If one piece of evidence says the earphones were beside TM and another says they were in his pocket, can the defence or prosecution cherry-pick the evidence documentation by saying – We believe this report to be true is like saying – We believe GZ when he used this scenario over the other one, isn’t it. What I am trying to say is it evidence if there are conflicting reports.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “Anything you do come up with on Zimmerman’s call is subjective..”

        Not quite.
        What he says and when exactly – to the second – he says it totally objective. So is the start time, So is the duration.
        There are reasonable limits to the speed at which people walk.
        If Zimmerman says that at a certain time that he walked from a certain start position then we can predict with a few feet where he will be a short time after that.
        The time spans are short – 20 / 30 seconds. There is not great leeway fro cumulative error.

        ‘Subjective’ only comes in if I consider that he is fast-walking/jogging because of a pattern of sounds and a slight breathlessness.

        The killer is the absolute time of the call ending and the first 911.
        Synchronising the calls between Martin and Dee Dee is problematic to to rounding to minutes in the logs.
        The prosecution have logs direct from the service provider. It may be that these can be timed to the second.

        Even with Dee Dee’s report, the movements of Martin and Zimmerman are guesswork.
        We have Martin’s arrival into the central area precisely from “He’s running”
        We have Zimmerman’s arrival as distance/speed from a fixed location. Any error is a matter of seconds.

        After that, all we can know is that they were both horizontal on the grass in John’s back yard some seconds before the shot.

        Martin arrived into the central pathway at 19:11:41 (He’s running)
        Zimmerman arrives 40 seconds later (wind. slow-down)
        After that, we seem to have no way of knowing where they were.

        The shot is fired at 19:16:53
        The loud noise of a fight began about 1 minute before that at earliest. Say 19:16:00

        At the start of the fight, Martin has been in the area for 4 minutes 19 seconds. Zimmerman has been there for about 40 seconds less.
        .

        Zimmerman’s story for events up to this point at a total mess. His narrative is contradicted by the objective evidence of his call. Movements described are physically impossible in the actual time taken. His account of the content of the NEN call is objectively proved a fantasy of the dispatcher badgering him repeatedly for updates on Martin’s whereabouts – this to justify a ridiculous story of “going in the same direction” as Martin in order to get the number of a RVC house 250 feet distant, when he’s already at the back of a RVC house whose number is only 100 feet distant.

        He tops the whole thing off by generating a time-warp – a disturbance in the force that wipes over 2 minutes out of existence. 2 minutes never happened.
        He started walking a 20 second walk. 2 minutes later he finishes that walk.
        .

        And now we are to believe his account of how a fight began.
        We are to believe his account of how it ended.
        In deep darkness, Martin sitting on Zimmerman’s stomach, sees a very small thin gun that is concealed in a holster inside Zimmerman’s waistband.
        It’s design purpose is to be concealed. It’s so light and thin that even Zimmerman had totally forgotten that it was there.
        Even when he noted to the dispatcher that “He’s got his hand in his waistband”, he didn’t think about weapons in waistbands.
        When this thug was circling his truck, and Zimmerman’s tone was getting high-pitched in the NEN call, he never for one moment thought about how he might defend himself if the thug started to attack him.

        ———————————————————

        As for the phone and the headset:
        Possibilities…

        Why was the phone on the ground, about 6 feet away from the body?
        If it fell out of his pocket, why did other stuff not fall out?

        If I was aware of a following in that very dark place, I would not have earbuds blocking my ears. I want to listen out.
        If I am on the phone, I’ve got the volume way, way down.
        If I speak, I’ll have the phone jammed to my mouth and I’ll whisper. ‘Talk low’

        In any case, the recording of evidence items may have issues.
        Serino noted a photo button on the chest, but it was recorded as being in a pocket.
        Medics took stuff out of pockets. Skittles had blood on them, but other items from the pockets were not noted so.
        Button maybe removed as in the way of CPR. Stuff put (back) in pockets.

        First cops on the scene knew Zimmerman. Then there’s a black kid in a hoodie and no ID. I get the impressions that the situation was not treated as a real crime scene.
        People walking about. Zimmerman walking about. People taking photographs. No public lighting. Dark. Chaos.

        Nobody knows how arms that were spread ended up being under.

        ——————————————

        It’s a mess.
        The only account of what happened comes for the shooter – who is either very delusional or a blatant liar.

      • Sling,

        I was saying that you don’t need to take another listen to the non-emergency call. We know the objective stuff. Anything else you would be trying to get is subjective.

        To make this very simple, I agree that Zimmerman’s story can be done in approximately two minutes less than he seems to intimate that it took, leaving a 2-minute gap.

        We have Dee Dee’s story that the State wants so desperately to show what occurred during those 2 minutes, but her statement seems the least plausible, because of where the altercation occurred and where Martin’s body was. So, we essentially have three possible scenarios. We have Zimmerman’s with its inconsistencies, we have Dee Dee’s with its logical improbability and we have the plausible hiding scenario that has no evidence to support it.

        You’re never going to know what occurred at precise moments at every given time during that night. All we have is what is given and it continues to leave questions. Questions, by the way, leave doubt. And the State has to overcome that doubt, but they can’t. It is a mess, but this is what many have been saying for a very long time. And, as such, this is what has prompted people to say that the State overcharged without enough evidence.

        Lastly, while there are little details from officers that worked the scene that may be inconsistent with the details from other officers on the scene, this is to be expected and it is normal. If the crime scene was processed perfectly and each officer’s account lined up with any other officer’s account, there would still be a gap of 2 minutes that leaves questions. This is why Dee Dee was so important, but ultimately why the State will have an incredibly difficult time getting a conviction.

        • You just shrug your shoulders in apparent helpless resignation that we cannot use our common sense and reasoning abilities to figure out what happened.

          It’s not that frickin’ complicated.

          We know Zimmerman lied and we can and should ask ourselves why he lied.

          There is a consistent pattern to his lies and that pattern is, in effect, an admission of guilt, a signed, sealed, and delivered confession of guilt.

          Haven’t you heard of circumstantial evidence?

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “To make this very simple, I agree that Zimmerman’s story can be done in approximately two minutes less than he seems to intimate that it took, leaving a 2-minute gap.”

        That’s more “simplistic” that “very simple”.
        It hints of a ‘The whole thing lasted about 10 minutes, so what’s 2 minutes?’
        He insists that he was talking with the dispatcher and ended his call at RVC. He says he started straight back.
        That 2 minutes plus is not in some way allocatable over a series of events. It is the time for his walk of less than 100 feet.

        “We have Dee Dee’s story that the State wants so desperately to show what occurred during those 2 minutes, but her statement seems the least plausible, because of where the altercation occurred and where Martin’s body was.”
        Zimmerman does not have a story for what happened in those 2+ minutes.
        There is no eyewitness evidence of where the altercation started. Some people think what they heard indicates that it started up by the T.
        The only sight of them was down where the fight ended. Apart from the key-fob, everything is down the path, where dark back porches give cover.

        Even without Dee Dee;s word, Zimmerman’s description of what happened after he ended the call is impossible.

        Now O’Mara wants to plead self-defence without having a trial.
        http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/stand-your-ground.html

        On top of whatever is made of the actual evidence, I suspect that forensics/ballistics may cause some problems for Zimmerman’s account of the moment of the shot.

        • Michael Stewart says:

          “He insists that he was talking with the dispatcher and ended his call at RVC. He says he started straight back.That 2 minutes plus is not in some way allocatable over a series of events. It is the time for his walk of less than 100 feet.”

          It’s worse than that.

          In the February 29 interview Serino replayed the NEN tape. Zimmerman claimed that he was already in the process of walking back to his vehicle [from RVC] at the point in the NEN call where he attempted to give dispatch his location.

          NEN replay : “Um, if come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse.”

          Serino paused the tape here and asked: “What are you doing right now?”

          Zimmerman responded: “Walking back to my car.”

          Serino restarted the tape and timed the remainder of the NEN call @ 84 seconds.

          That’s 1 minute a 24 seconds, plus the approx 2:30 that elapsed between the end of NEN and the first 911 call.

          A grand total of 3:54 from the point where Zimmerman says he was walking back to his truck from RVC, and the first 911 call.

          If you allow 1 minute for the altercation, it took Zimmerman approx 3 minutes to walk from RVC to the T-intersection area where he claims he was immediately attacked by TM.

          And if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge…. 😉

          I encourage people to listen to the relevant segment of the February 29 interview with Serino.

      • Sling,

        Zimmerman does have a story, he just says that what he did took 2 minutes when it could be done in 30 seconds.

        Also, we’ve been down this road before with things you hope the State has. The discovery phase is virtually complete and it is extremely unlikely for the general scheme of things to be impacted by any additional discovery. The ballistics report and autopsy both reveal that the shot was made at close range. The shell casing was close by and was consistent with where the two were on the ground. There is not much more, if anything, that is going to be gleaned from this aspect. The facts remains that the State lacks evidence, so people have to come up with theories. Theories don’t cut it.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “Zimmerman does have a story, he just says that what he did took 2 minutes when it could be done in 30 seconds.”

        Nope.
        He says that what he did took “less than 30 seconds”.
        I estimated that it would take about 20 seconds.
        The walk-through, although not a reconstruction, showed 20 seconds.

        We do have the autopsy and ballistics reports, but that’s not the end of it. That’s the beginnings of it.
        The autopsy gives the trajectory of the bullet through the body. Ballistics indicate the range, including how and where it went through the clothing.
        This will indicate where the gun was in relation to the chest and clothing and where the clothing was in relation to the chest.
        What is yet to come is the expert analysis. The reports are just mundane facts that have yet to be interpreted.
        Where would Zimmerman’s hand and arm have to be?
        Could he have his hand in that position and orientation given his description of what happened? He being on his back with Martin straddling him?
        What would be the recoils action given the hand/arm positions?

      • Leatherman,

        “You just shrug your shoulders in apparent helpless resignation that we cannot use our common sense and reasoning abilities to figure out what happened.

        It’s not that frickin’ complicated.”

        I don’t think it is that complicated, but reasoning can be wrong without evidence. It can be wrong with evidence if you don’t know about or aren’t given exculpatory evidence, which I know you are very familiar with. Using your reasoning, you came up with a plausible story that Martin hid. This could very well be true. Now, convince a jury of that with only circumstantial evidence to suggest it and testimonial evidence from both Zimmerman and Dee Dee that gives the appearance of refuting it.

        —-

        “We know Zimmerman lied and we can and should ask ourselves why he lied.

        There is a consistent pattern to his lies and that pattern is, in effect, an admission of guilt, a signed, sealed, and delivered confession of guilt.

        Haven’t you heard of circumstantial evidence?”

        We know of the lies, or inconsistencies, by Zimmerman. They are not an admission of guilt. I know you practiced law, so I can’t believe you would say that.

        I know of circumstantial evidence and your condescension is noted. I’ve yet to see a piece of circumstantial evidence that didn’t also allow for the possibility of self-defense.

        • You said,

          “I know of circumstantial evidence and your condescension is noted. I’ve yet to see a piece of circumstantial evidence that didn’t also allow for the possibility of self-defense.”

          I do not believe that I would have any difficulty convincing a jury of Zimmerman’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

          Anything is theoretically possible and the nature of circumstantial evidence is such that each individual circumstance in a chain of circumstances might indicate more than one possibility. However, when examined as a totality of circumstances, they add up to only one possibility.

          Put another way, the more splainin’ that Zimmerman has to do by resorting to ridiculous extremes like I was walking in the same direction as Martin but not following him because I was looking for a street name and an address to give the dispatcher, the more unlikely his story becomes. Especially when he has lived in the neighborhood for three years, patrolled it as the neighborhood watchman on a regular basis for months, and he walked right past townhouses on TTL with the addresses on them in plain view, ignored them, and never provided the dispatcher with an address. It doesn’t take any intelligence to figure out that he was never looking for an address.

          Step by inexorable step he lies and lies and lies.

          What is he concealing?

          He wasn’t out there exercising in the rain.

          He was hunting.

          The answer is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell.

          The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all theoretical doubt.

      • Leatherman,

        “I do not believe that I would have any difficulty convincing a jury of Zimmerman’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

        I think that is the truest thing you’ve ever said, considering your career as a “defense” attorney. Did you only defend innocent people? Do you think you would have difficulty convincing a jury that Zimmerman is innocent?

        See, my problem with many on this forum is the fundamental lack of understanding about the presumption of innocence, how it works and why it is important. Let me quote For clarity, let me quote John Adams:

        “It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever.”

        • You said,

          “Do you think you would have difficulty convincing a jury that Zimmerman is innocent?”

          The answer is “Yes, I would have difficulty, because he committed the crime and could not keep his mouth shut.”

          I would tell him the case is unwinnable and we need to seriously consider resolving it with a plea.

          BTW, nothing John Adams said affects the evidence or the outcome in this case.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        There is “beyond all doubt”
        There is “beyond reasonable doubt”

        There is absolutely no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman – other than Zimmerman’s say-so.

        There is evidence that they were fighting.
        There is no evidence as to who started the physical.
        There is no evidence of Martin punching or pounding head.
        There is evidence of very minor injury to Zimmerman.
        There is evidence of fatal injury to Martin.

        There is evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin into the dark saying “These a**holes. They always get away” and “F**king ****s”
        There is evidence that 2 minutes and thirty seconds passed between the end of his call and the first 911 call connecting.
        By his own word of where he ended it, at the far end of the path, he was just a 1-minute walk from his truck.

        A reasonable person would consider that he went looking for Martin, and in an aggressive frame of mind.

      • Leatherman,

        “The answer is “Yes, I would have difficulty, because he committed the crime and could not keep his mouth shut.”

        I would tell him the case is unwinnable and we need to seriously consider resolving it with a plea.”

        Unwinnable? A case that has testimonial evidence that supports the Defendant, as well as physical evidence that could be seen to be corroborative of his story and requires the Prosecution to focus on circumstantial evidence is “unwinnable”? At what point in time would you ever recommend that a client not accept a plea? What happened to a “zealous defense”? I’m sorry, but I cannot understand how this is coming from someone that taught law.

        —-

        “BTW, nothing John Adams said affects the evidence or the outcome in this case.”

        This is true. But, that is not why I posted it. The accused is entitled to a defense, not some weak-kneed lawyer telling him to take a plea. He is also entitled to a presumption of innocence and, as such, does not have to prove anything. You say he lied and that proves guilt, but it does no such thing, nor do many of his statements that you think are “lies” actually amount to lies. Now, you’re posting about theories of some additional person being involved? Come on.

        • I see that I struck a nerve since you’ve cracked and called me a weak-kneed lawyer and you have intentionally misrepresented the exercise in what-if thinking that I posted recently.

          You do not hold up well under pressure or defend your arguments very well.

      • Sling,

        “There is absolutely no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman – other than Zimmerman’s say-so.”

        There is the abrasion to Martin’s hand and Zimmerman’s injuries to support that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There are no injuries to Zimmerman’s hands or injuries outside of the gunshot to Martin to suggest Zimmerman attacked Martin. Hell, even the Prosecution has stated that Martin attacked Zimmerman. They’re just offering that it was justified. When are you going to start thinking like a juror and apply “innocent until proven guilty”?

        • You’re willfully blind and hopeless. I see no point in continuing to argue with you when you refuse to consider the power of the circumstantial evidence in this case.

          Hell, you’re still arguing that Zimmerman’s injuries justified his use of deadly force and that’s been completely debunked.

          Seriously, your arguments border on the ridiculous.

          Not sayin’ that you aren’t entitled to your opinion. You are, but you are not supporting it in a compelling or persuasive manner.

      • Leatherman,

        “You’re willfully blind and hopeless. I see no point in continuing to argue with you when you refuse to consider the power of the circumstantial evidence in this case.

        Hell, you’re still arguing that Zimmerman’s injuries justified his use of deadly force and that’s been completely debunked.

        Seriously, your arguments border on the ridiculous.

        Not sayin’ that you aren’t entitled to your opinion. You are, but you are not supporting it in a compelling or persuasive manner.”

        That must be it. It couldn’t be that I’m using the evidence that exists to determine that the State doesn’t have the goods. It couldn’t be that I refuse to speculate about hypotheticals as the jury will also not be allowed to do. It must be that I have some incapacity to see things the way you do. Tell me, has your capacity to see what others do not backfired on you before? More importantly, has it ever backfired on one of your former clients? In other words, were you ever so confident of someone’s guilt that you went for the easy plea deal instead of doing your job? Didn’t you mention, previously, that your wife fell victim to a railroading by law enforcement and subsequent prosecution? I know, it’s different. It always is. By your comments, it looks like you’ve forgotten what it means to defend someone. You’ve subsequently forgotten what innocent until proven guilty means. Have fun looking for the second perpetrator.

        • You asked,

          “Tell me, has your capacity to see what others do not backfired on you before? More importantly, has it ever backfired on one of your former clients? In other words, were you ever so confident of someone’s guilt that you went for the easy plea deal instead of doing your job?”

          The answer is “No.”

          I tried an unusually high percentage of my cases because I loved being in trial and winning and I never went for an easy deal instead of doing my job.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “There is the abrasion to Martin’s hand and Zimmerman’s injuries to support that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There are no injuries to Zimmerman’s hands or injuries outside of the gunshot to Martin to suggest Zimmerman attacked Martin.”

        Injuries indicate that there was violent contact of body parts with something.
        Witness 6 reports wresting with one lying on the other. No hands or faces seen.
        No evidence as to who first got physical.
        If I push or pull you,am I not assaulting you?
        If we have a fight, is the one with the least injuries the one who started it?

        ” Hell, even the Prosecution has stated that Martin attacked Zimmerman.”
        Ah. You got me there. I had not realised that they were at the scene and had witnessed the start of the fight.
        That’s pretty convincing.

        That’s almost as convincing as O’Mara saying
        “My client…reacting to having his nose broken. I think that it is probably undisputed that he had a broken nose now. “

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “What I am trying to say is it evidence if there are conflicting reports.”
        .

        If a person fails to notice something that is there, this can be understandable. Darkness, milling about.

        If a person notices something that is not there, this is less understandable.

      • Sling,

        “Injuries indicate that there was violent contact of body parts with something.”

        Correct. Now, one can take that physical evidence and circumstantially imply that Martin hit Zimmerman. Notice how you can’t take that physical evidence and imply that Zimmerman hit Martin. The Prosecution knows this and has preemptively implied it, as well as a justification for it.

        And, in case you didn’t realize, it is much more significant when the Prosecution admits something that could be helpful for the Defendant. So, while you glibly dismiss this as equal to O’Mara’s stated defense(s) of Zimmerman, it is not the case.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        You’ll have to point me to the original document where the prosecution state that Martin hit Zimmerman, please. I haven’t seen it.

        We are agreed that violent contact of body parts with ‘something’ can cause injury. When the ‘something’ is another body part, the injury might be expected to mirror.

        There are no defensive injuries for Zimmerman – which is extremely odd. He had two hands and arms available.
        The only injury to Martin – apart from the bullet damage – is an abrasion on one finger.
        This does not indicate fisticuffs.

        What is indicated by lack of impact markings and by eyewitness is a some sort of wrestling on the ground.
        The wrestling is sufficient explanation of some minor cuts on the back of the head of one of the participants.

        Given Zimmerman’s account of the moment of the shot, I strongly suspect that the impact on Zimmerman’s nose is due to recoil. Expert analysis will show how likely that is.

        The extent to which a court can ignore very strong indications that Zimmerman hunted for Martin remains to be seen.
        Perhaps a court can absolutely limit its consideration to a single minute of a continuous series of interactions between the two that lasted for at 7 minutes at the very least, then this would assist Zimmerman.
        Even if that limited view is taken it is still by no means certain that Zimmerman can prove a reasonable fear that would justify taking a life.
        He was losing a wrestling match and might have received a single punch.

        • mataharley says:

          SlingTrebuchet: You’ll have to point me to the original document where the prosecution state that Martin hit Zimmerman, please.

          Sling, in the interviews between Serino and Zim, they were asking Zim what “set” Martin off that he would punch him, as Zim claims.

          There are no witnesses to who threw the first punch, so I suspect that the SPD are working on the basics of Zim’s varied stories being true…. that Martin did throw the first punch.

          I don’t see this as a problem for the prosecution, and apparently they don’t either. In fact, it goes to the heart of Martin’s awareness of Zimmerman’s actions, and the fact he was feeling threatened by those actions.

          People forget that the person who was mostly likely to have self-defense rights at the moment of the verbal exchange would have been Martin. He was not engaged in an illegal act, had every right to be where he was, and was not responding with unreasonable force to a situation that he perceived as a threat.

          I doubt that any jury member, putting themselves in Martin’s shoes that evening (as the State will attempt to do), would not feel threatened if a stranger had followed and hunted them for five minutes or so, both in a car and on foot, then responded to a verbal conversation with “reaching” for something. Especially when that stranger had at least two opportunities to identify themselves and their mission, and chose not to do so.

          What becomes more damaging for Zim is that he states – by his own admission – that he was looking for a phone that wasn’t located where he was reaching.. a phone that he put away only two minutes approx earlier. Likely, he’ll blame that on his ADHD as well.

          Conveniently, what *was* available via his demonstrated (and exaggerated) “reach” was his gun. (note the penchant Zim has to always demonstrate his “reach” for the cell on the CVSA videos, which are indistinguishable from a draw of a gun from a holster)

          I don’t believe the prosecution will have a problem proving most of the following, beyond reasonable doubt::

          1: Zim improperly and incorrectly profiled Martin

          2: Demonstrated by his actions, he was convinced Martin was a criminal, despite no evidence of wrong doing

          3: That he followed him in his car

          4: That he exited his car with the intent to continue to follow Martin (as admitted to co-workers and Ostermann)

          5: That he continued to hunt for Martin for almost two minutes after hanging up from the NEN at the tee when he had ample time to return to his car. He did not travel any further from that point while on the call, as evidenced by the cloth movement. Any walking, despite the pace, would still have picked up the movement of his jacket… note the cloth movement even on the SPD station interviews. Just the nature of microphones and their pick up patterns.

          BTW, Zimmerman admits he stops at the tee, but fabricates an impossibility that he continued walking to RVC-east while still on the phone. Impossible via the event time elapsed, as well as the fact that movement would be picked up on the call.

          6: That Martin was aware of Zimmerman and apprehensive (probably Dee’s only value)

          7: That when the confrontation happened, after almost five minutes of Zimmerman’s own aggressive actions, Martin had reasonable threat and fear from this stranger, and responded with reasonable force (a punch) to that threat. Then he attempted to flee south towards the condo (as the evidence debris field suggests).

          8: There is doubt that Zimmerman was reaching for his cell phone at all, but was in fact reaching for his gun. He’s always careful to make Martin’s first words sound threatening.

          9: That Zimmerman did not attempt to retreat after the punch because he had to physically get back up to his feet after being knocked to the ground, and then pursue Martin south voluntarily to the site of death instead of returning to his car. He never says that Martin hauled him back up to his feet and dragged him in the fight.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          GZ says he was punched, went down, and TM got on top of him. OK that is one thing. But, in reenactment, if was hit and stumbling, he obviously still had the flashlight in his hand. I don’t think he was trying to fend off Trayvon like someone trying to swat a fly. The flashlight was found close to Trayvon. Tells me he still had it and if his hands were free he could have given Trayvon a few good whacks. If he didn’t have access to the flashlight and Trayvons hand was anywhere close to his mouth, I think GZ could have gotten a few good chomps on Trayvons hand somewhere along the way. GZ seems to have laid there and did nothing to defend himself by his own recounting. Doesn’t sound to me like he was in fear for is life. GZ has beautifully manicured hands and a scratchmark or two on Trayvon would show GZ had tried to defend himself. None. Idiot.

      • Leatherman,

        “I see that I struck a nerve since you’ve cracked and called me a weak-kneed lawyer and you have intentionally misrepresented the exercise in what-if thinking that I posted recently.

        You do not hold up well under pressure or defend your arguments very well.”

        Nope. Sorry, you really haven’t struck a nerve. Going for a plea, when this is, in many estimations including my own, a winnable case, is weak-kneed, in my opinion. And, if the shoe fits …

        I haven’t misrepresented anything. Your exercises are meaningless in a trial and only server to muddy the water for people that truly wish to understand how the law is applied and where Zimmerman’s case stands with regards to that.

        I’m hurt that you think my arguments don’t hold up when you’re more than willing to blithely go along with conspiracies. Wait, does that say more about my arguments or about your predilection to never see anything that could support my arguments?

        By the way, an example of someone cracking, would be one of those that you agree with calling me a “f***ing liar” She didn’t censor herself, though.

        —-

        “The answer is ‘No.’

        I tried an unusually high percentage of my cases because I loved being in trial and winning and I never went for an easy deal instead of doing my job.”

        I simply don’t believe you. I’ll provide support for why I don’t, but on the face of it, perhaps this is a matter of perception. I think your focus on a plea now is going for the easy plea and I see no reason why you would operate under a different set of standards in the past. In reference to that, I provide your own words detailing a similar occurrence:

        “During trial and after Mr. Stenson questioned the effectiveness of my representation. It is safe to say our relationship was very poor. At one point, I told the court that I could not stand the sight of Mr. Stenson.

        Based on my investigation, I did not think Mr. Stenson could win at trial and, as a result, my focus was the penalty phase of the case … In recent months I have learned that information has been developed suggesting that others were responsible for the murders attributed to Mr. Stenson.

        I told the jury, without Mr. Stenson’s permission, after they had convicted Mr. Stenson, that we accepted the verdict. Mr. Stenson did not accept the verdict. My telling the jury that “we” accepted the verdict was inappropriate, unauthorized, and undermined even more my relationship with Mr. Stenson. Obviously, that concession did not help in the penalty phase. In the penalty phase, I did nothing to advance a verdict of other than death upon the principle of “residual doubt.” I could have, but I chose not to so because I did not believe the jury had any residual doubt. In retrospect I believe this was a serious mistake.

        Together with my ongoing difficulties with Mr. Stenson, I must admit that I was impatient and angry most of the time. I was convinced that my judgement was infallible … I told him over and over again that his case wasn’t about winning or losing; it was about living or dying and he damn well better understand that because his case was unwinnable … As a result, I may have failed to recognize and develop exculpatory evidence … If I had it to do over again, I would do it differently.”

        The Washington State Supreme Court has since ordered a new trial for Mr. Stenson, ruling that his rights were violated, have they not?

        • If you had taken the time to read the published opinion, you would know that the Washington State Supreme Court reversed Stenson’s conviction and death sentence because of prosecutorial and police misconduct, and not ineffective assistance of counsel.

          The prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence that I had specifically requested before trial.

          The withheld evidence was material to the outcome of the trial because I had successfully persuaded the trial court to exclude DNA test results, both RFLP and PCR, as unreliable.

          Stenson is the only death penalty case in the United States, and possibly the world, in which a trial court excluded the results of all DNA test results.

          The case was not reversed due to any alleged negligence or ineffectiveness on my part and the withheld evidence contributed significantly to the destruction of the attorney-client relationship between Mr. Stenson and myself.

          No court has ever found that I acted inappropriately or unprofessionally and I have never been disciplined by any bar association.

          If this information does not set you straight, please contact his lawyers and they will explain it further to you.

          I recommend you take that affidavit and shove it up your ass.

        • By the way, I believe you knew the Supreme Court reversed the case due to prosecutorial and police misconduct and not ineffective assistance of counsel.

          I published an article in this forum on May 10th about the Stenson decision with links to the majority and dissenting opinions

          Yet you introduced that affidavit in this forum 3 months later in an effort to discredit me by intentionally casting me in a false light.

          I signed that affidavit before his lawyers discovered the evidence that the prosecution withheld.

          Mr. Stenson and I likely would not have had the serious break in our relationship, if that evidence had been turned over as it should have been.

          You should be ashamed of yourself for resorting to underhanded and deeply dishonest defamatory behavior because I called you out and embarrassed you on your shallow, misleading and unpersuasive comments.

          In the end, you are what I have suspected all along: a troll dedicated to derailing thoughtful analysis and discussion under the guise of defending the presumption of innocence.

          Therefore, I am banning you for your dishonest and unethical behavior.

          • ajamazin says:

            It was long overdue,

            >________________________________ > From: Frederick Leatherman Law Blog >To: aja_young@ymail.com >Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:08 PM >Subject: [New comment] Zimmerman: 13 Questions Searching for an Answer > > > WordPress.com >masonblue commented: “By the way, I believe you knew the Supreme Court reversed the case due to prosecutorial and police misconduct and not ineffective assistance of counsel. I published an article in this forum on May 10th about the Stenson decision with links to the majorit” >

      • Sling,

        “You’ll have to point me to the original document where the prosecution state that Martin hit Zimmerman, please. I haven’t seen it.”

        It was during de la Rionda’s closing in the June 29th bond hearing. Look it up.

        The rest of your post is a regurgitation of your previous thoughts.

      • Leatherman,

        I read everything and I know why the court ordered a new trial. I think your owns words stand on their own with how you handled the case.

        Looks like someone has actually cracked. Perhaps the lesson you thought you learned has been forgotten.

        • ajamazin says:

          You have made this personal and it is disrupting discussion of the Zimmerman case.

          You need to take your petty bickering elsewhere.

          >________________________________ > From: Frederick Leatherman Law Blog >To: aja_young@ymail.com >Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 11:11 AM >Subject: [New comment] Zimmerman: 13 Questions Searching for an Answer > > > WordPress.com >justincaselawgic commented: “Leatherman, I read everything and I know why the court ordered a new trial. I think your owns words stand on their own with how you handled the case. Looks like someone has actually cracked. Perhaps the lesson you thought you learned has been forgo” >

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        Rionda certainly seems excited
        http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/bernie_de_la_rionda_george_zimmerman_bond_hearing_trayvon_martin.php

        But he is not presenting the state’s case.
        He’s floating a counter-balance to defence introduction of matters not proper for a bond hearing.
        You are not seeing a presentation of state evidence.
        There is no evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman. There are indications that he might have. There are indications that he would have a reason to do so other than naked aggression.

        “Regurgitation…”
        You seem excited also.
        Has my calm presentation irritated you in some significant way Justin?

      • Sling,

        No, you’ve not excited me in any way. and I’m aware the State is not presenting their case. That does not make their admission any less significant. de la Rionda, did, however, sound excited. He is an emotional guy, it appears. I prefer O’Mara’s calmer, more rational delivery, than the emotional hothead that de la Rionda appears to be.

      • ajamazin,

        You’re an authority on making it personal, with your personal insults. However, considering your bias, your opinion holds very little weight with me.

        I brought up the prior case because it was relevant to Mr. Leatherman’s current opinions as they relate to Zimmerman’s case. I’ve not attacked the man through any other means than his own words. Can you say the same? The answer is a resounding “No,” if you’re being honest.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        Justin.

        We seem to have differing understanding of the meaning of the word “admission”.

        The state can not admit that Martin punched Zimmerman. There is no witness evidence other than Zimmerman’s say-so to this effect.
        They can admit a possibility, or comment on a probability.

        Zimmerman had bruising to nose and blackened eye. This made a closed fracture likely, but Zimmerman refused to have it checked out.
        There was no septial deviation. This means that whilst he might have been bent out of shape emotionally, he wasn’t bent out of shape physically.
        Given a rolling about on the ground after a standing start, and a gun discharging in sub-optimal conditions for good shooting posture, there are a number of ways in which the nose could have come into contact with something.

      • Sling,

        Yes, we are operating under a different understanding. I understand your use as that relating to the admission of evidence. Since this is a bond hearing, I’m not using it in that way. I’m using it as the State reluctantly acknowledging that it is the more probable scenario.

      • Leatherman,

        It is obviously your right to ban whomever you please. I expected this would occur, considering your allowance of ajamazin to remain after her personal insults. You’ve also not lived up to your own standard of providing a warning and I expected that too. Apparently it is unethical to use your own words against you and there is nothing I can do to change that view. Again, it was expected. Dissent has no room here, even if one operates within your stated guidelines.

    • TruthSeeker12 says:

      Since you all are discussing how TM circled the truck, I figured this would be a nice video to show how impossible that is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB_CX9o0TUw&feature=player_detailpage

  12. onlyiamunitron says:

    With regard to “effing *whatever*”, I do not hear the “ooh” of coons or goons, I hear the “oh” of coats or cones or codes or cold.

    None of which make any sense in that context, but that’s what I hear.

    But seriously, who says coons anymore, unless they’re talking about masked mammals getting into the garbage cans?

    unitron

    • gbrbsb says:

      Has it already been commented that in the NEN call immediately after the controller says “you’re welcome” and just before GZ hangs up you can hear a mobile phone ringing quite nearby. In the youtube video I found this on (“George Zimmerman HAD PARTNER/S (The 9-1-1 call proves it!!)”) the author comments and enhances all noises throughout the call with good ideas for many albeit strange conclusions for others but IMO this one is spot on even in the original call if you listen carefully. And if it were DeeDee calling Trayvon (and who else could be there in the dark except for the two and GZ was still on his only phone???!!!) this may have been what discovered his position to GZ!

      IAnd a question professor; Will the prosecution have people analysing these calls and noises to try to fit them to GZ’s movements, actions, etc. like is happening here? And what is US protocol for evidence that only surfaces once disclosure has already been finalized… Perry Mason type surprises?

      • onlyiamunitron says:

        Anything you hear on the call could just as easily have come from the dispatcher’s microphone as Zimmerman’s.

        Which is why those systems need to be designed to record each side of the conversation separately.

        unitron

      • gbrbsb says:

        You may be right, but I prize myself with having an extremely good ear and acute hearing, a bane as well as a pleasure throughout my life, and IMO the ringing is NOT coming from the despatch room, or any other inside space, but from the outside near GZ. Indeed I would even go to say that the the dispatcher has shut his mic down but the software takes a second or two before cutting the caller off as the distinctive tone and/or echo from the despatch room is not present with the ringing sound.

      • After the initial police effort to assemble sufficient evidence to charge a suspect, investigations typically ebb and flow according to which cases are coming up for trial first and occasional specific requests for additional investigation by the prosecutor to whom the case is assigned for trial.

        Investigations remain open and ongoing in this sporadic way until the case is submitted to the jury.

        Typically, there will be a big spike in activity beginning 2-3 weeks before trial.

        Lawyers, myself included, regrettably tend to leave everything until the last minute. When the prosecution comes up with important new stuff at the last minute before trial starts or during the trial, the remedy is a continuance rather than exclusion of the evidence.

        If I were the prosecutor, I certainly would ask the investigators to develop a time line based on GZ’s call, DeeDee’s and TM’s calls, and the 911 calls.

        The exact timing is relatively unimportant compared to the necessity that the timing be synchronized.

        I imagine the timing of GZ’s NE call and the 911 calls is synchronized because the start and stop times would have been registered by the same internal clock at the dispatcher’s office that automatically registers those times.

        Synchronizing those times with the times recorded by Dee Dee’s and TM’s cellular service providers may be problematic, but definitely should be attempted.

      • gbrbsb says:

        Thanks professor for your patient clarification which sounds about the same as here.

      • gbrbsb,

        I also pride myself on having a good ear and I hear the ringing coming from within the call center the dispatcher is located at, so where does that leave us?

        Also, according to Dee Dee, she believed Martin’s headphones were knocked to the ground, either by a push or the struggle, because she alleged that she was on the phone with him when the confrontation occurred. However, according to the police report, Martin’s headphones were “located and collected from with in the victim’s pockets.” How could they end up there if he was on the phone when this all occurred?

      • gbrbsb says:

        justincaselawgic

        1. “Where does that leave us?”

        Well, nowhere of course, that is if we are talking about the same thing (see below). Both could be right or wrong but to me the low reverberation, hum, or whatever typical of an interior is not present, and, (without knowing how call centre equipment works), for those very few seconds it sounds as if the outgoing connection has shut down but not the incoming.

        2. “Also, according to Dee Dee, she believed Martin’s headphones were knocked to the ground… …according to the police report, Martin’s headphones were “located and collected from with in the victim’s pockets.”

        We must be referring to different matters because the mobile I hear ringing is the last seconds of the NEN recording which is, and I think everyone agrees on this at least, before GZ met up with Trayvon again, therefore the final resting place of Trayvon’s mobile, headset or anything else has no incidence whatsoever on the feasibility of whether was Trayvon’s mobile ringing or not.

  13. Patricia says:

    Thanks, WhoNoze.

    I had seen your stellar analysis on your site but could not figure out how to respond.

    I am pleased to see you noted the similarities of both “coon” and “goon” to the sound on the recording. Agree wth you that “punk” or “cold” don’t cut the mustard.

    My interest in this is not to state Zimmerman is a racist.

    My interest in this is that I believe Zimmerman did, in fact, profile Trayvon Martin, prior to pursuit, AS A CRIMINAL, with no probable cause, based on three statements by Zimmerman that night:

    1) “These assholes, THEY ALWAYS GET AWAY” in reference to suspects in earlier break-ins;

    2) “Fuckin’ GOONS,” referencing local gang members;

    3) referring to Martin (name unknown at that time) in his written statement, under oath, at Sanford PD, as the “suspect.”

    3 out of 3 works for me.

    Zimmerman profiled Trayvon Martin as a criminal, and he pursued him under that mindset, with no probable cause.

    • TruthBTold says:

      @ Patricia,

      To me, it sounded like GZ said punks. This is after repeated careful listenings, but that’s okay. I agree with you about GZ jumping to faulty conclusions resulting in an avoidable tragedy. I wouldn’t assign legal standards like probable cause to GZ. He does not have the authority to make that determination and act on whatever he believes, in any capacity. The standard here would actually be lower and that’s reasonable suspicion. Don’t have the authority there either. Also, he did not articulate anything that TM did that was suspicious. Community-oriented ppolicing programs are/can be very effective, but also can bring about a great deal of problems when you have a person like GZ involved.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        The key ring at the scene held the small flashlight and a key. No housekey, mailbox key, just a key. Shelley Zimmerman moved the vehicle prior to its being impounded. Everyone I have asked to see their keys has produced a minimum of three keys – vehicle, garage, work, desk, home, mailbox, etc.. IMHO, the key at the scene is a spare. GZ is telling someone the keys s s are in my truck. Your thoughts. I know, if I lived in a high-crime area and there was a so-called goon on the loose, you best be thinking that truck would be locked. Saying that, one set in the vehicle, spare key in evidence — does Shelly have another set or did she get a ride back home to pick up a key. When GZ asked the neighbour to call his wife, how did this neighbour know his number when he didn’t even know GZ.. GZ said Shelly was called and then she called Mark Osterman and both were at the scene within 5 minutes. Did she know to bring a key. Was the truck left open. Who was George speaking with when he was on the phone as he sat in Det Smith’s squad car. GZ needed that key at the T. Without it, he could not claim to have been confronted at the tee. Without it, the scene would indicate GZ was following TM. The key is the key.

    • gbrbsb says:

      There is what IMO is a pretty finite analysis of whether GZ said “punks” or “coons” on youtube from 4 months ago. It compares wave formation for the short sound “u” and the long sound “oo” and IMO the waves convincingly show punks not coons. It was so compelling I had to change my mind even though I can’t abide the author nor share his views on the case at all. In any case the prosecution’s audio experts have also gone with “punks” which is pretty telling as the case would surely be easier had it been punks.

    • whonoze says:

      Patricia hits the important point. It doesn’t matter what he says specifically. It matters what his comments overall reveal about false conclusions he had made about Martin.

      However, as a tech guy with a certain ‘professional’ pride, I must point out A. that the method used in diwataman’s waveform analysis (as mentioned by gbrbsb) is deeply flawed — they’re not Zimmerman’s waveforms, B. I don’t care whether you hear ‘punks’. I’m not just telling you what I hear. I broke down the recording of mystery word into each of its component phonemes, and compared the three proposed vowel sounds ‘oo’ ‘uh’ and ‘oh’ (for ‘coons’, ‘punks’ and ‘cold’ respectively) to every other instance of those vowels in GZ’s NEN call (again, broken down and edited out of their embracing words). It’s an ‘oo.’ End of story. And if you isolate the last consonant, check different speeds and so forth, it’s quite evident there’s no ‘k’ in there, either.

  14. whonoze says:

    Professor:
    My question for you is about the law in Florida regarding self-defense. I have read your post on jury instructions, well summed up by ‘clear as mud.’

    What confuses me is to what extent, if any, a claim of self-defense places any burden of the defense in Florida, and how much discretion Florida law allows the individual trial judge to exercise in this regard.

    If the burden remains entirely on the prosecution to establish that the killing was NOT self-defense, it strikes me none of the evidence exposed so far meets that burden. GZ could tell a million more lies, or we could discover that his injuries were all inflicted as he tripped over his own feet in the dark, and that would still not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that in his own idiosyncratic mind he believed he was being threatened.

    Thus, in order to gain a conviction, it would seem the State would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that GZ was holding TM at gunpoint, utterly subdued, while TM was screaming in fear for his life. We may believe that is what happened, but proving it could be a tall order.

    On the other hand, if making a self-defense claim in Florida requires the defense to put forward a credible argument that the shooting was justified (even if beyond reasonable doubt is not required) then we would have quite a different kettle of fish, and GZ would seem to be in in hot water.

    In trying to search on the interwebs for what the situation in a trial of GZ might actually be, i have discovered only that different states apparently have different standards along this spectrum, and Florida’s is one of the most congenial to defendants, but no one seems able to says exactly how the burden thing would play out, and how much of it might be up the judge.

    I take it from the discussion of lesser included offenses that you are not particularly expert in Florida statues. (I dug into that when he was charged, and did find a satisfactory answer from several concurring sources: It’s not Murder 2 or nothing in FL. The lesser charges are included automatically. So no, GZ will not be acquitted if the jury finds his culpability short of Murder 2 but sufficient for Manslaughter…)

    But I still wish somebody who really knows the law could look into how self-defense works in Florida and put forward a solid thesis, not just a guess, of how it would affect the kinds of cases the prosecution and defense would have to make if Mr. Zimmerman comes to trial.

    • gbrbsb says:

      Exactly my concerns because at very least it does not look a done deal.

      In my case I hope forensics, and other evidence (screams, voices, lights, distances, witnesses, etc. etc. etc.) coupled with GZ’s credibility collapsing under his own contradictions, will prove the impossibility of his account and that he will not meet what I think is called the “evidential burden” (if I understood it correctly and if US law is same/similar to UK).

      I mean, if his defence is proven untenable, I presume he will either be forced to take the stand & try to lie his way out again or to take the 5th, even more damning if there is enough to stack against him.

      Maybe I’m off on a limb here but I was also fascinated by the Conrad Murray case. Whatever one opines about MJ (that is a separate debate I’m not going down) I firmly believed Murray had to be found guilty as however much he, his defence, the media etc. etc. tried to blame MJ (Even the judge exclaimed during judgment “Yikes! Talk about blaming the victim!”) his recklessness and lies never allowed him to distance himself from being ultimately responsible even if MJ had injected himself that night. Murray of course never testified but had he the star expert, Dr Shaffer, had covered all the possibilities of dosage and timing etc. refuting every combination Dr Murray had or might have tried to argue.

      I live in hope that with so many people doing fantastic analysis, investigations, reasoning, etc. through blogs like this, (even those standing for GZ come up with gems against him), on the timeline, distances, lights, screams, etc. that when it is all fitted together it will prove GZ’s account as a fraud, because one thing I am sure is that GZ had no need to kill Trayvon that night even if he punched him, which from evidence I am not at all convinced he did.

    • whonoze,

      It is likely that O’Mara will be filing for an immunity hearing, regarding the “Stand Your Ground” portion of Florida’s justifiable homicide statutes. This is where the Judge comes into play and why O’Mara sought to have the Judge disqualified. Now that the motion was denied, the next logical step for O’Mara is to file a writ of prohibition to stop the case from moving forward and, at the same time, file an appeal of the Judge’s decision to deny the Motion to Disqualify.

      At an immunity hearing, the Defendant has the burden of proof. The Defendant has to show that the preponderance of evidence (requires that it is accepted that 50.1+% of the evidence) favors his claim of self-defense. The Judge decides if the Defendant has met that burden. If immunity is granted, everything ends. Zimmerman cannot, by law, face any criminal charges or any civil suits for killing Martin. If immunity is denied, it moves on to a criminal trial. The important note here is that if Zimmerman wins at a criminal trial, he can still face a civil suit. Protection from civil recourse is only granted at the immunity hearing.

      In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the State/Prosecution. They have to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did what they claim. Self-defense can still be argued by the Defendant, even though he lost an immunity hearing. There only needs to be the smallest inkling of evidence that self-defense was possible for the jurors to be required to consider it in their deliberations. As such, this will be among the jury instructions that will be considered:

      Jury Instructions: Justifiable use of Deadly Force

      http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter3/p1c3s3.6.f.rtf

      I would suggest going here if you are interested in additional instructions regarding this case.

      http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml

      • mataharley says:

        justincaselawgic: It is likely that O’Mara will be filing for an immunity hearing, regarding the “Stand Your Ground” portion of Florida’s justifiable homicide statutes. This is where the Judge comes into play and why O’Mara sought to have the Judge disqualified. Now that the motion was denied, the next logical step for O’Mara is to file a writ of prohibition to stop the case from moving forward and, at the same time, file an appeal of the Judge’s decision to deny the Motion to Disqualify. At an immunity hearing, the Defendant has the burden of proof.

        It is not automatic that Lester is the sitting judge on an immunity hearing. Nor are the odds of success in MOM’s favor as only about 20-21 SYG hearings out of hundreds have been granted. The FL defense lawyers have noted that most of the judge’s tend to favor a jury decision unless it is relatively clear cut… ergo the high failure rate of immunity hearings.

        This is a case where I suspect that any judge would rather throw it to a jury than take responsibility for immunity. Most especially since, as you say, the burden of proof switches to the defendant, and requires immaculate credibility of the accused. Zim has no credibility at this point.

      • mataharley,

        I suspect the same, but I still expect the process to unfold as I laid out. Incidentally, I’m not aware of a different Judge presiding on an immunity hearing, when a trial Judge has already been appointed to the case.

        • mataharley says:

          justincaselawgic: Incidentally, I’m not aware of a different Judge presiding on an immunity hearing, when a trial Judge has already been appointed to the case.

          Normally I would agree with you in theoretical practice. However it seems that the appellate courts are still grappling with the process.

          From Hessinger Law firm out of the Tampa Bay area

          http://www.hessingerlaw.com/Articles/Self-Defense-and-Floridas-Stand-Your-Ground-Law.aspx

          Around the State of Florida the appellate courts have been wrestling with the proper procedure for pursuing a claim of immunity. The First District Court of Appeal has embraced an evidentiary hearing permitting the trial court to weigh and confront factual disputes to render a ruling. (See Peterson)

          However, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that when the State files a proper traverse the motion for dismissal must be denied by the trial court and the case proceeds to trial. (See Velasquez v State, 9 So. 3d 22 (Fla. 4 th DCA, 2009))

          The Florida Supreme Court has not yet issued an opinion on the proper procedure for asserting an immunity claim in pre-trial litigation. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a Motion to Dismiss based on FS 776.032(1)immunity, but does not comment on procedure. State v Heckman , 993 So. D 1004 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)

          Many defendants, such as Jimmy Ray Hair, were granted immunity and released by the appellate court (in Hair’s case, the First District Court of Appeal, and not the assigned original trial judge.

          What happens may be that the State protests a motion for MOM”s evidentiary hearing, Lester denies, and it goes before an appellate judge who may make that decision instead. Then again, with the process still running in the gray area, who knows.

          What seems to be notable is that most cases are not being granted immunity statistically. At that point the defense has to decide if the preponderance of evidence is enough to pursue the path of appeal, or bank on the jury.

          Elizabeth Megale wrote an analysis of the flawed procedures, and came up with a credible argument against the SYG law… at least based on what can be an uneven application of justice. I would disagree that Castle Doctrine should only be confined to your home domain, but can agree there might be a flawed process in it’s implementation. And apparently, the expanded concept of the Castle Doctrine that is SYG theory still has a lot of procedural bugs.

          I would embed the link in text, but that always seems to get me into the moderation filter… :0). So you can read her analysis here.

          Click to access Elizabeth-megale-article-stand-your-ground-0401.pdf

        • mataharley says:

          Darn it all… I’m in moderation again, justincaselawgic. Have some links about the still disputed procedural battle, conflicting district court opinions, and still undecided comments on the differences by the FL Supremes about pretrial evidentiary hearings in FL. I’ve stopped linking URLS embedded in text, but in this comment, I used blockquotes… which also seems to trigger the filter.

          The details will be available when I’m bailed out, but suffice it to say that the State can protest the motion for the immunity hearing, Lester denies the hearing, and the defendant ends up in an appellate court who grants them the immunity and releases them… as in the case of Jimmy Ray Hair a few years back.

          So it’s not automatic that the judge who ends up listening to the SYG defense presentation, and granting immunity, is actually the appointed trial judge.

          I doubt that MOM has that much faith in Zim’s credibility since he only has minor injuries and a pot full of story variations as evidence for his self defense.

      • I see what you mean now. I understood this as the case as well. No need for additional information.

  15. SouthernGirl2 says:

    George Zimmerman 911 call

    @3:18-3:20 Zimmerman is clearly talking to someone on the scene but the dispatcher is asking questions and talks over it. SOMEONE ELSE was with Zimmerman THAT night. No doubt about it.

    • whonoze says:

      He’s not ‘clearly talking to someone else.’ He’s continuing the description of the truck, giving information for the arriving officer to ID which truck is his. He says “The keys are in the ignition.” It’s reduced in volume by the ALC circuit on the police end when the operator speaks over him. Thus, the full phrase is “You’ll see my truck: the keys are in the ignition.”

      Get good headphones, Eliminate background sounds in your own environment. Listen carefully.

      • Patricia says:

        Welcome back, Whonoze!

        Please use your audio wizardry
        to analyze Zimmerman’s “Fuckin’ —-ns!”
        expletive on the NEN 311 recording.

        I don’t think the words was “coons”
        (not the most contemporary phrase
        for a 28-year old, in any case).

        What I hear is “Fuckin’ goons!”

        Reportedly there is a gang in the Sanford/Orlando area – black youth who wear hoodies, who call themselves “The Goons.”

        Considering Zimmerman’s absolute fan-like devotion to all things cop style, and his vigilante mindset, I would expect him to be aware of local gangs that the police are monitoring.

        So, what do your acute ears hear? Coons? Goons?

        The last four letters come through well.
        I’m looking for the first.

        Thanks!

      • whonoze says:

        Hi Patricia:

        I’ve already done the ‘F-ing xxxx’ thing. What I did was break it down phonetically: isolate each phoneme and compare to other exemplars from GZ’s NEN call. I made a YouTube vid, but it didn’t come out that well.
        http://tinyurl.com/cdztakb
        I actually have a lot more comparisons than the ones i made for the vid. I was focusing on what were, at the time, the three main claims of what the mystery word might be: ‘coons’, ‘punks’, and ‘cold’. The complete phonetic breakdown absolutely rules out the last two.

        I still hear the first vowel as a ‘k’, so I hear ‘coons.’ I would even go so far as to say that is the word present on the tape. HOWEVER, the ‘k’ of ‘coons’ and the ‘g’ of ‘goons’ are quite close phonetically, within the margin of error both of the recording conditions on one hand, and human vocal accuracy while speaking under one’s breath during exertion on the other. So, if the proposition is “GZ was trying to say, ‘fucking goons’,” I could not say otherwise with a degree of certainty anywhere near beyond a reasonable doubt.

        And from the context: “coons” being a rather archaic slur, while “goons” is apparently current slang for hoodlums in Sanford, it certainly seems more logical that GZ would use the second term.

        I also don’t think it matters. Had GZ in fact said ‘coons’ that would prove nothing in regard to his bigotry or lack thereof. A single utterance of a slur to a third party does not establish a pattern, and is not verbally aggressive. It is also a common use of language to employ slurs to distinguish between ‘normal’ members of a class and ‘deviant’ ones. As Snoop Dog said in objection to Dom Imus referring to the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “Nappy headed hos.”, that’s not right because they’re college women trying to better themselves. He uses ‘bitch’ and ‘ho’ because the particular women he’s rapping about act like ‘bitches’ and ‘ho’s’ to him.

        So bigotry is not the issue (not directly anyway), but rather unjustified pre-judgment. GZ called TM a “Fucking _oon!’ when the youth had done nothing but hide from the rain for the bit, then continue to walk home. But GZ’s utterance, whatever the consonant, is hard evidence that he had concluded the youth was a bad person, up to something no good, an asshole who should not be allowed to get away. This, IMHO, is what matters.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        OKay – I have the best sound system money can buy, and the room I am in is perfectly quiet. Nowhere does GZ say – the keys are in the ignition. He clearly says – the keys are in my truck. Next – why would anyone, describing their location say my keys are in the truck. Do you think the police will get out of the squad car and check every truck they run across for keys. Unlikely. So, if he is telling the despatcher that the keys are in the truck, why are keys found at the scene. Funny how a guy so worried about – this kid – would leave his keys in his vehicle. IMHO, the more likely scenario is that George is telling someone else to go – the keys are in the truck. I believe he was not alone that night.

        • TruthBTold says:

          @SEG,

          Even though I haven’t subscribed to the more than one person theory, I thought that GZ told Det. Singleton that he took his keys with him and the keys being found at the scene. Right.

  16. Patricia says:

    Why would Geoge go all the way to Target, just to buy milk?

    Because it’s called TARGET.

    George would love that name.

    You think he would shop at “Safeway
    or, Lord forbid, “Piggly Wiggly”?

    George does everything possible to extend his machismo.

    If there were a store called “The AK-47 Express.”
    he’d be a regular customer.
    For milk. For animal crackers. Especially (thanks to ajamazin)
    if there were a Sheriff’s badge in the Cocoa-Puffs.

    He’d be the first to wear their T-shirt.

    On Me-Tube

  17. TruthSeeker12 says:

    I just found this video on Youtube and found it very interesting!!

    At the 6:12 mark…is that what I think it is?

    The link to the video on Youtube is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVUqY3tyttc&feature=player_detailpage

    • onlyiamunitron says:

      If you think you hear a gun being cocked or something like that, then no, it probably is not that.

      The gun would already have a round chambered and a full clip.

      Because of the way the hammer block safety on that model works, all he would need to do is pull the trigger.

      The gun would have already been ready.

      That sound is probably him banging the flashlight to get it to work.

      unitron

      • ajamazin says:

        onlyiamunitron states;

        “The gun would already have a round chambered and a full clip.”

        So George always carries a gun ready to use?

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “So George always carries a gun ready to use?”

          Not much point in going to the trouble if it isn’t.

          An attacker, human or animal, isn’t going to wait until you’re ready to successfully defend yourself or someone else before they attack.

      • Dave says:

        If he’s going to go armed there’s no point in carrying it in any other condition. It doesn’t present any safety issues. (That is not to suggest that someone like GZ should go armed in the first place.)

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        Go to : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NU0UeiNba8&feature=colike

        This video uses sound analysis comparing the sound on the call as compared to the sound of the KelTec. Compelling.

      • gbrbsb says:

        The video comparing the cocking noise of the KelTec with the clicking noises heard in GZ’s NEN call just when he gives his surname is, as others already noted, compelling, especially as other similar clicking noises have a very different echo and cadence distinct to other “clicking” noises which are more easily explained as GZ probably banging the torch. I wonder if the prosecution has at least investigated this because GZ may have had time to reload the chamber with a spare before police arrived which would account for all bullets present except the one in Trayvon.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          There was no reason for Zimmerman not to have already had a full clip plus one already chambered unless he had recently fired one or more shots, of which there doesn’t seem to be any evidence.

          It certainly would have had to have been before the phone call for us not to have been able to hear it.

          Anyone convinced he might soon be facing a situation in which 6 bullets wouldn’t be enough and he might need all 7 doesn’t strike me as someone who’d have jumped out of the truck to go rushing into that situation where all he had was someone who might be a potential burglar who might exit the neighborhood before the police can get there to check him out.

          Plus, how much sense does it make for Zimmerman to be out there in the dark and the rain trying to work the gun with both hands while talking on a phone one presumes he has tenuously trapped between shoulder and ear and a flashlight squeezed in one armpit or something?

          I’m not saying that can’t be the sound of a gun, I’m saying that under the circumstances it’s highly unlikely, and makes Zimmerman come off more as a bumbling clown than cunningly scheming dastardly villain.

          unitron

      • TruthSeeker12 says:

        chamber check?

      • Dave says:

        Why would he stand around banging on a flashlight when a dangerous, drugged up criminal was prowling around? He didn’t need it to light his way back to his truck. The light on the keychain would have been sufficient for that and he can’t claim that he lost the latter because it was lit.

    • ajamazin says:

      The audio comparison is dead on.

  18. ajamazin says:

    Seems odd to me that both George and Shellie purchased HIS & HER pistols, while they were deeply in debt and financially strapped.

  19. Michael Stewart says:

    When Serino replayed the NEN call during the February 29 police interview, Zimmerman claimed that he was already walking back to his car [from RVC] at the point in the call where he attempts to give the dispatcher his location.

    NEN replay – Zimmerman: “Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse.”

    Serino pauses the tape here and asks: “What are you doing right now?”

    Zimmerman responds: “Walking back to my car.”

    Serino timed the remainder of the call @ 84 seconds.

    Serino: “84 seconds from the point where you were walking back to your car, from Retreat View to Twin Trees, basically. That’s 1 minute and 20 second.”

    Actually that’s 1:24, Serino was off on his math by 4 seconds.

    The NEN call terminated approx 1:24 AFTER Zimmerman claims he was in the process of walking back to his vehicle fom RVC, ostensibly, having obtained an address.

    In 1 minute and 24 seconds he should have been well beyond the T- intersection where he claims he was immediately assaulted by TM. In fact, he should have easily been back at his vehicle while still on the phone with NEN.

    Zimmerman never walked to RVC to secure an address; he disproves this rationale by his own statements. Rather, he followed southbound at the T-intersection in direct pursuit of TM.

    Consider that Zimmerman intentionally dropped his lighted keychain flashlight near the T to serve as a beacon/marker for responding SPD patrolmen as he continued moving south on the concrete dogwalk with his tactical flashlight, which ultimately failed to work.

    As others have speculated, TM turned the corner heading southbound near the T-intersection and secreted himself somewhere between the 2 rows of townhouses. Martin waited in hiding to see if his pursuer was determined to exit his vehicle and continue to follow on foot; he could probably hear Zimmerman’s car door close on exit.

    Hiding was a logical course of action under the circumstances. The alternative was to lead a potentially dangerous stalker back to his unattended, 9 year old brother.

    As I continue to review the available evidence against established timelines, I am even more convinced that initial contact occurred well south of the T-intersection in the vicinity of witness # 6.

    • SouthernGirl2 says:

      According to George, Trayvon was:

      2/26 on NEN call “looking about”
      2/26 interview with Singleton “looking at the houses looking at me”
      2/27 interview with Serino “looking at the houses looking behind him”
      2/29 interview with Serino “looking IN the houses”

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

  20. Donna Flores says:

    Here is something has been nagging at me for weeks. In one interview George says that the thiefs and goons know how to cut through houses to get away. So he wants us to believe that he drove right past Trayvon, to the clubhouse and waited. How was he so sure Trayvon wasn’t going to cut thru the houses and run through the back. I don’t actually think he parked right at the clubhouse at all. He probably parked halfway there to see if Martin was even heading in that direction. On the 911/dispatcher call you can clearly here him getting back in the car when he says he is coming by the clubhouse, he has something in his waistband. I can hear the car chime as the doors open and he puts the truck in gear to continue following. Does anyone else hear the same thing?

    • Donna Flores says:

      Also, when he first states Trayvon is running, he gets outs and you hear a different chime, that’s because he left the keys in the ignigton, which is what he says later, when he is telling the dispatcher that his turn is parked there with the keys in it. How the second set ended up at the T is a mystery. Unless he was using the spare for the flashlight.

      • Donna Flores says:

        * truck is parked

      • Dave says:

        Excellent point. This supports the hypothesis that SZ was in the truck. I would expect her to have a duplicate key to GZ’s vehicle. I wouldn’t expect him to go out with two keys to the same vehicle. I also thought it was unusual for a married man to be going to Target for the week’s major grocery shopping trip (as GZ claimed) without his wife. None of this proves anything but it makes me wonder.

      • ajamazin says:

        Donna Flores,

        The set George had did not have his house key.

        The other set did.

        Are we to believe that with a ”suspicious” black youth on the loose
        in the Project, Zimmerman would leave his house key and car key
        dangling in the ignition?

    • Donna Flores says:

      * thieves

      • Dave says:

        Right! There’s a dangerous criminal running amok through the neighborhood and he leaves his keys in the ignition!

    • ajamazin says:

      Donna Flores is correct:

      “George says that the thiefs and goons know how to cut through houses to get away…… How was he so sure Trayvon wasn’t going to cut thru the houses and run through the back.”

      Trayvon was neither a thief nor a goon and Zimmerman knew this.

      The kids in the Retreat knew Trayvon and included him in their football games.

      There is every reason to believe the George knew where Trayvon lived and surmised that due to the rain, Trayvon would be heading home.

      We have proof that Zimmerman knew the cut thru’s.

      We have no reason to believe Trayvon knew the cut thru’s.

      • PYorck says:

        There is one reason why I don’t think that GZ knew Trayvon. That is the part in the Hannity interview where he says that it hit him “really hard” when the police referred to Trayvon as an innocent child and how it made him think of the boy he mentors. I think there is at least a small kernel of truth in that because it was such a bizarre and damning statement. Perhaps it did not really break his heart but what hit him was the magnitude of his mistake, but I don’t think he fabricated that out of thin air.

      • ajamazin says:

        PYorck ,

        Zimmerman may be considered charming by some, but never forget what he has tattooed on his arm.

        George never asked Trayvon to identify himself.

        Zimmerman is an actor with a well rehearsed script meant
        to elicit support and sympathy.

      • PYorck says:

        Yes, but if that bit was part of a script then it was a bad one. Support and sympathy? Perhaps. The only problem is that it undercuts his narrative.

        If his account is true and his self defense was justified, then it must have been justified by Trayvon’s actions on that evening. Hearing about Trayvon’s background may surprise him, but if it shocks him then he makes it sound as if he was wrong in his judgment of Trayvon. That’s not the most favorable message to send.

        It is possible that he just thought it would sound good and did not consider the implications, but that would have been a bad move.

      • SouthernGirl2 says:

        PYorck says

        There is one reason why I don’t think that GZ knew Trayvon. That is the part in the Hannity interview where he says that it hit him “really hard” when the police referred to Trayvon as an innocent child and how it made him think of the boy he mentors.

        Then why would he make hoodie jokes in jail house phone calls to Shellie? It was reprehensible!

      • PYorck says:

        SouthernGirl2,
        I don’t mean that he felt any sympathy for Trayvon, not at all. I interpreted what he told Hannity as his spin on the moment when he realized that he had got himself into real trouble because he did not kill a “thug” who would not be missed.

  21. PYorck says:

    I have a question about spousal privilege in Florida, something that could become relevant in both GZ’s and Shellie’s case. So far I have only found references to privilege relating to private communication between spouses. What about either their own or the other spouse’s actions or communication with third parties? Could they testify about those things unilaterally? Could they be compelled as long as no other privilege applies?

    • Florida Statute 90.504 covers the basic part of your question. Would you care to clarify what your question is intending to get at?

      A spouse could testify about communications with third parties – there is no expectation that comments are made in confidence – in which the other spouse was a party to, but it is unlikely to occur. For one, if the spouse was not there to be a party to the communication with the third party, it is hearsay and will be inadmissible. And two, the third party, which in this case would actually be a primary party, would need to be called to testify.

      As for actions, the Prosecution would need some evidence to support their questioning of the spouse as it would relate to compelling the spouse to testify. The right to compel the spouse, which is basically a penalty if the witness does not testify, would not be granted without some factual basis.

      • PYorck says:

        I was wondering for example what would happen if they asked Shellie where she was on 2/26, how and when she learned of the shooting, where she found the truck etc. (If they have then I don’t think we have seen that.)

      • These are the questions, but they don’t get at why you’re asking them. If I were to assume, it would appear you’re wanting to see if Shellie is more involved than the public has been led to believe. Is this correct?

        I would suggest that at least one of your questions was answered in a previous discovery dump. One of the witness statements speaks about Zimmerman asking that his wife be called and told that he shot someone. It’s page 27 of the 284 document dump, that you can find here:

        Click to access Zimmerman-documents.pdf

      • PYorck says:

        I believe that so far GZ has not given us an account that is both correct and complete. Something is missing. I don’t know what it is. It could be only small details or it could be something more fundamental. I think it is more likely than not that Shellie doesn’t have anything important to say. However at this point it does not yet seem unthinkable that GZ was not actually on his way to target or that she was in the truck with him after all or that she could contradict his account in some other way.

        I’ve read that statement some time ago, but I have to admit that I remembered it as more ambiguous as to whether that witness was the same one that made the call.

      • Pyorck,

        I think we can pretty much rule out Shellie being in the truck. Can you imagine Zimmerman calling the police to report a suspicious person and Shellie not chiming in to give her two cents? I know my wife would be talking in the background, correcting me or giving additional information to relay.

        Other than pure speculation here, I’ve not seen anything calling into question the validity of the Target trip. This must be one of those suggestions that is completely devoid of any fact-based analysis, yet still is permissible.

        • ajamazin says:

          justincaselawgic ,

          Perhaps your wife is not demur, cooperative wife that Shellie has proven to be.

          Zimmerman’s father stated in an interview that George had to go to Target to get milk. He said he knew this because of a text message
          George broadcast to the family.

          If something is done routinely, the media is seldom alerted.

          Most of us can use our common sense to understand why George
          did this..

      • Dave says:

        Who would go to Target to buy milk? Most people would just make a quick run to 7-11…

      • Dave says:

        Exactly. It’s an enormous store. Besides being farther from home than 7-11 it would take him half an hour or so to park his truck, walk to the store, walk all the way to the dairy section at the back of the store, walk back up front to the cash registers, wait in line, pay for his milk, and lug it out to the truck, all to save–what?–a buck on a gallon of milk?

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          Where are you getting the idea he was just going out for milk?

          He said he was going to do the grocery shopping for the week.

          unitron

          • ajamazin says:

            onlyiamunitron,

            Zimmerman Sr. stated in his interviews that the reason GZ went to the store was to buy milk.

            George’s father said his trip to Target for milk that night was after GZ had already eaten dinner.

            [I’m thinking he was trying to get to the bottom of the cereal box to get the sheriff badge and needed more milk.]

            At the end of RZ’s statement , he says, “Well I don’t know, maybe George was out patrolling with someone else and something else happened”

      • Dave says:

        See ajamazin’s post above in response to justincaselogic

      • ajamazin and Dave,

        The story from Zimmerman, himself, is that he went for weekly groceries, not just milk. The father’s supposed off-hand comment about getting milk, which I actually could not find an artlcle about, will not be used at trial to suggest anything nefarious prior to the altercation.

        Would one of you care to provide the article that stated Robert Zimmerman said George was just getting milk?

  22. Sandra E. Graham says:

    Had GZ been on the bottom, blood would have been on the collar of his jacket and shirt. TMs hands would have been covered in blood. As someone else has posted: I hope both TMs and GZs pants were checked in the crotch areas for some type of DNA or fibers, etc. This would clinch the deal.

  23. Patricia says:

    To Justincaselawgic …

    There is zero physical possibility for Zimmerman to be UNDER Trayvon when GZ “aimed” and fired his gun. Keep that air space between shirts and TM’s torso in mind. Keep the trajectory of the hollow-point in mind. Keep the unsmeared congealed blood in mind.

    This was wild, tumultuous battle between UNevenly matched opponents, The grappling started out on the ground somewhere south of the “T” (from an unexpected knock-down on the wet, slippery grass, that likely surprised both.

    The physics of it is this:

    (1) TM would want to escape the “creepy” stalker/assailant..
    (2) GZ would want to retain the “suspect,” (GZ’s term, in writing, under oath, that night.)

    There is no point, Justincaselawgic, in trying to carve a few edges here and there to make the square pegs fight in the round holes. Not on this site! So knock off your version of GZ being – and I quote you – “a little heavier.”

    GZ had a 45 lb. advantage over TM – over 28% more heft than TM had – Sanford PD weighed & measured GZ that night.

    You’ve seen the photos of GZ at the station, right? At 5’7″, packing 200 lbs, could be a tremendous burden for most men – but, you saw GZ in the photos at the station that night, right? No beer gut. Short powerful legs and powerful, stocky upper-body strength. He could have crumbled TM, the lighter, leaner inexperienced teen, like a fortune cookie.

    There is no question that GZ, a bouncer in his off hours (few parties during office hours require bouncers) knew how to man-handle opponents.

    That backyard fight was not static. Went on for over 30 ft.

    Grabbing, grappling, struggling.

    I can’t imagine GZ running around with his gun in his hand, especially one with no safety, in the dark, on rain-slicked grass. But he would have it at the ready – either holstered inside his waistband or in his pocket. When he made his decision to shoot TM, he would need to be able to get it out, and position it.

    The evidence shows he positioned the gun barrel precisely. Could he do this if TM’s arms were free? (The kid GZ claims punched him in the nose earlier?)

    The evidence shows he was holding TM’s shirt taut, detaining him.

    GZ only has two hands: one for the shirts, one for the gun.

    So how would GZ control his prisoner? He had to have him pinned to the ground. One final roll, George was on top, pinning TM’s torso and arms under GZ’s legs and 200 lbs of muscle. He needed to have TM in this position to draw his gun, his “aim”, and the single shot.

    There were no spectators and it was dark. The neighbors, stunned by the screaming – and most recognizing it was a kid’s voice – then the fatal shot, right in their own backyards, went through repeat interviews, all mulling over the incident seriously and sincerely, with the mixed recollections, primarily the moment AFTER the shot.

    Keep in mind that they were in lighted homes when they heard the shot, with narrowed irises, and looking out into the dark they could see nothing until their irises adjusted to the lack of light.

    Because witnessing a crime, especially murder, is a subjective act, under great stress, my preference for evidence is to rely on the physical items from the crime lab and forensics,

    But this is an unusual case – no question who fired the gun. And the firer of that gun has brought forth such an amazing, changing dialog, as has been described on this site by others – like a third-rate TV cop show, complete with impossible dialog (Trayvon’s “last words” when he had no lungs to talk), imagined “ethnic” speech harking back 20, 30 years, an attempt to buddy up to SanfordPD by insisting on using “cop talk” at every opportunity, and his insistence in inserting self-praise details (“after we mentored the children” to prove that he was a worthy citizen, sort of a combo John Wayne and Mary Poppins.)

    It did not take long, as the lies tumbled out, to stop and weigh EVERY claim GZ made – and most just didn’t fit.

    So if you can’t see the significance of the blood-flow pattern from the un-smeared upper back of GZ’s head, down into GZ’s facial hair, I guess you’re going to have to rely on George’s version:

    It was all God’s Work.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      I think you have nailed it. This is the most-likely scenario, IMHO based on evidence released thus far. Nothing to dispute as far as I am concerned.

    • gbrbsb says:

      Very good scenario much the same as what I think happened although I am not sure GZ planned to kill Trayvon rather that everything got out of hand due to GZ’s little hero complex and illegally trying to detain TM. I also think GZ’s two vertical cuts/scratches, one especially, too near the crown to have been made lying down, and other scratches on his face (and even his allegedly broken nose), were caused by his falling into/onto something (the trees there appear to have branches about head height) which is supported by there being none of his DNA on TM.

      Still missing scenarios is how, where & why TM & GZ met again once he turned up the path and was well on the way home. Depending on GZ’s version being true, which it appears it is as it corresponds with the contemporary evidence of the NEN call when he says TM has run out of sight going in the direction of the “back entrance”, TM could just have turned the corner and having lost sight of the weirdo decided to return to casually walking home chatting with DD and fully supported by DDs evidence – typical teen to think if I can’t see them they can’t see/find me! Or did TM try to sort of hide from GZ once around the corner and GZ caught up with him there? If he did try to hid he didn’t say this to DD but then as most teenagers he might have felt embarrassed to admit this to a girlfriend.

      • Bill Taylor says:

        a typical teen male, IF he had decided to confront zman would obviously brag to his girlfriend about what he was going to do trying to act macho……..the entire account given by DD is of a MEEK scared person trying to get away…….AGAIN there is no way he turned around and went after zman without bragging to his girlfriend that simply defies all logic and human nature.

      • Bill Taylor,

        I think you’re right. Of course, Dee Dee’s account is not the unmitigated truth. In fact, many of her claims don’t line up with what we know took place. Combine that with the leading questions by de la Rionda, the failure by de la Rionda to ask pertinent follow-up questions, and the fact that at one point de la Rionda interprets Dee Dee’s comment to mean the exact opposite of what she said, and you have a piss-poor interview with low credibility.

        In addition to that, it is known that Dee Dee didn’t come forward for three weeks after losing contact with Martin in a very tumultuous way. When she did come forward, it was due to the urging and groundwork provided by Mr. Crump. And the excuse given for not coming forward, that she was hospitalized due to the trauma, is a known false narrative.

      • Bill Taylor says:

        justincase, sorry but what you posted is way off base…..DD’s call matches the timeline perfectly at the time zman says he is chasing she says martin is being followed, at the time zman said he lost him, CC says martin thought he got away from the guy….you need to look at the evidence and stop defending this killer, there is NOTHING in the evidence showing martin ever even touched zman, the evidence shows he did NOT punch zman, the evidence shows zman had only minor injuries and nothing showing how they happened, they for sure did NOT happen from getting his head bashed onto concrete.

      • Bill Taylor,

        “DD’s call matches the timeline perfectly”

        Dee Dee claimed that after Martin lost Zimmerman, he was already close to his home and continued walking there. We know that it was 90 seconds from the time that Martin lost Zimmerman to the time that Zimmerman got off his call. We know that Martin was 70 yards from his home. It takes half that amount of time to walk that distance, so we know that Dee Dee’s description doesn’t line up.

        —-

        “there is NOTHING in the evidence showing martin ever even touched zman. the evidence shows he did NOT punch zman”

        Actually there is and it does. The Prosecution already stated as much in the June 29th bond hearing. Perhaps you need to update yourself on what you think you know.

      • Bill Taylor says:

        justincase, YOU are taking her words “close by” to mean real close to his destination, real close in relation to his total travel could be at the entrance to the area, and this stuff of him having time to get home is 100% IRRELEVANT….what is relevant is the FACT that zmans claims are total nonsense and shown to be so by his own words and the physical evidence…..

        Martin easily could have stopped moving when he thought he had lost the guy he was under no obligation to RUN HOME as you are trying to claim he should have…….and YOU are ignoring the FACT that IF zman had went back to his truck when he said OK to stop following, he would have been IN his truck BEFORE he ended the NEN call….his own words at the end of the call show he was NOT going to his truck and was continuing his pursuit…….please stop blaming the victim and examine the know FACTS.

      • Bill Taylor,

        “YOU are taking her words “close by” to mean real close to his destination, real close in relation to his total travel could be at the entrance to the area,”

        No it could not. The description she gave in relation to the proximity of Martin and Greene’s condo was given after he ran and lost Zimmerman, this would put it somewhere in the vicinity of around 70 yards.

        —-

        “and this stuff of him having time to get home is 100% IRRELEVANT….what is relevant is the FACT that zmans claims are total nonsense and shown to be so by his own words and the physical evidence”

        The relevance is in relation to Dee Dee’s description. I’ve previously stated that the altercation is what matters, not the legal happenings of both individuals prior to the altercation. The State has decided to go with Dee Dee and state that Martin was just trying to get home. Dee Dee’s description would have put Martin at home with plenty of time to spare, but he wasn’t there. The reason is likely because Dee Dee’s version is wrong.

        —-

        “Martin easily could have stopped moving when he thought he had lost the guy he was under no obligation to RUN HOME as you are trying to claim he should have”

        Yes, he could have, but the State is not arguing that because Dee Dee didn’t describe that as the case. I don’t think he had an obligation to go home. The State is the one pushing that narrative.

        • ajamazin says:

          justincaselawgic asserts:

          ” I’ve previously stated that the altercation is what matters, not the legal happenings of both individuals prior to the altercation. ”

          I will now write that on the palm of my hand to be sure to remember it.

      • ajamazin,

        Try not to tickle yourself.

      • ajamazin says:

        justincaselawgic ,

        So you think Dee Dee killed Trayvon?

      • ajamazin,

        “So you think Dee Dee killed Trayvon?”

        No. I’m not sure why you would ask that question.

    • Patricia,

      “TM would want to escape the “creepy” stalker/assailant..”

      Why didn’t he? He had plenty of time to go home or to a neighbor’s home. Why didn’t he? Why didn’t he escape after punching and knocking Zimmerman to the ground?

      —-

      “There is no question that GZ, a bouncer in his off hours (few parties during office hours require bouncers) knew how to man-handle opponents.”

      You do know this particular piece of information is in regards to events from several years prior with no corroborating evidence, right? There are no pay stubs or financial transactions to support the idea that Zimmerman was a bouncer. The girl that was supposedly thrown by Zimmerman has not come forward and the person that alleged the incident took place does not know who the girl was. This is another example of some story that people latch onto, because it fits their preconceived notion.

      —-

      “The evidence shows he was holding TM’s shirt taut, detaining him.”

      The evidence does not show this. The holes not lining up are more indicative of a hanging shirt, than a pulled shirt, as a pulled shirt would realistically cause more of a disparity in the distance between the bullet holes.

      —-

      So how would GZ control his prisoner? He had to have him pinned to the ground. One final roll, George was on top, pinning TM’s torso and arms under GZ’s legs and 200 lbs of muscle. He needed to have TM in this position to draw his gun, his “aim”, and the single shot.

      That’s possible. You left out that Martin was on his stomach, though, so Zimmerman rolled him onto his stomach after he shot him, because he must have had the foresight to do so. Zimmerman is a genius and idiot all at the same time. It’s remarkable.

      —-

      “So if you can’t see the significance of the blood-flow pattern from the un-smeared upper back of GZ’s head, down into GZ’s facial hair, I guess you’re going to have to rely on George’s version:”

      Actually, I don’t have to do either. I simply need to look at the evidence the state has and determine if it makes the most sense. Personally, I don’t think it makes sense to believe that a 28 year-old outran a 17 year-old who had a 90-second head start. I also don’t think it makes sense to believe that getting out of a car, running after someone and then talking to them are acts of aggression sufficient enough to justify an attack. I don’t think the location of the altercation makes sense if you rely on Dee Dee’s story, which the state has. There are definitely inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s account, but he doesn’t have to prove his innocence in a criminal trial, the state has to prove his guilt.

      • Dave says:

        It is beyond dispute that George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin. There is no evidence at all (other than the worthless word of the killer) that he reasonably feared imminent death or serious bodily harm and that he lacked any reasonable option other than shooting his alleged assailant. He has absolutely no chance of swaying the judge in a SYG hearing. The only way that Zimmerman can assert a claim of self defense will be to testify in court in his own defense. The prosecuting attorney will figuratively cut him to pieces on cross examination and leave him crying like a baby.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          There is no need for a SYG Hearing or Self-Defense Claim. It will be the Prosecutor’s burden to prove without reasonable doubt Murder 2. Defence will tear Prosecutors to shreds. Police didn’t secure the crime scene, conflicting and inconsistent reports by LE and EMTs.. witnesses not being interviewed in a timely manner, pertinent physical evidence contaminated, etc., etc.. As much as I would love all the lies and inconsistencies spewed from the mouth of GZ, he has also claimed a bad memory from ADHD or ADD and PTSS from the incident clouding his memory of the events no toxicology evidence done on GZ, no pictures of GZ taken at the scene except by a civilian at the scene. He was legally driving down the street, legally allowed to carry a concealed weapon, legally allowed to walk about and watch someone who he feels is suspicious. Until and unless more evidence comes out to prove Murder 2 or even manslaughter, I think GZ will walk.

          • ajamazin says:

            I agree.

            In my opinion, it was a premeditated murder for political reasons

            Sanford was the ideal choice due to it’s long history of racism

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “In my opinion, it was a premeditated murder for political reasons ”

            Are you saying Trayvon Martin was murdered for political reasons?

            What reasons would those be?

            Who stood to gain politically?

            unitron

          • ajamazin says:

            onlyiamunitron writes:

            “”In my opinion, it was a premeditated murder for political reasons ” Are you saying Trayvon Martin was murdered for political reasons?”

            Yes.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            Actually, it’s just unitron (long story, all WordPress’s fault)

            So, can I interest you in answering the other 2 questions?

            Who and why?

            unitron

          • ajamazin says:

            NO.

            However, stay tuned for the Republican Convention in Tampa.

      • Dave,

        No evidence? There is evidence of a struggle. There is evidence that Zimmerman could not flee. There is evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman and caused injuries. The law doesn’t require that you sustain life-threatening injuries or great bodily harm, only that you reasonably fear it could occur. The Prosecution has offered their version of the events, but they have failed to show how Zimmerman’s version could not be possible.

        I don’t think he’ll sway this Judge in an SYG hearing either. But, at a criminal trial, I don’t think the State has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting a conviction, unless something major drops.

      • ajamazin,

        This is one of those comments that lacks any factual basis for support.

        Incidentally, what is your doctorate in?

      • ajamazin says:

        justincaselawgic responds to Patricia’s statement:

        “There is no question that GZ, a bouncer in his off hours (few parties during office hours require bouncers) knew how to man-handle opponents.”

        with

        “You do know this particular piece of information is in regards to events from several years prior with no corroborating evidence, right? There are no pay stubs or financial transactions to support the idea that Zimmerman was a bouncer.”

        The absence of evidence in financial transactions is hardly surprising and is quite common place.

        In fact, I would find it unusual if individuals providing “security” at “illegal house parties” reported it to the IRS, since “illegal house parties” are indeed illegal.

        You do realize that “illegal house parties” are also known as
        raves, and that a major duty of security is to alert the party
        goers and drug dealers if the police are close by?

      • ajamazin,

        I’m aware of the nature of “house parties”. My point is that this is not admissible. You guys keep convicting Zimmerman on the erroneous perception of information that will never account into a jury’s determination. In addition to that, you’re making your own determination on information that could, itself, be erroneous.

    • Bill Taylor says:

      have wasted enough time with you, the state has NOT presented its case YET they are not pushing any narrative at this time and have NEVER made the claim YOU are that Martin should have been home.

      • You must not have read the probable cause affidavit.

        “Martin attempted to run home” is stated plain as day within it. The Prosecution has also made this argument in pre-trial hearings.

        • ajamazin says:

          justincaselawgic,

          Obviously, the prosecution was wrong.

          Clearly, Martin attempted to skip home.

        • So, what?

          Like I’ve said umpteen million times, the investigation is ongoing and the prosecution can and no doubt will change its view of the evidence.

          We are several months beyond the time when the prosecution and some of its investigators made certain statements about the case. You should not assume those statements and opinions were chiseled in stone and cannot be changed in light of newly discovered evidence or upon reexamination and reflection.

          You also keep insisting that GZ’s inconsistent statements and the events that occurred before the physical struggle that ended with the shooting are irrelevant, but you are absolutely wrong about that because all of that evidence is probative of GZ’s credibility, motive and intent, all of which constitute persuasive circumstantial evidence that he was the aggressor.

          You cannot understand the physical struggle without knowing the events that led up to it and the jury will not be required to accept anything that GZ said as true.

      • ajamazin says:

        Bill Taylor,

        Bless your heart!

        You made an awesome effort but it would have been more productive to talk to a table leg.

      • Prof,

        The “so what” in this case is Bill Taylor’s faulty premise that the state is “not pushing any narrative at this time.” The state can and should change their narrative, but it is wrong to suggest that they have not pushed one and blame me for pointing out that the narrative they’ve, so far, pushed is incorrect, according to Dee Dee.

        Your argument that there is “persuasive circumstantial evidence” to suggest Zimmerman was the aggressor is true, but it is also the case that there is circumstantial, physical and what will be testimonial evidence that he was not. You’re keep looking at one side and not the other and I’ve yet to figure out why.

      • ajamazin,

        “You made an awesome effort but it would have been more productive to talk to a table leg.”

        Could you point to a specific instance when you acknowledged being wrong?

        The point of my question is that your insinuation is that I lack the ability to see reason and logic or that I lack the honesty and integrity to admit when I am wrong.

        Was the intent of your post to further discussion or to personally attack?

    • ajamazin says:

      Excellent!

      May I add that George has disproportionately short legs.

      This would give him a lower center of gravity, making it difficult to take him down.

      [check with a wrestling coach]

      • Unless he were, say, punched, as the Prosecution has asserted. They don’t allow you to punch your opponent in wrestling, so checking with a wrestling coach would be pointless.

  24. You can read Judge Lester’s full order dismissing request for Lester disqualification here: http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2012/08/01/Order_Dismissing_Defendants_Motion_to_Disqualify_Trial_Judge.pdf

    to copy & paste a brilliant comment …
    “Go judge Lester! I am really glad he is “standing his ground” on this motion. ” quoting Requiem from another forum

  25. Patricia says:

    To Justincaselawegic:

    The pattern of Zimmerman’s own coagulated blood will prove that GZ could not be in fear for his life a the time of the execution of his shot because GZ had TM’s arms and body securely imprisoned beneath his own 200 lbs..

    TM did not grab the gun, push away the gun, or in any way deflect the hollow-point bullet that GZ fired into TM’s heart because he could not. His arms and body were under control by GZ.

    It was like holding a puppy flat on its back,
    then shooting it in the heart.

    If GZ were under TM, those crisp edges of blood rivulets would have been smeared by the wet grass, likely most of the blood would have dripped into the grass and would be wiped offthe back of GZ’s head by the rain-soaked blades of grass.

    Look at the grass in the photos. It’s like a scrubbie.

    The pattern of the dried blood flow was forward into GZ’s goatee, consistent with the position that the straddling 200 lb. bouncer, GZ, assumed, with his body pinning Trayvon Martin to the ground and then GZ leaned forward over TM to carefully place his shot.

    So GZ would not shoot his other hand.
    So GZ would shoot TM’s only heart.

    Such deliberate actions are not consistent with “fear for his life.”

    GZ had full control over his prisoner and he knew SPD officers were enroute because he had summoned them.

    Such deliberate actions are consistent with Murder 2.

    • Patricia,

      Your supposition assumes that Zimmerman was on top of Martin, but there are only two accounts, that I know of, which remotely suggest this was possible. One indicated that the witness thought Zimmerman was on top, because of reports about his size. She assumed he was the larger individual, when he was a little heavier and several inches shorter. The other witness saw events after the shot was fired and actually line up with Zimmerman’s version, as well. The other witness accounts state that Zimmerman was on the bottom during the scuffle. The downward direction of Zimmerman’s blood is interesting, but I don’t see it as definitive proof, as it could be explained by leaning forward or by the fact that he was upright and still bleeding after the altercation.

      • aussie says:

        Sure he could have been still bleeding afterwards. But those fresh rivulets towards the face should then be starting out from a smeared mess at the back, had be been head down on the grass earlier.

        There are several witnesses who thought they saw only one person…. which implies either they were LYING DOWN one on top of the other (no straddling and punching) so the bottom person was invisible in the dark, or they were lying side by side (one witness, the young boy with the dog, actually stated the person’s head was faced away from him).

        There are a lot of small items in this case that could have several explanations. We need a narrative that explains ALL the items without each explanation nullifying some other.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          ” We need a narrative that explains ALL the items without each explanation nullifying some other.”

          I’ve just been conversing on another site where they have that problem solved.

          Rule 1. If Zimmerman says it, it’s true.

          And even better, it’s evidence.

          So it’s really, really true.

          If Zimmerman says A is true, then it is.

          If Zimmerman says B is true, then it is.

          If A and B contradict each other, see Rule 1.

          If the re-enactment contradicts both A and B, see Rule 1.

          If all of them are contradicted by what’s on the phone call, you’re listening to it wrong, and what don’t you understand about see Rule 1?

          unitron

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        In GZès reenactment, he says he took out his gun, aimed, a took one shot. How does one aim a gun in such a situation.

      • gbrbsb says:

        In response to justincaselawgic:

        The “accounts” from witnesses are in the main disjointed excerpts of a scuffle, most often mixed up in time, clothing, wherabouts etc. The W that says it was GZ on top by size was I believe referring to stockiness which compared with TM is undeniable; one or more Ws couldn’t say who was on top and at least one didn’t even see two people! True, some saw TM on top but not as you note “during” the scuffle rather each for the seconds they actually looked but that does not prove GZ was NEVER on top. All quite a mish mash that IMO forensics, feasibility tests, re-enactments, etc. will have to try to resolve.

        In respect of there being no proof TM was afraid we do have proof from both DD and GZ that TM at very least concerned and was running away (“S… he’s running”, “He ran” & “These aholes they always get away”) even though GZ now claims TM was merely “skipping” away quickly without any fear of GZ!

        I personally don’t think the scenario as told by GZ even with evidence from the witnesses has been proved at all. Several people have done extensive analysis of the timeline before and after the call with NEN, the placement of the body and where the altercation started, as well as analysing the clubhouse videos where cars are seen coming and going, and IMO there is just too much that doesn’t add up with GZ’s story both time and distance wise. On the other hand there are very real forensic details that will need some explaining by the defence among many are GZ’s blood runs, the position and type of head wounds and blood not consistent with slamming against concrete, the absence of expected blood on TM & GZ, the absence of defensive wounds on GZ while he was allegedly being pounded into the ground, the front to back trayectory of the bulletm the siting of the gun shot holes on TM’s clothing which is above the siting of the actual wound on his actual body, as well as the shot being found to be contact on the hoodie and intermediate on the t-shirt meaning the clothing was being pulled.

        Of course it may be you are correct and GZ walks for lack of TM’s evidence, but IMO not because he is innocent because what is clear, at least to me, something happened that night that is definitely not how GZ told it and as far as I am concerned what ever he claims now I will simply answer with that famous phrase from a witness in a 60s political scandal over here, “Well he would (deny/say that), wouldn’t he?”.

      • gbrbsb,

        I think we agree for the most part. I want to address this comment, though.

        “I personally don’t think the scenario as told by GZ even with evidence from the witnesses has been proved at all.”

        I’m sure you know that at trial, ZImmerman really doesn’t have to prove anything. I’m sure you were just typing extemporaneously, but I wanted to touch upon this.

      • onlyiamunitron,

        Very cute. Now apply it to my comments and see if it still holds true. If you’re honest, you’ll know that it doesn’t. Therefore, your comment lacks in evidentiary support. Good luck next time.

      • onlyiamunitron,

        Not at all. I’m just tired of the insinuation by so many on the “Zimmerman is guilty” side that those that are seen as opposing that view lack the ability to see reason and logic.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      GZ had called the NEN so many times and knew it would take them a very long time to get to the scene, He even says that during one of the interviews. So, he took matters into his own hands. Trouble is, the police arrived sooner than expected. He only had time to stage part of the scene. All my opinion based on what I interpret through evidence released.

  26. Dave says:

    I believe that a person who “initially provokes the use of force against himself” would come under the definition of “aggressor”. GZ’s actions (chasing TM, confronting him, and reaching toward his gun) look to me like the acts of an aggressor and clearly could provoke a reasonable person to use force against him.

    • That will be the prosecution’s argument and I think the jury will see it that way too.

    • Dave,

      Those would be acts of aggression. However, there is no evidence, none, that Martin assumed Zimmerman was reaching toward a gun or that Martin assumed he had any weapon at all.

      There is only testimonial evidence of a chase as given by Dee Dee. If you’ve listened to her interview by de la Rionda, you would know not to bank on it being helpful to the Prosecution. I fully expect her to never take the stand, which will likely cause her statement to be inadmissible, as it would deny the Defendant’s right of confrontation.

      The confrontation you mention starts with Martin speaking the first words in both Dee Dee’s and Zimmerman’s version. Zimmerman’s response in both versions is non-threatening. Up to this point, there has been no crime and neither Zimmerman nor Martin’s actions come anywhere close to being described as illegal.

      The Prosecution, and Patrolman Serino, would have people believe that Zimmerman was in the wrong because his response didn’t quell Martin’s alleged fears. This is fundamentally false. Our liberty does not require us to make specific statements of intent in some distorted belief that a lack of any given intent is tantamount to a given threat.

      • Dave says:

        Anyone who has ever watched an American TV cop show or crime /detective/action movie would assume that a person who has been chasing him down a deserted street on a dark, rainy night, catches up with him, challenges his right to be where he is (“What are you doing around here?”) and suddenly reaches for his right hip would reasonably assume that the pursuer is about to draw a gun on him. Whether these acts individually are prosecutable crimes or not is irrelevant. Taken together they add up to a clear and present threat of imminent deadly violence and justify whatever actions are reasonably necessary to neutralize that threat.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          What if TM were a woman and, rather than punched GZ, pepper-sprayed him. She wouldn’t have known his intention after following her every move. I am a woman and I would assume – he was up to no good as they say. I would think he was about to attack me or rape me. What is the difference. Would GZ have the right to shoot me because I became the aggressor.

      • Dave,

        Our media fascination with violence is definitely a problem, but the fact of the matter is that Martin’s fear has to be reasonable. There are plenty of paranoid people out there, but their actions cannot be explained away by paranoia. The law requires they be held to a reasonable standard.

        There is no evidence indicating that Zimmerman was going to attack Martin and that is what is needed.

        For instance, here’s a complete hypothetical, but uses all the facts as described by Zimmerman, but adds one additional element:

        Martin is walking down the street and passes Zimmerman in his car. As he passes, money falls out of his pocket. Zimmerman notices this and gets out of his vehicle to pick it up and give it to Martin. Martin runs and Zimmerman follows. Zimmerman reaches the “T” and can’t find Martin. After a couple minutes, they run back into each other and Martin says, according to Zimmerman, “what’s you’re problem?” Zimmerman replies that he has no problem and reaches into his pocket to get the money. Martin hits him before he can get it or really explain himself.

        If we stopped the altercation right there and the police showed up, guess who would be going to jail for battery, if Zimmerman wanted to press charges? Guess whose fear would not be a sufficient explanation.

        Using the real circumstances, if the police showed up just after Zimmerman was punched, guess who would be going to jail?

        The Prosecution wants to make this about what happened prior to the altercation. Without some preemptive element, doesn’t it seem strange for them to do that?

        • There is no evidence indicating that Zimmerman was going to attack Martin and that is what is needed.

          I disagree. There is compelling evidence that GZ searched for Martin intending to prevent him from getting away as all the other assholes had gotten away in the past before the police arrived.

          • Sandra E. Graham says:

            GZ had the tactical flashlight during the tussle because it ended up close to the body and not at the T. Witnesses would have seen that flashlight moving around. He didn’t need to draw and aim his gun. His flashlight would have been the weapon at the ready when his hand broke free from TM. If he had time to get the gun, a few whacks in TMs face would have changed everything. No, GZ dive-bombed TM further down the T and wanted to detain him. TM didn’t have a chance. Further to a comment made earlier, there is evidence of GZ being a bouncer. He worked with Mark Osterman. Please refer to Ostermans statement. A bounce with upper body strength, with a tactical flashlight in his hand, and a gun in his pocket sounds to me like an advantage. No defensive wounds on either participant indicates TM never had a chance.

      • Dave says:

        Your hypothetical is not believable. No reasonable person would chase after a stranger down a deserted street on a dark rainy night knowing full well that any reasonable person would interpret such an action as the prelude to a violent criminal act.

        No evidence that Zimmerman was about to attack TM? Watch the Zimmerman reenactment video where the killer admits to reaching toward his gun (supposedly looking for his phone). As he demonstrates, he lifts his jacket exposing his weapon.

        If indeed the cops had shown up as soon as Trayvon punched GZ in the nose (and the only “evidence” for that is GZ’s statements) Trayvon would be alive today thanks to his prompt, decisive action and good police work. Having to fight a misdemeanor assault charge (if it even came down to that) would be a small price to pay for his life.

      • aussie says:

        What happened prior to the altercation is highly relevant.

        Without that, there isn’t even any evidence of how the two may have come across each other. Without that, the whole thing is out of the blue. One minute nobody there, next moment POOF by magic two fighting figures show up on witness John’s back lawn. What happened prior goes very strongly to motive, for either version of events.

        C’mon!

        “Our liberty does not require us to make specific statements of intent in some distorted belief that a lack of any given intent is tantamount to a given threat.”

        I must totally disagree with this. If the other party already feels threatened enough to ASK what your intentions are, then refusing to answer IS tantamount to increasing the threat the other party clearly already feels to be under. “What are you doing here” may not be threatening on a first approach. As a reply to a challenge after following someone, it is certainly not confidence inspiring. Said in an angry tone (as per DeeDee) it IS threatening.

      • Prof,

        “I disagree. There is compelling evidence that GZ searched for Martin intending to prevent him from getting away as all the other assholes had gotten away in the past before the police arrived.”

        Stating that there is compelling evidence is insufficient. Please state what compelling evidence you’re referencing.

        • ajamazin says:

          justincaselawgic writes:

          “Please state what compelling evidence you’re referencing.”

          If we are to believe Zimmerman, then he stuck his noes into something that was none of his business, and ended up with it broken.

      • Dave,

        “Your hypothetical is not believable. No reasonable person would chase after a stranger down a deserted street on a dark rainy night knowing full well that any reasonable person would interpret such an action as the prelude to a violent criminal act.”

        “I agree. I don’t think that occurred at all. Dee Dee says it did and, as far as I know, her statement is the only evidence of this occurring. Her statement is riddled with flaws, such as leading questions by de la Rionda, the lack of pertinent follow-up questions by de la Rionda, and the complete misinterpretation of what Dee Dee stated at one point to the point of being the exact opposite of what she said.”

        —-

        “No evidence that Zimmerman was about to attack TM? Watch the Zimmerman reenactment video where the killer admits to reaching toward his gun (supposedly looking for his phone). As he demonstrates, he lifts his jacket exposing his weapon.”

        This is, again, assuming that Dee Dee’s version is what occurred. I find her statement lacking credibility. If these actions occurred within Zimmerman’s scenario, then you have a guy talking on his phone for several minutes, at least 90 seconds more after Martin ran. Zimmerman then walks back and is approached by Martin. Words are spoken and there has been no suggestion of a threat. Why would you assume the person was reaching for a gun?

        —-

        “If indeed the cops had shown up as soon as Trayvon punched GZ in the nose (and the only “evidence” for that is GZ’s statements) Trayvon would be alive today thanks to his prompt, decisive action and good police work. Having to fight a misdemeanor assault charge (if it even came down to that) would be a small price to pay for his life.”

        Yes, it would be, but the point is that Martin attacked without reasonable provocation.

        • ajamazin says:

          justincaselawgic,

          “Your hypothetical is not believable. No reasonable person would chase after a stranger down a deserted street on a dark rainy night knowing full well that any reasonable person would interpret such an action as the prelude to a violent criminal act.”

          But if George is to be believed, then he is not a reasonable person and he says his nose was broken to prove it.

          Each and every element of George’s entire story must be credible or it falls apart.

      • aussie,

        “Without that, there isn’t even any evidence of how the two may have come across each other. Without that, the whole thing is out of the blue. One minute nobody there, next moment POOF by magic two fighting figures show up on witness John’s back lawn. What happened prior goes very strongly to motive, for either version of events.”

        It is important to establish a timeline, but once it became known that this was not a premeditate murder and that both individuals acted within the law prior to the altercation, the focus should shift to the altercation. The Defense wants to discuss the altercation, where a crime took place. The State wants to discuss lawful actions prior to the altercation. Seems backwards, doesn’t it?

        —-

        I must totally disagree with this. If the other party already feels threatened enough to ASK what your intentions are, then refusing to answer IS tantamount to increasing the threat the other party clearly already feels to be under. “What are you doing here” may not be threatening on a first approach. As a reply to a challenge after following someone, it is certainly not confidence inspiring. Said in an angry tone (as per DeeDee) it IS threatening.

        It really is not. Your own paranoia is not a reasonable defense. The law requires actions that necessitate a reasonable preemptive attack. The lack of response, which incidentally is not the case here, does not increase the likelihood that one’s actions can be seen as threatening.

        Also, it is very likely that Dee Dee will never take the stand. If this occurs, her statement will more than likely be thrown out. Without Dee Dee, can you articulate what evidence the State has that refutes Zimmerman’s version?

      • mataharley says:

        justincaselawgic: The Defense wants to discuss the altercation, where a crime took place. The State wants to discuss lawful actions prior to the altercation. Seems backwards, doesn’t it?

        Not at all. M2 charges are all about what events led up to the crime, and just need to cast reasonable doubt on Zim’s story of self defense. Defense needs to convince the jury that self defense was his only recourse, and muddy the waters for his actions prior to the crime.

        Zim’s largest problem is, as you say, “where the crime took place”… which just so happens is 45′ or more south of where he said it did. oops

        justincaselawgic: There is only testimonial evidence of a chase as given by Dee Dee.

        …snip…

        Personally, I don’t think it makes sense to believe that a 28 year-old outran a 17 year-old who had a 90-second head start.

        The above is from two different comments, but related. I suppose it all goes to what the meaning of “chase” is. First, there is a witness that notes moving shadows. Secondly, does persistent following… first in the car and then on foot, plus continued hunting after hanging up from the dispatcher qualify as a “chase”? Or must it be a particular speed to fit that definition?

        I’ve already gone over the physics of this, and all based from Zim’s own statements. But two points…

        1: There is no 90 second head start. Pure fantasy. Per Zim himself, he was parked at the Twin Trees intersection with the E-W tee path. He said Martin started “skipping” away from that point, and he was out of the car and following within 10 seconds.

        This pace is described… after Zim’s Hannity epiphany… as not a casual walk, and not a run. But it is a pursuit at some speed faster than sauntering.

        From that intersection to Greene’s condo is approx 471′. Being ten seconds behind, Zim was likely only 110′ or so behind Martin.

        Physical reality? There is no way Martin could have made it home without be seen, and presumably still followed, by the pursuing Zimmerman. Serino pointed this out to Zim in his interview on the 29th.

        Since Martin could not make it to the condo… which had no adults present and just a younger child (great place to lead a lunatic hunting you down, right? Possibly endanger a young kid along with yourself?)… more likely is that he went south on the path, just as Zim stated he did, and hid in the the bushes to avoid the pursuing Zimmerman. That would be the same bushes Zim said he jumped out of at the tee.

        Still doesn’t explain how the body ended up over 45′ south of that point, does it?

        Zimmerman stopped at the tee on the dispatcher call, just as he said on the reenactment video. The movement stopped on that phone call when he did. It *never* started up for the duration of that call. Whether Zim was walking casually or at a quick pace, there would be cloth movement sound. The audio is proof that he never left that spot until he hung up.

        NOTE: If anyone thinks Zimmerman could have started walking again and the movement magically wouldn’t be detected, listen to the various in station interviews with Zimmerman, and note the cloth movement and other movements on those audios… despite the fact that none of them were walking around. Microphones close to the body – like the cell to the ear – will pick up any movement easily… even simple things like the raising and lowering of arms.

        If Martin is hiding behind the bushes south of the tee, and Zimmerman is standing there *at* the tee, why would he come out and into Zimmerman’s sight when he is trying to avoid this stranger who’s following him around?

        Zim says he walked another 100′ or so from the tee to east RVC. At that point, Martin could come out, thinking the coast was clear (aka telling Dee he thought he lost Zim), only to find that Zimmerman reversed directions… and the meeting begins. (i.e. telling Dee he’s back and getting closer)

        Problem for Zim still remains.

        1: There is no denying his documented aggressive actions, following a teen who wasn’t doing anything wrong. Nor was he properly profiled.

        2: Also, Zim could not have been attacked, knocked on his posterior, and fought for his life at the tee, and “pushed” off Martin’s body some 45′ or so.

        The crime didn’t happen where he said it did. Simple as that. In which case Zimmerman went south on the path to confront Martin closer to the murder site. Or… if Martin did punch him to the ground at the tee, Zimmerman got back up to his feet and chased him south on that path to kill him. Ergo, did not retreat. Either way, he loses.

        Every bit of Zim’s defense rests on his personal credibility.. that he has telling the truth. Just because he parrots the same bullet points – and all over the place with details – over and over doesn’t mean it’s true.. just rehearsed. His own dispatcher call is his worst enemy when put up against his various stories.

        Combine that with his bond hearing snafus on the money, and keeping a new passport while surrendering the expiring one, and Zim’s second largest problem is he has no credibility.

        .

      • mataharley says:

        Dave: No evidence that Zimmerman was about to attack TM? Watch the Zimmerman reenactment video where the killer admits to reaching toward his gun (supposedly looking for his phone).

        Just for clarification, the Zimmerman body movement, demonstrating the exaggerated movement of “reaching” into his pockets, is viewed on the CVSA video… twice. Once at 30’41” and again at 38’40”.

        Unless everyone has a different reenactment video than I do, the camera was not focused on Zimmerman when he described reaching for his gun. I will say you can hear his voice go off-mic when he talks about getting his gun, so he was moving his head and body when he described it. We just can’t see it on that version. But the police sure did, because Serino also mentions to Zim that the movement would be enough to threaten Martin and “set him off”.

        justincaselawgic: Yes, it would be, but the point is that Martin attacked without reasonable provocation.

        No provocation? You have one strange perspective of self defense. In your world, I can follow you… first in my car, then on foot, continue to hunt for you several minutes after I attempt to avoid you… then, when you ask me why the heck am I following you, I can “reach” for something (closely resembling a gun draw) but you can’t do anything for self defense. You need to wait to see if I’m pulling out a gun, or an olive branch.

        Interesting. Good thing that your perspectives and self defense bear no resemblance.

        Actually, Zim’s actions fit Florida definitions of stalking. Shall I also believe that those being stalked give up self defense rights? Aggressive stalking, in fact, if the jury believes that the reach movement was indeed a threatening movement.

        784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.

        (1) As used in this section, the term:

        (a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.

        (b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of “course of conduct.” Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.

        (c) “Credible threat” means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.

        (d) “Cyberstalk” means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.

        (2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

        (3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

      • mataharley,

        “Not at all. M2 charges are all about what events led up to the crime, and just need to cast reasonable doubt on Zim’s story of self defense”

        This is incorrect. Mere reasonable doubt of Zimmerman’s version is not sufficient, as stated by the jury instructions. The State has to prove BEYOND a reasonable doubt and the jury needs to be “certain” that Zimmerman was not exercising self-defense.

        —-

        “Zim’s largest problem is, as you say, “where the crime took place”… which just so happens is 45′ or more south of where he said it did. oops”

        Watch the video reenactment. His description puts it taking place exactly where he says.

        —-

        “There is no 90 second head start. Pure fantasy. Per Zim himself, he was parked at the Twin Trees intersection with the E-W tee path. He said Martin started “skipping” away from that point, and he was out of the car and following within 10 seconds.”

        The 90-second head start begins when Zimmerman says “he ran” to the time Zimmerman hangs up the phone. There is no indication that he is “hunting” Martin at this point. The area was quite dark and you could not see down the sidewalk with any degree of clarity. With this said, Martin could have kept walking, as Dee Dee suggested and made it home. He also could have hid, but of course, Dee Dee didn’t state that and the State isn’t arguing that.

        —-

        “From that intersection to Greene’s condo is approx 471′.”

        I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. From the top of the “T” to Greene’s condo is approx. 70 yards or 210 feet. One can travel this distance at an average walking pace in around 45 seconds.

        Lets work with that for now, since the rest of your supposition goes back to the incorrect distance to Greene’s condo and the false characterization of Zimmerman’s reenactment.

        • mataharley says:

          justincaselawgic: Mere reasonable doubt of Zimmerman’s version is not sufficient, as stated by the jury instructions. The State has to prove BEYOND a reasonable doubt and the jury needs to be “certain” that Zimmerman was not exercising self-defense.

          I stand corrected. Meant “beyond”, but multitasking I quickly breezed thru with shorthand.

          Watch the video reenactment. His description puts it taking place exactly where he says.

          Perhaps you should watch the reenactment video again, and pay attention to where the body, cell and tactical flashlight are located.

          Zim states that he was decked to the ground at the tee. He moves about 3-4 feet closer to the small tree and says that’s where the headbanging and fight for his life happened. The body is another 45′ south. You aren’t paying attention to the details and distances.

          The 90-second head start begins when Zimmerman says “he ran” to the time Zimmerman hangs up the phone. There is no indication that he is “hunting” Martin at this point. The area was quite dark and you could not see down the sidewalk with any degree of clarity. With this said, Martin could have kept walking, as Dee Dee suggested and made it home. He also could have hid, but of course, Dee Dee didn’t state that and the State isn’t arguing that.

          First of all, I’m leaving Dee out of most things save to possible account for Martin’s state of mind… i.e. was he aware of Zim following him and did he feel threatened. Other than that, she has no idea where Martin was actually located.

          There is no 90 second head start when Zim pursues 10 seconds after Martin “skips” away. There is a 10 second head start between Martin starting to “skip”, and Zimmerman beginning to pursue.. Period.

          If we believe Zimmerman… and isn’t that what you want to do?… Martin jumped out of the bushes close to the tee. If he hid there after rounding the corner to avoid a pursuing Zimmerman, he is still anywhere from 295′ to 319′ (depending upon what bushes) from Greene’s back door.

          Therefore, with Zim’s location at the tee to finish his phone call, there is no way for Martin to emerge from the bushes and make it the remaining feet back to Greene’s house without being in view of Zimmerman.

          You are speculating as to degree of visibility. Granted, with your criminal lawyer background, it’s a penchant to take the side of the accused. But there were lights from the homes on either side, and porch lights that may be on. Witnesses could see something so it wasn’t so dark as to have no visibility. So your comments wander from the path of evidence and into the realm of wishful thinking.

          Additionally, Zimmerman himself states that Martin jumped him from the bushes not far from the tee. So if Martin is hiding behind those bushes, he cannot emerge without being seen by Zimmerman since obviously Zim saw him when he was supposedly jumped.

          Lastly, Martin is the one being followed, pursued and hunted. He has no duty to retreat – most especially since he has already attempted to retreat at least once… when he “skipped” away.

          mata: “From that intersection to Greene’s condo is approx 471′.”

          justincaselawgic: I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. From the top of the “T” to Greene’s condo is approx. 70 yards or 210 feet.

          Google Earth has stellar measurement tools available. The 471 feet is the path distance from the intersection of Twin Trees Lane and the start of the E-W path, then south to Greene’s apartment… the 3rd southernmost building on the east side of that row of homes. That’s even using the first condo’s back door as a reference.

          The distance from Greene’s back door to the tee is approx 348′, or 116 yds. Martin’s body was located approx 300’… or a football length or more… from Greene’s house. So I don’t know where you are getting 70 yards or 210’… especially since you have no way of knowing Martin’s exact position at any point in time, except for his body’s final location.

      • mataharley says:

        justincaselawgic: The 90-second head start begins when Zimmerman says “he ran” to the time Zimmerman hangs up the phone. There is no indication that he is “hunting” Martin at this point.

        There is every indication that he is “hunting” Martin at this point because, as the FBI statements indicated, Zim told his air marshal pal that he got out of his car to follow Martin… not seek addresses that were across the street from his parked SUV.

        From the air marshal’s statement to the FBI:

        While on the phone with the SPD dispatcher, Zimmerman made eye contact with Martin and at ‘ one point Martin came within one a~ength of Zimmerman’s car. Zimmerman lost visual contact with Martin and Zimmerman got out of his car and attempted to locate Martin. When Zimmerman could not find Martin, he ended his phone caU with the SPO dispatcher, placed his cellphone In his pocket and was returning to his vehicle when Martin confronted Zimmerman.

        Pesky, those details, eh?

      • mataharley,

        I really didn’t get to any more of you post other than this:

        “Perhaps you should watch the reenactment video again, and pay attention to where the body, cell and tactical flashlight are located.

        Zim states that he was decked to the ground at the tee. He moves about 3-4 feet closer to the small tree and says that’s where the headbanging and fight for his life happened. The body is another 45′ south. You aren’t paying attention to the details and distances.”

        I’m sorry, but we need to address this before we continue on. Watch the reenactment I posted and compare it to the following photos:

        and

        By looking at the second photo, the body (under the yellow tarp) looks to be further away than it is, because of an optical illusion. To illustrate how I know this is the case, we know that the second shot was taken next to a trash can (seen at the lower left). In the first photo, you can see that the trashcan is by the “T”. You can also see that there is a tree on the right in the second photo. That is the first tree that Zimmerman passes on the video. Lastly, in the first photo, you can see utility access points in the ground. The one of the left in that photo is the one that Zimmerman is next to in the video.

        Like I said, I focused on this because it is very important, not that the rest of your comment isn’t. But we can’t have a reasonable and logical discussion if one of us is using the wrong information to support his conclusions.

        • Do yourself a favor and review the total station that precisely locates the position of each item that was recovered from the crime scene, including TM’s body. Exact measurements of the distance of each item from a common point of reference are provided in an accompanying chart.

          Use of the total station method to map outdoor crime scenes and accurately measure distances has been the accepted methodology used by police departments for more than 20 years.

          It is so accurate and precise that a crime scene can be reassembled with all of the evidentiary items replaced in the positions they were in, should the Court so order.

          You will find it at the end of the most recent document dump, the one that contained a lot of FBI 302s.

          I also recommend you take a look at this overlay that Jean Dodge prepared using the total station and a Google Earth satellite photograph.

        • mataharley says:

          justincaselawgic: By looking at the second photo, the body (under the yellow tarp) looks to be further away than it is, because of an optical illusion. To illustrate how I know this is the case,…snip…

          Why the heck are you putting your thumb up in the air and playing visionary type measurements when the 7-12-12 doc dump has the measurements of the evidence locations on pgs 145-147, using the patio pillar posts of the first two units in bldg 1 on the east side??

          No guess work needed… The body was located nowhere near where Zim said it did. He described the scuffle and head banging north of the small tree near where the keys were found in his reenactment video…. which is, of course, no where near the body.

          If you didn’t get anything else out of the comment, then you are simply set in your agenda, and are not curious as to forensics and evidence. Might be convenient for your personal opinion, but pretty useless for credible debate points.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          Look for the jeandodge photos for the best analysis of what’s where.

          unitron

      • mataharley says:

        justincaselawgic, I had to pull which other FBI statement definitively stated that Zim told others he was following Martin, and not looking for addresses in front of his nose.

        Co-worker, pg 99 of the 7-12-12 document dump.

        ZIMMERMAN talked about seeing a suspicious person in the neighborhood, · and ZIMMERMAN followed the suspicious person to tell the police where the person went. ZIMMERMAN told him that he got out of his car to look for the suspicious person.

        • ajamazin says:

          “Zim told others he was following Martin, and not looking for addresses in front of his nose.”

          That should read “in front of his broken,swollen, mangled nose that was spurting blood.”

          I wanted to save justinasslawgic the time of correcting you.

      • mataharley,

        “Why the heck are you putting your thumb up in the air and playing visionary type measurements when the 7-12-12 doc dump has the measurements of the evidence locations on pgs 145-147, using the patio pillar posts of the first two units in bldg 1 on the east side??”

        I’m not. I was trying to make it easier for you to see. Incidentally, I was wrong about the utility access point that Zimmerman, in the video, is next to. That puts him about 10-15 feet further north of where Martin’s body was, so he was off, but …

        Here is why you’re still wrong. You said, “Zim states that he was decked to the ground at the tee. He moves about 3-4 feet closer to the small tree and says that’s where the headbanging and fight for his life happened. The body is another 45′ south.”

        This is categorically false. As the good professor pointed out the document dump contains a total station layout. I figured you guys weren’t mentally adept at figuring out the information and it appears I was right. Pages 145-147 do not give straight line distances from the “T”. The professor was correct in pointing out that total station is used to provide accurate distances, but one still needs to know a little math. For instance. The keys at the “T” are 29.2″ from Pillar A and 50.8″ from Pillar B. This gives us two side measurements in a right triangle. You’ll have to use the Pythagorean Theorem to figure out the other side. We know that the longest side is the hypotenuse and that is 50.8″. That means that side a^2 (29.2″) + b^2 (??) = c^2 (50.8″) or 852.64 + b^2 = 2580.64. If we take away 852.62 from 2580.64, we get 1728. Now we need to get the square root of 1728, which gives us 41.57″. The total distance, which goes well beyond Martin’s body is around 41.57″. If you just eyeball the diagram, you can see Martin’s body, position 6, is located at about the halfway mark on the diagram, making Martin’s body somewhere close to 21″ from the keys or “T”. To go 45″ south would put you off the diagram. I could show you how to get an accurate measurement for Martin’s body from the “T” but that would require explaining concepts of Trigonometry and this is not the appropriate forum for that. For our purposes, 21″ will do just fine.

        • ajamazin says:

          justincaselawgic states,

          “We know that the longest side is the hypotenuse and that is 50.8″”

          No, we do not.

          Pages 145 to 147 place the keys at the “T” at 29.2″ from Pillar A and 50.8″ from Pillar B.

          However, Zimmerman’s keys are not directly in line with the end of the buildings.

          Hence, no right angle exists and your calculations fail.

        • ajamazin says:

          justincaselawgic:

          CORRECTION:

          1.] justincaselawgic states:

          “We know that the longest side is the hypotenuse and that is 50.8″”

          No, we do not.

          We know, by definition, that the longest side of a right triangle, opposite the right angle is termed the hypotenuse.

          However, Zimmerman’s keys are not directly in line with the end of the buildings.

          Hence, no right angle exists and your calculations fail.

          2.] justincaselawgic states:

          The keys at the “T” are 29.2″ from Pillar A and 50.8″ from Pillar B.

          No, they are not.

          The evidence places the keys at the “T” at 29.2′ from Pillar A and 50.8′ from Pillar B.

          3.] Stating:

          “…. making Martin’s body somewhere close to 21” from the keys or “T”. ”

          is patently absurd.

      • ajamazin,

        Are you really arguing that using the Pythagorean Theorem on a triangle that is as close to a right angle as we can get, provides a distance that is off by over 20 ft?

        It appears you want to make this a bit more difficult, but I can simplify it even more for you. Position 4 is almost a straight line distance from both Pillar A and Pillar B. The two measurements are 22 ft and 11.2 ft. Are we in agreement, so far? If you add these together, you get a total distance of 33.2 ft. There is also the additional distance of the “T” to the edge of the town homes. Martin’s body was somewhere in the middle, not close to one of the Pillars, which puts the body somewhere close to between 17′-32′. This is the minimum and maximum distance from the “T”. It was not 45′ south.

        • ajamazin says:

          justincaselawgic:

          To quote mataharley:

          “Why the heck are you putting your thumb up in the air and playing visionary type measurements when the 7-12-12 doc dump has the measurements of the evidence locations on pgs 145-147, using the patio pillar posts of the first two units in bldg 1 on the east side??”

          justincaselawgic writes:

          “I could show you how to get an accurate measurement for Martin’s body from the “T” but that would require explaining concepts of Trigonometry and this is not the appropriate forum for that. For our purposes, 21″ will do just fine.”

          Have at it!

          If it is relevant to the case, then this is the proper forum, and your assertion that Trayvon’s body could be as close as 17′ to the “T” lacks facts to support.

          I will do my very best to keep up with only my degree in Mathematics.

      • justincaselawgic, Now we need to get the square root of 1728, which gives us 41.57″. The total distance, which goes well beyond Martin’s body is around 41.57″. If you just eyeball the diagram, you can see Martin’s body, position 6, is located at about the halfway mark on the diagram, making Martin’s body somewhere close to 21″ from the keys or “T”. To go 45″ south would put you off the diagram. I could show you how to get an accurate measurement for Martin’s body from the “T” but that would require explaining concepts of Trigonometry and this is not the appropriate forum for that. For our purposes, 21″ will do just fine.

        Thank you for the unneeded Pythagorean Theorem lesson, justincase.. But you seem to be missing a few details and measurements in your factors.

        You used the location of the keys when I’m speaking to you of the location of the body south of the tee. I won’t bore you by documenting the calculations of both the head and the foot to the patio pillar markers of the building on the east side of that row. But the body is located close to the common wall between the 1st and second unit. This makes it convenient to use about 1/2 the length of the 3rd leg, and be close for it’s location between the two patio pillars used.

        What you forgot is that the buildings are 15′ south of the E-W sidewalk itself, and the patio piers are not even the corner of the buildings. Since I don’t know how far the patio pillar posts are, all the figures below are going to be short that additional footage… meaning the body is even further than what I already document.

        Using the head distances, the 3rd side of the triangle (the distance between the NW patio pillar of the 1st unit of the east side building and the SW patio pillar of the 2nd unit of the east side building) is 53.9′. Body about half way is 26.95′ Now add the 15′ from the sidewalk and the body is due south of the E-W sidewalk 41.95’… more if you include the patio pillar to the northern exterior wall of the building. But that works for now.

        Using the foot measures of TM’s body, and the 3rd triangle is 60.11′, halfway point is 30.06. Add 15′ to the sidewalk and TM’s feet are 45.06′ from the sidewalk, less the above footage I mentioned.

        The keys, and where Zimmerman said the fight for his life took place, are closer to the E-W sidewalk than the tree you see. That tree is about 8′ from the center of the E-W sidewalk (and BTW, the Google Earth measuring tools bear out the drawing as well as these stated figures…). This means that the keys were about 3-5 feet south of the sidewalk, and north of that tree… exactly where Zimmerman demonstrated his supposed fight for his life on the reenactment video.

        So the body is located at least 41′-45′ south of the sidewalk, which is still an impossible distance for Zimmerman to “push off” the body.

        However even that measurement still doesn’t include how far Martin’s body was off to the west of the N-S path between the houses. You see, it’s 41-45′ south of the sidewalk due north, but that point is about 6-10′ west of the “tee” in the path. So unless they avoided the N-S sidewalk and ran down the grass, you also have to accommodate the distance to the west off the N-S sidewalk.

        BTW, the greenspace between the row houses on the N-S path is at least 50′ (altho I think I read it was 60′ somewhere else). It’s 50′ using the under roof line on Google Earth measurements.

        Needless to say, your concept of how far south the body was from the tee isn’t even close, and my 41 feet is actually less because I don’t know the distance between the patio pillars and the exterior northern wall of the building.

        And I’ve had the crime scene photos stored on my desk top since their release, so I don’t need the thumb in the air version. Especially since the measurements are documented by the evidence drawings.

      • justincaselawgic, I have a comment awaiting moderation straightening out your distances for the body to the E-W sidewalk.

        However you should be able to tell your error just from marker #4 which you, yourself, bring up. That distance, located approximately at the common wall dividing the two units to the NW patio pillar marker, is 22′. There’s a 15′ greenspace between the buildings and the E-W path, so that’s 37′ from marker 4 to the sidewalk.

        That, however, doesn’t take into consideration that the patio pillar is not the NW corner of the building’s exterior. That is likely to be at least 3-4′ or more from the exterior northern wall to a patio you enter from sliders or a door to the condo’s patios. So now marker 4 is at least 41′ from the sidewalk… about the same as Martin’s body on the other side of the row.

        This would make those units about 28′ wide… enough to have a living room and adjacent kitchen… or two side by side rooms in each unit from wall stud to wall stud. That same estimate is borne out by the Google Earth measurements via the roofline to the center of the dormers you see dividing the units.

        When you see the body calculations I documented for you in the comment awaiting moderation, you will see the Martin’s head is at least 41′ from the E-W sidewalk and the feet at least 45′ from the E-W side… excluding additional footage from the pillar to exterior wall distance plus the distance located off the N-S path to the west… which is about 6-10 ft.

        You’re simply wrong on all counts.

      • justincaselawgic, go to this site, and search for two photos… one that shows the body as related to the extending white privacy walls, and the second for marker #3 and it’s relationship to the same privacy wall but on the eastern side building unit.

        http://globalgrind.com/news/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-discovery-defense-team-receives-second-round-details?gpage=3#gtop

        The first privacy wall on the western building, the one Martin’s body iies, is just over 44′ from the center of the E-W sidewalk. Because the sidewalk actually travels at an angle W to SE, the same wall on the opposite side building is a tad over 40′.

        Ergo, there is no way your 17-21′ fits in the realm of reality. Even using your thumb in the air visual guesses.

        I now have two comments in moderation that point out the flaws of your math, and correct it using the measurements of the body PLUS your comments INRE marker 4.

        I’ll only add one correction in advance. I reviewed the crime scene photos on my desktop, and the pillar posts are aligned with the exterior walls (depending on whether they used the inside or outside for measurements, so there’s no hidden additional footage..

        However, my math for the body location documented fits with the Google Earth measurements of the building units, the location of the evidence via photos (your thumb in the air version), the distance of these white mini privacy walls, and the approximate width of each unit in these buildings. Guess you’ll just have to wait until the host bails them out to see it tho.

      • ajamazin,

        “Have at it!

        If it is relevant to the case, then this is the proper forum, and your assertion that Trayvon’s body could be as close as 17′ to the “T” lacks facts to support.

        I will do my very best to keep up with only my degree in Mathematics.”

        Sorry. It’s not going to happen. I’m not going to get into arc functions and Trigonometry. It is unnecessary, as well, with the relative known distance between Pillar A and Pillar B.

        • ajamazin says:

          justincaselawgic states:

          “It is unnecessary, as well, with the relative known distance between Pillar A and Pillar B.”

          What is the distance between Pillar A and Pillar B?

      • ajamazin,

        Have you thought about point 4 at all? It is a first aid kit. It was put on the other side of the sidewalk, not on the side Martin was killed or where Zimmerman was. It was also placed close to the town home. It appears to have been used as a point to calculate distance between the two pillars. Look at the diagram and see if you can figure out why they chose that spot.

        • ajamazin says:

          justincaselawgic,

          The first aid kit is a part of the evidence and as such, was included was included.

          You can not answer my question.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          Someone had already done the trig.

          http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2074.0.html

          unitron

          • ajamazin says:

            onlyiamunitron,

            Thank you.

            Consequently, 19.916′ is the minimum distance providing the base
            to establish the shortest distance between between OM1 and OM6.

            Note: This represents only the distance from where George’s keys
            were found to Trayvon’s body.

          • Patricia says:

            quote from your source:

            “Keep in mind the 20 ft is from the corner of the building, not the “T” in the sidewalk. The building is about 15 ft from the sidewalk. On the west side of the walk, the first utility cover is 10 ft from the east-west sidewalk, the second 20 ft from the first, the third 20 ft from the second, and the fourth 10 ft. from the third. Martin’s head was almost centered between the second and third, which would mean it was about 40 ft from the sidewalk.”

          • Patricia says:

            To Unitron, Ajamazin, MataHaleyHarley, Dave and all you mathaholics —

            I think you are being a little hard on Justincaselawjic.

            By his figuring, Trayvon Martin’s body is 17-20 ft. from the lghted flashligh/keyst and others have pointed out that Martin’s body was 40-45 ft. from the T.

            Just you wait until Justin pulls out this stunning revelation, evidence not yet released, perhaps known only to Justin:

            Trayvon Martin was 26 ft. tall.

            (George simply realligned the body during “the frisk.”)

            And so, of course, Trayvon could easily have overpowered Zimmerman.

            Able to bash George’s head against the roofs.

            Wouldn’t you be in fear of your life if a 26 ft. tall teenager emerged from the bushes? The bushes were 2 ft. tall. Musta covered the tops of Trayvon’s sox.

            A life-altering experience for George.

            Ummm … for Trayvon, too.

          • TruthBTold says:

            LMBO @ Patricia. You and Ajamazin leave me in stitches lol.

      • ajamazin,

        I already answered your question about distance and unitron took the liberty of posting a link providing the trig.

        Thanks unitron, I’m not in a position to upload graphics and was unaware of that site before.

    • gbrbsb says:

      I agree wholeheartedly.

      I don’t see how the defence will explain why, if, as according to GZ, TM asked him, “Do you have a problem? (or similar depending on which version GZ uses), or if, as according to DD, Trayvon asked the sensible questiion, “Why you following me?”, and considering that GZ claims to have merely been a concerned neighbour (not NW that evenening), GZ, despite having called the police to report TM as suspicious, despite having followed TM in the dark both by car and on foot (even if only for a short time if you accept GZ stopped after the NEN told him to which I personally don’t), and despite GZ being aware that TM was aware GZ was following him (“he’s looking at me”, apparently through the Ridgeline’s tinted windows, or “He ran” etc., ), not only answers dishonestly saying “I don’t have a problem.” but does so reaching for what he claims was his mobile phone, a movement which in the dark and under those circumstances to most would be as threatening a move as you could make. Can anybody wonder why Trayvon might have stood HIS ground?

      • gbrbsb says:

        My comment above was in reply to Dave’s not to “justincaselawgic” whom I don’t really agree with.

      • gbrbsb says:

        To add another thought. Remember the Yoshi Hatori case where Rodney Peairs shot the Japanese student merely because he thought he was a robber because he walked towards him having mistook the address. Peairs was acquitted on the Castle doctrine with the same basis as SYG, so if TM had punched or as Peairs even killed GZ out of fear having been followed in the dark and then after he had run away to distance himself from the threat found himself face to face with it again flashing a torch, denying facts and reaching for what GZ claims was a “mobile” in his pocket, would TM’s not also be a legitimate SYG defence? So, should the law merely protect whoever survives any such confrontation or should it listen to the dead man’s tale even if this consists mostly of hearsay, reasoning, logic, and other indirect evidence.

      • gbrbsb,

        SYG could have applied for either, so long as the it meets the reasonable person standard.

        In Dee Dee’s scenario, I think Martin’s actions would be justified. There are several problems, though, with her scenario: 1) she alleged that Martin was afraid, although he never claimed he was. 2) she alleged that Martin ran and then walked toward his home, never stopping or hiding, and that Zimmerman caught up with him, which is demonstrably false as shown by where the altercation occurred, where the body was, and the fact that Martin could have easily made it home if he did what she claimed he did and 3) she gave several different versions of how the call ended within a 25 minute time span. There are other problems with the actual interview, which focus on de la Rionda’s messy handling of it, but that’s for another time.

      • Michael Stewart says:

        “and considering that GZ claims to have merely been a concerned neighbour (not NW that evenening)….”

        Thanks for raising the “I was not on NW” issue, gbrbsb.

        When is a member of Neighborhood Watch NOT on duty?

        To the best of my knowledge Neighborhood Watch is an informal collective of neighbors who by agreement, are ALWAYS on watch for suspicious activity. There are no organized patrol “shifts,” no changing of the guard, no time clock to punch, no uniforms or badges to wear, and no magnetic door signs to display on your vehicle.

        This is another defensive element of GZ’s account that doesn’t square with reality.

    • mataharley,

      I know you’re trying your hardest to prove Martin’s body was 45′
      from the “T”. I’ll Illustrate in a second how that is wrong, but we’re not just talking about the “T”.

      Your original quote was, “Zim’s largest problem is, as you say, ‘where the crime took place’… which just so happens is 45′ or more south of where he said it did.” You later stated “Zim states that he was decked to the ground at the tee. He moves about 3-4 feet closer to the small tree and says that’s where the headbanging and fight for his life happened. The body is another 45′ south.” So, in your estimation, the body was closer to 50′ from the “T,” unless you misspoke.

      Now, to your 45’ estimation. For starters, if you would like to use the residence dimensions, why not link to them, instead of guessing?

      http://www.407re.com/retreat-abaco

      That is the largest floor plan and comes in under your 28′ estimation.

      There is no reason to go looking down different avenues to prove the same point, though. We have the position of the first aid kit marked as object 4. Regardless of what ajamazin thinks, there is no reason, other than to get a corresponding point for a distance measurement, to have the first aid kit on the other side of the sidewalk, away from where Zimmerman and Martin were. If you look at the total station, the first aid kit lines up almost exactly, if not exactly, with Martin’s head. This appears to be on purpose and would be a very big coincidence if it was not. You’re right that the sidewalk is likely roughly 15′ from the town homes, which gives us a total of 37′. I think you pointed that out in a discussion with someone else. The position of Zimmerman’s keys seems to be just south, probably a foot or two of the “T”, which puts Martin’s body between 35′-37′ south of Zimmerman’s keys. This shows that the body was not another “45′ or more south of the “T” or the keys.

      Your second quote was likely a mistake, but to illustrate another misconception you have, you stated that Zimmerman “moved about 3-4 feet closer” to where Martin’s body was. In the reenactment video I posted earlier, you can see that the tree Zimmerman walks passed lines up pretty much with the edge of the town home, which we’ve agreed is roughly 15′. He looks to be another 5′ south of that in his reenactment, which puts him 20′ south of the “T”, off the mark by about 15″, but not so far out of bounds as some have been insinuating. As it turns out, this is something I previously stated. I said, “Incidentally, I was wrong about the utility access point that Zimmerman, in the video, is next to. That puts him about 10-15 feet further north of where Martin’s body was …”

      • mataharley says:

        From justincaselawgic…

        Your original quote was, “Zim’s largest problem is, as you say, ‘where the crime took place’… which just so happens is 45′ or more south of where he said it did.” You later stated “Zim states that he was decked to the ground at the tee. He moves about 3-4 feet closer to the small tree and says that’s where the headbanging and fight for his life happened. The body is another 45′ south.” So, in your estimation, the body was closer to 50’ from the “T,” unless you misspoke

        Well this depends upon which story you want to believe from Zim, doesn’t it? In the reenactment video, he says he was decked just slightly west of the tee on the E-W path. He doesn’t say how he again rose to his feet and how they struggled about 3-4 feet south to where he supposedly got his head banging, drew his gun and killed Martin. But that’s the farthest south on that path that Zim wants to admit to in his statements.

        That’s no where near the final resting place of the body.

        Ergo, per Zim’s own story, he fought for his life on the E-W path where he says he was punched to the ground, except for where that magic few feet south come in where he doesn’t explain how he got up on his feet again…. It is that reference I used when I say the body was over 40-45 feet away from where Zim says all this happened (depending on whether you want to use head or feet measurements… Martin was 5’11”, per the ME)

        And I don’t care about the keys, BTW… it’s just one more item in a debris field that moves south on the path. It may be used by the State as evidence that Zim was actually going down that path to find Martin… or not. Doesn’t matter to me. The sieve that is Zim’s story(ies), as is, are enough of a problem just when you consider the body’s location to the start of the fight where an innocent GZ was assaulted has he was casually sauntering back to his SUV.

        Let’s clear up another misconception of yours. The tree is *not* in alignment with the western building exterior wall. You can see all this clearly on Google Earth aerials – that the tree is actually about halfway between the sidewalk and the west building roof-line. Remember that in Zim’s stories, the fight never went south of that tree.

        If you depend upon 50mm camera lens to gauge distance, you are going to be inaccurate in your conclusions. If you don’t have the Google Earth free software downloaded, I suggest you do so. This will clear up much, and as the TalkLeft commenters who did the math have noted, the measurements are remarkably accurate. You’ll find it’s a good back up to your penchant for math, and adds a better visual to math dimension to the crime photos.

        He looks to be another 5′ south of that in his reenactment, which puts him 20′ south of the “T”, off the mark by about 15″, but not so far out of bounds as some have been insinuating. As it turns out, this is something I previously stated. I said, “Incidentally, I was wrong about the utility access point that Zimmerman, in the video, is next to. That puts him about 10-15 feet further north of where Martin’s body was …”

        Let’s go with your theory that now GZ was only 10-15 north of where Martin’s body was found… which is near the 1st white privacy fence. Using that as an approximate marker, GZ would then have to say the fight happened near the mid or southern corner of the dark screened in porch on the first unit of the west building. That happens to be about 15-18′ south of the tree, or about 25′ south of the E-W path where he says it all happened.

        That may very well be what happened, however that is not Zim’s story… is it? He never describes a fight that goes south of that tree. So you are now altering Zim’s various stories, upon which all analysis is based. That’s what we’re doing here. i.e., can what he says be true?

        Conclusiong? Not in the real world of physics and evidence.

        This has always been Zim’s problem. He is careful not to voluntarily place himself very far south on that path with his statements because by doing so, he will be seen as pursing Martin and puts the nail in the coffin with him as the aggressor.

        Instead he claims he was knocked to his butt with the first punch – attached by TM rushing out of the bushes – right at the tee on the E-W path, and doesn’t volunteer any stories as to the final location of the body. So did Martin pull him to his feet at the E-W tee to wrestle a little closer to the tee, where he says he got his head banged? Or did Zim get up and go after Martin down the south path and he’s lying about how far on the path he chased Martin?

        So just how did the body end up so far away from where he says it all started on the E-W path? He ain’t talking… and Martin can’t.

        What we do know is that if we accept Zim’s story of being attacked on the E-W path as true, including being knocked on the ground, that everything he says after that doesn’t fit the evidence. In fact, if Zim did get knocked to the ground at the tee, as he says, it appears he got up, and chased Martin south to continue the fight to the site of death.

      • mataharley,

        It appears that you’re wanting to conflate the issue. I would argue that the most definitive version of Zimmerman’s story (I acknowledge that there are inconsistencies between stories) is his actual recreation of that night. The video I posted above is that recreation. Clearly this reenactment flies in the face of many of the things you’ve claimed. It also clearly shows that the tree Zimmerman walked passed is in line with the town home outer wall.

        I understand why you’re confused. The Google Earth program, while awesome in its capability, is also using images that are, oftentimes, years old. Watch the video. There are two trees that Zimmerman walks passed. The first tree is where you say. The second tree he walks passed in his recreation is in line with the town home outer wall. This should help you in understanding why I have been saying things that appear to be out of phase with what you think it reality.

        Here is the video, so you don’t have to go looking for it:

        Starting at about 9:30, you get a good view of the trees. There are obviously more after that, but you can see pretty clearly that what I’m saying is accurate.

        • mataharley says:

          justincaselawgic: Clearly this reenactment flies in the face of many of the things you’ve claimed. It also clearly shows that the tree Zimmerman walked passed is in line with the town home outer wall. I understand why you’re confused. The Google Earth program, while awesome in its capability, is also using images that are, oftentimes, years old. Watch the video. There are two trees that Zimmerman walks passed. The first tree is where you say. The second tree he walks passed in his recreation is in line with the town home outer wall.

          justincase, I am well versed in the video reenactment, and Zim’s story. However the problem remains that he doesn’t explain how he got up from being punched to the ground, falling back, to where they supposedly wrestled in the vicinity of the tree.

          The Google Earth imagery is from Jan 2012, one month before the murder. If you looked at the image, you’d know this. I am also aware of both trees, and unless they moved the tree in the month prior to the murder, it is still where I said it is… about halfway between the building and the sidewalk. You are simply incorrect in asserting that it is in alignment with the buildings.

          With all due respect, I suggest that it is your perceptions that are “out of phase”. From the start, the point was, and remains, that the site of death is so far away from where Zim said it all happened as to be severely problematic, if not impossible.

          If we use Zim’s story(ies), which you admit to the inconsistencies, the only way all this could happen is if Zim got up from being punched at the tee where he says he fell to the ground, and pursued Martin south to continue the fight.

          Logic… or would that be “lawgic”… dictates that a southern moving fight makes it Martin attempting to retreat to safety, not Zim who’s SUV was further north on that N-S path, and then to the west. If Martin punched him at the tee, as he says, he may have attempted to retreat south, only to have an angry Zim follow him.

      • mataharley,

        I’m not at my personal computer to look at the acquisition date, so I’ll have to take your word for it.

        The only other way I know how to make this any clearer, is with the following images:

        I’m not sure why that tree looks like it is halfway between the town home and the sidewalk to you, but it just isn’t.

        • mataharley says:

          justincaselawgic, I have the links to the crime scene photos on my favorites, plus have downloaded the majority of them to my desktop. I’m aware of what you are looking at. But I do enough photography work in my job to know that a 50mm lens perspective is no what to judge distances and measurements.

          When you get a chance, go look at the Google Earth aerials, and it’s obvious there it is not in alignment. And to put a better perspective on how far *not* in alignment it is, use their measurement tools.

      • mataharley,

        I would probably agree with you if the shots were taken from the same perspective, but there are multiple perspectives and a video recording which all show the same positioning.

        And, I’ve had enough experience with satellite intel analysis to be able to tell that Google Earth is not going to be the best source for accurate distance measurements. This is due to many reasons, including the need for optical devices to correct for issues brought about by the curvature of the Earth, as well as the orientation of the satellite causing angular issues.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          So what appears to be about 45 feet on Google Earth is only around 20 due to the curvature of the earth?

          Look, it’s at least 10 feet from the southern edge of the east-west sidewalk to the northern end of 1211.

          1211 is at least 20 feet wide, probably a bit more.

          1221 is at least 20 feet wide.

          No amount of curvature of the earth is going to make the body appear to be behind 1221 or 1231 if it’s behind 1211.

          The body was a lot farther south than Zimmerman, on the re-enactment, indicates the struggle took place, and that’s the only place he indicates that the struggle didn’t happen right where he says he was when he was, according to him, first struck, and struck first, by Martin.

          unitron

      • Leatherman,

        “… the only reasonable explanation for the location of TM’s body is that he was attempting to get away from GZ when GZ killed him.”

        Really? That’s the only reasonable explanation? I can think of another. In fact, if I use your reasonable explanation, I’m left with continuing that train of thought and wondering why Martin couldn’t get away. One reasonable explanation for that is that Zimmerman grabbed him, but there is no evidence of that. Forgetting lack of evidence, if we assume that Zimmerman grabbed Martin, he must have then pushed him to the ground and gotten on top of him so he couldn’t get away. Of course that flies in the face of witness statements. There are also those pesky injuries that Zimmerman incurred that must be explained away. Where do those fit in this “only reasonable explanation” of yours?

      • unitron,

        No and that is not what I’m saying. I already stated that the body, at the head, was likely between 35′-37′ from the “T”. My primary point of contention was that it was stated that the body was “another 45′ south” of where Zimmerman said the head banging was. He was around 15′ off, by my calculations. Yes, still off, but not ridiculously off as is suggested by the comment I took issue with.

  27. Prof,

    I’d like to start with this and we can go from there:

    “Because he must have known that an aggressor cannot claim self-defense”

    This is not true. Florida Statute 776.041 discusses the use of force by an aggressor:

    The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
    (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
    (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
    (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

    I read briefly through the many comments, but didn’t see a sufficient discussion as to why you think self-defense does cannot be claimed by an aggressor. I also noticed that you had not updated your post with the correct information, so I’m assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that you still believe an aggressor cannot claim self-defense.

    • You are assuming incorrectly because I wrote an article setting forth the jury instructions that include the exception you mentioned to the general rule prohibiting an aggressor from claiming self-defense.

      It’s a common sense exception based on the notion that an aggressor who uses less than deadly force against another person should still be able defend himself against that person if he responds with deadly force.

      The statute and the instruction define the exception. Notice that the aggressor must communicate a desire to withdraw that is similar to the duty to retreat eliminated by the SYG statute.

      It survives as an exception to the general rule banning an aggressor from claiming self-defense.

      I believe the evidence at trial will establish that GZ was the aggressor; that TM attempted to stand his ground using less than deadly force; and GZ killed him.

      Thus, the exception you mention will not be relevant.

      Here’s a link to the article that I wrote on this subject.

      • Prof,

        Thank you for the link and indulging me in something you’ve probably already covered several times before.

        After reading your article, I can see that you are aware of Florida’s laws surrounding self-defense. Assuming the likelihood that Zimmerman was on the ground, with Martin on top of him, satisfies, or renders obsolete, the requirement for an aggressor to “exhaust every reasonable means of escape”. This is the case, because exhausting “every REASONABLE means of escape” does not require one to try to escape, if doing so could be believed to cause additional harm. Also, in this scenario, there is no requirement to communicate a desire to withdraw. In fact, “communicate” is no where in the law or the jury instructions.

        In addition to that, while the Prosecution will be arguing that Zimmerman was the aggressor, the direct evidence fails to assert that as the case. The direct evidence indicates that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin, but agreed to stop when advised to. It further indicates that Zimmerman was attacked by Martin, as de la Rionda already virtually admitted to in the June 29th bond hearing. The Prosecution argued, in that hearing, that if Martin did attack Zimmerman first, that he was justified in doing so, yet there is no direct evidence to substantiate this belief and the testimonial evidence provided by both Zimmerman and Dee Dee do not indicate any threatening gestures or words that would justify Martin’s preemptive attack on Zimmerman. This would indicate that Zimmerman was not the aggressor.

        Your article, also, leaves out the additional instructions that the jury will be given when considering self-defense.

        “In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real …

        … If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.

        However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.”

        http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/chapter3/p1c3s3.6.f.rtf

        You stated in your article that the state has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Defendant was not justified in his use of deadly force, which is true and you may have stated it in your words to get to the point, but the instructions the jury will read are, in my opinion, a bit more emphatic about it.

        • I am not going to disagree with you on the instruction, but I am going to disagree with the following statement that you made:

          The direct evidence indicates that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin, but agreed to stop when advised to. It further indicates that Zimmerman was attacked by Martin, as de la Rionda already virtually admitted to in the June 29th bond hearing. The Prosecution argued, in that hearing, that if Martin did attack Zimmerman first, that he was justified in doing so, yet there is no direct evidence to substantiate this belief and the testimonial evidence provided by both Zimmerman and Dee Dee do not indicate any threatening gestures or words that would justify Martin’s preemptive attack on Zimmerman. This would indicate that Zimmerman was not the aggressor.

          You are right, if you accept Zimmerman’s statement as true. The problem is that it isn’t true and the prosecution can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt with the forensic evidence alone. Add to that the many inconsistencies and outright lies leaves Zimmerman with little chance for an acquittal at a SYG hearing or jury trial.

          The prosecution will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman followed TM in his vehicle and then on foot passing up two opportunities to identify himself as the neighborhood watchman and politely ask TM if he needed any assistance. Zimmerman also went looking for TM south of the T intersection because TM’s body was found more than 40 feet south of the intersection with his cell phone and the spent casing next to it.

          If I were a 17 year old male like TM, I would have been terrified that Zimmerman was a serial killer like John Wayne Gacey or Charles Dahmer and stalking me. If I had a gun, I definitely would have stood my ground and confronted him with it and I probably would have killed him on the spot, if he attempted to pull his gun.

          TM did not have a gun or any kind of weapon, however, and he died in terror screaming for help not knowing who Zimmerman was or why Zimmerman killed him.

          That is what happened in this case. Zimmerman stalked and executed an innocent and unarmed teenager who was walking home in the rain talking to his girlfriend.

      • Prof,

        “The problem is that it isn’t true and the prosecution can prove that beyond a reasonable doubt with the forensic evidence alone.”

        Can you define what isn’t true and what forensic evidence proves your assertion? I apologize, as I’m sure you’ve covered this before, but if you wouldn’t mind indulging me further.

        ——

        “Add to that the many inconsistencies and outright lies leaves Zimmerman with little chance for an acquittal at a SYG hearing or jury trial.”

        Zimmerman’s inconsistencies do pose a problem, but not an insurmountable problem, in my opinion, as his version of the actual altercation has not been inconsistent. As a former criminal defense attorney, you should know all too well that the minutiae of stories can and do change; little details alter with the passage of time and the mind’s attempt to protect itself in justifying one’s own actions. We also like to fill in the blanks when we aren’t sure and this can cause major problems when speaking to the police.

        ——

        “passing up two opportunities to identify himself as the neighborhood watchman and politely ask TM if he needed any assistance.”

        As I stated below, this contention, by the Prosecution and Patrolman Serino, that one must relay specific intent because failure to do so is tantamount to a given threat is abhorrently false.

        ——

        “Zimmerman also went looking for TM south of the T intersection because TM’s body was found more than 40 feet south of the intersection with his cell phone and the spent casing next to it.”

        According to witness 11, she stated that the confrontation sounded like it occurred right around the “T” and moved down passed her house and down the sidewalk. Her statement can be heard here:

        ——

        “If I were a 17 year old male like TM, I would have been terrified that Zimmerman was a serial killer like John Wayne Gacey or Charles Dahmer and stalking me. If I had a gun, I definitely would have stood my ground and confronted him with it and I probably would have killed him on the spot, if he attempted to pull his gun.”

        First, I assume you meant Jeffrey Dahmer or Charles Manson. Second, If I were a 17 year-old and I thought someone was following me, I would have taken advantage of the estimated 90+ seconds that this guy was preoccupied on his phone to go home or go to a neighbor’s home. I wouldn’t have lingered near the “T” when my house was 70 yards away and there were also multiple homes that I could have gone to.

        ——

        “TM did not have a gun or any kind of weapon, however, and he died in terror screaming for help not knowing who Zimmerman was or why Zimmerman killed him.”

        First, you should know that the attacker having a weapon is not required for the victim to fear death or great bodily harm. As a former criminal defense attorney, I’m sure you’re aware of the concept of disparity of force and how that applies in this case. Second, I’m surprised you would state so confidently that Martin was the one screaming for help, when the witnesses, including “John” and witness 11, in addition to Robert Zimmerman, Sr., stated that Zimmerman was the one yelling for help. The FBI said they can’t conclusively declare who was yelling for help and the Martin family claim it is their son.

        ——

        “That is what happened in this case. Zimmerman stalked and executed an innocent and unarmed teenager who was walking home in the rain talking to his girlfriend.”

        There is no indication that the criminal act of stalking took place. As a lawyer, you should choose your words more carefully. Additionally, there is an alternate version that you seem to be willfully ignoring. Perhaps it is because you don’t like Zimmerman and I can understand that, but to deny that there are facts that indicate self-defense is to deny any degree of objectivity.

      • aussie says:

        justincaselawgic,

        “that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.”

        This is the biggest stumbling block for the defence. GZ’s owm statements show that he made no attempt to avoid the danger in any way whatsoever other than the deadly force. So what convinced him that is the only solution to his dilemma?

        He had plenty of opportunity to do so: the 45ft “fly-swatting stumble” from the T to the death site, a full minute of rolling around, all he tried to do was “shimmy” off the concrete (which according to witnesses he was never on at any point). The one and only time he claims to use his hands to defend himself is to grab TM’s hand snaking towards his gun, just long enough to draw the weapon and use it.

        This clearly shows his hands were FREE, so why not use them? he may have been able to prevent it escalating into a potentially-fatal situation.

        If someone patiently lets himself he bashed, battered and smothered for a minute of more, until he gets a chance to draw a weapon, without any fighting back, he is NOT in fear for his life. He is just waiting for an opportunity to shoot.

        This I believe would apply equally to SYG and to self-defence-as-aggressor. Standing Your Ground means you are not expected to try running away. It does not mean you have to play possum and tolerate a beating UNTIL you can get at your gun.

        Although … I was shocked to hear a supposed legal expert on a TV interview claim that, if it was true GZ was the aggressor, then TM did NOT have any SYG ground right — because the SYG authorised lethal force, not a bashing with fists. So according to this “expert” SYG doesn’t apply to anyone who is unarmed. Nice. Real nice.

      • aussie,

        “This is the biggest stumbling block for the defence. GZ’s owm statements show that he made no attempt to avoid the danger in any way whatsoever other than the deadly force. So what convinced him that is the only solution to his dilemma?”

        In Zimmerman’s version, the yells for help are attempts to avoid a deadly outcome. Also, according to Zimmerman’s version, with Martin on top, there is no expectation for Zimmerman to try to flee. Lastly, according to Zimmerman, Martin tried to reach for his gun, which escalated this to a life or death situation. Could Zimmerman be lying? Of course. The State, however, has offered nothing to refute this specific version, though.

        —-

        “he may have been able to prevent it escalating into a potentially-fatal situation.”

        Very true. Obviously, he may not have been able to, as well. This is why he’ll walk, unless there is a major game changer.

      • mataharley says:

        justincaselawgic: First, you should know that the attacker having a weapon is not required for the victim to fear death or great bodily harm.

        This goes back to Zim’s actions, culminating in his “reaching” for something in response to Martin’s question about following, doesn’t it? Are you not trying to convince us that Martin had no reason for fear or bodily harm?

        Or is it only Martin who is not allowed to “fear death or great bodily harm” from Zimmerman, and his “reaching” movement, after his prior aggression for over five minutes?

        The better question to consider…Is there any reason for Martin to believe that Zimmerman did *not* bear him ill will?

        Seems to be a bit one sided in your perception of self defense and justice.

    • Nef05 says:

      Zimmerman admits to Serino that he has “wrist control” over Trayvon, before drawing his gun, in the 2/29 serino Interrogation, part I.

      I would conclude, from Zimmerman’s own words, that he had a controlled avenue of retreat, before drawing his gun. Whether it would’ve worked or not is unknown. But, according to Zimmerman’s own statement, he didn’t even try. He proceeded to draw his gun, aim and fire. As the “use of force by an agressor” 2(a) requires the exhaustion of reasonable means of escape, the lack of defensive bruises on Zimmerman, lack of offensive bruises/scratches/wounds on Trayvon(barring the gunshot), coupled with an admission of a controlled avenue of retreat that wasn’t even attempted; it wouldn’t be hard to show a jury that “use of force…” is not a valid defense. IMO

      • Nef05,

        This admission comes at the time that he expresses that Martin was going for the gun, as well.

        “every reasonable means of escape” means that one is not required to pursue that route if it could result in further harm. With Martin on top, Zimmerman’s reasonable means of escape is nonexistent.

    • Here’s another post that’s likely to hit moderation. I’ve got three waiting in there already.

      INRE the TalkLeft diagram and math. They only confirm my own figures.

      The pillar on the eastern building to the marker 4 is, what they figure, roughly 20′. (Evidence say 22′). Add in the 15′ of greenspace (which they do NOT do) and marker 4 is at least 35′ south of the sidewalk, per their rough math.

      They do not acknowledge, and apparently don’t bother to visually inspect via aerials, that the E-W path is not a direct eastern line, but travels SE from the west point intersection. As I said in the comment (in moderation still at this writing), the distance from the middle of the sidewalk to the first white privacy partition/fence on the eastern building is about 40′, while that same distance to the first white privacy partition/fence – where Martin’s body is located – is about 44′.

      Marker 4 is further north than Marker 6, the body. Both are located relatively close to these privacy fences. The correct distance is *at least* 35′ – being overly generous – and likely more. And still none of this takes into account how far the body is off the N-S sidewalk to the west.

      Under no circumstances can the fight have taken place where Zimmerman said it was, north of the small tree that is 7-8 feet south of that E-W sidewalk. He would have had to “push” the body off from his most southern location on the reenactment video, to the body’s final location near the privacy fence/partitions.

      The statement still stands. The body was approximately 41 or so feet from the sidewalk, and 17-20 feet is a pipedream.

  28. Private EYEsOrlando says:

    I’m becoming inclined to believe this could be a Murder 1 case after the recent DUI arrest of Taafe and the strange friendship with Osterman, the air marshal. Zimmerman , Taafe and Osterman were probably looking for someone specific to execute because of some connection to the shady baseball player that Osterman was involved with. It’s very likely a debt was never paid or Osterman was still seethingly angry over losing his job because of his dealings with the supposed baseball player that went sour. Perhaps Martin resembled someone who was a friend of the “supposed” baseball player and Zimmerman set out to stalk then execute him or demand something from him. A case of mistaken identity for a premeditated execution style killing is Murder 1. I’m just throwing this out there for rumination.

    • It’s an interesting theory, but it’s missing some facts to support it.

      Welcome aboard.

    • Recreantnejos says:

      “I’m just throwing this out there for rumination.”

      You also might consider just ‘throwing this out’. Maybe you shouldn’t spend much more time on the rumination part- or invest your time in search of facts to support it. Chances are, the prosecutors have several investigators dedicated to this already.

      • Chances are you’re right, but that does not mean we should trust them to always get it right.

        For example, the State Attorney initially decided not to prosecute this case even though the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. Of course, he subsequently withdrew citing an unexplained “conflict of interest” that must have clouded and compromised his professional judgment

        The new prosecution team figured out they had a slam dunk murder 2 within a few days.

        Always question authority.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          Oh, please.

          Wolfinger announced he was taking it to the grand jury and 2 days later the governor threw him under the bus so that they could throw Zimmerman to the wolves.

          unitron

          P.S.

          Is there some special reason for the blog owner letting who I assume is a different person use the same avatar?

          • No conspiracies here.

            I am the same person, but when I registered for my first blog, I registered as Masonblue and Mason Bennu. I still have that blog, btw.

            Later on, I started this blog and decided to use my real name because I am proud of it. This is a law blog and I have an excellent reputation as a lawyer and professor.

            Unfortunately, Word Press defaults to Masonblue every time I comment, so I have to manually change it to Frederick Leatherman.

            Before starting this blog, I blogged for many years as Mason, Masonblue and Masoninblue. I still blog at Firedoglake as Masoninblue and Mason at the Smirking Chimp.

            You can go to those sites and read my stuff, if you are interested.

            I also wrote a book titled Namaste, If Not Now, When?

            You can read it chapter by chapter at my other site.

            I am working on a final edit before I submit it for publication.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            If that’s a long way of saying that WordPress is hideously flawed and inadequate software, I most heartily concur.

            unitron

          • Actually, there probably is a simple way to correct the problem and I’ve been too lazy to figure it out.

      • ajamazin says:

        onlyiamunitron writes:

        ” Oh, please.

        Wolfinger announced he was taking it to the grand jury and 2 days later the governor threw him under the bus so that they could throw Zimmerman to the wolves.”

        There is no proof to support your statement.

        Wolfinger stepped aside citing conflict of interest.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          So on the 20th he’s taking the case to the grand jury which starts just 21 days later, and 2 days later he’s suddenly discovered a conflict of interest?

          Yeah, right.

          Notice how this case never got near a grand jury?

          Supposedly this suddenly gets dumped in Corey’s lap on the 22nd, and 20 days after that, one day after the grand jury convened without the case to consider, she’s ready to go with charges?

          This is all about getting Zimmerman to take a plea bargain so that everybody shuts up about the case and race and the SYG laws in FLA don’t come under further scrutiny and this never goes to any kind of jury, grand or petit.

          unitron

          • ajamazin says:

            onlyiamunitron.

            I doubt that Wolfinger ” suddenly discovered a conflict of interest”.

            It is more like that as this case and his actions came under close public scrutiny, Wolfinger surmised his “conflict of interest” would be made known.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            Okay, so if the conflict of interest isn’t “I started to take it to the grand jury and the governor doesn’t want that to happen and needs a way out of it and did I mention that he’s the governor and has powerful friends and if I fight him on this he’ll make my life a living hell and find a way to make my pension disappear”, then what is it?

            unitron

          • ajamazin says:

            onlyiamunitron wrote:

            “…and did I mention that he’s the governor and has powerful friends and if I fight him on this he’ll make my life a living hell and find a way to make my pension disappear.”

            That would not be Wolfinger’s concern due to the fact that he is approaching 66 yrs of age and has announced he will not seek re election.

            Wolfinger made the decision early in his current term, his office said. He wants to spend more time with his family, spokeswoman Lynne Bumpus-Hooper said.

            Wolfinger need have no worry about money for his future.

            State employees in Florida have DROP programs.

            Its not about retirement benefitis its about DOUBLE DIPPING. Getting a huge 100K or more drop payment, getting on ongoing reriement check AND getting a paycheck all at the same time.

            Norm Wolfinger State Attorney, Brevard/Seminole will receive:

            Lump Sum Payment of $447,835 in addition to a
            Monthly retirement Income of $7,166 or $85,992 each year, and an
            Annual salary of $153,140.

            This is clearly not Wolfinger’s conflict of interest.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            So what is his conflict of interest?

            unitron

      • Dawn says:

        onlyiamunitron,

        I doubt we’ll ever know what constitutes Wolfinger’s “conflict of interest.” It could be bias, an association with the Zimmerman family or colleagues, or simply an “out” to withdraw from the case given his previous inaction. Remember, he only chose to take the case to the grand jury on 20 March, just hours after the FDLE and US Justice Department announced their investigations.

        Angela Corey stated early on that she didn’t often use the grand jury; that she and her team would decide if the evidence warranted a charge. It’s possible, of course, that the Murder 2 charge was made with an eye towards a plea bargain, but I think the prosecutors genuinely believe they have a strong enough case for Murder 2.

        Some people are upset that this wasn’t taken to a grand jury, but it’s really not signicant. Given that a grand jury is more or less the prosecutor’s tool, and that all testimony is secret, it’s pretty much a given that a grand jury decision to indict or not is largely based on how the prosecutor presents the case, and the degree of enthusiasm s/he displays in doing so. I suspect that, had Wolfinger been allowed to proceed with the grand jury, there most likely would have been no indictment, or one for a far lesser charge (not even manslaughter).

        Corey would have been protected by a grand jury indictment; she showed courage by refusing to take that route, and I say this even though I’m definitely not a fan of hers.

        As for the politics, I disagree that this is all for a plea bargain so that the SYG law stands relatively unexamined. Actually, I think a case can be made that it’s the other way around; that the powers-that-be would want to use this case to prove that Zimmerman’s behaviour is precisely what the SYG law does NOT cover. Since prosecutors loathe SYG, I can’t see Corey charging Zimmerman just to make an example, although, to be fair, the political nature of the case may have been pressed upon her.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          A grand jury is only a prosecutor’s tool if they allow themselves to be.

          If Wolfinger didn’t request that FDLE get involved, then who’s idea was it, and did they bother to even let Wolfinger know about it?

          I saw someone’s timeline the other day that indicated that on the 20th the Sanford police were still investigating, still conducting follow-up witness interviews.

          I think Wolfinger got bigfooted.

    • aussie says:

      A bit farfetched, surely? to wait 6 years for revenge and then get someone else to do it?

      The only “mistaken identity” involved was that GZ mistook Trayvon for a criminal who had to be detained, on no evidence.

      As for Taaffe and Osterman, I’ve not seen anything to suggest they knew each other. FT and GZ don’t appear to have been close, either, and certainly FT sold GZ out a few times in his interviews.

      I believe Osterman may have unwittingly been the one to tip off GZ about someone suspicious, and partly blames himself for the mess that resulted. His history shows him to be not adverse to some extra money, but nothing involving violence or paranoia. So far of all the people involved in this on GZ’s side, he seems to be by far the most decent one.

      • recreantnejos says:

        “I believe Osterman may have unwittingly been the one to tip off GZ about someone suspicious, and partly blames himself for the mess that resulted.”
        Relative to what was just proposed, your suggestion seems lucid. But there is zero evidence that this is the case, and I don’t think Osterman even lives in The Reserve.

      • aussie says:

        recreantnejos

        if you kept up with the program, you’d know MO lives in Lake Mary (about 10 mins drive south of Twin Lakes) and was seen at the Twin Lakes atea bank at 6.38 pm on his way to visit the Zimmermans, thereby being in the right place at the right time to see TM leaving Orlando Ave towards the shortcut that comes out where GZ says he first saw TM.

        With me so far?

        He was at GZ’s house during the event, as had he been home when Shellie called him, he could not have made it back in time to still talk to GZ in the police car before he was driven away…but he says in his statement he did talk to him.

        So he WAS THERE on the estate at the time.

        No evidence that he said anything, true. I don’t have GZ’s place bugged. But he had opportunity to OBSERVE TM entering the shortcut, and OPPORTUNITY to mention this to GZ, who he knows well enough would be interested to know.

        And considering GZ had a window of 1.2 secs to notice TM at 1460 RVC by himself, and the chances of both of them being there at the same time being exceedingly small, it is far more probably someone DID tip off GZ about a suspicious stranger. MO is well known to GZ, was there with him, and had the opportunity to make the observation. It is called “circumstantial” evidence.

    • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

      @ Aussie, thanks for the map.

      Target is in an entirely different direction. Zimmerman claimed that he was on his way to Target. Zimmerman said, “I passed him.” I believe that Zimmerman first saw Trayvon on Oregon Ave and made a U-turn and began following him. “And he kept staring at me,” said Zimmerman. It was the other way around he was staring at Trayvon. Zimmerman being a wannabe cop, more than likely was cruising like police cars do in movies following in behind Trayvon. Zimmerman seems to get his dialogue from movies, and I am willing to bet that his actions and interviews are imitations of different parts in movies as well—the movie cop persona.

    • aussie says:

      While I’m posting up my image files

      shows GZ’s friend and mentor, Mark Osterman. The lower 2 small images are him with GZ leaving the second bond hearing. The top ones are him at the M&I bank ATM machine on the night in question, leaving there at 6.38pm.

      My theory is, this puts him in Orlando Ave just in time to see TM heading towards the Orland end of the shortcut. If he was going to visit GZ, he may have mentioned this (but casually, not immediately).

      MO had to be in the estate, most likely at GZ’s place waiting with Shellie for him to return. Had he gone home from the bank, he’d have had to be speeding all the way from home (Lake Mary) to get to the crime scene in time to still talk with GZ before he was driven out (which according to his statement he did do).

      We have to discount GZ himself spotting TM outside, as TM spent at least 10 minutes at the mailboxes before GZ made the call. I doubt he’d have waited that long had he seen him earlier, and TM would have told DeeDee sooner, too.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        The keys and small flashlight found at the T did not have house keys. This may indicate a spare set. Directly after GZ tells NEN Despatcher – You’ll see my truck, you clearly hear him say to someone (not NEN Despatcher) – the keys are in my truck. SZ moved the truck before it could be impounded and the truck with contents were never seized.The spare set had to be tossed at the T in order for GZs story to fit. If he were further down the walkway, he would have trouble claiming he wasn’t following or looking for Trayvon Martin. For his story to be plausible at first glance (without a thorough investigation), he had to be at the T. Either he dropped those keys there or someone else put them there. Since his keys were in the truck, the spare keys would have to be used. Now, who had the spare set of keys,

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        TM used the cut-through along-side Frank Taaffes home. Would Mr. Taaffe have called the neighbourhood watch guy – GZ- During one of the interviews, GZ expands on his reasons for suspecting TM. He says – he didn’t look like anyone who would be getting mail from the mail boxes and heading home. The timeline fits better than GZ walking to find an address. He followed behind TM in his car when he left the mail boxes. Now, would TM, a 17 yr. old call a 28 yr. old an old man. DeeDee said TM told her an old man was following him. Could that have been Frank Taaffe. Could FT have gone one way and GZ go the other of the walkway. Did GZ really go to Target. How much money or credit cards did he have on him. GZ lives at the south end of the walkway. Was there a walkie talkie in GZs car. We will never know, will we. But, FT was a neighbourhood watch guy too. Learning more and more about them has me feeling that FT is a leader and GZ, wanting to fit in somewhere in his life, would follow the leader, wouldn’t he.

  29. GrannyStandingforTruth says:

    Zimmerman said, “I passed him. And he kept staring at me and staring around and looking around. And I don’t know why he kept staring at me. He stopped and looked around and that’s what threw me off because it’s raining. That sure was a long distance to the scene of the crime from where he claimed that he first saw Trayvon. He was following Trayvon from the very beginning and Trayvon knew he was following him. That’s why he told his girlfriend, “Some wierd man is following me.”

    Did he slipped and say I put my hand on his nose…I mean he put his hands on my nose? I believe that Zimmerman’s injuries came from the tree branches and that he ran into it in his pursuit of Trayvon.

    Does anyone have a map that would show directions to Target from Zimmerman’s house? Was Target in that direction?

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      He has made quite a number of Freudian slips each and every time he has retold the tragedy. There is a map and I will find it for you after this reply.

      • gbrbsb says:

        Yes, he has had many of them. I am sure I heard in one of the police interviews (or perhaps during the re-enactment) GZ saying something to the effect “…HE was screaming/ he screamed …” quickly corrected it to “I”.

        • Patricia says:

          George was on the phone as he sat in Det. Smith’s squad car? Most of the time he sat in the back seat with his feet out of the car (this would be more comfortable) per the EMT that cleaned him up.

          I must have missed this phone call by George.. I understood GZ to have been handcuffed (behind his back). Whose phone was he using in the patrol car? How did he hold it? Did someone hold it for him? Who was that?

          I understand GZ’s cell phone records have not yet been released. Hope one of the Professor’s students can clarify this for me. Thanks.

          It is brilliant that gbrbsb has figured out that GZ needed his key/flashlight as a “marker” to establish his so-called initial confrontation – and a few days back, Dave computed the time needed to simply throw it there from the death scene.

          The jigsaw pieces are falling in place …

          • Sandra E. Graham says:

            I may be mistaken and it wouldn’t be the first time. In the photo taken of GZs bloodied head (colour), is he not talking on the telephone. Either he is on a phone, or he has an ear shaped like a cell.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      Google
      George Zimmerman M&I Bank – It shows all of the locations.

    • gbng says:

      GZ has made several important slips in different interviews like “I put my hand on his nose…”. He made one about Trayvon screaming and various others. It would be good to compile a list of them but I can’t remember which interview. Slips like the the hands and scream make me wonder if to not be caught out lying he decided to tell the truth wherever possible albeit Trayvon’s truth!

  30. TruthBTold says:

    SEG wrote,

    “We are still of the opinion that GZ was not alone that night. Too early to tell.”

    To date, I haven’t seen any evidence of GZ not being alone that night. If SZ was with him that night in the car, I don’t believe that she would have encouraged, sat by, or even participated in the following of TM (no evidence of that) and the subsequent result of this following. Professor Leatherman can give input, but I don’t see any criminal liability on her part thus far. Personally, I wouldn’t or I am not rather, putting much stock into this.

    • Dave says:

      Agreed. It’s an interesting hypothesis but I’d like to see one of its supporters briefly lay out the evidence that they believe supports it.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        Working on it with what I have. I am waiting for more information through discovery to further my opinion that GZ was not alone.

  31. Sandra E. Graham says:

    The woman at 1857 to 1859 with the blue shirt with the number 22 on it. At 1859:04, she looks directly into Camera 4.

    • aussie says:

      From timing out DeeDee’s calls to Trayvon, and other timings, TM was sheltering at the mailboxes by 6.54 give or take a minute. Nobody at the 7-11 at 6.59 could have seen him.

      Someone driving out of RATL in time to get to the 7-11 about 6.50 could have seen TM on RVC between the shortcut and the mailboxes. Had that person been GZ, it is highly unlikely he would have continued on to 7-11, sent SZ to buy 3 drinks (for the 2 of them??) and THEN gone back to seek out the suspect on his territory.

      Considering the one call on which GZ offered to go out to check on a suspect, and SZ told him not to, and he complied, I don’t see her letting him follow TM this time either, had they been together when they spotted him on their way back in ~7.02.

  32. Dave says:

    I couldn’t tell if that was Shellie or not. I did notice an awful lot of customers wearing hoodies. The guy behind the counter didn’t look worried.

    • SouthernGirl2 says:

      @Dave

      Not in the least worried. Not even when the kid took a bit to get the money out of his pocket.

      • TruthBTold says:

        Because it’s really much ado about nothing. A hoodie doesn’t even cover a person’s face. A few years ago, where I live, a popular company (perhaps NorthFace or one of those that specialize in winter wear) created face masks that a lot of guys started wearing during brutal winter weather. The masks were black and it covered the nose and mouth area. Let’s just say, that didn’t go over too well with many. The police were making noise about it, etc., That I can understand more, so that style did not last long.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      Re: the 7-11 Video. Do not know if it is Shelly Z or not because we don’t know her body type, etc.. When the woman faces the camera though, the face has many of the characteristics of the mugshot of Shelly Z. Time will tell. I just didn’t know why the tape went on so far past the footage of Trayvon and it ends right after the woman leaves the store.

      • SouthernGirl2 says:

        The woman comes back in camera view at the 19:59 mark grabs a bag on the counter and leaves at 20:03. Watch her leave in the window in camera 1 at the 20:25 mark but you don’t see the woman in the green jacket with her. You can see Trayvon about the enter the store in the window in camera 1 at the 22:09 mark. He enters at the 22:24 mark.

        Your thoughts?

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          IMO, GZ followed him as soon as he saw TM use the cut-thru entrance to the gated community as per map. I think GZ may have been at the 7-11 in the car whilst SZ went into the store. I donèt have enough facts yet to fill in the blanks. But, I am certain he was not alone and I am certain GZ followed TM prior to the clubhouse stop.

  33. MichelleO says:

    Sandra E. Graham says:
    July 27, 2012 at 2:58 am

    Please take another look at the Trayvon Martin at the 7-11 Video. Everyone concentrates on Trayvon Martin. But, look again at the 6:57 footage. We may be wrong. But many think the woman buying the three sodas is Shelly Zimmerman. The footage ends shortly thereafter.
    ——————————————————-

    Sandra, I’ve looked at two full videos of Trayvon’s 7-11 visit, and don’t see anybody coming into the store, or in the store while he is there. Could you please provide the video that shows another customer in the store during that time?

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      Go to YouTube. It is the 7-11 4 camera split screen with time stamps. Type in: manybuddies channel. The video is entitled Discovery:Trayvon @7-11 (Full). Although we have only seen Shelly Zimmerman’s mugshot, we feel the woman shown may just be her. The surveillance video ends shortly after she leaves the store. Watch from timestamp from 18:57 to 18:59:07. Sorry, I donèt know how to put the video on this site. If you cant find it on YouTube, I will try to get it on this site with someone’s assistance. Thanks.

      • SouthernGirl2 says:

        Hi Sandra!

        Here’s the video.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          Thanks for attaching the video. I will learn the ins and outs about doing such eventually.

      • gbng says:

        Are you sure you mean the dark haired lady whose at the end buying three drinks. The one I believe could look like Shelly is around the 18:29 mark buying two cokes. She comes in just after a car pulls in head on to the window and leaves just before the car pulls out again so it seems she arrived in that car. Unfortunately the headlights which are on all the time don’t seem to match the shape as those for a Ridgeline.

      • TruthBTold says:

        Okay guys, help me out here. What are y’all trying to get at by claiming that Shelly might have been in the store at the same time or at some point when TM was in the store?

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          Timeline and the possibility that GZs wife was with him in the vehicle. Because there is more discovery yet to be seen, We are still of the opinion that GZ was not alone that night. Too early to tell.

      • gbng says:

        Sorry, I think I got it wrong. After watching the tape again the lady buying coke around 18:30 seems much too blonde for Shelly… but then the last lady’s hair seems much to dark for her and I think a much older face.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          The hair colour is changeable. We are only going by the one mugshot of SZ because this is the most recent. the eyebrows, the shape of the face, and the eyelids. Too early to tell though. We are keeping the video in the back of our minds.

      • aussie says:

        The lady in the shop seems to have a different shape nose than Shellie.

        Also Shellie was blonde at the time. See the GZ reenactment video. The blue sedan which drives past them at where GZ first sees TM, and the same sedan parked near the mailboxes, is Shellie’s, with her standing outside it.
        5:31 to 5:38 on this video

      • SouthernGirl2 says:

        @Sandra

        The same woman in 18:57 to 18:59 is also entering the store at the 7:20 mark and goes to magazines and flips through it. She doesn’t seem to be buying anything at this point. But enters in camera view again at the 15:52 in camera 4 for a brief moment and then goes to the back area. She then comes in full view in camera 4 at 16:35 and leaves at the 18:59 mark. It seems she’s with the woman in the green jacket. Your thoughts?

  34. fauxmccoy says:

    professor –

    in regards to ‘lesser included offense’ discussion above, i would like to refer anyone who is interested to the following site – Florida’s Schedule of Lesser Included Offenses

    http://tinyurl.com/d7tf6rg

    as i understand florida law (and i am by no means an expert in law anywhere) all ‘lesser but included charges’ are considered mandatory by the information filed. the burden would be upon the prosecutor to ask the judge prior to deliberation that such charges be considered, with no change in the information as filed, and the judge would include the appropriate language as part of the jury instruction.

    “Under Florida law, many charges – primarily felonies – have “lesser-included” charges contained within them. In other words, a lesser charge, such as a misdemeanor, may be contained within a felony charge. If a jury doesn’t find that a felony has been proven, the jury has the option of finding that the defendant is guilty of a lesser charge.”

    from website of Eric Matheney, defense attorney in Miami/Dade
    http://tinyurl.com/cl6wujp

    • Juries are typically instructed to first consider the charge in the indictment or information and if they cannot unanimously agree that the prosecution proved each element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, then they are instructed to consider the lesser included offenses, beginning with the most serious one and so on.

      Of course, there is no need to consider any lesser included offenses, if the jury unanimously finds the defendant not guilty of the offense charged in the indictment or information.

  35. Dawn says:

    Many thanks to the Professor, and to Patricia for asking far more detailed questions. I feel remarkably relieved that I now understand this part; I was so utterly confused before.

  36. Patricia says:

    Professor, those are the answers I expected and those are the answers I was looking for.

    To confirm re the Hannity shocker – since no LE participant is on it, would the prosecution have to subpoena Hannity? Can’t force GZ to testify and I think the prosecuton can’t force O’Mara to testify.

    So to get that before the jurors, Hannity must be subpoenad and he must comply (I expect he’d love to – his star tturn).

    But GZ gave up no rights that protect him against self-incrmination, by blabbing network-wide, did he He can still stay silent in court???.

    Bet he forces MOM to put him on the stand.

    Didn’t you once say something about shooting fish in a barrell?

    • To confirm re the Hannity shocker – since no LE participant is on it, would the prosecution have to subpoena Hannity?

      Not necessary. All they need to do is subpoena the custodian of the records at ABC and have them appear at trial with a copy of the original tape of the broadcast.

      The custodian of the records takes the stand, identifies and authenticates the tape as a true and correct copy of the original recording of the show. Then the custodian generally describes the show (i.e., SH interviewing GZ about the case).

      The prosecutor moves it into evidence; the judge admits it into evidence; and the tape is played for the jury to watch.

      SH does not need to be there to introduce and comment about the interview and the tape.

      The tape speaks for itself.

    • Dave says:

      It might be better to put the director in charge of taping that show on the stand. He would have a much lower profile, be less inclined to grandstand and could testify regarding the editing of the tape etc.

  37. Patricia, great questions. I look forward to a detailed response from Professor Leatherman.

  38. Dawn says:

    Could someone please tell me how Zimmerman’s “core” story can be presented in court (first by prosecution, then by defense)? Can the prosecution, for example, introduce the NEN call, or any of the statements (written and oral) Zimmerman gave in police interviews? I’m befuddled by the “rules of the game,” as it were; yet I know that the prosecution has to proceed from something other than O’Mara’s opening statement.

    This blog is wonderful, by the way, and I very much appreciate how the host and commenters manage to examine the evidence and illuminate prosecutorial and defense strategies.

    • During its case-in-chief, the prosecution cannot call GZ to the stand and question him because he has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

      The prosecution can, however, introduce one, some or all of his statements about the case to the police and anyone else, including Sean Hannity. It would do that by calling the person to whom GZ uttered the statement and ask him or her to relate the statement to the jury.

      Such statements are exempted from the hearsay rule and admissible as admissions by a party opponent.

      After the prosecution rests its case, the defense gets a chance to put on its case or rest without presenting any evidence.

      GZ has the option, but is not required to testify. If he were to decide not to testify, the jury will be instructed that it cannot hold his silence against him. Since he has a right to remain silent, his silence is not evidence of guilt.

      If he testifies, the prosecution will have an opportunity to cross examine him about his testimony on direct and I would expect the prosecution would confront him with every statement he made that is inconsistent with or contradicts what he testified to on direct.

      Given his numerous inconsistencies and contradictions, I would expect a jury to conclude that he is a liar and disregard everything he said.

      I believe he is between a rock and a hard place. Absent his testimony, there is no evidence of self-defense, but if he testifies, the jury will never believe him when he tells them that he killed in self-defense.

      • Patricia says:

        Professor, does this mean that the various LE officers responding to the call, the EMTs responding and the interviewing detectives will be called (or can be called) to testfy?

        Is this by subpoena?

        Can the prosecution then put the documents on the screen that GZ wrote in his own hand, under oath? So the jury can read them? And then can the prosecution quiz those officers as to whether GZ wrote, ” ____ ____ _______ & etc.” reading if off the screen to get an affirmative answer from those uniformed personnel? (Such as “Were you present when the accused wrote : ” _______, _______” (as it’s shown on the screen??)

        Are they required to appear in uniform?

        Likewise is the prosecution permitted to run choice segments of the Hannity Show, and, having subpoenaed Hannity, ask if in fact he asked the [selected] questions, were the answers [next shown] the answers GZ gave to Hannity?

        Subpoenaing Hannity is going to turn this into even more of a media event than if it were straight puiblic safety personnel.

        How about the on-camera re-enactions GJ made for the SPD investigators, can those be shown and questions asked of the investigations?

        What I’m getting at is two-fold:
        (1) by showing video of GZ making these statements UNDER OATH, would this violate GZ’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination? (I want the statements brought out that he wasn’t afraid of TM, etc.)(and all the other lies).
        (2) what about the NEN call – will the jury get to hear GZ’s statements or does the prosecutor have to quiz the Dispatcher, perhaps by limiting the playing time only the Dispatcher’s words?

        When you put the documents either up on the screen/video or play them, it does refresh the public safety personnel’s memory months later – and engages the jury.

        What about the 911 calls by the neighbors? Can GZ claim his 5th Amendmnt rights in order to silence the screams/tapes by claiming they are his OWN screams?

        Lastly, when subpoenaed, may all legally review the documents they will be asked about, (before giving testimony) or are they required to recall only what they are able to remembe from months past?

        Thanks!

        • Professor, does this mean that the various LE officers responding to the call, the EMTs responding and the interviewing detectives will be called (or can be called) to testfy?

          Answer: Yes.

          Is this by subpoena?

          Answer: Yes, every witness will be subpoenaed.

          Can the prosecution then put the documents on the screen that GZ wrote in his own hand, under oath? So the jury can read them? And then can the prosecution quiz those officers as to whether GZ wrote, ” ____ ____ _______ & etc.” reading if off the screen to get an affirmative answer from those uniformed personnel? (Such as “Were you present when the accused wrote : ” _______, _______” (as it’s shown on the screen??)

          Answer: Yes. Before the handwritten or taped statement can be admitted into evidence, the prosecutor will have to lay a proper foundation by asking the witness to identify and describe the exhibit. LE witnesses will be asked if they Mirandized GZ and if he voluntarily waived his rights and agreed to give a statement. After they say, “Yes,” the prosecutor will move the exhibit into evidence and play the tape from start to finish or display the handwritten statement.

          Are they required to appear in uniform?

          Answer: No, but they usually do because it looks more impressive and sometimes they wear it because they are on duty.

          Likewise is the prosecution permitted to run choice segments of the Hannity Show, and, having subpoenaed Hannity, ask if in fact he asked the [selected] questions, were the answers [next shown] the answers GZ gave to Hannity?

          Answer: The tape speaks for itself. Someone needs to authenticate and introduce it but that person need not be Sean Hannity

          How about the on-camera re-enactions GJ made for the SPD investigators, can those be shown and questions asked of the investigations?

          Answer: The tape speaks for itself. The witness merely identifies, authenticates and describes the tape. Then it’s played for the jury.

          What I’m getting at is two-fold:

          (1) by showing video of GZ making these statements UNDER OATH, would this violate GZ’s 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination? (I want the statements brought out that he wasn’t afraid of TM, etc.)(and all the other lies).

          Answer: There is no 5th Amendment issue because he waived his right to remain silent and agreed to give a statement.

          (2) what about the NEN call – will the jury get to hear GZ’s statements or does the prosecutor have to quiz the Dispatcher, perhaps by limiting the playing time only the Dispatcher’s words

          Answer: The prosecutor will play the entire call from start to finish. Before and after it’s played the witness might describe some things like time, when he got out etc.

          What about the 911 calls by the neighbors? Can GZ claim his 5th Amendmnt rights in order to silence the screams/tapes by claiming they are his OWN screams?

          Answer: No.

          Lastly, when subpoenaed, may all legally review the documents they will be asked about, (before giving testimony) or are they required to recall only what they are able to remembe from months past?

          Answer: Yes, they may review them. Everyone does.

  39. Patricia says:

    from Smurfette:

    No evidence he ‘profiled’ any more than anyone else that takes note of suspicious behavior and circumstances.

    No evidence he ‘pursued’ or ‘detained’ anyone.

    _____________________________________

    Smurfette,

    Read Zimmerman’s written sworn statement to Sanford PD that night after the killing, calling Trayvon the “suspect.” listen to the history of his early calls.

    Review the ballistics evidence of the bullet holes in sweatshirts (2) and Trayvon’s torso – with the 2″ – 4″ airspace betwen shirts and skin that could only be accomplished by Zimmerman’s detaining grasp. Zimmerman’s a bouncer, get it? Trained to grab on and take them down. 200 lbs. of fury.

    Investigator Chris Serino (see transcripts) told Zimmerman he [illegally] detained the victim.

    Dispatcher asked “Are you following him?” and Zimmerman said “Yeah.” And he kept on tracking him, bent on the capture.

    The guy’s a bouncer, get it?

    If you’re going to tag along on this site, Smurfette, you’re going to have to smarten up by reviewing the fundamental documents before attempting to deny real, hard, factual evidence.

    This is not a Fan Site. This is a Learning Experience.

    • ajamazin says:

      People overlook the fact Zimmerman was a ‘security guard’ at ‘illegal house parties’ [Raves] while still a minor.

      But, George never did drugs.

      But he suddenly developed ADD and now gets speed ‘legally’.

      It is a mere coincidence that Frank Taaffe’s son, Will, got hooked on drugs and overdosed.

      Sanford is the pill mill capital of the South.

  40. Smurfette says:

    Patricia says:
    July 29, 2012 at 1:41 pm
    For Zimmerman, it’s:
    I CAME. I SAW. I PROFILED.
    {} No evidence he ‘profiled’ any more than anyone else that takes note of suspicious behavior and circumstances.

    I PURSUED. I DETAINED. I KILLED
    {} No evidence he ‘pursued’ or ‘detained’ anyone.

    • Smurfette,

      You’re mistaken.

      There was no suspicious behavior and circumstances.

      The police have admitted that and GZ has admitted that, despite two chances to identify himself as a neighborhood watch person and ask TM if he needed any assistance, he said nothing.

      He has admitted following TM several times.

      Under those circumstances, TM was reasonably justified in believing he was being stalked and reasonably concerned about GZ’s intentions.

      Put yourself in TM’s position and you should have no trouble understanding how he felt.

  41. Patricia says:

    Professor and students:

    Let’s review a little history:

    Caesar’s VENI. VIDI. VICI.

    For Zimmerman, it’s:

    I CAME. I SAW. I PROFILED.

    I PURSUED. I DETAINED. I KILLED

  42. factsfirst says:

    Check out this video…. Tell me what you think Professor… https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Qiub3siGrb8

  43. CherokeeNative says:

    I can’t speak for Professor Leatherman, but I believe the last comment included ridicule – and if you could have read all of this person’s earlier posts, you would have seen that he was merely ridiculing, taunting, and not sticking to the discussion of the facts and evidence. That’s just my opinion though – but trust me, Professor Leatherman was very patient and tolerant.

    • SouthernGirl2 says:

      I agree CherokeeNative! I’m sure I’ve seen some of that poster’s same comments on another board just under a different alias and some even more insulting.

  44. CherokeeNative says:

    Anne Vitor – You are correct. The keychain with small flashlight (which was on) was found up by the “T”.

  45. Anne Victor says:

    “TM’s body and the evidentiary debris field are located approximately 40 feet plus, south of the intersection.”

    I thought a keychain belonging to George was found near the top of the intersection.

  46. SouthernGirl2 says:

    1. Did GZ unholster his gun when he spotted TM and dislodge or drop his key chain and flashlight?

    Listen after Zimmerman tells the dispatcher Trayvon ran. What do you hear around the 2:43 mark? Is that not a gun cocking?

    • fauxmccoy says:

      gz would not have needed to cock his semi-automatic because of the way he loaded it. the gun was loaded with a full magazine clip PLUS a live round in the chamber. this would have almost had to occur before he left his home or car. his gun model has no safety other than trigger pressure, therefore there was a live round ready to go as soon as the trigger was pulled. no cocking necessary.

  47. Digger says:

    Dave, throw, arm back, arm forward. 2 seconds
    toss, arm forward from standstill. 1 second
    travel time of keys. 2 seconds, maybe three

  48. justice for Tm says:

    Please checkout this pitiful website robertandglayszimmerman.com

  49. What a great blog this is, thanks for keeping it going. It’s great to find a website where this case is actually being discussed instead of insults being traded back and forth between the pro-Z crowd vs. the pro-TM group. Although I’m firmly in the latter, I know better than to think I’m going to change anyone’s mind on those sites that do nothing but try to shout each other down.

    I looked at Z’s parents website and was absolutely sickened by what I read. How dare they talk about how their life has been changed by the events of 2/26? They didn’t have to bury their son only 3 weeks after his 17th birthday! Their self-pity and recitation of how their family was so loving and giving are in direct contrast to their current actions and those of their son. Does anyone know why they and their other son were estranged from George for the last five years? I read they have been estranged for that length of time shortly after this all went public but nothing more about it. There is definitely something off about the family and especially GZ. In reading what Osterman said when he spoke about George staying with him in hiding, he mentioned that he had a graduation party for him but that he hadn’t actually graduated yet. He also said that George didn’t have any friends. I can’t say him surprised considering his arrogance that has become apparent with each passing appearance he makes.

    I have several questions and/or thoughts that have occurred to me and was wondering if anyone had answers or if they think there is something as strange as I do when reflecting upon them.

    Why is the blood from George’s head running in rivulets when he claims his head was repeatedly slammed against the sidewalk until he was able to maneuver himself onto the grass? Was there no blood coming from this minor injury until he stood up? Does anyone else think that it should be smeared on the back of his head?

    Why are there no defensive wounds from GZ? Did he just lay there taking all those 15 to 40 punches (depending on which story you read from GZ) without trying to deflect them or punch back?

    If Trayvon had reached for a weapon (that would have been impossible to see from the description GZ gave) and GZ held his hand in place between his suddenly extremely strong bicep and body, why would TM not use his other hand to deflect GZ going for the gun? Are we supposed to believe that TM would continue to try to smother GZ (which I don’t believe ever happened considering the lack of DNA on TM’s hands–no blood or saliva) and allow GZ to reach for the firearm that TM allegedly knew was there and had been going to try to get to himself?

    How are we supposed to believe that GZ was laying there screaming for help while TM continued to punch him, causing no interruption in the screams for help? We hear screams for help until the second the shot rings out then they stop immediately. One witness said that GZ calmly told her to call the police within seconds after the shot was fired! How can anyone calm their nerves that quickly? They can’t IMO and it wasn’t GZ screaming for help when the gun went off, it was TM.

    Last but not least, GZ said in his interview on Hannity that he didn’t know that Trayvon was dead until he was told at the police station. One of the witnesses spoke about GZ and another neighbor outside his patio with flashlights and he said that they were just looking around on the ground with the flashlights, ignoring Trayvon, NOT EVEN AN ATTEMPT TO HELP HIM LEAVING HIM FACEDOWN WITH HIS HANDS UNDERNEATH HIS BODY! This was after GZ patted him down. If this doesn’t prove what a despicable, unfeeling POS GZ is, nothing does. He had to know that at that point that TM was dead. He died almost instantly and certainly never said a word to GZ, not with those injuries. Being a Nurse Practitioner, this infuriates me that the cops were not more observant as to his lack of emotion, not due to being in shock but simply due to not caring. I’d expect someone to either be in shock after killing someone as GZ did or sobbing uncontrollably after taking a life for the first time. GZ showed neither.

    • onlyiamunitron says:

      Lumping Zimmerman in with those other two assumes about an encyclopaedia worth of facts not in evidence.

      unitron

      • Yep, and that’s why I included him.

        In other words, if people believe in evil, does their definition of what it is span the vast distance between Loughner/Holmes on the one hand and Zimmerman on the other.

        Or might he be evil because he is not mentally ill?

        Understand that I am not saying anyone is evil.

        I am just asking questions.

  50. TruthBTold says:

    mataharley wrote,

    To both parties they can say, “we tried, but the jury found him innocent of murder”.

    A defendant is not found innocent, he or she is found not guilty:).

  51. TruthBTold says:

    mataharley wrote,

    “Can’t second guess the State’s mind here, but it has had me thinking that #2 was the most likely scenario… a political covering of posteriors iin a highly charged case. Just curious of what others may think on just the single charge.”

    From my understanding, with a Murder 2 in Florida also comes with lesser included charges (e.g. manslaughter). So the jury can consider that as well. Professor Leatherman or Boar may be able to confirm this either way. I believe that this office is doing the right thing and I don’t think that they would engage in unethical or questionable practices.

  52. CherokeeNative says:

    Onlyiamunitron – according to W18, who lives in the town home on the north side of the “T” – after the shot, the larger of the two stood up and walked north towards her window. He then put his hand to his forehead as if looking for something or someone. I read that to mean that GZ walked up to the T…whether he planted the keys…he certainly could have…but don’t know.

    • onlyiamunitron says:

      Apparently the comment to which I was replying got shoved down the memory hole before I replied, but for some reason the reply link on the email notifying me of the comment in the first place still worked.

      It’s amazing how bad WordPress’s commenting system really is.

      unitron

  53. onlyiamunitron says:

    “”In the time from the gunshot until the first officer arrived, did Gz have time to walk the 40 odd ft to the T and “plant” the keys?” ”

    How long do you think it takes to walk 40 feet?

    The shot was fired at 7:16:56 PM

    The photo of the back of his head, taken before Smith arrived and handcuffed him, is timestamped 7:19:07 PM

    That’s over 2 minutes.

    Neither proves nor disproves when the keychain/penlight wound up where it did, but the time necessary for it to be the last piece of evidence to hit the ground instead of the first does exist.

    unitron

  54. TruthBTold says:

    I half agree with martingale. I don’t know where you guys are from and I am not suggesting to reveal that, but maybe the differences are regional. For one, in my experience and knowledge buddy is not typically used in a negative or aggressive context. However, homie can or is. Either way, I don’t believe GZ’s account of that. He merely attached what he believes to be Black vernacular to TM. Not only that, when confronted by Serino he then denied TM even using the word.

    • SouthernGirl2 says:

      TruthBTold

      Didn’t he also state Trayvon used “yo”? I mean good grief!

      • SouthernGirl2 says:

        I have young boys. I hear them say “I’m going to a cook-out and hang out with my “home boy” but I never hear them say “yo” and neither does their friends. Yeah, I believe George attached the black lingo to make it sound believable. It’s just so ridiculous. ***rolls eyes***

      • TruthBTold says:

        @SouthernGirl2,

        Yup, he did. “Yo, you got a problem?” It’s just beyond ridiculous. I remember when his brother was on Piers Morgan, he stated and I quote “What Trayvon said, either to the effect of I believe, this is going to be easy you die tonight or you have a piece you die tonight.” Riiiiiight. Piece? lol I know that went out of the style with Juice or New Jack City or something; early 90’s.

      • SouthernGirl2 says:

        LOL!

        You made me laugh out loud.

    • onlyiamunitron says:

      “For one, in my experience and knowledge buddy is not typically used in a negative or aggressive context.”

      Hey buddy, watch where the h*ll you’re going!

      (which is to say your experience and knowledge may be less broad than you previously thought)

      unitron

      • TruthBTold says:

        I don’t get the point of your last statement. As already shown, there were a few people disagreeing on the use of certain slang. There could be different reasons how some words are defined and used. I never said anyone was dead wrong. We are teeny weeny samples of the population. That is all.

  55. SouthernGirl2 says:

    LOL

    I wish there was a “like” button I could click. I love the comments. I enjoy reading them. And Patricia is rocking & rolling.

  56. factsfirst says:

    Professor Leatherman, 1st and foremost,Thanks for banning Terrence! Secondly, Immediately after stumbling upon this site it became my favorite… Thank you for providing a forum where we can discuss facts instead of rumors… Last, but not least, Thanks for the way you handle the trolls when they attack… It shows that you are a man of integrity..

  57. GrannyStandingforTruth says:

    Patricia, you’re a female Perry Mason in my book. 🙂 Excellent post!

  58. All of Terrance Jones’s comments have been deleted as spam.

    We are now back to 365 comments.

    I have been thinking about developing a set of guidelines for the site and would appreciate suggestions and recommendations.

    I do not want an echo chamber. I welcome debate, but I will not tolerate personal attacks and insults.

    I want this blog to be a welcoming and safe place for people to express their opinions as well as share and discuss information.

    I want our discussions to be evidence based and respectful of each other.

    I am going to start an open thread to discuss what rules we should establish.

    Meanwhile, please feel free to continue discussing the case.

    My next article will be about the subject of evil and criminal behavior. I will post it in a few hours.

    Carry on.

    • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

      I appreciate your wisdom in wanting to make this a safe place for people to express their opinions, share and discuss information. When insults and personal attacks are allowed on blogs and discussion forum, intelligent and informative information is drowned and smothered in confusion and immaturity. Therefore, once again, thank you and I truly appreciate your decision.

  59. TruthBTold says:

    Whew, this blog went off the charts (minus the trolling); 403 posts. I know we are awaiting Judge Lester’s decision. Can’t wait to see what Professor Leatherman cooks up next. No pressure of course sir lol.

  60. I am banning Terrance Jones from this blog because he is a troll only interested in derailing legitimate discussion with false information and insults.

  61. CherokeeNative says:

    I fail to understand why you continue to harass those who are posting on this site. Surely there are blogs where there are people who think like you concerning the GZ case. You are doing nothing more than ridiculing everyone and not offering anything to the discussion. Is this your idea of a fun past time? You disagree with our thoughts on this case – and that is fine – but please if you do not have anything to offer to the discussion, stop with the ridiculing. Professor Leatherman has been more than patient with you and has requested repeatedly that you stop. What is your objective in ignoring that request?

  62. CherokeeNative says:

    TruthBTold – go here and scroll to the top and you can see the townhomes. There is a dog path that goes between the backsides of the townhomes. Also, there is a “non path” access between each set of townhomes.

    That will be you a better perspective.

  63. TruthBTold says:

    I am a bit confused. When it is said that the individual ran between the houses, aren’t the houses attached? Or is it meant that they ran on the walkway part with houses on either side?

    • MollyK says:

      The houses are attached, but in blocks. So there are places along the rows with gaps where it is possible to go between the sidewalk between the backs of the houses (dogwalk) and the streets.

      I’m not sure which comment you are referring to, but it might have meant going through one of those gaps or going down the walkway. There were no sidewalks on the street, which might be important in interpreting GZ’s NEN call. First, he finds it suspicious that Trayvon is on the grass. As far as I know, the two possibilities are walking on the grass or walking in the street. And when he says that Trayvon circled his car, he could have meant that Trayvon was walking in the street, along the edge, and had to go around the car to get by it.

      • TruthBTold says:

        Thank you so much MollyK. With the re-enactment video, you and CN’s help etc., it’s assisting me in getting a better understanding of the complex.

  64. Dave says:

    Terrific summation, Patricia!

  65. TruthBTold says:

    This is to comments about whether GZ’s nose was broken, I don’t believe it to have ever been confirmed that it was broken.

    • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

      @TruthBTold, that’s because his nose wasn’t broken. I doubt if it was even chipped.

    • It was never confirmed by X-rays, the only person that said it was broken was GZ who was allegedly told that by the EMT’s and he said his physician said the same thing although that’s not documented. His PA said GZ should see an ENT for further evaluation to rule out a nasal fracture but he didn’t bother with a follow-up which indicates to me that there wasn’t enough pain to bother him. GZ might not have wanted to hear that it wasn’t broken, either, and just let the speculation stand as if it’s fact.

      • His PA said GZ should see an ENT for further evaluation to rule out a nasal fracture but he didn’t bother with a follow-up which indicates to me that there wasn’t enough pain to bother him. GZ might not have wanted to hear that it wasn’t broken, either, and just let the speculation stand as if it’s fact.

        I agree.

  66. TruthSeeker12 says:

    I really enjoy this blog and thank you for taking the time to answer questions from people like me who have no legal background whatsoever. I have been wondering abut the two witnesses who claim to have seen a person lying on the ground moaning *alone* before the shot. That would be witness number 14 and 19. Also, it seems as though the argument occurred in one area and the shooting in another. What could this be?

    I was looking at the interviews on cnn with Mary Cutcher, Witness 18, and Mary Cutcher’s roomate whom all do NOT believe it was self defense. They all believe that it was Trayvon yelling for help. In witness 18’s interview, she seems to discredit Zimmerman’s account that Trayvon was banging his head on the concrete soon before the shot because she said it was all on the grassy area during that time.

    Her interview is here: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/07/video-eyewitness-to-the-trayvon-martin-shooting-speaks-out/

    Zimmerman clearly states during the first interview that Trayvon slammed his head in even after he supposedly put his hands over his nose and mouth after he started screaming.

    • I recommend focusing on the forensic evidence to establish what happened or did not happen, as opposed to eyewitness accounts that are prone to high error rates.

      Close up photographs of GZ’s face and the injuries to the back of his head appear to definitively rule out his claim that TM hit him repeatedly in the face and banged his head against the concrete sidewalk so many times that he thought his head was going to explode.

      He had two small cuts to the scalp on the back of his head that did not require stitches. The two wounds were minor even though they bled a lot, which is typical of scalp lacerations.

      The blood flow pattern goes from the cuts in the upper back region of his head in a downward and forward direction to the back of the ears. From there it curls around the lower part of earlobe and pooled in GZ’s goatee on his chin.

      That means his head was upright and leaning forward while he was bleeding, which is inconsistent with his claim that he was lying on his back as TM repeatedly slammed his head against the concrete sidewalk.

      The photographs also do not show the widespread abrasions and bruising that one might reasonably expect, if GZ’s account of what happened were true.

      Also, no blood was present on the sleeves and cuffs of the two sweatshirts TM was wearing. DNA obtained from TM’s fingernail cuttings matches TM. No DNA was GZ was present.

      TM had only one small abrasion to the ring finger of his left hand above the knuckle.

      Next, review and evaluate GZ’s multiple statements and the eyewitness statements in light of the forensic evidence.

      Rule out any statement that is insistent with the forensic evidence.

      Professional investigators and forensic scientists follow this procedure because it is the only reasonable route to take to determine what happened.

      • Patricia says:

        Recently I have been thinking that this is a straight-forward case for the prosecution:

        1. Experienced, well-regarded judge not seeking the limelight (no Lance Ito here) who will conduct the trial fairly and firmly.

        2. Self-identified perpetrator.

        3. Weapon secured

        4. Full physical evidence (clothing), DNA

        5. Photography of the death scene (entirely on grass)

        6. Devastating 911 calls wih victim’s extended cries for 38 seconds (I expect the prosecution to end its statement with this).
        Incidentally, try crying out for 38 seconds and see how tough this is.

        7. Forensic proof thjat GZ grasped TM’s shirts and detained him before shooting.

        8. NEN recording that proves GZ knew LE was enroute (he could simply have detained GZ for LE; he killed him anger because GZ got scuffed up during the struggle and he was pissed.)

        9. NEN recording that proved GZ’s pursuit of TM, and intent to pursue (GZ can’t say “I changed my mind 20 seconds after I got out of the truck.)

        10. NEN recording that proves GZ profiled TM as a criminal (for no probable cause whatsoever)

        11. Immediate coroner’s report on the victim (no degradation of body over time).

        12. Expert medical testimony proving no post-death speech possible by TM

        13. LE reports that GZ refused medical examination

        14. No life-threatening injuries to GZ.

        15.. Extensive recorded interviews of Zimmerman by LE.

        16. Repeat intrviews with marked changes by Zimmerman
        (The Trail of Lies)

        17. Video recordings of GZ on Fox/Hannity changing narrative again. (Think after broadcasting the screaming for the jury that the prsecutor will run the little clip of GZ saying it was “God’s Plan”?

        18. Attempt to hide available bail money and passport; then revocation and then reinstatement at higher bail amount.

        19. Various witness conversations of those GM spoke to after the shooting.

        20. And whatever bombshells explode up in future months ….

      • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

        We all agree that those minor scratches were not serious enough to equal a head bashing. I was given a CAT scan when I slipped and hit my head hard on the concrete, and I had symptoms related to a head injury and was diagnosed with a concussion. The doctor told me that I was lucky to be alive because hitting your head on the concrete can kill you. Yet, Zimmerman went the next day to his doctor, no CAT scan was prescribed and he was able to function in a normal capacity with his Walmart butterfly bandages. I think those cuts on his head might be self-inflicted.

  67. GrannyStandingforTruth says:

    Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon told him to shut the “F” up and “You gone die tonight.” But I believe it was the other way around and those were Z’s own words. That child was screaming for help. George decided to silence him and shot him. That’s when that child’s plea for help ended.

    If I remember correctly, didn’t George say that Trayvon said, “You got a problem, homie?” Evidently, George is not familar with urban slang because “Homie” means “friend.” It is a term of endearment used for ones’ friend and out dated in usage. George couldn’t even get his lie straight with the use of correct urban slang. Smh!

    He stereotyped Trayvon and that child died because of a stereotype! “Black-gangsta!” The only problem with that stereotype is that not all black males are “gangstas” or “thugs” and there are many decent black young males, and it’s too bad the light is not shined on them as much as it is on those of the criminal element. I believe in my heart that way of thinking was the cause of Trayvon’s
    death.

    A good kid died because of a false assumption that “all” young black males are “thugs” or criminals. Smh!

    • Chi says:

      Grannysfj, I agree and good point about the use of the word homie. Zimmerman has lied so many times in this case that I have lost count.
      One of the lies I expect to be fully exposed at trial is Zimmerman’s claim that Trayvon said “you got me” after getting shot. How many here think we are going to have expert medical testimony that after the shot Trayvon was not capable of moving air through his lungs, let alone being able to “concede” to Zimmerman- “you got me”… What a bizarre ending for Zimmerman to make up. Actually what is more bizarre is Zimmerman seems to think he is actually going to get away with all the lies. The initial polarizing views on the case have really left him delusional, to the point of being down right arrogant. I expect him to be shocked when he is convicted… and yes, IMO he will be convicted.

      • crazy1946 says:

        I wonder what the chances are that Martin actually did say the words “you got me” only he might have said them before Zimmerman pulled the trigger?

    • TruthSeeker12 says:

      In interview number 1 he said that Travyon used the word homie in interview 4, he admitted that he did not use homie. I thought it was odd that he said homie because I haven’t heard that word for years. It was popular when I was little. I am around the same age as Zimmerman. “Homie” and “Cat” were popular in like the 90’s.

      Zimmerman clearly embellished the story. He told his co-workers that Trayvon mugged him and kicked the crap out of him.

      • TruthBTold says:

        @TruthSeeker12,

        Exactly. There are just too many lies, embellishments, and inconsistencies. When something is the truth, it’s the truth. His supporter’s feeble attempts to classify GZ’s lies and changing of events as resulting from a traumatic event, innocent mistake, yada yada yada, is laughable.

    • martingale says:

      Saying “you got a problem, homie?” is no more endearing than someone saying “you got a problem, buddy?” The word homie may often be used as a term of endearment but it can be used in an aggressive context, and it is a lot of the time. Now they’ve moved on from homie to “dawg,” but that’s beside the point.

      • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

        I respectfully disagree with you martingale, buddy and homie are definitely not used in the same context as you’ve stated and homie is NOT used in an aggressive context. Nor would a BLACK teenager say, “You got me.”

        Some black blogs ridiculed GZ for using that term and got a good laugh off it making fun of GZ with terms that were more out dated than that one.

        http://angryblacklady.com/2012/03/29/trayvonmartin-the-zimmerman-apologist-train-is-careening-wildly-off-track/

      • SouthernGirl2 says:

        I concur Granny! Buddy and homie are never used in the same context. And homie is never used in an aggressive context. Homie is used to describe a friend, home town boy, brotha. It’s a term of affection.

      • martingale says:

        We might have to agree to disagree here. I am speaking from experience. I’m 25 years old and grew up with a generation that used the word “homie.” I’m not saying Zimmerman’s account of the dialogue is accurate or believable, I’m just pointing out that saying “homie” can be negative in the same way “buddy” is. I will gladly find some quotes from rap songs that use “homie”, “dawg”, or any similar words in a threatening, condescending, or otherwise negative manner.

        Now, as it pertains to Zimmerman’s story I think we can agree that only someone extremely out of touch with pop culture would come up with such a ridiculous dialogue. The reality is that, if Martin wanted to threaten him the word “homie” would be the last thing out of his mouth simply because it’s out dated.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “The reality is that, if Martin wanted to threaten him the word “homie” would be the last thing out of his mouth simply because it’s out dated.”

          Although not nearly as outdated as referring to blacks as “coons”, with or without the adjective.

          unitron

      • SouthernGirl2 says:

        I’m not saying Zimmerman’s account of the dialogue is accurate or believable, I’m just pointing out that saying “homie” can be negative in the same way “buddy” is.

        That is absolutely not true. Homie cannot be negative in the same way as buddy. The word’s meaning in urban slang is totally different. Homie is used towards someone you know, someone you hang around with, someone you’re fond of, such as your “home town boy”, your “close friend”, etc. It’s never negative. It’s affectionate. First of all, no 17 year old is going to use the word “homie” and lets just say IF he did use the word, he’d never address a stranger as “homie”.

      • whonoze says:

        ‘Homie’ may be primarily a term of affection, but like pretty much any term, it can be used ironically. c.f. Anton Chigur’s use of “friend” in “No Country For Old Men.”

    • aussie says:

      You know, Granny, it would be just as bad if a “bad” kid had died. Kids who are “bad” at 17 didn’t choose that life; they grew up with knowing nothing else. They are young enough to be turned good, PROVIDED they survive (and if only the justice system believed in rehabilitation instead of punishment).

      A “bad” kid should be able to walk home from the shops, too, and actually make it home. No kid, good or bad, should die like that.

  68. Patricia says:

    Have not focused on why the death weapon was next to Trayvon – beyond his reach.

    Was GZ so startled by the shot that he tossed it out of his hand?

    Maybe the clip hit the bridge of GZ’s nose, and in reaction, he threw the gun to the side. Would explain the small but visible nose wound.

    GZ did claim to be the shooter as soom as LE arrived.

    But what was his explanation for his throw-away?

    • Dave says:

      I don’t know if he explained it but one obvious explanation is that he wouldn’t want the cops to shoot him when they found him standing over a corpse with a gun in his hand or on his person.

      • Patricia says:

        Thanks, Dave –

        Guess that proves George wasn’t so crazy after all?

        There goes that imsanity plea!

        Tough luck, George.
        Looks like you’re about to meet some real THUGBOYS
        in your future life.

        Seriously – it shows he knew the cops were enroute
        Was actively thinking about it.
        .
        He had Trayvon detained.
        Did not need to kill him.

        But he did.

    • aussie says:

      What weapon? where?

      He was heard telling the first witness “the gun is on the ground” but officer Smith recovered it from a holster in GZ”s waistband. In other words the gun was holstered when the police got there. It was not “found near the body”.

      GZ’s story is, he thought TM was alive, maybe not even injured, so still a danger, so he launched himself onto him to restrain him. This gave him no time to holster the gun right away.

      My story is, the kickback (or the casing being ejected) hit GZ on the nose, making him drop the gun. He jumped onto TM to frisk him, as witnesses saw. Then he picked up the gun to tidy up the scene.

      • CherokeeNative says:

        Aussie, I agree with this scenario, but I will take it one bit further and say that I think the slide action on the pistol also hit him in the nose, causing his unbroken nose to throb and swell.

      • My story is, the kickback (or the casing being ejected) hit GZ on the nose, making him drop the gun. He jumped onto TM to frisk him, as witnesses saw. Then he picked up the gun to tidy up the scene.

        That is an intriguing possibility, although he might have dropped the gun after the shot in order to pat TM’s body down for weapons.

        He also might have sustained that little cut to his nose sometime prior to his encounter with TM and bumped it during the struggle causing the blood to flow.

        Whatever caused the wound must have been a minor event, given the small amount of swelling, if any.

        I don’t believe his nose was broken and there is no X-ray to confirm that it was.

      • I agree with both of you. I question that the nose was actually fractured because there was no x-ray done. Fracture noses bleed profusely so where is the blood on TM’s hands or
        GZ’s clothing?

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        GZ states he did not know Trayvon was deceased until an hour after he was at the police station.

      • gbrbsb says:

        And in possession of a gun, not knowing that you had actually shot the “maniac” who had just seconds ago been getting the better of you, slamming your head into the concrete so hard you felt you were going to lose consciousness, punching your head so hard you felt it was about to explode, and trying to suffocate you that you were afraid of your life, you leave the gun aside and tries to restrain the guy???!!! Give me a break, what about holding suspect at gunpoint and calling 911?

      • aussie says:

        gbrbsb,

        detaining him somehow may have been the original intention.

        Except for a few little problems…. the suspect was just that – a suspect who’d not been seen committing any crime or even a misdemeanor. So citizen’s arrest does not apply. By then GZ had time to observe it IS just a young kid and a scared one at that, not a gang member.

        Another little problem – under CCW laws it’s an offence for him to brandish his weapon, which is necessary for holding someone at gunpoint.

        Yet another – a live “suspect” is going to tell a story of being followed/tracked/stalked, all illegal acts of aggression.

        Goodbye CCW licence, goodbye NW, goodbye law enforcement career or becoming a judge, goodbye community respect…. and hello laughing stock failure.

        He stood to lose his life as he knew it and wanted it, not his actual physical life. Not saying it was premeditated even for 5 seconds, it may have just caused an overall fear in him that he perceived as life-threatening. But only way out is to pull the trigger. Snatch martyrdom and heroism out of the jaws of derision.

        Well that didn’t work out too well. Now he’s twisted it into a threatened-innocent-Mafia-boss style of notoriety fantasy.

        This guy will do ok in prison. He’ll have his followers and sycophants. Whatever bad happens to him will just “prove” his martyr fantasies and make him stronger. Until the day he decompensates and finally understands what he actually did. In a final grasp at the remaining straw of self-esteem, he won’t be leaving a note.

      • gbrbsb says:

        Aussie:
        Yep. Beautifully related and about what I think could have happened too, I just got carried away with the absurdity of his scenarios and forgot the brandishing a weapon, kidnapping, illegal detention, and assault charges to follow. My undying faith in our kind keeps me wondering if he really meant to pull the trigger… but that’s not to exculpate him in any way merely my need to keep believing and he did all the rest that led up to it anyway!

  69. onlyiamunitron says:

    Martin had turned 17 3 weeks prior, not 16 2 weeks prior.

    He had no cut on his finger. He had an abrasion.

    Drag a knife blade across your palm, you get a cut.

    Fall on the sidewalk and put your hands out to break your fall, your palms get abraded by the sandpaper-ish surface.

    No way he hid in the bushes. They’re only knee to waist high and tight against the buildings.

    Trying to get behind them would make lots of noise and scratch you up some kind of fierce.

    unitron

  70. ajamazin says:

    Question 14

    Chief FBI Investigator Hallen Jameson has revealed that
    premium pay per view sites featuring graphic sex with black studs
    were found on Zimmerman’s computer and that George and/or Shellie watched “THUGBOYS” 4 times only hours before
    Zimmerman killed Trayvon.

    Would this go to motive and support that depraved thingy?

  71. Nef05 says:

    I agree, and from a psych perspecive the lack of impulse control is extremely frightening.I have some questions for his mandated reporter psychiatrist, as well, given his history.

    Thanks for taking the time to respond. It’s given me much food for thought, horses and water notwithstanding.

    Another issue is comorbidity (aka cross diagnosis), the difficulties (and I firmly believe we can assume there are some) don’t just multiply,when they are present, they become exponential.

  72. onlyiamunitron says:

    “12. Did he run into the tree, bump and bloody his nose or did TM hit his nose during their struggle?
    Obviously TM broke his nose.”

    Why is it obvious? What makes it so? Is it impossible for Zimmerman to have collided with the tree?

    unitron

  73. Nef05 says:

    https://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/category/insanity-defense/

    In your practice, would you consider this defense, under the cirumstances? He appears to do the exact opposite of assisting in his defense. Though, self-defense is a hurdle indicating knowledge of right and wrong, it could be argued that the psych treatment, plus meds, plus documented anger management and issues with a cop and an ex, fulfil M’Naughton1(b), 2, 3, 4.

    Not really invested one way or the other. But, I am interested in your opinion, as you were the author of the original article.

    • I do not believe GZ can avail himself of the insanity defense because his pattern of lying demonstrates that he lies to conceal and avoid legal responsibility for killing TM.

      In other words, he can tell right from wrong and that disqualifies him from satisfying the M’Naughten test.

      However, he may have an organic brain dysfunction that might affect his judgment and ability to control his anger. The only way to tell would be to do brain imaging.

      As he is under the care of a psychiatrist, since he is taking Adderall for ADHD, his psychiatrist would be a logical place to begin the inquiry.

      If he does suffer from impulsivity, compulsivity and anger management issues caused by some brain disorder, his lawyer might be able to use that to persuade the prosecution that it cannot prove the depraved-mind element of second degree murder. If successful, this could lead to a solution of the case via manslaughter plea.

      This is a potential solution that I would want to explore, if I were counsel.

      However, one must have the client’s cooperation to go down that road and I don’t believe GZ is willing to consider that option right now. He has convinced himself, apparently, that he’s going to win his self-defense claim.

      You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

      Of course, if there is no organic brain dysfunction and he is diagnosed with a narcissistic personality disorder, he will not be able to reveal that because the prosecution will want to lock him up forever.

      I keep thinking there is something wrong with his brain because of his delusional grandiose thinking, obsessive secrecy, compulsive lying and inability to sustain a simple narrative.

      Unfortunately, there is no mental health treatment in prison and the best that a lawyer may be able to do for him is limit his sentence to a 5 or 10 year max.

      That beats a life sentence with a minimum mandatory of 25 years, but it’s still a chunk of time.

      Unfortunately, in his present condition, I think he is dangerous.

      • Ajamazin, I believe that article is a hoax.

      • Has there been any documentation presented that verifies his claim that he’s seeing a psychiatrist? I know he said something to that effect to Serino but he was seen by a P.A. at the family practice that he goes to regularly. He also mentioned PTSD on 2/29/12 and there isn’t a chance that a reputable psychiatrist would diagnose him so quickly. He was also only seen once according to the records released that I’ve seen. The NP he saw is able to prescribe Adderall so it’s certainly not necessary that he see a psychiatrist. He’s lied about so many things that it’s impossible to know what’s true.

        There’s definitely something off about him, his behavior on the phone calls with his wife was really strange with his continued repeating of how proud he was of her to his needing to control everything from inside prison. Watching him on TV, I’d say he has a flat affect, emotionless to the point where his speaking about the killing of Trayvon was frightening. To say he didn’t regret anything that happened is not normal human nature. When Serino told him about Trayvon’s background, he didn’t say a word or express any regret then, either. I’m hoping his arrogance that also comes shining through will cause him to insist on taking the stand. The prosecution could eat him alive with all the inconsistencies and discrepancies in his statements and re-enactment.

        • The NP he saw is able to prescribe Adderall so it’s certainly not necessary that he see a psychiatrist.

          I did not know this and assumed that a psychiatrist would have diagnosed the ADHD and written the prescriptions. My mistake, sorry.

      • ajamazin says:

        Frederick Leatherman says:
        July 30, 2012 at 6:22 am

        “The NP he saw is able to prescribe Adderall so it’s certainly not necessary that he see a psychiatrist.

        I did not know this and assumed that a psychiatrist would have diagnosed the ADHD and written the prescriptions. My mistake, sorry.”

        You are not wrong!

        Adderall is a Schedule II substance that can be prescribed only by a medical doctor and it is closely monitored.

        Certain rules apply to Schedule II substances:

        1. Requires a paper prescription be presented in person to a pharmacy;
        2. Refills can not be authorized over the phone or by fax;
        3. A prescription must be written for no more than one month’s
        supply of pills;
        4. The Rx must be filled within 72 hours;
        5, The patient must carry the pills in a bottle clearly labeled
        by the pharmacy.

        In Florida, a pharmacist will not comment on availability over the phone. No Rx for Adderall [or dextroamphetamine ] will be filled after 11:00 pm.

        Schedule II drugs are kept under lock in a pharmacy.

      • recreantnejos says:

        I have ADD, take Adderall, and live in Florida.

        “Adderall is a Schedule II substance that can be prescribed only by a medical doctor and it is closely monitored.”

        While true, in practice, one can see a NP and he/she will have the doctor sign the scripts for Adderall. You may only rarely have to actually see the psychiatrist.

        “4. The Rx must be filled within 72 hours;”
        “No Rx for Adderall [or dextroamphetamine ] will be filled after 11:00 pm.”
        If these 2 are rules they are not consistently enforced.

        • ajamazin says:

          recreantnejos wrote:

          “While true, in practice, one can see a NP and he/she will have the doctor sign the scripts for Adderall.”

          This is true, but I certainly hope the doctor makes the diagnosis

          I should have said policies of Walgreens and CVS pharmacies.
          Quite true that rules are not always uniformly enforced.

          I frown on greedy doctors who regularly use NP’s and PA’s.

          Doctor shopping is a real problem in Florida.

          Google Sanford + pill mils + CVS

          .

      • aussie says:

        Immediate trauma and PTSD are two entirely different things – PTSD typically not being diagnosable for years after the event. it is the (physiological) stress of not recovering from the (expected normal) immediate trauma that turns it into a “disorder”. If GZ is being treated for this, it must be related to something else (and so far unexplained). IF he just put it in to add colour to his story….. well… they should have sympathetically asked him was the PTSD was from.

        When Serino tells GZ he may be well off to seek help from a psychiatrist, GZ mutters something unintelligible to which Serino replies “oh, SHE is, okAAAY” so the impressiion I got that GZ’s “family doctor” is a psych?

        Strange his insurance covers a psychiatrist but not a broken nose xray.

        • masonblue says:

          I doubt the doctor at the clinic is a psychiatrist. Don’t believe there is any chance of that whatsoever.

          • ajamazin says:

            Professor,

            What do you think?

            “Will case against George Zimmerman now be dismissed?”

            “It is unclear as to how this could have occurred in such a high-profile case, but given the fact that the prosecution has violated state law by distributing the documents the defense is likely to ask for a dismissal of the charges in the coming days.”

            http://www.examiner.com/article/will-case-against-george-zimmerman-now-be-dismissed

          • No, I see no chance of that happening.

            Where is the prejudice that would prevent a fair trial?

            I think the release of the molestation allegation, for which I believe the defense was most responsible, did far more damage to GZ than his poor academic performance at the community college and a grainy photograph.

            The prejudice, if any, can be sorted out during jury selection.

          • ajamazin says:

            “Authorities found the teen’s blood on the bag of Skittles he had in his pocket.”

            How did the Skittles get back into Trayvon’s pocket?

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            Is there any reason to believe they ever left?

            He puts them in his pocket at the store before the beverage can goes into the bag.

            unitron

          • ajamazin says:

            onlyiamunitron,

            No. I am very confused.

            How did the blood get on the Skittles?

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            He got shot, he bled, some of it got on the Skittles package in the pocket directly beneath the bullet hole is my guess.

            unitron

          • Good question.

            Since he did not have any blood on his hands, how did the blood get on the Skittles?

            Did GZ go through his pockets after he killed him and transfer blood from his hands onto the Skittles?

            If so, there should be other bloody residue on the material lining the pockets.

            I think it’s unlikely that the blood on the Skittles is dripped or spattered blood.

            Could be wrong, but I doubt the Skittles were out of his pocket at any point.

            Don’t know how the bag was separated from the tea and Skittles and don’t know how the headphones wound up in a pocket, unless GZ pulled the bag containing the tea and Skittles out of his front pouch pocket after he killed him, emptied the bag, and placed the headphones and tea and Skittles back in the pocket, but forgot the bag.

            Presumably, he would have done this while looking for a weapon that TM did not have.

          • ajamazin says:

            And weren’t the headphones and lighter in his pocket?
            No mention of blood……

            I am so confused.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            Lighter probably in pants pocket.

            Headphones could have been in pocket on other side of hoodie.

            If the headphones were actually in a pocket and not on the ground near him. That seems to not yet be settled.

            unitron

  74. “I already asked you to document how screams that occurred for 38 seconds, and only stopping with the shot, can be by Zimmerman when he says that during that time, he was getting his head repeatedly banged against concrete, or is being smothered with Martin’s hands and full weight (again Zimmerman from his CVSA account) over his nose and mouth prior to the shooting. So I again will ask, how is this physically possible?”

    This part of the scenario has me baffled. From the 911 call that includes the screams, it is clear that the cries ended abruptly at the sound of the gunshot. If Mr. Zimmerman were the one screaming, those screams would have continued since, according to his words, he did not know he had hit Mr. Martin. He claimed that he somehow got on top if Martin and hollered for help rather than having the person call 911, but none of those sounds are audible on the 911 call.

  75. Patricia says:

    On earlier calls to the NEN or 911 did he ever identify himself to Dispatch as “:Hi, I’m George Zimmerman, Neighborhood Watch Coordinator at The Retreat at …. “?

    Seems unwilling to identify himself — like he wants to get the cops out as backup to little vigilante action, and if he caught “the asshole” he would get a lot of glory.

    If he identified himself as a NW participant, he would know they would expect him to follow the rules.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      Exactly. He has to be coaxed for his last name. He has to be coaxed to give out his address. Doesn’t want to give it out. Those are the most basic questions. Has to be asked for a description of what he sees. Doesn’t volunteer concrete information. I found the calls odd as well. You may be right.

  76. Patricia says:

    Professor Leatherman, regarding the two small bloodstains on TM’s inner light-colored sweatshirt, stains identified as having GZ’s DNA:

    Zimmerman frisked the dead Trayvon Martin immediately after he killed him, desperately hoping to find validation (a weapon that would prove Trayvon was an armed thug), and hopefully, get GZ off the hook for killing a detained “suspect.” (George’s word for TM, not “homicide victim.”).

    GZ said he searched TM for weapons, stretching TM’s arms out in a “Y.”.

    In the process, transferring a bit of GZ’s blood to TM’s inner shirt?

    Works for me …

    • Hard to say without knowing the precise location of the stains, their size and shape, but that explanation certainly sounds possible.

      We know GZ lied about stretching TM’s arms out to the side to prevent him from reaching GZ’s gun lying just out of reach in the grass because TM was already dead.

      GZ said TM was struggling and cursing and that is not possible because TM would have lost consciousness immediately and would have been unable to push any air through his vocal cords to make a sound. Both lungs were collapsed and his right ventricle was destroyed by the hollow point bullet. Finally, TM was discovered lying face down with his hands underneath his chest.

      However, witnesses did see GZ mount TM and lean on him with his hands.

      He was probably frisking him for weapons and during that process some of GZ’s blood may have dripped from his head wound or transferred from his hands.

  77. Here’s a wonderful collection of information about this case that I think y’all may find very interesting. Someone went to a lot of work to do this. Contains photos, charts and witness summaries.

    (H/T to Tzar at Firedoglake for bringing it to my attention)

    • gbrbsb says:

      I’ve been watching it for a while and he/she keeps adding pages (I started when it only had 24) so it’s worth returning every once in a while.

  78. Loree says:

    @MollyK
    First let me thank you for your reply.
    replying to my minor comment no such thing as white hispanic. Let me clarify. IMO there is no white hispanic in my book.
    Second You wrote:
    You say you are hispanic but you must also be one of the following: black asian white native american or mixed race.

    This is a first for me for someone who hasn’t not heard me speak or seen me face to face to assume what you have posted. I take it that you have not read a previous comment I made regarding this particular statement. So here it is. No I am not Black, Asian, White, Native American, or mixed race, but THANKS for the compliment!

    • MollyK says:

      “IMO there is no white hispanic in my book” Anyone can have an opinion. An informed opinion is another matter. According to the US government, there were 26.7 million white Hispanics in the US in 2010. Source:

      Click to access c2010br-02.pdf

      It is not necessary for me to know you to understand that “Hispanic” is an ethnic, not a racial, category. If you participated in the census you would have been asked to choose one of the racial categories as well.

      I am increasingly irritated by all the pronouncements to the effect that GZ could not have been a “white Hispanic.”

  79. You misrepresented the results.

    The results are as follows (see pages 104-110):

    DNA Blood Analysis Results

    Exhibit ME 8 (the light colored sweatshirt that TM was wearing under his dark hooded sweatshirt)

    Stains A, B, D and E tested positive for the presence of blood.

    Stain C and general rubbings from the sleeves and lower cuff regions did not test positive for the presence of blood.

    Stain A matches GZ.

    Stain B matches TM.

    Stain D is a mixed sample. GZ and TM are included as possible contributors.

    Stain E matches TM.

    Right cuff lower sleeve: No DNA detected.

    Left cuff lower sleeve: “The mixed DNA profile . . . demonstrated the profile of at least two individuals. Assuming TM is a contributor to the mixture, foreign DNA results were obtained. Due to the limited nature of these results, this data is insufficient for inclusion purposes. No determination can be made regarding the possible contribution of GZ to the mixed sample.” Note that the DNA detected did not come from blood.

    Exhibit ME 12 (TM’s hooded sweatshirt)

    Stains A and C tested positive for blood.

    Stain B and general rubbings from the cuff lower sleeve regions on both arms did not test positive for the presence of blood.

    Stain A matches TM

    Stain C no DNA detected

    No results foreign to TM were detected in the cuff/lower sleeve areas of both arms.

    Again, no blood was detected on the cuffs/lower sleeves of both garments.

  80. Mike S says:

    I listened to one of Zimmerman’s earlier NEN calls and it was an illuminating experience. One, he is speaking almost in a Southern Drawl which is very strange to hear coming from him. I know he’s southern but the accent isn’t pronounced elsewhere.

    You can hear him getting nervous in some points of the call, like when they ask for his address.

    At the very end of the call he wants to go out and confront or follow the perpetrators but his wife calls him back. Too bad she wasn’t around to hold him back on a later call…

    Here “D” is the dispatcher, “Z” is Zimmerman, and “S” is Shelly. The stuff in brackets[] are my comments. Those are obviously subjective and could be interpreted differently. But for me hearing the vocal nuances is as important as the words, and this is a crude attempt to capture that.

    Z: Hey um our neighborhood got burglarized or robbed today and uh my wife uh uh saw one of the kids uh that did it [note: rising tone in his voice that makes “uh that did it” sound like a question] and we see someone that matches his description in the neighborhood right now again.
    D: OK, and what’s your address out there?
    Z: Uh, I don’t want to give out my address because he’s obviously in the neighborhood [note: high stress levels in his voice, especially when he says “my address”] but it’s a Retreat View Circle, you can use 1111 which is the uh club house.
    D: OK so does he love live in the neighborhood or is he just out walking?
    Z: I don’t know it’s the first time I’ve ever seen him [said with great conviction and no stuttering or ums]
    D: OK. And what is your name?
    Z: My name is George
    D: And your last name George?
    Z: Zimmerman [with the “Zimm” in Zimmerman elongated]
    D: And the phone number that you’re calling from?
    Z: [overlayed on top of the dispatcher’s question] Like I said I’m…
    Z: [phone number redacted]
    D: OK. And is he white black or hispanic?
    Z: Black [with the word very oddly and distinctly enunciated so the BL is drawn out and the “K” in “ack” is distinct]
    D: Was he there or…
    Z: [talking over dispatcher] My wife talked to ah Detective Walker and gave her him a description of the the guy we see now
    D: OK what’s he wearing right now then?
    Z: A white tank top and black shorts brown sandals and black socks [the “BR” in Brown is oddly elongated]
    S: …might be able to…
    D: OK and is he walking?
    Z: Yes
    D: OK and so is he near the uh…
    Z: The back entrance of the neighborhood in the entranc…uh…yeah
    S: He just went between the houses now
    Z: He just went to the houses to the back?
    S: Yes
    Z: Shoot [or shit]
    S: He’s looking at cars
    Z: I’m gonna
    S: No George
    Z: Why not?
    S: Don’t don’t go out there
    D: OK we’ll go out there and check the area
    Z: OK thanks
    D: You’re welcome

    • TruthBTold says:

      @Mike S,

      So GZ has a propensity to follow individuals who he finds suspicious? This really flies smack in the face of being fearful and not wanting to confront. I remember Serino asking him something. It might have been about identifying himself as NW and GZ responded that he didn’t want to confront him PLUS it wasn’t his job. Serino: It wasn’t your job to do follow or do anything.

      • gbrbsb says:

        Yes, he claims he didn’t ID himself because he didn’t want to “confront” Trayvon but he also claims that after replying to Trayvon he had “no problem” he immediately reached for his gun… sorry I meant phone … so as to call 911, presumably to give them the address he’s got that he wasn’t at anymore and report the menacing “suspect” standing in front of him. And none of that would have been considered confrontational to the menacing suspect ??? !!!

        What a farce!

  81. mataharley says:

    My apologies… there are some stains that may be attributed to Zim’s blood on the lower cuff sleeve. But you do realize that ME8 is Martin’s inner sweatshirt and not the hoodie, right?

    If you believe this is somehow related to Zim’s alleged head banging, may I ask how you think that came to be only on his inner shirt, and not on the hoodie outer wear?

    • Nope, you’re wrong. No blood was detected on the cuffs/lower sleeve areas of both garments.

      The results are as follows (see pages 104-110):

      DNA Blood Analysis Results

      Exhibit ME 8 (the light colored sweatshirt that TM was wearing under his dark hooded sweatshirt)

      Stains A, B, D and E tested positive for the presence of blood.

      Stain C and general rubbings from the sleeves and lower cuff regions did not test positive for the presence of blood.

      Stain A matches GZ.

      Stain B matches TM.

      Stain D is a mixed sample. GZ and TM are included as possible contributors.

      Stain E matches TM.

      Right cuff lower sleeve: No DNA detected.

      Left cuff lower sleeve: “The mixed DNA profile . . . demonstrated the profile of at least two individuals. Assuming TM is a contributor to the mixture, foreign DNA results were obtained. Due to the limited nature of these results, this data is insufficient for inclusion purposes. No determination can be made regarding the possible contribution of GZ to the mixed sample.” Note that the DNA detected did not come from blood.

      Exhibit ME 12 (TM’s hooded sweatshirt)

      Stains A and C tested positive for blood.

      Stain B and general rubbings from the cuff lower sleeve regions on both arms did not test positive for the presence of blood.

      Stain A matches TM

      Stain C no DNA detected

      No results foreign to TM were detected in the cuff/lower sleeve areas of both arms.

      Again, no blood was detected on the cuffs/lower sleeves of both garments.

    • mataharley says:

      Is that to me, Frederick Leatherman? Perhaps I should have clarified that Zimmerman’s blood (the subject of Jones’ comment) was *only* on the inner wear. I wasn’t referring to Martin’s own blood.

  82. Leelee says:

    Professor here is the latest news: Shellie through her new attorney Kelly Sims files written not guilty plea to perjury. Waives her appearance in court. So what happens now ?

  83. mataharley says:

    Mr. Jones, the “skipped” away is George Zimmerman’s exact description during his Sean Hannity interview. Oddly enough, when Serino asked him to describe the “run” during the Feb 29th interview, Zimmerman could not, or would not. Apparently he had an epiphany in between then and now. As I said, I’m using Zimmerman’s own words, statements and stories.

    You may disagree that Zim became the aggressor when he reached for his gun, or cell phone. We all have opinions. However only the jury’s opinion will count. That will ultimately be up to them to process, as I think we both could agree.

    I already asked you to document how screams that occurred for 38 seconds, and only stopping with the shot, can be by Zimmerman when he says that during that time, he was getting his head repeatedly banged against concrete, or is being smothered with Martin’s hands and full weight (again Zimmerman from his CVSA account) over his nose and mouth prior to the shooting. So I again will ask, how is this physically possible?

    What does Martin outrunning Zimmerman have to do? And how many times must a person retreat to appease you? He already “skipped” or ran away once and hid. If he decked Zim, and turned to head off, and Zim got up and went after him, that would be another attempt to retreat.

    I don’t doubt that the fight was not static, and there may have been times that Zim was on top, and Martin on top. I’m not questioning that when Martin was shot, he was on top of Zimmerman.

    What I am questioning is how that show occurred. Per Zimmermans very detailed Q&A in the CVSA interview, he seems to indicate that he managed to roll somewhat to the left to get his gun from his buttocks holster position, extend his hand *past* his own hand, which seems to be clutching Martin’s shirts (per the forensic evidence), pulling Martin into him for the barrel to be against the outer shirt either directly, or within an inch.

    However the nature of a murder two charge is not the moment of the shot, but what led up to the death. In our world, I can’t be a person who hunts you – an unarmed person, not doing anything wrong – down, instigates a fight, then kill you just because you start getting the upper hand in the fist fight. That’s not how SYG or self defense/castle doctrine works.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      The screaming would have continued. According to Mr. Zimmerman,he didn’t know if the shot got him and TM spoke to him after the shot. GZ would still be needing help and would still be screaming. No, immediately after the shot, there was silence

  84. hinkster4ever says:

    Raises hand to Professor, waving feverishly…..will you please, please, pretty please cover the Peterson Trial with us?….in the south it’s called asking for a 2’fer…..2 cases at the same time. 🙂

  85. hinkster4ever says:

    Terrance Jones says:
    July 27, 2012 at 3:51 pm
    “BTW, GZ did not have any defensive injuries to his hands, arms or his body.”
    As Investigator Serino stated, Zimmerman’s sleeves could explain his lack of defensive wounds.
    ******************************************************************************

    My response to the above…..http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/255673/250/George-Zimmerman-evidence-to-be-released

    1. Look at photo’s #38 & 39….now after looking carefully at them….tell me exactly where is the evidence this man was on his back getting the hell beat out of him….where are the grass stains…dirt…ANY thing? While you are at it go ahead and look through the other 90 or so photo’s. THIS is what a jury will see IMO. I doubt you will take the time to look at photo’s taken AFTER Gz was uncuffed and allowed to go to the bathroom and clean up some….but, the only grass I see is on the top side tips of his shoes.

    2. Evidence to be presented to the jury also are the non emergency phone call that lasted over 4 minutes. Followed by police video’s questioning Gz and news media statements Gz made to Hannity,ect. All Gz’s words. How many differences in exactly how things played out can one man give. When you finish listening to the non emergency tape……tell me please…IN THE 2 minutes and 30 seconds that passed….after the end of Gz’s conversation with non emergency and the first 911 call….what the hell was Gz doing?

    3. The numerous 911 incoming calls from witnesses were taped also and will be played in case a witness changes their testimony.

    Sorry for treating you in my tone of putting words together in this post to seem disgusted with you….but, you called bloggers here some names….and I am a blogger here and you do disgust me.

    Take some time to look at the evidence the jury will hear and see. That’s the least you can do in respect for a very senseless death of a child just 2 weeks past his 16th birthday.

  86. Leelee says:

    Ok people, with regards to this poster, all you need to do is click on his name,Terrance Jones, which links to his FB page…that said > IGNORE

  87. mataharley says:

    Mr. Jones, please point out where there was any such blood in the medical examiners reports, or Amy Siewerts forensic examinations of both Zimmerman’s and Martin’s inner and outer wear. The full evidence is available in the documents released, and apparently more than a few of us have read it in full.

    I agree with Frederick Leatherman that it’s difficult to converse with one who’s making things up as they go along, when documented evidence goes contrary to that which you assert.

    None of Zimmerman’s documented injuries support a reasonable or perfect defense. There was no life or death struggle happening.

  88. Donna Flores says:

    Once again your basing most of your assumptions on Zimmerman’s words. At least you admit that Zimmerman was following the young man, in my eyes he did seem like a threat, he followed Martin into the darkness with a flashlight, again alerting Trayvon he was looking for him, who goes through all that trouble, especially if Trayvon wasn’t committing a crime. I do believe he was trying to detain Trayvon, after all he did say “these aholes always get away” He wasn’t going to let that happen again, in his mind he was certain Trayvon had committed a crime.

    • Excuse me. TM’s body and the evidentiary debris field are located approximately 40 feet plus, south of the intersection.

      If you keep misrepresenting facts, I am going to ban you from this site.

  89. TruthBTold says:

    jd wrote,

    “There has ben no credible outside investigation into the Sanford PD’s handling of this investigation, nor of Norm Wolfinger’s involvement”

    I don’t know what is going on with respect to an independent investigation into SPD’s policies and practices. The million dollar question that needs to be answered, as you have eloquently mentioned, is why Wolfinger would recuse him because of “a conflict of interest?” Why would he feel the need to do this in light of the role of the state attorney’s office? Somebody’s got some ‘splainin’ to do.

  90. Donna Flores says:

    Also, Zimmerman was so concerned with burglaries, but I can only find 7 in the last 2 years, and not one in 2012.

  91. ks says:

    Actually, his response to you was quite generous. Several such narratives have been offered in the various threads here but you aren’t really interseted in them because you are just trolling.

    But I do love the “seeming inconsistencies…” line.

  92. Donna Flores says:

    When someone is punching you over and over like they have something in their hands, your going to have bruising. I’ve been in plenty of fights and have had bruises from being hit.

  93. Donna Flores says:

    The blood flowed that way because he was the one leaning/straddling over Trayvon, he was facing down. That’s why it’s all in his face and going towards his ears.

  94. Donna Flores says:

    During the voice stress interview and questioning, at the point of 39:22, Zimmerman says, as we we were wrestling, my shirt came up ( trying to say how his gun was exposed and Trayvon was reaching for it). He goes from