The Defendant’s Statements will be Admissible by the Prosecution in the Trayvon Martin Murder Case

Saturday, January 26, 2013

I predict the defendant’s statements to police will be admissible against him at his immunity hearing and his trial.

The legal test will be whether he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his rights to remain silent and submit to police interrogation without counsel present. The SCOTUS established this test in Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

The defendant gave multiple statements to police investigators. Each statement was videotaped.

Before answering any questions, he reviewed, initialed and signed the standard form acknowledging that he had been advised of his rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present while being questioned and his decision to waive those rights and submit to questioning.

There is no evidence on the videotapes that the police confronted, threatened or intimidated him in any way and they permitted him to go home after interviewing him the first night. Moreover, there is no evidence that they used any trick, lie or ruse to get him to talk. Therefore, his statements will be admissible pursuant to Miranda.

Some of you have commented that his attorneys might move to suppress his statements on the grounds that he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and he had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for which he was taking Adderall.

These mental disorders normally do not prevent a person from knowing that police are about to question them regarding their possible guilt in committing a crime and they have a right to refuse to answer any questions or insist on having a lawyer present during questioning. So long as they understand what they are being told, they can agree to waive those rights and submit to questioning. Absent persuasive evidence to the contrary from a duly qualified mental health expert, PTSD and ADHD would not prevent a person from knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waiving those rights.

The defense has not filed a motion to suppress the defendant’s statements and I am not expecting such a motion.

Since the prosecution will want to use the defendant’s statements to prove his guilt, you might see BDLR file a motion asking the Court to rule that he can do that. To win the motion, he will have to convince Judge Nelson that the defendant’s statements were knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made after advice and waiver of Miranda rights. Lawyers refer to this procedure as laying a proper foundation for the admissibility of the statements.

For the reasons I have stated, I expect Judge Nelson will grant the prosecution motion. The defense either will have no objection or its objection will be overruled (i.e., denied).

Keep in mind that the prosecution can introduce any of the defendant’s statements as admissions by a party opponent, but the hearsay rule prevents the defense from introducing any of them.

92 Responses to The Defendant’s Statements will be Admissible by the Prosecution in the Trayvon Martin Murder Case

  1. Nefertari05 says:

    While this ruling does not indicate how the defendent’s statement was admitted, I became a bit concerned when read this. However, I can reasonably assume that the prosecution admitted the statement?

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1150907.html

    “When self-defense is asserted in a criminal case, the defendant only has the burden of presenting some evidence to establish a prima facie case that the killing was justified.  Cit.om.   The state must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.  Cit. om..  
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial;  his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient.””

    In anycase, I’m probably more concerned about this part. Considering Fogen is only charged with murder2, and the prosecution stated during the second bond hearing that any of Trayvon’s actions were self-defense (presumably under FS776.012, including the forcible felony issue). Could the lack of any charge of an attempted forcible felony towards Trayvon, by Fogen, be an issue? How might this impact the prosecution’s ability to cast Fogen as the aggressor, regarding the quote below, from the cited case (appeal)? I don’t even know if I’m asking the right questions, but I believe there is cause for concern in the words below. Hopefully, I’m mistaken.

    “The issue we must resolve is whether the failure on the part of trial counsel to object to inclusion of the forcible felony exception in the jury instruction regarding self-defense constituted ineffective assistance of counsel where the defendant was charged with only one offense.   The defendant, Jeffrey Sipple, who was convicted of manslaughter with a firearm, alleges in the motion he filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 that because his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the jury instruction, he is entitled to a new trial.   The trial court disagreed, concluding that Sipple’s trial counsel had made a tactical decision to have the entire jury instruction on justifiable use of deadly force presented to the jury and that this decision was within the range of reasonable actions by a criminal defense attorney.   We agree with Sipple and disagree with the trial court.

    Discussion of the facts is not necessary to resolve the issue before us.   Suffice it to say that Sipple gave a statement to the police describing how he became embroiled in a life and death struggle with the victim, who was his roommate, and explaining that he acted in self-defense when she was shot.   Sipple was arrested and originally charged with second-degree murder.   This was the only charge filed against him.   During the trial, Sipple’s statement to police was admitted into evidence.   It was Sipple’s position throughout the trial that he acted in self-defense.

    At the close of the evidence, the trial court instructed the jury as to the forcible felony exception to self-defense:

    However, the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find, number one, Jeffery Sipple was attempting to commit or committing aggravated battery, murder, or manslaughter.

    Despite the fact that Sipple was charged with only one crime, the instruction drew no objection.”

    • Nefertari said,

      ” Considering Fogen is only charged with murder2, and the prosecution stated during the second bond hearing that any of Trayvon’s actions were self-defense (presumably under FS776.012, including the forcible felony issue). Could the lack of any charge of an attempted forcible felony towards Trayvon, by Fogen, be an issue? How might this impact the prosecution’s ability to cast Fogen as the aggressor, regarding the quote below, from the cited case (appeal)? I don’t even know if I’m asking the right questions, but I believe there is cause for concern in the words below. Hopefully, I’m mistaken.”

      There is no cause for concern.

      The issue in the Sipple case was whether the defense attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel when he failed to object to a jury instruction that included the forcible felony exception to self-defense. Florida courts have ruled that the forcible felony exception to self-defense should not be included in the jury instruction when a defendant is only charged with killing the victim, and no other forcible felony.

      Sipple, BTW, was charged with shooting his roommate to death during a “life and death struggle,” according to the Court.

      The rule makes sense, if you think about it. Suppose, for example, a defendant killed a victim during the course of a rape, which is a forcible felony. He should not be able to claim self-defense, right?

      Since the fogen is not charged with a forcible felony, in addition to the second degree murder charge, the Sipple case means that the jury instruction in his case should not include the forcible felony exception to self-defense.

      This was the objectionable language in the self-defense instruction given in Sipple:

      “However, the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is not justifiable if you find, number one, Jeffery Sipple was attempting to commit or committing aggravated battery, murder, or manslaughter.”

      The Court held that the instruction was improper because it reduced the prosecution’s burden of proof. The Court said,

      ” The reason it is erroneous to give the instruction in such instances is because it “improperly negates the self-defense claim.”  Hawk v. State, 902 So.2d 331, 333 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).   Thus, the forcible felony instruction is intended to be used only when the defendant “is charged with at least two criminal acts, the act for which the accused is claiming self-defense as well as a separate forcible felony.”

      To avoid the problem in Sipple, Judge Nelson should not include the forcible felony exception in the self-defense instruction that she gives to the jury. I doubt there is any danger of that happening.

      • Nefertari05 says:

        “The rule makes sense, if you think about it. Suppose, for example, a defendant killed a victim during the course of a rape, which is a forcible felony. He should not be able to claim self-defense, right?”

        Right!

        “To avoid the problem in Sipple, Judge Nelson should not include the forcible felony exception in the self-defense instruction that she gives to the jury.”

        If I understand correctly, the prosecutor can still (in part) make the case that any action Trayvon took was in self-defense, based on Fogen’s actions leading up to the altercation – thus, making sure the jury knows Fogen was the aggressor, and negating his self-defense claim. They just have to not request(?) that the forcible felony exception be included in the jury instructions. That’s good. I’d hate to see him get an appeal based on jury instructions. Thank you.

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      In order to establish a prima facie case of self-defense, the defendant does not have to testify at trial;  his or her statement to the police admitted into evidence may be sufficient.””

      Sounds simple eh? Of course, that is, until you realize that GZ has given several conflicting statements to the police. None of which are demonstrably true. Can a defendant assert lies as a defense? I don’t think so.

      Any claim GZ tries to make, using any statement he gave to the police, will be easily impeached, either using the evidence or his own conflicting statements. Thus, if GZ is not allowed to select a lie and have it go unchallenged, I doubt he can prevail.

  2. Malisha says:

    TOP TEN REASONS FOGEN HAS PTSD AND CANNOT GO TO TRIAL

    10. Shellie won’t let him have any more pizza because his girth is putting a crimp in her shimmying style;

    9. The security company that sued him and O’Mara let some a55holes get away;

    8. A Muslim Cleric in Qatar offered him a TV slot to do an interview, but he misunderstood the guy’s Arabic accent and thought he was being offered “a TV slut” and agreed, adding the stipulation, “so long as she isn’t wearing anything under her burka,” and now the guy has put out a Fatwah on him for insulting women;

    7. He was signing thank you notes to send out to his contributors and he sprained his wrist and I don’t know if you’ve ever sprained your wrist before but it really hurts;

    6. He got an invitation to buy a time-share in Florida and he bought it, thinking it meant that all the other owners would have to do some of his prison time, but then they told him it didn’t work that way so he is trying to sue them but he can’t find a lawyer;

    5. Pastor Terry Jones offered to burn the Criminal Code of the State of California on his behalf so that God would smite (or smight or smyte, whatever) Angela Corey but it didn’t work.

    4. Fogen found out that there was an African American girl in Florida whose name was not DeeDee.

    3. Somebody mistakenly reported to Fogen that at Obama’s second inaugural speech, he said: “And if I ever have a son, I will make sure he doesn’t look like George Zimmerman,” and the audience laughed.

    2. Fogen misses the Ostermans and wants another party.

    and the number one reason Fogen has PTSD:

    1. O’Mara leveled with him. Fogen got pre-traumatic stress syndrome but thought it was PTSD because to tell the truth, he has a bad memory.

    • Good morning Malisha…..

      Always good to start the morning with a LMAO 🙂

      • Malisha says:

        Hey, MMP, nice to see you this morning. I just popped a 200-mg caffeine tablet (the kind the long-distance truckers use) so I’ll be barely human within 20 minutes.

        • 8AM MST…..wurkin on my furst cup o joe….the real deal….real strong…….Cowboy coffee that will disintegrate a spoon if left in it too long…. 😐

          Have a GREAT Sunday…….and the same to all the rest of Team Trayvon.

          JUSTICE FOR TRAYVON

          • racerrodig says:

            Try a brand called “Seaport” Man………We get it from family in LA. where my mom is from. I’ve only seen it sold in TX and LA. Man is it strong.

          • Used to keep a cup of cold black coffee under my bunk when I was in the Army……….One big gulp of that?……After the pucker…. My eye’s were OPEN 🙂

          • cielo62 says:

            LOL! I don’t even drink coffee, but I GOT that visual! YOWZA!

          • racerrodig says:

            Seaport is Gooooooooood Stuff !!!! I like my sweet and blonde.

          • racerrodig says:

            Seaport has very distinct flavor and can be smelled a block away and strong. This stuff will curl your hair and if it already curly…..it will probably fall out……or at least, straighten out….Can’t get enough….

          • Used to keep a cup of cold black coffee under my bunk in the Army…….one gulp of that?……After the pucker my eyes were OPEN 😐

    • Cercando Luce says:

      Geez, Malisha, how is it that Letterman, Stewart and Colbert haven’t discovered you and pulled you on board?

      • You all have thoughtful comments says:

        I agree! 🙂

      • Malisha says:

        You know, I had a grandwhippet once who could have gotten us onto Letterman’s “Stupid Pet Tricks.” The dog noticed that I liked to lie on the couch and turn pages of books and he tried but he couldn’t do it, so I got him a (free) big old ancient outdated dictionary and plunked it open on the floor, and he used to turn the pages with his nose while I was reading, and he enjoyed it and he felt like he was doing whatever it was that Beta (my son was his alpha and I was only beta) enjoyed so it must be fun. Sometimes he could turn one page at a time with that long pretty nose! I could put the dictionary on the floor on Letterman, and say, “Argos, look up dog biscuit” and he would turn the pages and then I’d give him one. I could say, “Argos, look up ‘dance’ and show us” and he would flip pages and then run around in a circle the way whippets dance. Hilarious!

      • You all have thoughtful comments says:

        What a great, smart dog, Malisha!

    • racerrodig says:

      Absolutely Phabulous !!!!!! I think #6 is the best. I can see him thinking a “Time Share” means others do some of his time…yep, yep, yep !!!

    • cielo62 says:

      Malisha~ YOU are a bad girl.  🙂

    • Rachael says:

      Note to self: Don’t read her posts when you are out in public eating breakfast.no one sees scrambled eggs n coffe come out your nose from laughing when you are at home. And salsa out the nose hurts lol

    • Jun says:

      11 – Fogenhats alleges that Trayvon was 35, so yes thats evidence LMAO

  3. Kelly Payne says:

    Don’t forget the part where he says”call me and I’ll tell you where I’m at”.

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      LOL…….gz certainly DOES have a problem.

      Your clarity is supreme, LLMPapa!

    • Malisha says:

      That still shot you used at the end there, LLMPapa, is the best “picture is worth a thousand words” that I have seen on ANY of your videos! WOW, HILARIOUS! The perfect “OOPS” photo. 😳

    • SpecialladyT says:

      Papa, I am a huge fan of your videos and I thank you very much for your never ending support and dedication to Justice for Trayvon Martin, but can you increase the volume on your videos in the future? My volume is as loud as it can get and sometimes it is hard to hear the words in the videos you create.

      Thank you!

      • Cercando Luce says:

        Yes, LLMpapa, sometimes the background music becomes foreground music, and the words to the songs obscure spoken words. Is there a way to lower the music volume without lowering the volume of spoken evidence?

        Love your work, I have watched all your vids over and over.

  4. colin black says:

    Cheers Mountainmanpat
    Im going to check that out now.

  5. colin black says:

    Re above just read Judy beat me to Punch..

    Pun intended.

  6. colin black says:

    Since the prosecution will want to use the defendant’s statements to prove his guilt, you might see BDLR file a motion asking the Court to rule that he can do that. To win the motion, he will have to convince Judge Nelson that the defendant’s statements were knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made after advice and waiver of Miranda rights. Lawyers refer to this procedure as laying a proper foundation for the admissibility of the statements

    I can forsee a problem.

    Even J Cochrane couldnt prove foggens statements were intelligently made.

  7. Xena says:

    In the Jodi Arias trial, the prosecution entered her taped interviews/interrogations that were shown to the jury. IMO, they will have an impact and question whether her claim of self-defense came as a last resort after she realized the evidence against her.

    • Dennis says:

      I don’t see how she can be acquitted. That right there is enough to say it was not self-defense. Just like Fogen, they can’t put her on the stand because she will crumble under cross-examination. She is the only witness to what occurred, so she must testify to win now that she is going for the self-defense claim. The poor guy was stabbed and had his throat slashed and was shot. Nobody is gonna buy that self-defense crap.

      • Xena says:

        @Dennis

        Just like Fogen, they can’t put her on the stand because she will crumble under cross-examination. She is the only witness to what occurred, so she must testify to win now that she is going for the self-defense claim.

        That is what the legal strategists were saying — that she must testify because she claims self-defense.

        The poor guy was stabbed and had his throat slashed and was shot. Nobody is gonna buy that self-defense crap.

        Being stabbed numerous times in the back would be enough to convince me it was not in self-defense. Prosecutors say that Alexander was killed 3 times over.

      • Jun says:

        I believe she stabbed him 27 times, slashed his throat and shot him in the face

  8. Jun says:

    The ones that stand out to me are

    1 – Fogenhats calling Trayvon a effin punk/coon

    2 – Fogenhats obviously stalking and profiling Trayvon with his words he is using over the phone and his own admission

    3 – Fogenhats admitting that the victim was running away from him and him chasing after him

    4 – Various contradictory, inconsistent, and plain lies the defendant told regarding movement and fighting

    5 – his manipulation of the court and his other manipulations he has done, by calling authorities on people and telling lies or embellishments

    • Rachael says:

      “3 – Fogenhats admitting that the victim was running away from him and him chasing after him”

      He wasn’t chasing him dammmmit, he was merely going in the same direction!!!!

      @@

      Does that sound like something a 4th grader would say or what?

  9. Judy75201 says:

    Hmmm, the “intelligently” part might be hard to prove…

    (sorry–had to lol)

  10. Two sides to a story says:

    The prosecution certainly has a wealth of statements from Fogen to choose from! I suppose that the Hannity interview is one of these, seeing that the prosecution entered this into evidence.

    Six months after the fact, I still can’t believe that OM allowed Fogen to do that interview.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Incomprehensible, yes? That interview alone ought to be enough for jurors to take his measure.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      OOooo, he looked like he was sucking lemons throughtout the interview. o _0

    • roderick2012 says:

      TSTAS: Six months after the fact, I still can’t believe that OM allowed Fogen to do that interview.

      Do you believe any lawyer would take a client who never met in person with his original lawyers or who decided to contact the State Attorney’s office directly?

      O’Mara knew exactly what he was getting into and he seems to enjoy smearing a dead teen although he lied at the beginning that he would not attempt to use Trayvon’s character against him.

  11. “Some of you have commented that his attorneys might move to suppress his statements on the grounds that he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and he had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for which he was taking Adderall.”

    Will the defense be required to prove GZ suffered from PTSD?

    • Not unless they claim that he did.

    • Cindy says:

      PTSD does not show in the onset of a tragic event, i myself have PTSD i was in a house fire jumped 12 feet broke every major bone in my body doctors didn’t think i would survive the night and i remember everything every detail i relive it over and over the defendant was in noway in any situation that death was imminent so therefore i do not believe he has PTSD

      • yep, that’s why gz will NEVER prove he has PTSD!! he merely shot and killed an innocent because he’s a killer, not because *he* was in some life & death struggle- the only one in a life and death struggle was Trayvon!

    • Malisha says:

      I was suggesting that the PTSD defense didn’t have to do with evidence, but with trial itself. I think O’Mara’s gonna say that they can’t go to SYG in April or to trial in June because poor Fogen has PTSD and so he cannot cooperate in his own defense. That’s my guess. And the PTSD will be attributed to the following:

      1. Delayed but extreme emotional reaction to the fact that he was nearly killed on 2/26/2012 and was suddenly savagely attacked and had his nose broken;

      2. PTSD got worse because New Black Panthers put out a hit on him and he feared for his life some more;

      3. Stress and mistrust worsened his PTSD because of the first bond hearing and the mistreatment at the hands of Judge Lester;

      4. Being “most hated man in America” made his PTSD worse;

      5. Charges of racism made him lose all his friends so he couldn’t heal from his PTSD;

      6. Financial problems made it difficult for him to get treatment for his PTSD; and

      7. Stress when his wife got charged with a crime made his PTSD worse;

      8. Fred Leatherman made his PTSD worse; and

      9. Being called “Fogen” made his PTSD worse.

      • LOLOL yep that’s the fogen!! wawwawwaw all the way to grin and giggle on Hannity’s show!!
        that’s what always happens when people suffer from PTSD!

      • cielo62 says:

        WOW! That’s some PTSD he’s got! I recommend a long stint of R&R is a single person cell. 35 years to life ought to cure that mean ol’ PTSD of his!

      • racerrodig says:

        10) Being called “Zidiot” and having your followers called members of the “Zidiot Nation” caused even more bouts with PTSD all thanks to a small link in the “Team Trayvon” chain coining that phrase back in May.

        Glad I could be of help Fogen……I can’t imagine what LLMPapa’s actions have done…….

    • SpecialladyT says:

      Fogen REFUSED to see his psychiatrist, now didn’t he.

      • Good question……..I’d like to know what shrink DXed him with PTSD and when”………..

        Also who was prescribing the psych meds he was already taking….I know MD’s can prescribe them……yet that would mean that he wasn’t under the care of a shrink…..He mentions his “Therapist”…….A “Therapist” cannot prescribe meds……

        Now another question for the Prof……..Can the SP get his psych records? In my mind (and I’m no lawyer) they would seem pertinant to his mental condition the night of the murder and prior?

        • SpecialladyT says:

          In fogen’s medical report from the physician assistan, she claims fogen refused to go to a specialist for his “so called injuries” and he refused to follow up with his shrink.

          Medical doctors can prescribe medication, but they are no trained to treat mental disorders. It is like going to a cardiologist to put a cast on your leg. 😉

        • The SP can get the defendant’s mental health records only if he places his mental health in issue.

          A psychiatrist is an M.D. and commonly referred to as a shrink. Psychiatrists counsel their patients.

      • roderick2012 says:

        Frederick Leatherman: The SP can get the defendant’s mental health records only if he places his mental health in issue.

        Didn’t that occur when the defense submitted the doctor’s report from the clinic in which the PA suggested that George see someone about his PTSD?

        • The defense has not stated that it will be claiming a mental defense, such as insanity or diminished capacity, at the trial. Therefore, his mental capacity is not an issue. That could change, of course, but it’s unlikely this far along in the case.

          At this point, I do not see PTSD or ADHD being relevant issues at trial.

          Unless circumstances change, I do not believe either side will mention them.

  12. “BY HIS OWN ADMISSION” GZ reached @ pants/gun/holster THEN he claims TM “punched” him. There is a reason Serino put in the phrase “BY HIS OWN ADMISSION”. Reaching @ gun gives TM cause 4 his own use of deadly force for self-defense. Making WHATEVER he did a LAWFUL act. GZ can only claim self-def against an UNLAWFUL assault.

  13. Question: Once Nelson allows statements via State’s request, will ALL statements be in evidence, or only portions that the State chooses?

    • Just the statements or portions of statements they offer into evidence, subject to the rule of completeness.

      Pursuant to the rule of completeness, the defense could complete an incomplete statement to prevent a misunderstanding of what the defendant said.

    • racerrodig says:

      Thanks….Signed, Sealed & Delivered !!

      We all know that Fogens done because it was like this…

      Officer “…Mr. Zimmerman, you have the right to remain silent and……..”

      Fogen “…………..um, Okay, ….but why would I do that….I have so many more versions to tell you……”

  14. Malisha says:

    It would seem to me, then, that the following statements by Fogen will be available to the prosecution for use against Fogen:

    1. That Fogen told Serino that he has an Associates Degree in Criminal Justice (and that implies that he understands intelligent and informed waiver of his rights);

    2. That Fogen told Serino that he is now taking classes to work towards his bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice (and that implies that he is not a reliable reporter of facts);

    3. That Fogen told Singleton that he was headed back to his car at the T when TM stopped him with the verbal challenge: “What’s your fucking problem, homie?”

    4. That Fogen responded that he did not have a problem whereupon TM punched him in the nose, whereupon he fell immediately to the ground on his butt, and TM “got on top of him” and commenced the beating he claims put him in fear for his life;

    5. That Fogen told Serino he was in fact following TM when he got out of his car;

    6. That Fogen told Erwin and Serino, separately, that he felt TM’s hand on his chest, which made him draw his gun, aim, deliberately avoid shooting his own left hand, and fire a bullet into TM.

    Those statements are damning. You probably couldn’t get, and would hardly need, more inculpatory evidence against anyone, to convict of Murder-2.

    • I do not believe the first two statements are not relevant and therefore inadmissible under Rules 401, 402, 403 and 404(b).

      The other statements are admissible and, yes, I agree that a jury should convict him.

      • roderick2012 says:

        Professor, what is the chances that both the re-enactment video and the Hannity interview will be entered into evidence?

      • SpecialladyT says:

        Why are the first two LIES not be admissible? Doesn’t that go against fogen and his credibility?

        That brings me to another question. Zidiots continue to say that Tracy and Sybrina’s “so called lies” about Trayvon will go against their credibility when they testify at trial.

        Can you explain that nothing other than their connection to the night of 2/26 will be admissible at trial. Thank you.

        • Lies are not admissible unless they relate to a specific issue in a lawsuit.

          I do not believe there is any evidence that Tracy and Sybrina lied about Trayvon. That accusation is racist garbage.

          Assuming for the sake of argument that they did lie, however, their lies would not be admissible at the trial because they do not relate to any issue in the lawsuit.

        • cielo62 says:

          SpecialladyT~ believe me, the Zidiots DON’T CARE about evidence or the way the trial works! Today they have been on an unholy rants against Sabrina, Brandi and Traci. It’s truly sickening. They scream about “evidence” and yet refuse to answer ANY questions I pose about the autopsy, the trajectory of the bullet and the DNA. Nope, those I guess, don’t “count as evidence” in THEIR book! Yes, it will be a BIG surprise when the actual trial actually follows trial procedure!

          • racerrodig says:

            They rant about the lack of evidence. They really mean the lack of evidence to support a lying murderers claim of self defense.

            Whenever one of the Zidiots goes down that “…he being railroaded..” road, I can’t help but fire back a hearty “..by who..” to which there has yet to be an answer.

    • Animaljunkie says:

      The fact that the defendant was FOLLOWING Trayvon Martin IN his truck, why would it be so hard for the supporters of the killer to concede he would ALSO follow Trayvon OUTSIDE his truck?

      The defendant’s absurd claim the was scared of Trayvon was moot, as soon as he admitted to the NEN controller he was following Trayvon.

    • Malisha….If (according to fogen’s story) Trayvon was on top of fogen when fogen drew his gun and aimed………one would think that Trayvon would fight to push the gun away at the moment he saw it, especially being that close to it. But Trayvon’s DNA was not found on the gun..so he didn’t touch it. So, according to fogen’s lie…oops…story, Trayvon did nothing to defend himself against the gun being pulled out, and let himself be shot….how convienent for fogen. What a crock………… 😡

      • Malisha says:

        Right, and even by intuition alone, when you’re on top of someone (which by physics alone, Trayvon could not have still BEEN), and you have your hands available, even if the guy “pinches” one of your hands or puts the other in a wrist-lock (with just ONE of his), your other hand can smash the gun out of the hand he DOES hold a gun in. Think of it: Trayvon “sees” the gun [per Fogen’s statement at re-enactment that “I feel like he saw my gun”] and then Fogen quick pinches or wrist-locks one of his hands while grabbing his “THE” gun in the other hand, you would have to quick remove your other hand from either his nose or mouth (whichever one you left your hand on, negligently) and give his other hand one good POTCH and he’d be back to doing the shimmy!

        By the way, try staying “mounted” on someone who’s “shimmying”! Do they have rodeos for that?

    • @SpecialladyT says:

      January 27, 2013 at 8:16 am

      “Why are the first two LIES not be admissible? Doesn’t that go against fogen and his credibility?”

      I think i know why. because those lies won’t directly relate to GZ’s lies of self defense.
      All those lies do is prove he’s a liar. but don’t talk about the murder. if defense brings up something about GZ’s education/lack of really, then maybe serino will mention those lies were told to him.

      and what the zimmerlovers think Tracy & Sybrina lied about are in their own minds. Trayvon’s family didn’t lie about anything. so the zimmerlovers can dream on!

  15. Xena says:

    Following (after running errands).

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: