Zimmerman: Did the Defense Change Strategy?

Up until Mr. O’Mara’s press conference on Monday afternoon, the defense had been claiming that George Zimmerman was not following Trayvon Martin.

Instead, he was coincidentally running in the same direction looking for a street name and an address to provide to the dispatcher so that he could relay it to the officer en route.

Unfortunately for the defense, however, Zimmerman jogged right on past the front doors and garage doors of several townhouses directly in front of him and slightly to his right on Twin Trees Lane. Yes, the addresses were in plain view.

When the dispatcher picked up on his heavy breathing and asked him if he were following Martin, he answered, “Yes.”

The dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that,” and Zimmerman responded, “Okay.” Nevertheless, he continued to breathe hard as though he continued running for another 15 seconds or so.

He told the police he went past the open space between the two rows of townhouses, where he had seen Martin disappear, to the next street over. That street is Retreat View Circle, but as it fortuitously turned out, he did not have to find a street sign to discover that because he recognized it as the street he lives on.

Will wonders never cease.

He told the police he looked around but could not find any addresses to give the dispatcher, so he decided to retrace his steps intent on returning to his truck.

There is no shortage of addresses that would have been visible there although none of them were close to where he had last seen Martin.

As he approached the T intersection where the N/S sidewalk between the two rows of townhouses intersects the cut-through sidewalk between Twin Trees Lane and Retreat View Circle, he told the dispatcher to tell the officer en route to call him when he reached the neighborhood. Then he terminated the call.

He said Martin materialized suddenly out of the gloom standing on the N/S sidewalk a few feet south of the intersection and asked him if he had a problem.

When he said, “No,” and reached for his phone to call 911, Martin said, “Now you do,” and punched him in the nose stunning him and knocking him to the ground.

He said Martin then jumped on top of him and straddled him as he was lying on his back and began repeatedly slamming the back of his head into the concrete sidewalk. As he was about to lose consciousness, he grabbed his gun and shot Martin in the chest killing him.

Aside from the absurd claim that he was searching for a street name and an address to provide the officer en route — there are only three streets and he had lived in the neighborhood for three years and patrolled it for several months — there is a major timing problem and Martin’s body was found approximately 40 feet south of the T intersection..

Approximately two minutes went by before he encountered Martin.

Where was he and what was he doing?

I believe he lied to the police when he told them he did not follow Martin and when he claimed Martin assaulted him at the T intersection.

I believe the evidence at trial will show beyond any doubt that he was hunting Martin with the intent of restraining him until the officer arrived.

At the press conference on Monday, Mark O’Mara conceded that this is not a stand-your-ground case. He said it is a traditional self-defense case. He still intends to seek a dismissal of the murder charge at an immunity hearing, but he will not be arguing that Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground.

Sounds to me that the defense has decided to jettison Zimmerman’s claim that he did not follow Martin and did not stray south of the T intersection.

But if he admits to hunting Martin, isn’t the jury likely to conclude that he was hunting with the intent of physically restraining Martin?

Recall how he so indelicately expressed his frustration earlier during the call with the dispatcher,

“These assholes, they always get away.”

Did he not intend to make certain that Martin was one “asshole” who was not going to get away?

My question for y’all is, assuming I am right, will this decision help or hurt the defense?

Specifically, can giving up the obvious lie and apologizing for it, transform Zimmerman into a credible witness, or just make matters worse?

384 Responses to Zimmerman: Did the Defense Change Strategy?

  1. Malisha says:

    @ Antonio Sanchez: Here’s SYG law, Mr. Sanchez:

    Trayvon Martin did not have to “run” when George spotted and chased after him, although George actually admitted that “he ran.”

    Trayvon Martin did not have to try to get away when he said to Dee Dee, “He’s here again,” and then said to George, “Why are you following me?”

    Trayvon Martin was justified in using any amount of force he was able to use to defend himself from George; oh well, that didn’t work.

    BUT that is how the SYG law works.

  2. TruthBTold says:

    heartofheartsays wrote,

    “EdgySF She was saying/writing things as facts though and that was O’Donnell’s main point. As a reporter she was not saying, so and so said this, ect. She was point blank making statements of fact.
    I don’t think that could be in error with a seasoner journalist.”


  3. TruthBTold says:

    I recall an attorney or legal expert opining that MOM’s decision to forego a SYG hearing means that he believes his case is strong; more confidence in his case (paraphrasing). I have to recall where I saw it and post the link. I don’t really get how, but will try and locate the article.

    • I don’t know who the expert is, but that’s a nonsensical comment.

      • TruthBTold says:


        How did I know you would think that? LOL. Here’s the direct quote and article for your viewing pleasure lol.

        University of Miami law professor Tamara Lave said O’Mara’s shift may signal that he thinks his case for self-defense is solid even without the special provisions afforded by “stand your ground.”

        “`Stand your ground’ makes it easier to prevail under self-defense theory than the law that existed beforehand,” Lave said. “I think what he’s saying is, his case is so strong that he doesn’t need `stand your ground.'”



        • As Case1 pointed out, a lawyer has an ethical duty to go with the best defense available and to give his best possible effort on the client’s behalf.

          Overconfident half measures are not acceptable for any reason.

          This statement makes absolutely no sense to me:

          ““`Stand your ground’ makes it easier to prevail under self-defense theory than the law that existed beforehand,” Lave said. “I think what he’s saying is, his case is so strong that he doesn’t need `stand your ground.’”

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        Lave knows that O’Mara loves a challenge.
        Using the easy option is for wimps.
        His intention is to fight the charges on the basis that Zimmerman’s truck was not illegally parked.

  4. TruthBTold says:

    Professor wrote,

    “Specifically, can giving up the obvious lie and apologizing for it, transform Zimmerman into a credible witness, or just make matters worse?”

    Make it worse to me. The damage is done. A jury can chose to disregard a witnesses’ whole testimony if found to have been untruthful in other parts. Something like that. I am trying to remember the exact wording that Johnnie Cochran used in the defense closing arguments in the O.J. Simpson case regarding the testimony of Mark Furhman. Professor or Boar, help me out. LOL

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      A jury can choose to disregard a witnesses testimony — but that is almost all the prosecution has – a lying GZs NEN call.

  5. gbrbsb says:

    Great post, lots of info and clarification. One of the best I think.

  6. heartofhearts says:

    I listened to this unedited statement right after he was given his miranda rights. Of course he says he knows everyone in his neighborhood and Trayvon was not someone he recognized. Of course, he couldn’t recognize the neighbor who said he was going to call 911 either. He said he has walked his dog through there before. But what really threw me was that he walking straight through so he could see a street sign. (Of the street he lived on?) Nonetheless, at 22:25 George says, “and when I walked back towards him…” George remembers enough to know that he called NEN originally but wasn’t sure if he still had his phone in his hand when they encountered each other.

  7. ajamazin says:


    To answer your question-

    RE: Application for Injunction for Protection filed by






    Orange County: Case No. 2002-DR-006065-O

    Case Type: Domestic Violence
    Date Filed: 04/22/2002
    Location: Div 44
    Judicial Officer: Jordan, John E
    Uniform Case Number: 482002DR006065A001OX

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      To Pliaja: Told ja if the restraining order was there. ajamazin will find it. ajamazin digs deep into his or her search for the truth, IMHO!!!

      • ajamazin says:

        Taaffe’s criminal record dates back to 1997 in Florida.
        He lived in:

        Casselberry, FL
        Sanford, FL
        Orlando, FL
        Lake Mary, FL
        Maitland, FL
        West Palm Beach, FL

        so the records are spread across several counties.

        Gisele is/was Vincent’s mother and he was born in

        Gisele divorced Taaffe in 1983, in Florida, less than 1 year after
        the birth of Vincent.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          Ooooeee – you are the best. I wish you were around when I had to do research papers. Thank you. It is always good to be prepared. Thank you.

      • Teatime says:

        Are you serious?

        1. That was a cut and paste that doesn’t even list what source it was from.

        2. Even if these two people are minors when the petition was filed, then they merely would have been included in the petition by the mother, and it would not be at all indicative of how the children felt towards the father- even then, much less as adults.

        3. Far more interesting, his son’s name is not even MENTIONED.

        This is a joke.

        • I thought y’all were concerned about not dumping on a grieving man and here you are practically forcing AJ to produce every stinking dirty fact about this man’s life.

          Have you at last no sense of decency?

          When is enough, enough for you people?

          None of this is relevant to the Zimmerman case.

          Why don’t you take it on information and belief that Frank Taafee has lots of problems and let it go at that?

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          I think the document reference numbers are there for you to research. Try checking it out before criticising what has been presented for you to explore.

    • Teatime says:

      First, where is your SOURCE. I see a lot of words on a screen. Please link to where you got this information.

      Second, and far more importantly, his son’s name was “Vincent Francis Taaffe”. I don’t even see that name anywhere on there.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        WOW” How much of a source do you need. Everything is right there. Did you actually read the document. There is none so blind as those who will not see.

      • Please, let’s drop this issue.

        I asked AJ and Teatime to drop it.

        I’m sure you didn’t know that, so I’m not mad at you.

        I’m going to delete your comment in the interest of civility because it’s not relevant to our ongoing discussion.


  8. KA says:

    There was a potential prosecution argument I heard early on when the arrest initially happened about NW. I have not heard much about this lately, but I thought the legal argument had a lot of merit. I also thought with the neighborhood watch materials in training and emails being part of the initial evidence dump that it may be one that they will use.

    GZ’s noted position as Neighborhood Watch Captain was a dynamic position. As he was captain there was not a “log in/log out” time constraint in it. This is further noted by the 02/2012 HOA newsletter that says “Call GZ, the NW Captain if you see anyone suspicious” [paraphrased]

    In his duties as neighborhood watch he was not allowed to carry a weapon..period. AT the time he enacted his dynamic position by getting out of the car to “observe” the “suspect”, he was then “on duty” and carrying the weapon was a NW violation and his utilization of the weapon illegal because he took a role of a person licensed to carry a weapon in the line of duty in which he was not licensed nor employed to do. His CCW would not be applicable to this situation.

    It is interesting that since this potential argument, GZ stated in the SH interview that he “always carried his gun except at work”….so that means he has worked all of his six months neighborhood watch duties armed? I suspect that would be a problem.

    The retired officer that gave this theory on a news show had said that the police dispatcher did not have to tell him to “not follow him” as it is documented that GZ was trained to not do that in any situation not 5 months previous. He would be responsible in his position as a neighborhood watch to know that specifically and as captain to abide by that judiciously.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      Thank you for your comment regarding NW and GZ violating the NW rules. But, by breaking any NW rules, can he be charged for anything. I am not talking about the night of the shooting. When he was setting up the Program with LE, there were neighbours who signed on as NW Volunteers, but were never contacted by GZ after the NW Presentation. I thought – curious. We have NW and Block Safe in my neighbourhood. I sign goes in your window to indicate to children that if they are in need – the home is safe to enter – locked out, cold weather, lost, whatever. Each Block has a captain. The more the better is our philosophy. Very strict rules and regulations, background checks, etc. So, I am wondering about the firearm aspect because this is not an issue in Canada.

  9. Dezi291 says:

    GZ gave a clear directions — go pass the club house, turn left, you will see my truck. Can’t get more simple than that — no further address needed. Also, GZ told SH he wanted to keep an eye on Trayvon, that’s why he followed him…

    • verafish says:

      Dezi291 said “Also, GZ told SH he wanted to keep an eye on Trayvon, that’s why he followed him…”

      This is the kind of circular logic that makes me crazy. First, GZ’s supporters claim that when NEN said “We don’t need you to do that”, GZ had NO duty to obey the instructions since dispatch is not official law enforcement. Yet they turn around and say that when that same dispatcher said “…keep an eye on him…” GZ jumped to follow the “instructions” given him.

      Which is it? You can’t claim both.

      • TruthBTold says:


        They also claimed that when he responded “okay” after Sean said “we don’t need you to do that,” that he stopped and began returning back to his vehicle, but have had to eat that because he continued on LOL. Exactly at your last statements. When I saw one of those special people attempting to say that somehow the NEN’s comment “let me know if he does anything else” meant for GZ to follow him or put himself in a vulnerable position made me laugh. I don’t follow up their crazy talk or take them seriously at all.

    • TruthBTold says:


      He sure did. Pretty simple instructions to me. For further reinforcement if necessary, when spotting the police blow your horn, wave, jump up and down, whatever. It’s nonsense that he wanted to go find an address that he never produced and was where his truck wasn’t located. How would that help? Ridiculous.

  10. elcy says:

    I noticed that during O’Mara’s press conference, he included a private investigator as one of the expenses the prosecution team anticipates. Does that mean that O’Mara’s only now getting around to hiring one, and what do you all think that investigator would be pursuing at this late date?

    • Obwon says:

      My guess is he’d be looking for impeachment material, and/or any evidence that might allow GZ to claim that there’s some truth to his story.

  11. Obwon says:

    It just makes matters so much worse, because the initial reason for releasing him from custody was based on the view that he has now repudiated. Meaning that the initial prosecutors made their judgement calls based on information that was not true.

    Since the information those authorities had, who made the decision not to prosecute, came from the suspect himself, they had very good reason to suspect it was self serving, and that as such, if was not the unvarnished truth. Now that matters have been investigated, the story they placed their faith in, has been changed by the person who told the story. That cannot be good.

  12. boar_d_laze says:

    “I would want to hire forensics and medical experts to investigate everything. Not to do so is simply too risky.”

    But to do so is very expensive, Mr. Zimmerman’s “defense and living expenses” trust is already down to $40K ish; and the Zimmermans’ living expenses seem to be in excess of 10K per month — with trial at least five months off.

    If the defense prevails on the writ of prohibition, it may be able to get yet another reconsideration of bail. If they prevail there, they can parlay the difference in bail to a difference in bond and free up some money for experts. To make that consideration on the part of the defendant is not crass, but in his best interests.

    It’s not only a shame but an indictment of our own hypocrisy that so many innocent people go to the slam because they can’t afford to meet the State on an equal footing expert for expert, lawyer for lawyer, mano a mano, hammer and tongs, moose and squirrel.

    I don’t give a rat’s ass how guilty someone appears, they are entitled to the full panoply of Constitutional protections including zealous representation by a competent attorney.

    • It’s also a question of rendering effective assistance of counsel, which is required by the 6th Amendment.

      I have qualified as an expert and testified in a death penalty case regarding what a defense attorney is required to do to satisfy the effective assistance of counsel test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Failing to hire forensic experts to deal with the forensic evidence in this case would be a violation of the Effective Assistance of Counsel Clause.

      Finally, an indigent defendant has the right to hire an expert witness at public expense pursuant to Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985).

      • boar_d_laze says:


        Fortunately many good defense attorneys will work cheap, or even — now and then — pro bozo, because they are true believers.

        But, the defense doesn’t have the right to hire a very expensive expert witness. When it comes to forensic reconstructionists, second autopsies and the like, there are limits to the State’s credit card.

    • Well, I agree with you completely, especially given my own personal egregious experience with the criminal justice system. I think the numbers of people doing time due to poor or incomplete preparation (not to mention the seven most common reasons for wrongful conviction) is likely jaw-dropping.

      That said, I do not think (disclaimer: this is my opinion) that the double-hurdle of recusal and bond modification will happen, so, if O’Mara and team does not have the funds to mount an adequate defense, they should be asking for indigency status. While such a request may not sit well with many (100+ grand is gone for 2nd bond and Sam’s Club or whatever) seems to me that denying indigency based on ‘you-already-had-your-chance probably will not fly, so in order to get to this place:

      “I don’t give a rat’s ass how guilty someone appears, they are entitled to the full panoply of Constitutional protections including zealous representation by a competent attorney.”

      …it is quite possible that an indigency request will be filed in the future.

      Hope that makes sense. I am a terrible speller!

      • Vicky says:

        I am in total agreement with you. So, why hasn’t O’Mara filed the necessary paperwork (indigence) to begin the process of properly defending his client (beyond motions/writs to have the judges removed)? Public sentiment has nothing to do with his eligibility. Should GZ receive another financial windfall, his status could be revisited. My personal opinion is that the defense team realizes that as long as money is trickling in, it can be spent any way they choose until gone. As soon as his client is declared indigent, that status will change. Since they are hoping for a rejuvenation of the support base, the delay is strategic.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      Sort of off topic, but not that far. Does the defence have to report how much is in GZs defence fund. I know reporters ask MOM and he gives them an answer then says he isn’t sure that that is not his focus. The amounts would only need to be accounted for should GZ now claim indigence, right (Question mark). So, a wealthy benefactor or organization with a vested interest in the case may come forward to allow the best support by way of experts money can buy.

  13. As requested, he will delete this comment. Thank you for the heads up. Gossip and rumors are the Hail Mary pass of the worried. Whenever folks have no merit, talent or debating ability whatsoever, they resort to devoting their time and obsession to tearing down others and wallowing in schoolyard bully bogusness. I would not be surprised if they are jumping up and down turning their eyelids inside out, pounding and stomping the feet.

    The thing is, this is not doing Mr. Zimmerman any favors at all. He may likely be confronted with some very difficult questions at trial, in addition to some potentially unfavorable forensics. If I were in his shoes I would leave no stone unturned. I just wouldn’t.

    The subject of Frederick Leatherman will not come up at trial, but if folks want to obsess on Frederick Leatherman, by all means, do it. There are other more helpful obsessions to worry about on behalf of Mr. Zimmerman, but if gossipers find Frederick Leatherman more meaningful than Mr. Zimmerman’s future and welfare, they are free to wallow in schoolyard gossip.

    • Diaryofasuccessfulloser says:

      Well said.

      • Personally, if I were Mr. Zimmerman, I would want to be well aware of every possible angle and curve ball that could come up in my immunity hearing or in my murder trial. I would want to hire forensics and medical experts to investigate everything. Not to do so is simply too risky.

        Would it, or would it not be better to be fully prepared and armed with answers, rather than to be taken off guard?

        Sure, the defense can go into the courtroom ignoring the other side, and simply put Mr. Zimmerman on the stand to tell his side and leave it at that, but this does not seem a reasoned strategy. Color me tin foil hat. Seems to me than preparation is better than no preparation. I am not trying to be mean. Rather, I believe I am speaking in Mr. Zimmerman’s interest.

  14. whonoze says:

    While in general I’m with the professor on the concept of the Zimmerman Principle, we can garner SOME corroboration of certain statements from context. One super-important fact that the conspiracy theories that float here fail to account for: GZ called the police as was expecting an officer to arrive. He would not have done that if he was involved in some nefarious hunting plan involving Osterman and/or Taaffe and/or Shellie. Since he wants a policeman to come, he has no reason to lie about certain things. I’m guessing he commits a ‘lie’ of omission at the beginning of the NEN call by not saying that someone else spotted TM, but as far as other shadings of the truth go, I don’t think they begin until he has the first moment of conflict with operator Sean: “We don’t need you to do that.” After that, he is on his guard.

    So, yeah, he absolutely SHOULD know the name of TTL, and maybe it was normally at the ready in his memory, but on the night of 2/26 he COULD NOT REMEMBER it. He’s not bullshitting about that. The call recording also establishes BRD-IMHO that this had nothing to do with why he left his truck. But it’s an interesting piece of evidence in and of itself. Why couldn’t GZ remember the name? I haven’t listened to all of the jail phone calls and what not, but compared to the re-enactment and the Hannity interview, GZ seems not as sharp in the NEN call, and his speech seems somewhat affected – slowed and slurred at points unless his adrenaline is pumping. His attempts at giving directions are just pathetic, (and again, if he didn’t want them to have directions, why would he call and ask for a cop to come to begin with?). That he was not given a tox test is a major fail, but there might be enough circumstantial evidence for the prosecution to float the theory that he was at least somewhat under the influence of something.

    Above thread someone opined that a street number is useless if you don’t know the name of the street. Not so in The Retreat. GZ could have said “I”m just West of 1211 on the street that runs between the two gates.”

    Operator Sean would seem to have had some kind of info screen that identified the general location GZ was calling from since he was able to attempt to correct him on the clubhouse address, so I’m thinking Sean could have easily understood such a description. (In retrospect, Sean may have been less than fully attentive to getting info from GZ. If he did have a map in front of him, he could have prompted GZ with the street names, since there are only 3 total, and only 2 that offer a view of the clubhouse at any point. But he got bored with GZ’s fumbling, and suggested the mailbox rendevous to move the conversation along…)

    But as I’ve noted before, when GZ is REALLY TRYING to describe where the truck is, he can’t do it coherently. He can’t get the order of passing RVC, the clubhouse, the mailboxes and then turning left correctly. He doesn’t distinguish between a left turn at an intersection and a road curving to the left –he says “you turn left” when he should have said “then follow the curve to the left.’

    Regardless of whether he’d had a couple bumps, or whether he’d taken an extra benzo to unwind, or whether his head was reeling because Shellie busted him nose with a skillet when he told her he was going out patrolling for ‘goons,’ the guy seems to have been impaired. Either that, or some new kind of savant that can invent (fairly) convincing lies at the drop of a hat, but is stupid about everything else.

    • boar_d_laze says:

      Your first point about Mr. Zimmerman being alone is rock solid. Also rock solid are the reasons you gave. There are others, but I think you hammered the really big ones home.

      Your second point is not as certain. It’s possible that Mr. Zimmerman forgot the name “Twin Trees Lane.” It’s so unlikely that I’d hate to be stuck with it as an essential part of a defense, but it’s possible.

      So… let’s assume arguendo that it’s true. But:

      Why would anyone run from Twin Trees Lane to Retreat View Circle on the E/W path to read or remember the name of Twin Trees Lane?

      In order to argue that proposition, you’d concede that Mr. Zimmerman was not making rational choices. But:

      Assume arguendo that Mr. Zimmerman did indeed run from Twin Trees Lane to Retreat View Circle for the reason he gave. But:

      How does the E/W path get Mr. Zimmerman forty feet south from where the E/W path intersects the N/S path?


      • CommonSenseForChange says:

        The whole problem with looking for any address, street sign, house number or anything else is that at about @1:29 in the NEN call, the dispatch says “yeah, we’ve got ’em on the way”.

        Any and all arguments that rely on address or any part of an address cannot succeed because enough information had already been obtained to send at least one officer who was already on the way to the scene.

        Also note that prior to Zimmerman’s exit of his truck, he had given directions to the location of his in which he was still sitting because the door had not yet opened.

        Zimmerman did not leave his truck to find an address or any parts of an address.

      • Genesis157 says:

        OMG exactly…he stated that he “stumbled” a little after breaking away from TM’s “initial assault” but when the jury maps out 35-40 feet…his story will be contrued as ridiculous…people don’t stumble 40 feet…even in a fight…I can imagine someone breaking away and running 25-35 feet and which give them time to reach for his gun

        • Obwon says:

          The forensics of the gunshot seem to be saying (if I’m picking up things from the right sources), the shot went through a hoodie and shirt that was being pulled downwards and away from TM’s body when the shot was fired. In my mind, this creates the picture of what I figured might have been the case, of GZ holding onto TM with one hand by the clothing, while aiming the gun with the other. So, I’m left imagining that they were both standing at the time the shot was fired.

          Thing is, they were seen laying on top of one another on the ground, shortly before the shot. So they’d have quickly scrambled to their feet in just a couple of seconds, entirely possible. If so, then GZ has to get back down on top of TM to confuse the issue. Since he doesn’t want to be seen standing away from the body after the shot. Because the story needs close contact proximal to the shooting. If he’s seen standing away from the body after the shot, the self defense story doesn’t work.

          So, he pounces down quickly to keep himself close and low. And covers up this action to any one looking, with a story about he’s trying to restrain TM, because he doesn’t believe that he’s dead.

          Though, I’m pretty sure his gun friends and him have had many discussions about what hollow point bullets do. Even down to punctured lungs, damaged hearts and hydrostatic pressure shock. Gun owners are quite happy to discuss the damage bullets do in gushing gusts of great detail, whenever given the chance. Visit some gun sites if you disbelieve it.

    • Rachael says:

      While I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories, it still makes sense to me that he could have hatched a nefarious hunting plan involving Osterman and/or Taaffe and/or Shellie and called the police. It still fits along the order of making him into hero and catching one of “these *******” that always get away. With that said, I do not believe that is what happened though.

      I too wish that a toxicology had been done on him. I believe it would have been very revealing.

      • lynp says:

        It is also revealing that none of the trained Professionals who interchanged with George noted that he smelled of alcohol, pupil size normal and dilating, showed no signs of drug or alcohol use in his behavior, physical signs or symptoms. Like broken nasal bones, these things have been diagnosed long before X-Rays and Toxicology testing. When folk are hyped up on drugs or alcohol, it is not a mystery but can clearly be observed. This tragedy occurred while George was cold sober.

        • Nope, you do not know that.

          There is a lengthy body of scientific studies published by the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration regarding the effects of a long list of drugs on human mental and physical performance.

          An accurate and reliable determination of whether a person is impaired by a drug is difficult to determine without a blood test.

          Poor performance on field sobriety tests and the horizontal gaze nystagmus test can indicate probable cause to believe a person is impaired, but P/C must be confirmed with a blood test to reach any conclusions.

      • CommonSenseForChange says:

        @lymp –

        Didn’t Zimmerman have a sleep disorder of some sort?

      • Rachael says:

        To my understanding, no toxicology was drawn because Zimmerman was not arrested so they had no cause. They just took his word that it was self-defense and let him go.

        Yes, he was on medication (Restoril, a benzodiazapine) for sleep difficulty. Conjecture on my part would be that he was also having trouble sleeping because wasn’t his father ill as well as all these break-ins?

        Compounded by his “ADHD” medication Adderall (a combination of dextroamphetamine and amphetamine – i.e., speed) which can cause sleeplessness, agitation, and paranoia, among other side effects.

        If he was already having difficulty sleeping, which could be a problem in and of itself, these medications could have made things worse his symptoms worse.

        I am not saying he was having side effects of his medications. Some people take those medications and do not. But blood levels would tell us:

        1) If he even was taking these medications.
        2) If his levels were within therapeutic range.
        3) If he levels were above therapeutic range.

        If he was prescribed these medications and was not taking them at all, there could be problems from that as well as his symptoms might not have been controlled.

        Again, I was told that no levels were drawn because he was not arrested, had shot Trayvon in self defense and done nothing wrong so there was no reason to.

        I’m assuming he did not seem impaired at the time. Also, if he had been abusing the Adderall, the symptoms for that would be very similar to an adrenaline rush one might see in the sort of events of the night.

        But likewise, his slowed slurred speech initially could have been from the Restoril too.

        So really, anything regarding his medications or if he was even taking them is speculation. How convenient is that.

        I also wish that toxicologies had been done just to hush up the Zimmerman supporters who keep pointing a finger at Trayvon calling him a druggy because there was a minimal amount of pot in his system, indicating it had been days since he last had any. It just irritates the heck out of me when GZ was prescribed mood-altering drugs that can have very significant side effects.

        As well, it boggles my mind that someone can shoot an unarmed kid and because there are no witnesses, not even check blood levels and let him walk.

        As a parent, I just can’t handle that. Even as I type this, I am getting upset at how I would feel if I was told my unarmed teenager was shot while walking from the store, no one saw it, but the shooter said it was self defense so he was not arrested. And I would be expected to just accept that?

        Sorry this is so long, I have a lot of homework and I’m obviously procrastinating.

        • Obwon says:

          With all these problems and medications being cited, I’ll bet the SPD is pitching conniptions over having given him NW-COM.
          Across the nation NW programs are probably now taking closer looks at these people and the programs police management systems. All of which is very good if it’s happening. People of poor “balance” will probably be removed from leadership positions, and closer police stewardship should ensue, so that there will be no ideas of patrolling or carrying weapons and pursuing suspects.
          The SPD has made a total mess of their chance to shine in the light on the national stage.

      • CommonSenseForChange says:

        @Rachael –

        “So really, anything regarding his medications or if he was even taking them is speculation. How convenient is that.”

        I agree we are speculating wrt to meds and what’s left to be found in a toxicology report. Zimmerman certainly had stressors, just like we all do.

        But pro-zimmerman’s camp defends Zimmerman’s right to take a life based on profiling, suspicions and a stereotype that teens are on drugs and up to no good. Pro-zimmerman’s camp also refutes that there’s proof that Zimmerman was impaired.

        My opinion is that Zimmerman was impaired. If he wasn’t impaired by drugs/alcohol/etc., he was impaired by willful ignorance, a lack of sleep, and a propensity towards hatred of all things legal/law enforceable — loophole lover, if you will.

      • Obwon says:

        On other blogs they’ve gotten it going somewhat this way: Someone notifies GZ that TM is coming in by the cut through near Taaffe’s. It’s either Taaffe who lives there, or it’s Osterman coming from the bank to visit GZ.

        Upon notice, GZ jumps in his truck, leaving SZ behind with the cards and money for the shopping trip, he’s supposed to be going on.

        He doesn’t drive down RVC west, because several minutes have elapsed since the sighting, so he first drives east to review the back gate area, then turns north on TTL and heads slowly up towards the front gate area. It takes him a few twists and turns at the elbow TTL makes near the mailboxes, before he spots TM sheltering from the rain near the mailboxes.
        By this time, his slow driving back and forth and u-turns have attracted TM’s attention. So, by the time GZ parks on the north side of TTL, TM knows he’s being followed. (It’s also possible GZ has been using his tactical flashlight in TM’s direction).

        So that’s where the saga really begins, but GZ has to cover up the notification. To do this, he must “discover” TM at the western cut through near Taaffe’s. So he creates that part of his story out of whole cloth. Timelines are here:

        There’s also good analysis of the evidence here:
        and here:

        happy reading.

    • You funny.

      “Regardless of whether he’d had a couple bumps, or whether he’d taken an extra benzo to unwind, or whether his head was reeling because Shellie busted him nose with a skillet when he told her he was going out patrolling for ‘goons,’ the guy seems to have been impaired. Either that, or some new kind of savant that can invent (fairly) convincing lies at the drop of a hat, but is stupid about everything else.”

      • lynp says:

        Hi Professor, I am not a lawyer but is it safe to think that none of the Prossesionals at the scene thought there was “probable cause” to believe that Zimmerman was impaired and thus did no field soberity testing in the absence of signs and symptoms? He was after all interviewed for over 5 hours with the coppers. I don’t beliebe that either the ENTs or the Police had any investment what so ever with George Zimmerman nor covered up anything.

        • I suspect you are right although no one suspected he had been driving and involved in an accident, which is the usual basis for conducting field sobriety tests and the HGN.

          To the best of my knowledge, no one mentioned any symptom of impairment in their reports.

      • lynp says:

        Commonsense, having just googled sleep disorders, I was astonished to read that over 25% of Americans need help sleeping and spend 14 BILLION a year on sleep aids.

      • CommonSenseForChange says:

        @lynp –

        Yes. It is a big industry. But my point is that one could be impaired with or without meds/drugs/alcohol.

      • KA says:

        Yes, but also none of the officers held a thought that Trayvon might actually live there. They did not knock on Brandi’s house door that would have been easily in scope for a group of officers that believed that the black dead teen might live in the complex.

        The issue is…that night they believed his story and did not doubt obviously.

        I think these first responders in the police force drank the same Kool aid Zimmerman did.

      • KA says:

        ie…it is hard to find something you are not looking for…

      • CommonSenseForChange says:

        @ka –

        Agree. The officers didn’t even knock on the doors of people almost directly across from John’s (W6’s) house. At bcclist.com, I think it is Screamin’ Jay that created transcripts of their calls and they clearly indicate that they were within the 5-6 home set of townhomes that had clear view of what happened AND they were clearly at home and could have provided info to the officers if the officers had an interest in fact-finding or witness-finding.

    • CommonSenseForChange says:

      @whonoze –

      “GZ called the police as was expecting an officer to arrive. He would not have done that if he was involved in some nefarious hunting plan involving Osterman and/or Taaffe and/or Shellie. Since he wants a policeman to come, he has no reason to lie about certain things.”

      Look up Raul Rodriguez when you get a chance. He’s a Texas man that called the police, had them on the recorded police line, and also videotaped his confrontation with his neighbors as he shot him.

      Zimmerman probably called the police for the same reasons the Texas lunatic did. The Texas murderer didn’t think his actions were wrong and had sorely misunderstood the law.

      I do agree that Zimmerman became fully aware that what he was doing was wrong once the NEN dispatcher said he didn’t need him to follow.

      • Obwon says:

        GZ knew he was wrong when he realized TM had seen him and was scared. GZ knew he was wrong when he didn’t roll down his window and identify himself. He had been taught not to follow, in a 14 hour course that makes it clear, the person being followed can be illegally frightened into defending them self. That is the reason why NW’ers are not supposed to follow.

        They are not supposed to carry arms, because if they frighten someone and that person mounts a defense, then the arm becomes a possible tool of tragedy. Only a vigilante ignores the suspects right to fear for their own safety, if they discover they’re being followed by a stranger.

        My guess is, GZ realized that, if this kid wasn’t a criminal, and that did not look likely because of his self carriage, then GZ would have a bit of trouble on his hands, when this kid got home and complained about being followed.

        GZ knew the kid didn’t know who he was, but he did know the kid saw his truck. In the course of a few days or a week, any complaint would work it’s way back to him as the source. Then what would he say about following a child in his truck?

        He probably decided that if he put the fear of god in the kid, no further mention of these events would be made, so he set out to capture the kid and set his mind right. Instead things escalated to where GZ drew his weapon out of fear of losing control of the situation, and that only made matters worse. Now he had brandishing to add to stalking, but he realized that would only get played, if the kid lived to talk about his side of the night.

        My guess is that while GZ was working up nerve, TM was screaming and trying to break away. As TM struggles harder and makes a final big push/pull, GZ finally fires. Then, attempting to remember what had happened, GZ begins to fashion a story. It’s such an all consuming effort, GZ has no time for either grief or compassion, he has a lot to get done, he has to get his wife to take his truck away from the scene before the police can look in it?

        It certainly wouldn’t do, for instance, to have them find either a second weapon or walkie talkies in there. Or, even, perhaps, blood soaked tissues?

      • CommonSenseForChange says:

        @Obwon –

        “Only a vigilante ignores the suspects right to fear for their own safety, if they discover they’re being followed by a stranger.”

        Excellent point, IMO. I’ve seen your postings on various boards and articles and I totally agree on the neighborhood watch thing.

        Do you also post on bcclist under another name? If not, you have a twin!

        • Obwon says:

          Lol, yes, Lonnie Starr. I had several email addresses with my dial up ISP, and many subscriptions to news letters, too much to even try to untangle. When I switched to DSL, I kept my dial up ISP, as an email provider, so I won’t have to change email addresses and subscriptions, whenever I change services. The down side is my dial up ISP changed from email on their servers, to using Google servers, so when google decided to start merging user profiles, mine got mangled entirely. I wound up on facebook under several different names, and so when I began using facebook sign ons to blogs… well the mangled, mangling all got mangled again. LOL! Half the time even I don’t know who I am anymore. =(:-D)

      • lynp says:

        And my point is that folk show signs and symptoms of impairment when they are in fact, impaired, under the influence if you will. It is not a mystery to unimpaired onlookers or professional EMTs, Cops or Jail personal. If Zimmerman had been impaired, his behavior and eye dilation, movement would have been noted. I would quess that that would be “probable cause” for toxicology or alcohol testing which was not done. Yes sleep Aids is a big industry that serves over 25% of Americans that have sleep issues.

      • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

        This guy sounds like Zimmerman!!!

      • CommonSenseForChange says:

        @lynp –

        Perhaps you missed my point. Admittedly, I didn’t make it very well. 🙂

        Eye dilation is not necessarily evident if a person suffers a sleep disorder, is it? My question to you (or anyone else) is do you know if George Zimmerman was diagnosed by somebody prior to the events occurring on 2/26/12 as having a sleep disorder?

        If no facts are found regarding that, do you know if there exists a statement by anyone as to whether or not George Zimmerman or his reps have proffered a sleep disorder as Zimmerman’s irrational suspicions that fateful night?

        If you reply with links to any of my questions, could you also post the date those experts gave such or at least let me know what to google to read the results for myself? TYIA

      • Rachael says:


        He was supposedly prescribed Restoril (a benzodiazpine – the class Valium and Xanax are in) for sleep. Who prescribed this and exactly what the nature of his sleep disorder was, I do not know.

      • CommonSenseForChange says:

        Thank you @Rachael. Are those drugs available to a typical test of mouth swabbing?

      • TruthBTold says:

        Yup, but he didn’t care. He wants to do what he wants to do. When going over the 911 call and Serino asked what were you thinking or something like that at the part where the 911 dispatcher said we don’t need you to do that.” GZ responded, I’m thinking, he’s right.” Serino then says, so you should have went back to your car. GZ: I still wanted to get an address. Really following and trying to locate TM under the guise of getting an address.

    • Genesis157 says:

      Um, if they come in through the, uh, (knocking sound) gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, (knocking sound) straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that’s my truck…[unintelligible]

      THAT IS AN EXACT QUOTE…so the police were FULLY aware of WHERE Z’s car was parked…so the notion that he walked to the far end of the street to get an address {number AND STREET}…is VERY FALSE. Z also gave them the location of the mailboxes…and NEN asked if HE would like to meet the officers THERE and he said “have them call me when they get hee and I’ll tell them where I’m at”….ERGO…he was NOT trying to elicit and address to tell the officers WHERE to meet him bc they actually offered an exact location to Zimmerman and he DECLINED….there are only one place where mailboxes can be found. He was clearly looking for TM…NOT an address…that is just the excuse that Zimmerman used to validate his rationale for being in close proximity to TM

    • angela_nw says:

      I always had the sense that Zimmerman was preoccupied the entire time he was on that NEN call – either because he was driving while he was talking or because he was preparing for his mission – trying to multi-task the whole time and sounding distracted while talking to the dispatcher, thus unable to complete a coherent sentence regarding directions and locations…

    • Pooh says:

      I think your general point about GZ’s obvious confusion, dazed speech, inability to articulate (and odd paranoia) is important and could certainly be used to indicate an unclear, unreasonable, impaired state of mind. And then there’s all his memory lapses.

  15. crazy1946 says:

    Diaryof: Can one access that page without a facebook account?

      • hinkster4ever says:

        I used my facebook account and reported it as hate speech. 🙂 I could not figure out how to report the section about the Professor…I just reported the whole site. I do not read but one other site, so I am absolutely floored at the hatred I see there.

        I do not hate Gz, do not even have an opinion whether he is racist or not. I am interested because this is another incident of an innocent child’s life being taken….admittedly by a person. The fact that I looked at Gz’s words to describe this incident in so many different ways and the photo’s of him did not support his life being threatened…..so it made me look deeper. After reading a few comments on that site, I am so sorry for the parents,family, friends of this young kid. How sad that individuals will tear apart an innocent child’s character is beyond understanding.

        Sad, sad, sad…..

      • Rachael says:

        I just went there. Wow.

        Shaking my head.

      • gbrbsb says:

        Wow! Just spent half an hour having a look and I am still reeling. I have never seen so much hate… ever! Even the under title reeks of hate, “… the justified shooting of Trayvon Martin”!

      • TruthBTold says:

        Maybe we shouldn’t give this type of negativity and nonsense any attention. We know people are talking about Professor Leatherman and saying evil things about TM. I actually feel sorry for them.

      • bets says:

        I just went to the fb page. It’s not nice but there are TM supporters who are just as “not nice” in their comments about GZ, assigning motives and thoughts that are pure speculation and really not nice. Most of the dialog here is civil but there are a few who are not. And I’m not talking just about the GZ supporters.

        • TruthBTold says:


          I don’t really know what’s going on over there except from the responses from people who visited that page. From my understanding, they are saying not so nice things about Professor Leatherman as well as TM and his family. While I don’t particularly engage in certain conspiracies theories and speculation, how is that necessarily not being nice or the same as some of the really mean-spirited things GZ supporters say?

  16. crazy1946 says:

    Professor Leatherman, With the number of trolls that now are coming out from under the bridge it is obvious you are on the right track! Keep it up, the truth needs to be kept out in the open for all to see! MOM said he had to hire some people to keep up with the social networking sites, one can’t help but wonder if the bunch that are now attacking here are part of that group? Regardless, with the truth on your side, justice will be served, not just in the court of public opinion, but in the court room as well.

    • Now that you mention it, this is for the psycho nut farmer named Karlina, RIP in the spam queue, who said something to Frederick Leatherman like, “Oh, please don’t wear a helmet:”

      You’re welcome, Karlina.

      • TruthBTold says:

        That’s a darn shame to say something so mean-spirited just because an individual has developed an accurate position if I may say (lol), opposite yours. Just sick. LOL @ dedication song title.

  17. Antonio Sanchez, the nest ended upthread, but anyway, you say:

    “Yes, it will be easier to prove he was unable to retreat than to prove that Zimmerman did not provoke the altercation.

    There are no witnesses as to who provoked the altercation, so proving that isn’t really an option. Arguing from traditional self-defense makes that question irrelevant. He will no longer have to prove that. So, it is the proper approach to take.”

    Do not underestimate the forensics aspect and the circumstantial evidence aspect. Totality of the circumstances regarding intent will very likely be an issue. To ignore this, I believe, is overly smug and is not doing Mr. Zimmerman any favors. If I were defending him, I would absolutely be hiring forensics experts in an attempt to sort out events independent of Mr. Zimmerman’s various claims and statements. I would do this because this is what the other side is doing. Passing these things off like there is not even a case ignores the seriousness of what Mr. Zimmerman is facing and the seriousness with which the prosecution will pursue.

    • crazy1946 says:

      Crane-Station, If you read the words of the several individuals that have come into our midst in the last little bit, you will realize they are not here to debate, but to stop the flow of information on this site. The closer that this site comes to exposing the truth about the murder, the more these individuals will be seen!

      • crazy1946 says:

        Pliaja: >>>Btw, I want the professor to be safe, so he should definitely wear a helmet when he leaves. He can always put the tinfoil hat back on when he returns home to start blogging about Zimmerman<<<

        You did good, you validated my comments better than I expected! It must get lonely under that bridge, poor little thing, do you need a hug?

      • Vicky says:

        My guess is that they are all bullies who at one time or another confronted the “little nerd” they deems harmless and soundly had their behind kicked because they didn’t have a gun like Georgie. They are still stinging from the humiliation. GZ probably represents the wounded child they have had to live with for all these years.
        Several probably went on to commit more serious crimes that prevent them from owning a gun. Those who do have their little friend tucked safely in their waistband probably branish it as a means of intimidation when they want to feel a sense of power. The rest are probably using this as a test case to see if they can claim self defense should they pick a fight with another “little nerd” who opens up a can of whoop ass on them.

      • Rachael says:

        “Btw, I want the professor to be safe, so he should definitely wear a helmet when he leaves.”

        Almost sounds like a veiled threat.

      • lynp says:

        I have been here since the get go of Professor’s blog. No one is stealing into the midst of Zimmerman haters. Everyone wants the Truth to come out and for sure will set us all Free. Can everyone handle the truth? “Name calling and personal insults is what is left when all good arguments and reasoning has been exhausted” paraphraising Mgt. Thatcher.

    • boar_d_laze says:


      With respect, there’s plenty of proof to show who provoked the altercation.

      The issue of provocation (776.041(2)) is critical for the prosecution, they cannot win without it. Fortunately “provoked” doesn’t mean “threw the first punch.”

      If “chasing with attitude” ends in a confrontation (Mixon); and the altercation is contemporaneous with the chase, that’s enough (Johnson). Those particular showings are easy for the prosecution mostly because Mr. Zimmerman has a big mouth.

      • Thank you for clarifying this. This case, while tragic, has many interesting legal and forensic aspects. If nothing else, I am learning a lot.

      • Thank you for clarifying this. This case, while tragic, has many interesting legal and forensic aspects. If nothing else, I am learning a lot.

        The who-provoked part of my comment was in quotations- it was someone else’s speculation, not mine. At any rate, thank you for the legal information. More, please.

      • masonblue says:

        Yes, that is an important distinction folks. Don’t forget it.

      • Case#1 says:

        The problem your argument faces is not that its wrong, but will come down to whether a jury believes who had a legitimate right to be there.

        I can’t underscore enough that there are the facts in this case, and there are the set of assumptions Americans have indoctrinated into them.

        From the start, at its most simple version, this case has been about the legitimacy of GZ following behind and questioning whether TM should have been in his neighborhood.

        All those acts of provocation you are talking about, can be twisted in the mind of the average American as “well he was just following him to protect his neighborhood” not to provoke TM. All the associated racial issues will be buried underneath, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t powerful, and I think that any good narrative must address them.

      • KA says:

        Case #1 – I also believe it is key to constantly remind the jurors that Trayvon was in 11th grade and a minor. If an unknown adult chases and hunts down my minor child, does not identify himself, and pushes him down (as witnessed by DeeDee) and asks him “why are you here”, I would fully expect my child to defend himself any way possible. Whether TM hit him in the nose or not would be immaterial.

        I think the prosecution will convey these points to the jury in a believable way:

        1) GZ pursued TM because he thought him a criminal with little to no knowledge of him
        2) GZ had certain disdain for TM without even knowing him
        3) GZ pushed Trayvon down to potentially when he caught up to him – thereby being the aggressor
        4) TM and GZ had a altercation
        5) GZ shot with when he felt at a disadvantage
        6) GZ offered no life sustaining support afterwards and thereby was unconcerned that TM would die.
        7) GZ did not have remorse for any action
        8) GZ’s recounting of the events were not accurate and may be an intended misleading to avoid charges.

        I hope they get more conveyed other than that, but I think at a minimum the above has decent coverage with available evidence.

  18. SlingTrebuchet says:

    I don’t think that MOM has changed strategy particularly.
    I gather that he is saying the SYG is inapplicable *solely* because Zimmerman was not in a position to decide to stand his ground. All else fits.

    A longer version of this and more in my mini-blog

    Shellie is a highly trained medical professional.
    She put a huge bandage on Zimmerman’s little cuts.
    That’s professionalism. Take no risks with germs and stuff sneaking in under tiny little cut-sized bandages.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      I think those are knuckle bandages and they are sitting atop the hair stubble. Knuckle-heads. the one on his nose has the adhesive part right on the cut. Ouch when he pulls it off!

  19. fauxmccoy says:

    my deepest sympathies professor leatherman, it appears that your blog has garnered great attention as of late and along with it some unsavory characters.

    success i suppose is both a blessing and a curse.

    • Pooh says:

      I think it’s a good thing when people with opposing views come here. And I think they should be treated with respect as long as they make an honest and thoughtful attempt to argue their point of view without flooding the comments with pointless, emotional reaction.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        well sure pooh, i have no quarrel with a person who holds opposing views, such is the nature of life. if one cannot deal with that fact then living becomes quite difficult.

        when i wrote this, there were a couple of particularly argumentative, yet poorly informed posters who were being quite difficult so i chose to check out for the night. i see that in the light of day the professor and others have called the two in particular out on some blatant intellectual dishonesty, in fact, i would be surprised if they are still here.

        differing opinions opens the debate and can enhance the decision making process; intellectual dishonesty in my mind is intolerable.

  20. aussie says:

    Let’s get this address business settled once and for all.
    Address = street+number.
    There were numbers visible but GZ claims he did not remember the street. There was another street he KNEW but had to go there to obtain a number.


    The issue is NOT whether a house number was visible on TTL (it WAS).
    The issue is he went to get an address
    a) nobody asked him for (they only asked where his truck is parked)
    b) which after obtaining he did not give the dispatcher
    c) which neither he nor his truck were at
    d) and which he immediately left.

    So the search for an address was a wasted trip to get something nobody needed and of which no use was made.

    Therefore the likeliest reason for this story is to provide an explanation for why he was in that path area, other than to find, watch or follow Trayvon.

    • Antonio Sanchez says:

      “Let’s get this address business settled once and for all.
      Address = street+number.
      There were numbers visible but GZ claims he did not remember the street. There was another street he KNEW but had to go there to obtain a number.


      The issue is NOT whether a house number was visible on TTL (it WAS).”


      • Your argument is ridiculous.

        Here, let me spell it out for you since you are so determined not to see what was going on.

        He knew the street (TTL) and they can prove it.

        If for some inexplicable reason, he had forgotten the name, he could have knocked on any door and asked for the street name. All of the residents were home. We know that because they called 911 to report the crime.

        He claimed he went to RVC, but he never gave the dispatcher an address on RVC.

        A street address on RVC was irrelevant anyway because TM was not on RVC and he knew it.

        Use your brain.

        He wasn’t looking for an address.

        He was hunting for Trayvon Martin.

      • boar_d_laze says:

        You may have captured the defense’s argument, but it’s a very weak argument. Very, very weak. Pathetic.

        Even if Mr. Zimmerman could not remember the name of the street he was on, and for some unknown and unimportant reason at some time Mr. Zimmerman looked for an address:

        1. You said address = street + number. Yet it’s IMPOSSIBLE to make a coherent argument that Mr. Zimmerman went down the EW path from TTL to RVC (as he has claimed in every statement and interview) to find a street sign telling him the name of TTL; and

        2. Looking for a street sign doesn’t put him forty feet south of the T, where the fight occurred. THAT is what Mr. Zimmerman must credibly explain.

        Finally, I disagree with Professor Leatherman. Don’t use your brain.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        I would buy that he had actually forgotten the name of the street.
        When I first listened to the NEN recording, I found it very strange that in two attempts to give directions to his truck – which directions indicate (badly) that it is on Twin Trees – he does not name the street.

        He knows that he is at the back of RVC houses. At the other end of the those houses are … uh…. fronts.
        All he has to is walk for 100 feet North and he’s at the front of a RVC house.
        He opts to “go in the same direction” for 250 feet.

      • Pooh says:

        Oh, come one, Antonio. Are you telling us you think that GZ didn’t give a litttle peek south down RVC towards the back entrance to see if the “suspect” was running down that way? Gave up the chase like a good boy, let the “asshole” get away, and was only looking around up in the air for house numbers?

      • Genesis157 says:

        Frederick Leatherman is absolutely correct consider the following transcript of the 911 call

        “Um, if they come in through the, uh, (knocking sound) gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, (knocking sound) straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that’s my truck…[unintelligible]…”

        Z gave dispath the exact location of WHERE his car was parked IE..they KNEW the street and had directions to his “location”..so going to the end of the street to get an address was NOT his intent. Furthermore..the dispath actually offered an EXACT location of where Z could meet the police…AT THE MAILBOXES..[a place that z had already referenced in the above quote]…so he did NOT need to go get an address to give to the police..and infact when he reached the end of the path…he didn’t even redial 911; which tells you that was not his intent. His intent was to find TM.

      • Malisha says:

        The street address thing is absurd and it was only used by George to try to provide a reason for getting out of the car when his real reason was to hunt down and “bring in” his “suspect” who otherwise would have “gotten away” like all the other @ssholes.

        Cops have Google maps!
        Cops have Google street view!
        Cops have computers!
        They can find you when you dial in 911 even if you don’t give them good directions. The whole issue is nonsense.

        George Zimmerman’s lies sound like a kid who stole the cookies and, when caught, comes up with one idiotic explanation after another while all the time giving you an inane innocent look, while licking their lips and trying to brush the crumbs into their pockets. He chased Trayvon Martin, he found him, he confronted him and tried to restrain him, he pulled his gun when Trayvon Martin resisted, and then he shot the uncooperative “suspect” dead. THEN he turned him over and pushed down on his back to make sure he wasn’t going to get up again.

        Which he didn’t.

    • Genesis157 says:

      HOWEVER which is REALLY important to note the other CALLS GZ made to 911. IN THEM he displays a VERY indepth knowledge of streets AND addresses..AND he’s the community NHW captain in a community that only had a FEW street names…it would be different IF his community had many streets but this community has THREE street names..and remember…his previous calls also have calls on that very same street..that he remembers lol

      • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

        He also passes that Twin Trees, everytime he leaves to go anywhere, there is no way to bypass it, so he is full of dung!

      • princss6 says:

        He also could have taken the back entrance to get to “Target”…he is full of it!

      • Vicky says:

        Let’s also keep in mind that with the number of times GZ called the police to the neighborhood, I would lay odds that the officers who patrol that sector were all too familiar with the layout. All they would need from him would be reference points and they would be able to find him. No need for an exact address. Sadly, the delay in their arrival was likely because they knew it was that crazy assed NHW captain Zimmerman out on patrol again. I’m sure they had an oh chit moment when the 911 calls started coming in and their code changed.

    • bets says:

      e. getting a number on RVC would have been immediate if he had read a number on the rear of the houses he parked in back of, or even if he had gone the 100′ to the front of those houses. There was no need to “go in the same direction as the ‘suspect’ at all.”

    • tchoupi says:

      This is settled already.
      Dispatch never asked GZ what address he is parked in front before he exits his truck/ So, it was his decision to go and he tries to divert the blame on Sean.
      Then he decides to exit his truck to go hunting for an address across the same dark area the scary and confrontational late teen kid that is just a few years younger and who may be armed just disappeared. Of course driving back to the clubhouse was definitely more dangerous. .
      Then a WALKED at a jogging pace from his truck to the T where a noticed that he was even not there. And, he was not following the SUSPECT since he kept on walking east to RVC to find an address he never gave.
      But, in the mean time, I mean seconds after noticing fro the T that the suspect ran, he started bang on his dis-functioning flashlight because he is now afraid of being attacked on his way back after finding that address.
      Then, he never gives an address anyhow and decides to walk back after asking for being called by police for a reason I can’t print in my memory.
      Finally, it takes him 2min to reach the T where the suspect attacks from behind him, I mean calls him from behind and the punches him in the nose which makes him fall backward, I mean fall after stumbling forward over 45feet.
      Have you noticed that GZ uses the term suspect in all of his statements except during the last interview with Serino & Singleton?

  21. Clarence says:

    In the real world two opposing thoughts can be held simultaneously and be true. If MOM is signaling that he is foregoing Zimmerman’s initial “I wasn’t following him” strategy it becomes a two sided coin that flips onto it’s opposing side once arguments gain momentum. GZ has made the prosecutions case much easier by simply articulating an inconsistent statement, every other minute. If MOM’s new strategy is to contradict his own client’s initial story then he actually lays the foundation that GZ’s’ version of events cannot be trusted. Jurors will inevitably notice that MOM is not following GZ’s rational for being in close proximity to TM [obtaining an address from the end of the pathway]. However, MOM has also made several media appearances where he attempts to lay the foundation that there is a “psychological” rationale for discrepancies in a case involving violence and head injuries. Look for expert testimony by Psychologists and Psychiatrist that memory loss, head trauma, PSTD and GZ’s own ADHD can cause individuals to recollect inconsistent factsl; especially in adrenaline charged confrontations. YET in my humble opinion….an inconsistency here OR there….would seem, to the untrained juror to be acceptable. HOWEVER…when you literally get “winded” explaining away a million inconsistencies it deems the defendant not credible and thus cannot be believed. Scott Peterson’s case evolved similarly….no eye witnesses, Scott was initially embraced by the public as he seemed like the loving husband..Yet once the coincidences started to mount they became insurmountable. Statistically either he was the unluckiest man in the universe of ALL TIME…OR….he was involved in his wife’s death lol. The facts in this case are similar in that….either GZ is the unluckiest man in the universe of ALL TIME and TM is the most violent thug of ALL TIME…OR…he made successive ill-conceived decisions that lead to an innocent teens death; purchasing a gun, carrying that gun, profiling a black male in a hoodie, pursing the teen over a distance…confronting the teen without any LE training. LE training also includes de-esculatioin tactics when violence can be avoided.

    I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog…it’s fascinating bc it’s like reading a discussion that was written by my legal-alter ego lol. I too believe that the crux of this case may be found in GZ phone records; calls and texts. It is beyond bewildering that GZ makes a statement to a person who approaches him [with a flashlight seconds after TM is shot]..and says “Call my wife and tell her I shot somebody”…who in the world would be familiar enough with GZ to know his wife AND her phone number..AND be present at the scen of the crime. Phone records will be definitely enlightening.

    • You said,

      “It is beyond bewildering that GZ makes a statement to a person who approaches him [with a flashlight seconds after TM is shot]..and says “Call my wife and tell her I shot somebody”…who in the world would be familiar enough with GZ to know his wife AND her phone number..AND be present at the scen of the crime. Phone records will be definitely enlightening.”

      I was struck by that “coincidence” too and cannot help but wonder about it.

      • whonoze says:

        “Call my wife and tell her I shot somebody”

        I don’t believe that is a direct quote. I believe GZ had asked JonW13 to call Shellie and given him the info on doing that. Then, perhaps as GZ was being taken by the police or to the EMTs, perhaps in response to JonW13 asking “What should I say?” IIRC GZ said, “Just tell her I shot somebody.”

      • princss6 says:

        Jon says he was trying to be diplomatic and GZ butts in and blurts out to Jon, “Just tell her I shot someone.” I’m sure we can all appreciate Jon’s position. It isn’t everyday you call a “stranger’s” wife and have to explain he just killed someone.

        I don’t think he was being taken to see EMT at the time as EMT describes coming upon him while he was sitting in the back of the police car. Also, I believe the police removed him once he was secured rather quickly and put him in the back of the patrol car.

        But yes, I think Jon needs to provide us with information on how he knew how to contact his wife. For someone with a bad memory, would GZ be able to remember his wife’s number under those circumstances….yeah, selective memory loss. What is clear is that in the evidence provided publicly to date, there does not seem to be a clear answer as to how John was able to obtain ShelLIE’s phone number.

      • tchoupi says:

        JonW13 is the one who took the picture of GZ’s head at 7:19:07. In that picture GZ is seen with a cellphone against his ear.
        Then, 21sec later, at 7:19:28, Wit 18 sees the 2nd person with a flashlight that is Off T. Smith who comes and handcuffs GZ.
        I would assume that the simplest explanation is the best and that is that GZ was trying to contact SZ when T Smith arrived. So, he handed his cellphone over to JonW13 and asked him to call. Then, JonW13 gave that phone back to any officer possibly T. Smith.

    • boar_d_laze says:

      You cannot argue two inconsistent things at the same time and expect to win.

      That is, you cannot argue that Mr. Zimmerman’s memory cannot be trusted (for whatever reason) than argue his version of events.

      Nor you can argue that (for whatever reasons) he became unreasonable under stress, while arguing that his acts met “the reasonable man standard.”

      You might as well throw in the towel and go home.

      That’s not the defense strategy.

      • CommonSenseForChange says:

        Exactly! Either Zimmerman is credible as a witness or not. One reaction that can be considered unreasonable is anger. Killing someone out of anger is…?

      • Genesis157 says:

        I totally AGREE..if the defense starts to contradict Zimmerman..than he’s admitting he can’t be trusted..wholeheartidly AGREE

      • TruthBTold says:

        Totally agree boar.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          I second that. If his interview inconsistencies indicate he is a liar how can anyone believe (use) the NEN call as evidence. He could have been parked anywhere. He could have been driving along-side Trayvon as he walked, etc. NEN call is not reliable and open to interpretation. DeeDees recollection is the same. I don’t know. How much of the evidence will weave a clear picture of events that night like an animal waiting for the prey to get close enough to act.. For all we know, he could have been sitting in wait like an animal waiting for its prey to get close enough to act where he parked and was just just playing with the NEN despatcher as a set-up for his later claim of self defence Frank Taffe, in his reenactment shows the reporter exactly where it is the darkest in that area and that is exactly where the event happened. GZ could have marched TM to that area after the call with DeeDee because he knew witnesses would have alot of trouble seeing what was going on.

          • You said,

            “GZ could have marched TM to that area after the call with DeeDee because he knew witnesses would have alot of trouble seeing what was going on.”

            I never thought of that possibility.


    • Rachael says:

      Clarence, based on the “psychological” rationale for discrepancies and testimony by psychologists and psychiatrists that memory loss, head trauma, PSTD and GZ’s own ADHD can cause individuals to recollect inconsistent facts, especially in adrenaline charged confrontations, I have to wonder WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT MAN DOING WITH A GUN IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

      • crazy1946 says:

        Perhaps the paper work he filled out when he bought the gun(s) and when he applied for the CCW permit need to be looked at. I would suspect he comitted fraud when he filled both of them out! Then again, did he buy those guns, or did Shelly actually buy the guns, at his direction? I questioned a friend who is a licenced gun dealer, and he said (in his opinion) that due to the open restraining order that Zimmerman had against him, it was unlikely that he would have been able to sell him the gun, but that is only based on what we have heard about his legal problems in the past..

      • SlingTrebuchet says:


        I think that this question may lie behind the stridency of a lot of his support.
        A lot of people, and particularly the arms industry, don’t want that question to be asked.

        For the gun lobby, the likes of Zimmerman are Fentons

    • crazy1946 says:

      “Call my wife and tell her I shot somebody”…who in the world would be familiar enough with GZ to know his wife AND her phone number..AND be present at the scen of the crime. Phone records will be definitely enlightening.”

      This might be a serious problem for the defense, the person he is talking to is an important witness for Zimmerman’s version of the events! If it can be proved he is close enough to Zimmerman to know his wife’s phone number, could his testomony not be considered suspect? Or in the very least be considered questionable by the jury? Something about this witness has yet to be brought out, I still am hung up about his photo shoot of Zimmerman and Martin’s body, but no effort to offer aid to Martin. I just can’t quite understand why no one was interested in helping the party that was on the ground…. why???

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        There is a theory that the person was Osterman, Zimmerman’s mentor, his minder during questioning, his keeper after he was released from custody and disappeared for a while.
        His primary concern would be to cover Zimmerman’s back.
        He is said to have assisted neighbours at the scene by telling them that Zimmerman was screaming. And oh my what a terrible beating poor George had had.

        Telephone records will show when exactly Zimmerman called him and how many times. He was on the scene very/too quickly.

      • CommonSenseForChange says:

        I am not so suspicious about the witness that took the photos. For one thing, he voluntarily gave those pictures to the State. He didn’t have to do that and the State was unaware of them at the time.

        In one of his statements, he said he didn’t want to make other people’s problems his own in response to his wife telling him something’s going out back. Right or wrong, I think that’s why he didn’t offer aid to Trayvon Martin. He did however, ask if he needed to call 9-1-1.

      • Genesis157 says:

        I TOTALLY agree but another issue is at hand bc GZ also stated in his interview with Seriano AND his reenactment that after he got ontop of TM [after the gunshot]…he pushed his arms up; away from his body [like a crucifix]…HOWEVER when the police arrive [and also on that grainy cellphone photo that W13 took]…TM’s arms are underneath his body [according to the officer]..and in the photo they look to be as well…HOW can he explain those inconsistencies?

      • CommonSenseForChange says:

        @Genesis157 –

        With you on all that. I was reading where one of Zimmerman’s staunches supporters suggests that the blood from Trayvon Martin’s wounds indicates he blood from the wound suggests that Trayvon Martin was on top.

        Two issues that have perplexed me are:

        (1) Why really would George Zimmerman jump on top of Trayvon Martin’s back, and

        (2) Why did the paramedics say there was no/little blood coming from Trayvon Martin’s gunshot wound.

        If it is true that there should have been no blood from the wound (and perhaps the faulty memory of the paramedic didn’t remember but tried to use knowledge of standard procedure and reasoning based on what he/she knew/learned about the type of wound Trayvon Martin had), this could explain George Zimmerman’s pushing on Trayvon Martin’s back after the gunshot (as witnessed by the Mary and Selma roommates and possibly others).

        I think George Zimmerman was possibly trying to force evidence of Trayvon Martin being on top by forcing his blood out of his body since his heart couldn’t produce that particular effect.

        The question also remains about whether George Zimmerman turned over Trayvon Martin’s body. If Trayvon Martin was shot while on his back (Zimmerman on top), then there really wouldn’t be any blood on his clothing as the flow of blood would end up being a gravitation towards inside the body.

        John (W6) mentioned seeing the gunshot burn, didn’t he? How would one see gunshot burns on clothing if the wound hole was covered in blood? Was there no blood or was the bullet wound evidence of a burn?

      • bets says:

        ” I just can’t quite understand why no one was interested in helping the party that was on the ground…. why???”

        I don’t think that’s unusual. I was witness to a motorcycle-car accident. The car was tailgating and the motorcycle was slowing for a right turn. The car hit the motorcycle “gently”, the bike wobbled, then was under control. Then the car hit the motorcycle again, hard. The cyclist was thrown into the air (sky showing between the cyclist and the car), came down on the car, and slid off. When I got to the scene there were at least half a dozen cars parked with lots of people around. There were 3 or 4 with the driver of the car who had a cut hand and absolutely NO ONE near the cyclist who was face down on the road. When I approached the cyclist someone called out “Is he dead?” No, he wasn’t dead but would have been if I had not applied pressure to stop the bleeding until the ambulance came.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “There were 3 or 4 with the driver of the car who had a cut hand and absolutely NO ONE near the cyclist who was face down on the road.”

        The 3 or 4 probably fellow-motorists.
        NO ONE probably the head count of other cyclists.

        There may have been some sort of parallel in Twin Trees – for those who ventured out. Many people opted to stay behind locked doors.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          People first at a scene have their own reasons for not doing anything. Some may put a blanket over the person to keep hem warm. But, we were taught by moving a person may do more harm than good. I think people do want to do the right thing – calling 9-1-1 is a great start. Professionals arrive at the scene very quickly, in most cases. Talking to the person, offering encouragement, keeping people away from their space and allowing room for first responders is the best way, I think, to help.

    • Genesis157 says:

      @ Whonoze…I think that is an exact quote I just googled it and couldn’t find the transcript but I found PLENTY of references in other blogs and websites that have the exact same quote… So I do believe that it’s an exact quote “call my wife and tell her I shot someone”

  22. Sandra E. Graham says:

    GZ turns things upside down and may claim it was he who was trying to escape from TM and ran S from the intersection. Why does it have to be Trayvon running South with GZ in pursuit. If the altercation happened at the T either one of them could be escaping in either direction. GZ has stated that he has memory problems and may have PTSD so his recollections may be out of kilter. I am not a legal expert. So, patient, doctor relationship is private, right. Can MOM have experts on board to testify about the ramifications about GZs alleged child abuse, his ADHD, and possible PTSD creating a skewed reality about the events that night negating the lies. A reasonable person’s perception of life-threatening when your opponent is reaching for your firearm is plausible. GZ claims before that event – he had every right to walk the pavement, just as Trayvon did. He obeyed the despatcher and was walking back to his vehicle. Because of his memory problem, not remembering the street he was on and trying to orientate himself with his surroundings may have him going to the lighted street because of the darkness. The claim that he was following him doesn’t mean pursuing him. I am playing devil’s advocate because I don’t believe the scenario. But, I am saying that the strategy may be mental issues. GZ said he had to shoot Trayvon because he had run out of time (Sean Hannity interview). Possible strategy, or not. Your thoughts. It is not illegal for him to carry his concealed weapon or to walk the street for whatever reason. The NW was not registered and he was on his way to Target – not patrolling or surveilling, right.

    • Rachael says:

      GZ said that he was on his way to Target. I seem to remember though that Frank Taaffe said he was on patrol. Did they keep some kind of schedule to know who was on and when? Not that it matters, but it might be interesting to know definitively.

    • Genesis157 says:

      Yes and NO…ADHD and memory problems really don’t come into play with a LIFE AND DEATH STRUGGLE….the mind is designed to create a lazer focus during a near fatal confrontation; which is why most say that time slows significantly during those events..and MEMORY becomes a problem when a person is not really familiar with a subject…HOWEVER repetition eliminates the possiblity that memory loss is a valid explaination. REMEMBER GZ had made MANY MANY other calls to 911…I specifically listened to 90% of them and he displayed very precise knowledge of the area INCLUDING addresses and cross streets. I was actually surprised before I listened to them bc G had given that excuse of memory loss. So THAT might be portrayed as “selective” memory loss lol. I also have to chime in that GZ did NOT have to proceed to the end of the path to get an ADDRESS because and ENTIRE row of houses [just to the left]…of the path CLEARLY DISPLAY….address that are lit and visable…so that excuse to “get an address” is really an excuse for GZ to be in close proxility to TM [without being deemed the pursuer]…LASTLY…remember what GZ said what he FIRST did once TM approached he said “I reached for my phone..but it was in another pocket’…WHICH tells me that his PHONE is in the forefront of his mind; especially in this circumstance. Which begs to differ WHY he didn’t REACH INTO HIS pocket and redial the police once he reached the end of the path…it’s particularly important bc the police were arriving ANY MINUTE….what better way to catch the thief than to give police vital information that would allow them to catch the thief.

    • boar_d_laze says:

      If you claim self defense, it’s probably not a good idea to also claim that you have no memory. Probably. Maybe.

    • The critical issue at trial will be what was GZ’s intent.

      I believe the circumstantial evidence will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to hunt down TM and restrain him until the police officer arrived, but things went sideways when TM resisted his efforts to restrain him, so he killed him.

      • boar_d_laze says:

        One reason prosecutors lose so many big cases is that they fall in love with their own omniscience and try to prove a lot of speculative “facts” which aren’t required for the ultimate issue.

        They treat run of the mill cases in a more workman like fashion and don’t waste time on non-essentials.

        Defense attorneys want prosecutors to prove every detail from the Big Bang on; but smart prosecutors stick with “gravity” as the reason the apple hit the ground, and don’t allow their case to sidetracked by wrangling about string theory at an event horizon.

        The facts for “hunt down” are very strong. There are some facts for “restrain” but it’s not as provable. I’d argue “restrain” only as an alternative in summation.

        In prosecuting the goal is conviction on the charge; not writing a novel. I’d argue in open and close that Mr. Zimmerman intended to “chase, catch and confront,” and repeat it like a mantra.

        The legal strategy of course would to demonstrate that Mr. Zimmerman “provoked” as required by 776.041(2) and Johnson, and as defined by Mixon, so that Mr. Zimmerman’s claim of self defense would be judged under the threshold standards of 776.041(2) which he cannot clear.

        Intent is proven by act. Zimmerman chased (admission), caught (res ipsa); and confronted (DeeDee/Martin phone call). Chasing with intent to confront is provocation. QED.

        • I agree with your point about keeping it simple, but I prefer the word “hunt” to “chase” because it sounds more depraved and depraved mind is an element of the crime.

          Now that I think of it, I prefer “capture” or “restrain” or “catch,” but I like your use of three words instead of my two.

          More umph!

      • whonoze says:

        Given boar’s comment, I think “restrain” would not be the best word choice for a prosecutor, as it has physical connotations, but “catch and confront” are vague enough to have their own problems. How about “hunt down and detain”?

      • FactsFirst says:

        Professor, I noticed about six police reports about burglaries in the discorvery dump. Why are they there and what’s their significance to this case…

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          GZs mistake was not that he got out of the truck.His mistake was calling the NEN. How would this case play out without that call!!!

      • Pooh says:


        Excellent summary. Thank you. There is also this from another lawyer for those who insist that GZ chasing after TM was not illegal:

        “There is some very recent caselaw from the [Florida] 2nd District Court of Appeals which says that in an assault ‘the State must prove that the defendant did an act that was substantially certain to put the victim in fear of imminent violence, not that the defendant had the intent to do violence to the victim.'”


        The administrator over at TalkLeft continues to insist that there is “no evidence” that GZ was the aggressor. Apparently she doesn’t consider DD’s testimony evidence.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          I ask why people are thinking that GZ hunted Trayvon down in order to restrain him until the police arrived. Why would he try to restrain him. Trayvon was doing nothing illegal and GZ had no right to detain or restrain him. I think if that is his purpose, he would be in alot of trouble just for that. This one’s not going to get away, so he will restrain him for police to find out exactly what. I see no evidence that he tried to de-escalate anything during the entire encounter. He got out of the truck, he continued to follow, he had an encounter where he had a tactical flashlight to use to defend himself. He has no defensive wounds on him. What did he do lie there like a wet noodle. Were his hands and legs bound. When Trayvon covered his mouth and nose, does he not have teeth to bite Trayvons hands. To detain, restrain Trayvon – what for. He is insisting on the Target story because he is trying to get out of a belief he was patrolling as a NW because he darn well knew the rules. GZ had been a bouncer and gun training. If anyone wants to believe he doesn’t have half a brain, then GZs plan is working. GZ did not leave a definitive address to buy time. He had his own movie playing out in his mind and here was his opportunity to act it out. Detain, restrain (Question mark) – Self-defence (Question mark) How many times did he have to get at least a bite mark, punch, pull in this life-threatening fear he had.

      • Case#1 says:

        Talk Left very early on staked out some really hard to defend positions so they are now wedded to them. When things do not happen they way the site is claiming, they claim its an injustice, which you will see a lot of as the case progresses as far as the GZ supporters go. I am prepared for the fact that although I think that GZ is guilty he may be found not guilty. They seem wholly unprepared for the realities of the case, and in fact, sites like Talk Left are doing them a disservice regarding what the law says. I am by no means an expert, but when that site says things that on its face seems to contradict the law, and it happens often enough so that one can tell its not an error, then one has to conclude that the site administrator has some goal other than keeping her audience informed in mind.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “GZs mistake was not that he got out of the truck.His mistake was calling the NEN. How would this case play out without that call!!!”

        That’s why my mini-blog started exclusively with an analysis of everything in that NEN call. – And why I called it Zimmerman’s Call

        It’s the only truth that we will ever hear out of Zimmerman, and Martin is dead.

      • Dawn says:

        Thank you, Case#1, for your comment about Talk Left. Jeralyn often confused me by noting relevant statutes and court cases while utterly ignoring the evidence in this particular case, and statutes that controvert what she’s writing. I realized that, were I to need a criminal defense attorney, she’d never, ever be on the list; her passion is great, but her failure to see “the big picture” – to grasp the prosecution’s side of things and, thus, appropriately prepare for trial – is appalling.

  23. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    We can prove once and for all if GZ noise was ever broken.. 6 months, 5 or 10 years ago… Get and MRI!!

  24. CherokeeNative says:

    What MOM’s presser told me was that MOM is finally getting around to reviewing the discovery documents (with all of the media appearances and all) and is just now realizing that GZ is in deep bat guanno. Monday’s presser tells me that MOM is preparing to go down with the ship and this recent change in strategy is merely an attempt to appease his client and the pro-GZ people.

    Under Florida’s self-defense laws, if you provoke the attack you cannot later claim self-defense unless you can show that you either tried to escape from or that you withdrew from the situation and clearly indicated your desire to withdraw. And, if you cannot escape or withdraw, you still are not justified in using deadly force in self-defense unless the objective facts and circumstances are such that a reasonable person in that situation would use deadly force to prevent being killed or suffering serious bodily injury.

    It appears that MOM is going to claim that GZ tried to withdraw from Trayvon’s attacks but couldn’t relying upon W6’s statement that he saw GZ attempt to raise himself up under Trayvon or something to that effect. At the presser, MOM stated that he suspected that his client was reacting to having, what he believes is undisputed, his nose broken. Personally, I said to myself, why didn’t he just come out and say my client overreacted and lost control? Yikes.

    MOM has no choice but to throw out the remainder of GZ’s stories of head bashing and smothering since none of GZ’s DNA or blood was found on Trayvon’s hands, under his fingernails, or on the cuffs or sleeves of his hoodie. The only thing that MOM has left to go on under the self-defense claim is that GZ’s nose was “likely broken.” But in the end, that is going to be a major issue since there is no evidence other than speculation that his nose was broken. There are no x-rays, ct scans, and GZ refused to visit an ENT specialist as the physician assistant recommended.

    On the other hand, the prosecution still has the 311 call, DeeDee, the 911 calls, all of GZ’s inconsistent statements, the reenactment that clearly shows GZ waivering as he realizes that where he has described the attack occuring is well over 40+ feet away from where Trayvon’s body was. They have the photographs showing the blood flowing down and around GZ’s ear and into his beard; they have the bullet casing and the trajectory that could not have happened had GZ been on the ground when fired. Then, they have the only eye witness to the shooting, the retired teacher. And let’s not forget the lies, all of the lies…. And then for a grand finale, in will march the forensic experts who are going to show that most everything that GZ claimed was either a lie or impossible.

    So, even if a jury takes a leap of faith and believes GZ’s story that a teenage kid who moments earlier was running to get away from GZ suddenly turned into the Hulk and was attacking GZ armed with only Skittles, Iced Tea and a cell phone, they still have to decide whether the objective facts and circumstances were such that a reasonable person in GZ’s situation would have used deadly force to prevent being killed or suffering serious bodily injury.

    I am going to guess that most everyone has had some experience with or knows someone who has had a broken nose, and they know the pain, they know how it bleeds excessively, and they know how the eyes usually turn black, etc., but most wouldn’t consider it a potentially life threatening injury. On the other hand, some people have never experienced a head bashing and in truth, such injuries can be considered to be a potentially life threatening injury.

    By having to forfeit the head bashing, GZ’s case has been fatally eroded IMO.

    • Rachael says:

      Thank you for this excellent explaination!

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      MRI will answer the question about GZ nose….

      • Rachael says:

        He should have had the MRI at the time of the injury.

      • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

        Rachael it sucks “GZ didn’t.” That would have clarified any speculation. GZ wasn’t stupid he knew he wasn’t hurt… I believe he ran into that sign….

      • Rachael says:

        But you know, they would not have done an MRI then either. They don’t do MRIs for nasal fractures. They would do plain films or CT scan, but even then, only if there was some kind of deformity or difficulty breathing or something. They would do that say in anticipation of surgery. But if you go to the ER after being hit in the nose, they will have you put ice on it and give you pain medicine. There isn’t much to do. They have you follow up in about a week and if you are asymptomatic, there is nothing more to do. If after the swelling has gone down there is still deformity (it is hard to tell initially if it is actual deformity or swelling so they have you come back when the swelling goes down), then they would take an x-ray and if it looks broken, maybe a CT scan.

        The problem is, he was referred to an ENT (for followup of his “likely” broken nose) and he didn’t go. Under normal circumstances, that is no big deal, especially if asymptomatic. It will heal on its own. But having just shot someone and “claiming” you were punched in the nose is not a “normal” circumstance and he should have gone for followup. Because now he has no proof that he had a nasal fracture and if he can’t prove it, I don’t know that he can claim it.

      • Rachael says:

        However, if he was seen, there should be an ICD 9 code used for billing. It would be interesting to see how it was coded. Here is some information on ICD 9 codes for facial fractures:


      • Rachael says:

        Oh I think I found it:

        2012 ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Code S09.92XA

        Unspecified injury of nose, initial encounter

        •S09.92XA is a billable ICD-10-CM code that can be used to specify a diagnosis.

      • Rachael says:

        Wait, I’m not saying that IS what it was coded as, just saying that is what a “likely broken nose” should be coded as because it would be a nose injury, not otherwise specified for billing purposes for that visit. In order to bill it as a broken nose, the code would have to indicate specifically what was broken and the type of fracture.

        I have no idea what the visit was actually billed as,so I’m not sure I caught anything.

      • Diaryofasuccessfulloser says:

        With Rachel’s catch on the “unspecified” nose injury, I would love to see a thread specifically on the injuries GZ claims.

      • Dawn says:

        Rachael, thanks for all the medical info; it made me think to look up the code. I looked at Zimmerman’s physician’s report and it’s coded with the ICD9 802.0 (nasal bones, closed fracture).

        Physicians’ report

        Click to access george_zimmerman_medical_report.pdf

        Conversion from ICD9 to ICD10 diagnosis

        In the end, it appears that he was definitely diagnosed with a broken nose, despite the “likely” in the paragraphed text.

      • Dawn says:

        Um, I asked this in the last thread, but I guess it got lost among the other comments. Can we use some HTML codes, like to embed links, bold and italicize? That link above is sooo long, and I really don’t like using tinyurl.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “In the end, it appears that he was definitely diagnosed with a broken nose, despite the “likely” in the paragraphed text.”

        That don’t make sense to me.
        Someone is filling in a form on a computer.
        They type detail that says that a fracture in likely – because the bruising is indicative of such a thing. The recommendation is a check by ENT.
        At the top of the form, they have drop-down menus for various diagnoses, etc. They hit one of the ‘Fracture’ codes.

        If the diagnosis was actually “There IS a closed fracture”, then the text would say so.

        If there is a conflict, which is more likely to be in error?
        – A code selected in a tree-structure menu system
        – Some text that says a fracture is ‘likely’.

        It is not reasonable to say that the deliberately typed text trumps a menu selection.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        I can’t see how the defence can assert that Zimmerman was in fear of his life or serious injury without proving a serious level of injury

        If O’Mara were to stand up in court and say – as he did in the recent press conference:
        “I *think* that it is *probably* undisputed that he had a broken nose”
        That’s almost the same as saying “I think that it is likely” 🙂

        He would have to get whoever examined Zimmerman to testify as to the detail.
        Based on reading that medical report, I think that the best he will get is “likely”.

        Zimmerman’s injuries were superficial.
        There will be have to be a “Well, he *believed* that he was about to receive serious injury (or death).
        There will have to be a hope on the part of the defence that a court would be impressed by this.

      • rayvenwolf says:

        @Sling as someone who’s done billing for a less than great and ethical doc. I can shed some light on the coding issue. Some codes pay out better than others. Ask anyone who does billing in a small practice setting and you’re likely to hear how there are a number of set codes that they ALWAYS use. I’m not saying this is exactly the case here, but I have a feeling that closed fracture was purposely used for the sake of billing.

        I had the good doctor(always late, misogynist and owes me and several other ex employees money) yell at me because I asked him about the diagnosis he had failed to fill in. This was a family practice and about 90% of what went into the computer was COPD or Bronchitis.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        Some codes pay out better than others.

        The thought did occur to me, but I was too polite to say so 🙂

        My thought was that this would become an embarrassment for the medic – and perhaps a pressure point – in a trial.

        Defence would be cheering for the billing code.
        Prosecution would be cheering for the detail “likely”.
        I’ve seen the future of this on Twitter. People screaming the billing code and apparently looking at a version of the medical report PDF that omits the detail.

        Publicity could result for the point you mention.
        Formal investigations into whether this was a simple mistake or something systematic might ensue.
        Concerned bill-payers and insurance companies, etc,

        Should the medic feel moved to say that ‘Fracture’ was the diagnosis, the prosecution would be moved to get an explanation of why the body of the report clearly says ‘likely’ and suggests NCT.
        Medic will have a bad time on the stand.

    • EdgySF says:


    • Brown says:

      Great explaination, thank you.

    • FactsFirst says:

      Pretty much…

  25. boar_d_laze says:

    It’s helpful to the defense to jettison the 776.013(3) jury instruction in 3.6(f) in order to keep the narrative clean and not get the jury wondering just how Mr. Zimmerman possibly could have stood his ground, as he was pursuing Mr. Martin.

    It makes it easier to keep the opening and summation simpler. Since 776.013 doesn’t add any help you’re not already getting from 776.012, why not get rid of it for trial?

    At the end of the day, it’s hard to imagine that the defense strategy will make much difference to the verdict because the 3.6(f) instruction for 776.041(2) is the defense’s real obstacle.

    I’m not sure if anyone who hasn’t done tried criminal defense cases can understand the responsibility you feel to get everything right and make sure the client gets the best possible defense. It’s a lot of pressure and sometimes — especially if you’re smart and good and care — you get a little too creative. Not everything looks good in hindsight, but that’s the nature of the beast.

    As a final note to the non-lawyers, the change in defense strategy to “traditional self defense” won’t delay the trial nor benefit the defendant in any other procedural way.

    • Rachael says:

      Thank you 🙂

    • C Shell says:

      Are traditional self defense cases jury trials or a hearing before the judge only?

      • boar_d_laze says:

        I can’t answer the question in exactly the way you asked. Be patient.

        In Florida when a defendant is charged with actual or attempted murder or manslaughter, the defense can file a Motion for Immunity, and the Motion gets an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing, if the defendant proves, by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in self defense, the charge is dismissed and the defendant cannot be tried for culpability (guilt) or liability (responsible for damages) in any court.

        If the defense does not file, or if the motion is defeated, the case goes to trial. At trial the defendant can claim self-defense. If he does, the prosecution must prove he did not act in self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

        This is a little bit confusing, because “affirmative defenses” like “self defense” usually require proof by the defendant. But the onus can also be expressed as the defense bearing the burden of creating reasonable doubt. In other words, it’s not enough for the defendant to merely say “self defense.” He must bring some real evidence.

      • Rachael says:

        So what is the difference between the evidentiary hearing and the SYG hearing?

        • They are basically the same because in either heareing the defendant has the burden of convincing the judge by a preponderance of the evidence that he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm when he killed the victim.

          The SYG defense won’t be applicable because he won’t be claiming that he was standing his ground when Martin allegedly attacked him.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Rachael asked: “So what is the difference between the evidentiary hearing and the SYG hearing?”. Rach, if I am not mistaken the answer is: “essentially, none”. SYG is a specie of the genus ‘evidentiary hearing’. While evidentiary hearing can be motioned for in all kind criminal prosecution, SGY-hearing is tailored specifically for homicide (related) cases. I know the Professor will correct this if I am wrong.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Rachael asked: “So what is the difference between the evidentiary hearing and the SYG hearing?”. Rach, if I am not mistaken the answer is: “essentially, none”. SYG-hearing is a specie of the genus ‘evidentiary hearing’. While evidentiary hearing can be motioned for in all kinds of criminal prosecution, SGY-hearing is tailored specifically for homicide (related) cases. I know the Professor will correct this if I am wrong.

      • boar_d_laze says:

        There is ABSOLUTELY NO difference between a “self defense hearing” and a “stand your ground hearing,” because they are not a “they” but an “it.” The hearing is authorized by Sec. 776.032 and the statute does not differentiate between 776.012 (“traditional” self-defense), 776.013 (SYG) and 776.031 (line of duty).

        There is only one set of procedures for the court; only one set of procedures, burdens and rights for the defendant; and only one set of reciprocal procedures and burdens for the prosecution.

        No matter what its theory of the case, the defense must prove the defendant acted in self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

        The defense (probably) decided that it cannot make a good showing that Mr. Zimmerman “stood his ground” since he has already said that he was on the move when assaulted by Mr. Martin.

      • Rachael says:

        Ah, thank you so much all who took the time to answer. I get it now.

        I still don’t think it will change things in the least, other than as I originally said, those who do not understand (like I didn’t) may see it as some sort of weakness of the defense which would not be a good thing for them.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “The hearing is authorized by Sec. 776.032 and the statute does not differentiate between 776.012 (“traditional” self-defense), 776.013 (SYG) and 776.031 (line of duty). ”

        So it’s what I thought in my blog, but you quoted the law, whereas I just waved my hands around 🙂

    • Thank you for the information!

  26. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    Everyone have a wonderful evening and a safe Saturday…

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      So, when GZ yelled to the witness who was going to call 9-1-1, even though he was the aggressor, he is indicating at that time that he was trying to get away, but couldn’t. Help me, he is killing me. Is this a right and proper assessment.

  27. crazy1946 says:

    Are we even sure that the story about her being a nursing student is true? Was it actually a school to be a nurse or was it to be a nurse’s aid? I suppose because these people have lied so much that it is hard to accept any thing they say as truth until it has been proven! I don’t think she will roll on George Zimmerman as long as he is not locked up, she is scared of him is my guess!

  28. Vicky says:

    I seriously don’t that Shellie has much to offer in so far as exactly what happened between GZ and Taryvon, and doubt very seriously she will be used as a witness against him. Marital privilege comes into play regarding anything he told her about the shooting, so she can’t be compelled to testify about that. As far as her perjury charge, the evidence is on the recorded calls. I really doubt the case will ever come before a jury, and I don’t see the prosecution using the charge as leverage for anything. They have already made their point. They will allow her to plea, and that plea will not include a condition regarding anything to do with the case against GZ.
    Even if it did, which it won’t, I don’t believe for one minute her life would be in danger. just like I don’t think her life is in danger now.

    • roderick2012 says:

      Vicky, my point is that Shellie could give the prosecution an insight into George’s state of mind before he left the house.

      Many don’t believe his story that he was going to Target or to buy some milk (according to Daddy Zimmerman) and that someone heard papers being moved during his NEN call as if he were flipping through a notepad.

      She could confirm why George really left the house.

      Also remember the SPD didn’t secure (impound)George’s truck after the shooting and Shellie drove it home. Did George leave anything in the truck that could be incriminating?

      Some have stated that Zimmerman sounded as if he were drunk on the NEN call. If he had mixed alcohol with his meds that would give the prosecution more ammunition to paint Zimmerman as the aggressor when he and Trayvon crossed paths.

      Maybe the prosecution has all of the evidence it feels it needs for a Murder 2 conviction and doesn’t need any help from Nurse Shellie.

      • EdgySF says:

        Meh, for all we know Shellie was in the truck with him. All we know is what he said — evoke the prof’s new GZ principle: everything he says must be verified. Shellie could provide a wealth of info. Depends on her self-esteem, integrity, and mental health.

        Nobody in GZs world seems altogether mentally healthy to me.

      • Rachael says:

        I agree with Vicky. Shellie has nothing much to add. She was used to make a point, the point was made, though not well taken. I don’t think it would make much sense to use the words of someone charged with lying to the court to be truthful for the prosecution, especially if there is something she could gain from it. Her history of lying makes her (in my eyes anyway) as “reliable” as George himself.

    • rayvenwolf says:

      Even if SheLie had something to offer that didn’t fall under spousal privilege I doubt she’d ever put on her big girl panties and steps up to the plate. She missing many of the same things he is inside. Short of a come to jesus moment or a serious case of regret and guilt she’s gonna stand by her man.

  29. Professor~~thank you for a new post and more food for thought. I see O’Mara shifting to the self-defense immunity in lieu of Stand Your Ground as an act of desperation. It seems that this case is coming apart at the seams and O’Mara was forced to use a different strategy. A liar does not make a murderer when it comes to deceiving the court about one’s finances but a fabricator can put a noose around their own neck. In Z’s case, he should have engaged an attorney and shut the he** up when he was first taken to Sanford PD. IMO, Zimmerman felt he was going to get a handshake and pat on the back from his PD buddies after he gave an account of what took place when he went to the police station.

    In both the SYG and self-defense, I do not think it can be proven that Z’s injuries were life threatening or T had inflicted great bodily harm. The medical reports will substantiate that. For starters, it is impossible for Z’s head to have been pounded on cement a dozen times and just end up with two small lacerations. I don’t believe Z can convince a judge of that in a self-defense mini trial or a jury in his trial for second-degree murder. As always, JMO.

    • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

      “Zimmerman felt he was going to get a handshake and pat on the back from his PD buddies after he gave an account of what took place when he went to the police station.”

      In a lot of ways it seems he did get a pat on his back, until he opened his mouth and his story didn’t add up.

    • gbrbsb says:

      How right about the “pat on the back”! Around half way through the interview on the 29th Feb when Serino questions GZ about what could have set Trayvon off, he says:

      “Had he been a goon, a bad kid, 2 thumbs up, you know?”

      I have never been sure if Serino meant what he said or I interpreted it incorrectly but it has always disturbed me.

      • gbrbsb~~Serino was doing some good detective work. He wanted to get Z to become relaxed and possibly open up. These goons are gang type or the bad guys in Seminole arent they? I think Serino felt Z may blurt out, ” ya, I thought the black kid was a goon and I had to take him out.” I think Z was well known around the Sanford PDept as a wanna be cop. I am surprised that when asked his name by the 911 non-emerg dispatcher, Z didn’t respond….Zulu India Mike Mike Echo Romeo Mike Alpha November… lol

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        Hearing Serino say the 2 thumbs up comment disturbed me too and I think he was trying to make GZ believe he was really in his corner.

      • heartofhearts says:

        There were parts of that interview that disturbed me too. Also when he told GZ he was the good guy here.
        I also hope that he was just trying to get him to relax and tell him what really happened. At the same time I felt like he was giving him some coaching and telling him to change his story because if you are behind someone, you are following him. Next thing we know GZ is looking for an address and not following Trayvon.

      • tchoupi says:

        The whole interview was to Serino to tell GZ that he won but he is not believable so help me explain why you’re out when the rage will rise.
        I believe Serino’s was very clairvoyant. He could tell that GZ lied. He was sure that GZ will not be prosecuted by his SA. And, he knew that he won’t end there [The court of public opinion will be hitting hard on you]. All that happened.
        Was it the right strategy to get GZ to open up and confess? Obviously not with someone like GZ. That pathological liar heard “you’re the good guy” so he just had to hold it up an hour and he was free.
        Was there any other options for Serino. Honestly, I don’t think so. He wasn’t 72hours on this case. He could not have a grab on all the elements.
        Where Serino impresses me, is that he perfectly predicted what was coming.

  30. ajamazin says:

    Obviously, O’Mara is stalling for time so George can recover from Shaken Baby Syndrome.

  31. roderick2012 says:

    GrannyStandingforTruth says:There is one slight problem with that..Shellie. She’s postponed her perjury trial and she has to be wondering what her future holds and all of the what-ifs.

    The donations for George are running low, Shellie’s parents have packed up and left town and does she have any support either financial or personal?

    O’Mara has thrown her under the bus and has decided not to pursuit a SYG hearing which means that this case goes to trial and if George is convicted Shellie has nothing. If George is aquitted the she and George have nothing together.

    Right now Shellie has the option of telling the prosecution everything that happened that night (even if it’s not true) and hope that they give her a deal in exchange for no jail time or probation.

    The down side is that George’s racist supporters would hunt her down like a dog and kill her for betraying the cause, but maybe the state of Florida could somehow arrange for her to enter the federal witness protection program if she flips on George.

    Shellie gains nothing if she remains loyal to her hubby.

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      What is sad it was mentioned that she was attending nursing school. If she is conviced of a crime all of that goes out of the window. So sad…. Donating her life to nursing all for what?

      • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

        Sorry “convicted of a crime” Spell check needed…

      • I am not sure if it all goes out the window or not.

        If she were already a registered nurse, being convicted of a crime would not necessarily keep her from practicing, by entering probationary and monitored status with the board for a time, typically five years. Nurses (and doctors) who have had legal issues or convictions related to drugs or alcohol, for example, are not automatically prevented from practicing. Most states have really good diversion programs.

        Given that she is not yet board certified, not sure what may happen.

        Offenses that automatically prevent nurses from practicing for good are crimes against people such as elder abuse, assault or violence, or crimes against vulnerable people, for example.

        That said, I do not know where perjury stands, but it is nonviolent, so the board may accept that with conditions. RN Board member would have to clarify.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          crane station – shellie is a loooong way from becoming an RN. her last gig was as an esthetician and that license is no longer valid. she has been studying at an online course in what her family states is in nursing.

          she has been at this for a while and has not even achieved the level of a certified nurse assistant yet and has completed no practical supervised work that is evident.

          in the world of analogies —
          shellie is to RN as george is to cop with criminal justice degree

      • Rachael says:

        I don’t see what is so sad about it. She picked him. I’m sure she knew he was a liar when she got together with him and if she didn’t, she must have known bu the time he was in jail having her help him concoct that silly code talk. Even if she was afraid of him, he was in jail and not forcing her. She could have left him. She is a grown woman. She knew what she was doing. If her life is thrown away, she is the one who threw it away. I can’t really feel too sorry for her.

      • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

        Usually when people get married they have something in common.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Rachael, there were tens of thousands of dollars in the PayPal account. Accordingly, SZ tells GZ: “you are going to have a good life after this” during one of the gail-calls. I think most ladies – while staring at huge amounts of dollars they have never seen before in their entire life – will stick around to have that “good life” together with Z.

        I do agree with you though that there is nothing sad about the situation of SH. If you listen to all the gail-calls and the performance of SH doing the first bond hearing, you would notice that SH and GZ are birds of the same feather! SH also “is up to no good”. The next news will be that SH is pregnant with a baby boy – lol!

      • Rachael says:

        When Shellie said “you’re going to have a great life” I took it to lend credence to the fact that GZ might be thinking of fleeing, but he covered it up with “we.”

        I guess I’m just kind of skeptical that way 😉

      • heartofhearts says:

        I am not sure what to believe about her. I have always been one to take everything I read with a grain of salt and this article here says she dropped out of the nursing program in 2010. She has had a lot of problems herself it appears. Accurate? Don’t know.


    • EdgySF says:

      So many fibs have come from the GZ camp that I don’t really think they’re broke.

      Ow much money has GZsparents gotten from their donation website? I dont think O’Mara would have that info.

    • roderick~~O’Mara is going to have a self-defense immunity evidentiary mini trial. If Z wins, there will be no trial. O’Mara has not thrown Shellie under the bus. She has her own attorney for the perjury charge against her. I believe it is a Kelly Sims. I think Shellie’s hearing or trial comes up next month.

      • roderick2012 says:

        I know what a SYG hearing consist of, but I was under the impression that O’Mara was foregoing the SYG hearing.

        Well the only chance Zimmerman has is taking the stand and from what we have seen that’s a huge risk.

        • “I know what a SYG hearing consist of, but I was under the impression that O’Mara was foregoing the SYG hearing.”

          He will have an SYG-type immunity hearing before the judge without a jury at which he will have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to establish that he acted in self-defense.

          If he wins, he gets immunity from criminal and civil liability, just like SYG.

    • Cielo says:

      Interesting observations on Shellie. Dud her parents really leave town? So did GZs. But at least GZ has his fan club. She has nothing as many in the GZ fan club don’t take her seriously. I hope she does flip- she deserves better.

  32. Real basic question: What exactly is the difference between Stand Your Ground and traditional Self-Defense?

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      In GZ eyes “neighborhood shoot.” LOL…

    • While waiting for an answer, I am wondering what on earth would make the following words come out of O’Mara’s mouth: “I think my client was just reacting to having his nose broken.”

      If I were defending Mr. Zimmerman I am not sure what it would take to make my lips move to form those words. Anyway, wondering what possessed him to say this.

      • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

        I wonder if O’Mara believes GZ is guilty and too proud or scared to back away. Too many verbal mistakes on O’Mara’s part and it is now affecting his credibility. Money is ruling the show and maybe he believes it is truly over for GZ.

        Crane-Station: While waiting for an answer (I was just making light of a tragic situation of lies and deceit)…

      • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

        GZ does use a gun to make him look big.. It is some truth to that… We all hear it from his mouth everytime he opens it…

      • Rachael says:

        Yeah, “I think my client was just reacting to having his nose broken” shocked the sheet outa me!! I could not believe he said that.

        But someone, I think it was on here, said that what he said doesn’t matter – but I can’t remember why.

        But even if it doesn’t matter, still seemed like a pretty stupid thing to say.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        I think he is admitting that GZ may have been the aggressor – at that point – when his nose was punched because he did not retreat. Maybe he was the aggressor until the point in time when Trayvon gained control over him. Then, the roles were reversed. I don’t think it matters if he wins the argument or not. But he will have seen the prosecution strategy prior to the inevitable trial. Could be wrong. Interpreting the law is one thing. But, I think only lawyers know the law and how to argue it. It is not about guilt or innocence.

      • julia says:

        Me too Crane-Station! To me he may as well have said…”He got a boo boo and over reacted and I’ve agreed to defend him so… whatever. I guess I’ll try self defense.”

  33. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    I thought it was called “neighborhood watch” not “neighborhood shoot.” I strongly feel O’Mara will not allow Zimmerman to take the stand; it would be committing open suicide. Can’t imagine this guy withstanding vigorous cross-examination.

    • Rachael says:

      I was wondering if that was the reason for the change too. I know that if it was a strictly SYG, Zimmerman would have to be questioned, but I don’t know if he has to take the stand if it switches to this. If he doesn’t, I was wondering if that was the reason for the switch, because like you said, allowing him to take the stand would be end it real quick.

    • A client has the right to decide whether to testify, so it’s not O’Mara’s decision to make.

      • Rachael says:

        That is in the traditional self-defense case though, right? I thought that he would have to in a SYG but not have to in the traditional, or am I mistaken?

      • SearchingMind says:

        Professor, I think you missed the point Rachael is making. According to Rachel, to put forward a SYG-defense the defendant MUST take the stand to do that. However, according to Rachael, a defendant does NOT have to take the stand to put forward a traditional self-defense. This, according to Rachael, would account for the change of strategy by O’Mara/GZ (since taking the stand might ultimately take GZ to the gallows).

        If I am not mistaken, both SYG-defense and the traditional self-defense are of affirmative nature. To put forward any of these forms of justification for a homicide, the defendant MUST take the stand to do it. I await your confirmation Professor, or correction(s) if I am mistaken.

        • The defendant does not have to testify in any criminal case, regardless whether the defense is an affirmative defense.

          Why? Because the defendant has a 5th amendment right to remain silent and the jury cannot assume anything regarding silence.

          So-called affirmative defenses were legal defenses to common law crimes in which the defendants admitted the committing the acts that constituted the crime (actus reus), but they denied the accompanying mental state (mens rea) that also must be proven to establish that the crime was committed.

          Self-defense is one of those affirmative defenses.

          However, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) abolished common law crimes in the early 1960s because the common law definitions had many vague and incomprehensible terms that made it nearly impossible for the average person to know what was unlawful and what was not.

          Today all crimes are defined by statute and produced by legislatures.

          Most, if not all, state legislatures have passed laws that place the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt and this is true in Florida.

          At common law, the defendant had a duty to retreat before he used deadly force, unless it was not possible for him to do so.

          Legislature in the western states rejected the duty to retreat when they enacted their self-defense statutes. Most of the states in the rest of the country kept it.

          The effort to pass SYG laws is an effort to eliminate the duty to retreat. Florida passed such a law.

          The Florida law has a wrinkle that I have not seen before. It has created an opportunity for a defendant claiming self-defense to request an immunity hearing before trial at which the defendant has the burden of proving self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. If he wins, the judge will dismiss the case and enter an order granting the defendant immunity from criminal or civil law judgments and penalties.

          If he loses, the case will proceed to a jury trial with the burden of proof shifting back to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

          The procedure at the pretrial immunity hearing is the same whether the defendant is claiming immunity under the SYG statute or the self-defense statute. The elements are the same, except that it makes no sense to claim SYG, if the defendant was not standing his ground when he used deadly force.

          Therefore, to make a long story a little longer, O’Mara’s announcement means that he will not be arguing that GZ was standing his ground when he killed TM. Instead, he will be claiming that GZ reasonably feared TM was about to kill him or cause great bodily harm unless he killed him first.

          I believe he is hoping that this will defuse the potentially explosive problem the defense has regarding GZ lying about following TM. He’s hoping to make it irrelevant, although he certainly won’t come right out and say that.

          To wrap it up: GZ is not legally obligated to testify at the immunity hearing, regardless if it’s SYG or self-defense, and he is not legally obligated to testify at trial.

          As a practical matter, however, he has to testify to have any chance to prevail, but if he testifies, he will be crucified on cross.

          I think O’Mara is attempting to minimize the damage GZ did to his case by all of his claims that he did not follow TM.

          Finally, an aggressor cannot claim self-defense under any theory of self-defense and must attempt to withdraw and communicate his desire to withdraw before he uses deadly force. Of course, his use of deadly force must be reasonably necessary to prevent imminent death or grievous bodily harm.

      • Rachael says:

        SearchingMind, yes that is what I meant and no. Yes, I thought that in a SYG hearing the defendant MUST take the stand, but it is not “according” to me that in a traditional self-defense case does not – that was my question, does he have to in a traditional self-defense – I was under the impression he does not, so I too am awaiting the answer.

        Somewhere below it was said that in a traditional self-defense case there is an evidentiary hearing so now I am wondering if that is siminlar to an SYG hearing where the defendant MUST take the stand, so I really do not know.

        But yes, I was indeed wondering if by not having to take the stand was the reason for the change in strategy.

        Thanks! 🙂

      • Rachael says:

        Ooops, and as I made my way down, I see this was answered, and I get it now.

        Thanks everyone!

      • Rachael says:

        Thank you so much for that wonderful detailed explanation. I love this place. So much one can learn here!

      • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

        Interesting concerning a client like GZ…. Who knows what this clown will do next..LOL.

        Professor if you had the task of representing a client in GZ position; would you tolerate his deliberate shady activities? Or would withdraw?

        But lets say you do represent him in a hypothetical; how would you handle him especially being a difficult client who gives so many versions of that night.

        If you do not wish to answer thank you for reading this question anyway.

        Sorry I missed the exchange between Pliaja and you earlier. You nailed him…..

        Great Exchange!!

  34. Vicky says:

    In a traditional self defense claim, doesn’t the force used need to at least in some fashion match up to the force used against that person? I mean really, some kid his “beating the chit out of you” and the first line of defense is to pull out a gun and shoot? There is no need to hit that person back, pull their hair, bite, scratch or kick? Nothing before using a gun to end the “battle? That is the question I would want answered if I were on this jury. I would want to see that GZ had at least gotten a few licks in before using lethal force. GZ seems to be rather fond of acting like a potted plant. I guess he somehow thinks reasonable people would just lie there and take a beating, just so they could use their conceal carry on the person they had provoked. Maybe in his twisted little world, but that’s not the way rational people roll.

    • EdgySF says:

      Good point.

    • rayvenwolf says:

      It goes against the basic instinct of survival to just lay there and take it. The two things in his statement(s) that have always bothered me are the following a) he never does more than try and push Trayvon off him. No body blows, no biting his hand, nothing and that b)Trayvon just let himself be shot.

      The first I might be willing to believe knowing what sort of person GZ is. The second however? Not on my worst mental day.

  35. fauxmccoy says:

    i cannot imagine that it really changes anything, although it does signify a change in strategy. i remember when corey announced charges at her presser she was asked what would happen if zim claimed ‘SYG’. she said she would fight that and appeal if necessary. based on that, i would assume she is just as ready to proceed with a traditional self defense claim as she would a ‘SYG’ claim.

  36. TruthBTold says:


    Cracking up at your post lol.

  37. Rachael says:

    OMG, thank you for this. It is pretty much everything I have thought and been posting all along.

    As far as the defense goes, I don’t think that it helps or hurts the defense. I don’t think it changes anything.

    The ONLY thing it might do is give the impression that somehow the defense has lost confidence in their story/the defendant, and that does not favor them.

    • Kyma says:

      I think that goes hand in hand with all the stall techniques MOM has been using. But, time won’t change the established facts, available evidence, and all the conflicting accounts.

      I do think this changes at least one element to the defense: Money. The defense fund is shrinking. The funds have come in through donations. Changing the defense from Stand your Ground to self-defense definitely has potential adverse public opinion implications.

      Also, The NRA doesn’t lobby for self defense. It does however lobby Stand your Ground.

      • ajamazin says:

        I disagree!

        The NRA does not want the Zimmerman’s case to become a referendum on the Stand Your Ground laws.

        O’Mara and Zimmerman found it profitable to agree.

  38. Justkiddin* says:

    I do not think a traditional self defense will work either. Z can say whatever he wants, but the truth is in the evidence scattered from the T to where the body was found. Z’s own words are going to convict him. From the first interview to the SH when Trayvon now skipped away! Z made matters worse by claiming the screams, God help him if a mother or father (grandparents) sit on the jury. I know if I were on the jury that alone would be my reason to convict. Trayvon begged scratch that Trayvon BEGGED for his life and the worthless POS shot him anyway. Now we find out Trayvon did not die instantly so he suffered all the while he has a 207 pound man flipping him over and holding him down!
    No nothing he says is going to help in fact now would be a good time for Mr. Z and all his associates to just shut up, zip it not another word. I am done with him for tonight, at my age I have to pace myself. Personally I would like to be above ground when this goes to trial.

    • Malisha says:

      JK, I agree with you completely but I don’t think either of us will live to see the trial; I don’t think O’Mara is stupid enough to bring this to trial and I think the prosecution also wants to avoid a trial. They both want a plea. O’Mara’s trying to get more and more pro-Zimmerman people to kick in money and get vocally on Z’s side before he really seriously plea-bargains. I believe the prosecution is “in on” this plan with him, by the way, although it looks to me like Judge Lester is not “in on” any plan and is just a judge doing what he is required by law to do. (I don’t even think Lester is watching this case outside the courtroom and that’s why he didn’t already know, at the first bond hearing, that the PayPal account existed and was full of money.)

      The reason O’Mara is taking time now to try to recuse Lester is that IF he had a judge he could manipulate, he might be able to go into a pre-trial hearing and get out of it that way; clearly his client believes he could prevail at such a hearing, but that is only true if the judge was not only bought and paid for, but the prosecutor was anesthetized and never thought to ask a single question.

      I think this thing is theater right now. O’Mara is protecting Zimmerman; the prosecution is protecting Wolfinger and the Sanford PD; the law of interminable bullshit is protecting the public from any kind of understanding of the state of corruption our legal system has degenerated into. And I am sorry for ending a sentence with a preposition. :mrgreen:

    • @rnsone says:

      God help us all if one of his supporters are on that jury.

  39. GrannyStandingforTruth says:

    I believe that O’Mara is stalling and trying to prolong the case from going to trial and drag it out for as long as he possibly can in hopes that people will forget all of the lies Zimmerman has told.

  40. GrannyStandingforTruth says:

    Should there be a knuckle print on Z’s nose or around in that area?

  41. crazy1946 says:

    It would seem that MOM is now trying to figure out how to make the defense match the story (stories) told by Zimmerman! Now the real trick is he will have to figure out which story to match it to… I think Zimmerman has talked himself into a corner that he can’t get out of.

    I’m curious, does any one know who is providing the security for Zimmerman? For some reason, I suspect that Osterman is involved, but have no proof, just a gut feeling…

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      Your gut is probably right! GZ team is working overtime; we might get lucky and get another story from George Zimmerman. We can add it to his collection….

    • Justkiddin* says:

      Crazy I wear hearing aids so I may be wrong but I thought MOM said the Protection company’s name was Protect-a-douche. However I may not have had hearing aids in and I may have imagined it like Z imagined all the lies he has told.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      GZ stayed with Osterman after the first bond hearing result. During the jailhouse calls relesed, GZ and his wife refer to their Security Advisor. I, too, have a suspicion that Osterman is exactly that – GZs Security Advisor.

      • @rnsone says:

        Many law enforcement agencies forbid their officers to work outside security.As Osterman knows this from the incident in his previous law enforcement job.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          @rnsone – I don’t understand what you mean about Osterman knowing about LE acting as Security after hours because of his previous job. Are you saying Osterman may not be his Security Advisor as per the cryptic jailhouse phone calls between GZ and his wife. Please expand on your response. Thanks.

      • rayvenwolf says:

        @Sandra I think rsone was trying to say after the last time AMMO played security for someone and it ended the way it did, now as an Air Marshal he might be unlikely to stick his neck out like that again. That doesn’t mean however that Mark couldn’t have put them in contact with someone who could act as a security adviser.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          I also wondered why so much pay? Could it be that GZ has some kind of recovery/reimbursement agreement with him? ” I pay 50k you later give me 40k back”? Or something of that kind.

    • I read elsewhere Osterman is going to appear on Dr Phil ! LOL

      …….and some say don’t try this in the media…. that is unless you are trying to raise $$$$$$

  42. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    Dear Professor, in some trials a jury is given multiple counts to convict a person on trial. Will this be done in the Martin case? Can they find GZ guilty of stalking, harassment and murdered? How is this done in a real court case? I only hear about second-degree murder. Can the judge give the jury additional charges?

    Quick education needed in the legal process…

    • fauxmccoy says:

      murder 2 in florida automatically includes ‘lesser but included’ crimes, such as manslaughter etc. there is a specific schedule that is used per their supreme court. the prosecution can ask for a verdict of these charges at the time of deliberation and the judge inserts the appropriate language in jury instruction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: