Read before you write

Thursday, March 28, 2013

I was inspired to write this post by a dust-up that I discovered upon returning home from running some important errands.

Erica said she really did not see any difference between Dee Dee’s lie compared to the defendant’s lies. She was concerned that the jury might disregard everything Dee Dee says according to the once-a-liar-always-a-liar rule, and she asked if that would hurt the prosecution case.

Although she claimed to be a Trayvon supporter worried about the outcome of the case, many of you smelled a rat, so to speak, because she accepted the defense argument that Dee Dee’s lie destroyed her credibility and she was placing the burden on us to refute that claim. As someone pointed out this is exactly what the defendant’s supporters have been saying. Not surprising, therefore, that several of you accused her of being a troll.

Meanwhile, we have beaten that issue to death here and concluded that Dee Dee’s lie will have little or no impact on her credibility or the prosecution’s case. I have written several articles on the subject and many of you have added your thoughts in the comments. I think I can safely say that we left no stone unturned and our conclusion and the basis for it are easily accessible here at the site.

I cannot think of a reason why anyone familiar with this site would not also be familiar with our recent debunking of the-prosecution-is-crumbling scenario. In other words, I do not understand why Erica did not know the answer to her question. After reviewing the exchange of comments, I believe people were justified in suspecting Erica was expressing unreasonable and incomprehensible approval for the defendant’s thoroughly debunked idea that Dee Dee’s credibility had been destroyed and the prosecution’s case was “crumbling.”

I do not know if Erica actually had read any of my posts or the comments by others regarding this matter. However, I think she had a duty and responsibility to inform herself as best she could regarding the matter before she expressed her opinion and she should have explained why she thought her idea had any merit, rather than merely assuming that she was right, a telltale sign of troll behavior. She also should have been prepared to expose the flaws in our various arguments rather than complaining about being attacked.

In other words, she should have realized that she was expressing support for a thoroughly discussed and discredited idea and therefore she should have expected to be challenged and maybe even accused of being a troll. Therefore, she should have been prepared to defend her thesis by supporting her statement and exposing any flaws that she found .

Erica did neither. Instead, she took the attack personally and rebuked people for challenging her.

This was not a successful strategy and only confirmed initial suspicions that she was a troll.

I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on the troll issue, so I will not ban her or divert her comments into a purgatory file.

I am instead going to use this situation as a teaching opportunity to hopefully reduce, if not eliminate the possibility that an innocent inquiry might lead to someone being banned by mistake.

I think Erica is capable of reasoning her way through the evidence, reaching her own conclusions, and clearly expressing those conclusions here on this blog.

However, she and everyone else, including me, has to acknowledge that from time to time someone is going to disagree with something we say and challenge us. This is especially true if we express an opinion that is contrary to the group consensus reached after the matter in question has been extensively debated and firm conclusions have been reached.

In other words, we have a duty to inform ourselves to avoid revisiting resolved issues and wasting time reinventing the wheel.

When challenging someone’s idea, each of us has a duty and responsibility to the person whose comment we are challenging to focus on the statement or conclusion to which we object and clearly express our objection and the basis for it.

Rarely, if ever, will there be a valid reason to personalize the challenge by attacking and insulting the person who made the comment.

In turn, rarely, if ever, will there be a reason for the person being challenged to attack the challenger with insults, instead of defending the merits of the comment challenged.

In other words, the debate should be about the merit of the idea expressed and not about the person who expressed it.

A big exception, of course will come up as it did with Erica when she endorsed a defense opinion that the national media recently supported. She endorsed it without qualification ignoring multiple recent posts and a thorough analysis debunking it. People are going to challenge anyone who does that because the opinion expressed has been debunked and the person expressing it has not offered any new evidence, reason or argument to justify reconsidering the matter. As such, the person’s comment is an annoying distraction that often derails thoughtful debate and consideration of new matters or issues.

We learn by making mistakes and there is no reason to pretend we are perfect.

Just know that from today forward every time anyone challenges consensus, they should expect to be questioned and be prepared to support their theory with new evidence while explaining what is wrong with the consensus opinion or theory. Relying on discredited arguments or unproven assumptions is not acceptable.

This is the way mature and responsible people engage in debate, learn and grow as human beings. We are inevitably more knowledgeable and better people from participating in this process throughout our entire lives.

We do not stop learning when we leave school. We go to school to acquire the tools to learn and communicate, Our true learning begins when we leave school and continues until we cease to exist.

459 Responses to Read before you write

  1. Mary Davis says:

    @ Professor.
    Just donated. Please Confirm. Thank you.

  2. colin black says:

    ay2z says:

    March 29, 2013 at 10:50 am

    Yes, NEN Sean hear what he heard, he is, afterall, a trained and experienced listener. Sean reacted to the noise, wind/breathing of movments after he heard an anxious sounding caller exclaim ‘Shit, he’s running’, all together told Sean he may be out of his vehicle and following.

    It was windy (weather reports have disputed that apparently) but nevertheless, the ‘wind shuffling sounds stop and we don’t hear them again.

    It isn’t just about the killer’s after thoughts to dispute following. Killer also has answered affirmatively, on scene, at that very moment, what he was doing. Not disputed. He could have said to Sean, need to get you an address.

    Reply

    @
    Sean realised he was out the truck and following him..
    He phrased the commment ….Are you following him in a mannner that was nuetrall ..And i m o almost as if it was the desired action for the caller to take…So foggage answered truthfully an said yes.

    If Sean had used a concerned anxious tone an said ….Your not following him out your vechicle are you?

    Foggage wouldve picked up on the negative responce an lied .

  3. ay2z says:

    A revisit, body language reveals.

    Especially note the expressions, pursing lips, before he apologizes to ‘The Martins”.

    • Jun says:

      I do not know if it is always true, but notice that he is looking left while talking

      That usually signifies lying

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      You don’t need a degree in demeanor or expression analysis to see what a fraud, what a dangerous and disgusting person GZ is. Look carefully at his face while he makes the apology. Keep your eyes focused on the facial muscles moving beneath the skin. What you will see is him struggling mightily to suppress smile, dupers smirks, several times as he goes on.

      He’s actually fond of the memories of terrorizing Trayvon and he’s constantly reliving the killing. His glee borders on orgasmic, such that even under the stress, normal for public speaking, he still has to fight to suppress his “enjoyable memories” of that night. Just keep watching closely and see how his face subtly brightens as he fights to keep full blown smiles from emerging.

      • Malisha says:

        I agree with you 100% on that, Lonnie. I just can’t stand to watch it over and over again; I find it so demoralizing that a human being could end up so degraded as Fogen.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          You saw it!!! Horrible isn’t it? You can see his face brightening up, as his words remind him of what he’s speaking about, then he quickly suppresses what is clearly a smile trying to emerge. No sooner than he suppresses one smile, another begins to emerge. Some develop further than others, but it’s horrible to think that this man actually enjoyed what he did and he’s getting kicks out of thinking about it over and over. No wonder he told Hannity that he didn’t regret and wasn’t sorry for what he did. He doesn’t want to let anything interfere with his thrills.

          He’s worthless, even Shelly picked up on it subconsciously and it won’t let her have his children. In just 2 short years she’s watch him continue this slow slide downhill. Shelly may have gone to see her father, but earlier in the day, in the hopes of begging up some money for groceries. Returning home broke and disgusted to find GZ taking pills and drinking. What a mess.

  4. Alright! Alright! I’m a glutton for punishment but I couldn’t resist. I mean really. I’m just stunned that he/she hit the submit button and published it for the world to see. (shakes head and weeps)

    Ejarra at 8:13 AM March 29, 2013

    When I read “decided” “complex” “cornerstore” “tragic story” I thought that it didn’t smell right.

    Instead of “decided” if she said, “thought to” and “apartment area” instead of “complex” it would have sounded more like her. No frickin’ way Trayvon said, “cornerstore”. He would have said, “7-11″. I know people who call ALL convenience stores “7-11s”. Her saying, “tragic story” is just a joke! She would have said, “Then I found out he was kilt.” (Using Brandi verbiage.)

    • ay2z says:

      What a great idea, let’s apply the ‘gut feeling’ philosophy to switch out words that we think would fit better, on all the witnesses and their testimony, replace their words with ours to make them think what we think they think so they say what we think. And then everyone can take a vote to decide which fits most people’s interpretations, afterall, that’s democracy! And if Judge Nelson doesn’t like it, she can step down!

      (snark alert big time)

    • leander22 says:

      Southern, I wish there was a link. Was it on the LLMPapa DeeDee video thread?

      *******************************************************

      Sorry, if someone has already noticed this. No disrespect meant. Staying on topic: delays, money, continuance:

      on 28 March 2013.

      On Monday, March 25, the Court canceled the hearing previously scheduled on April 2. The Court did not consult with the defense before canceling the hearing. As there are only 74 days until trial, and as there are Motions before the Court, we hope to appear before the Judge for pending matters before the next hearing currently scheduled for April 30.

      • ay2z says:

        “The court did not consult with defense….”

        Sounds like they are trying to get the good Judge Deborah Nelson, on the hook for some bad deeds.

        S’pose that turns on what ‘consult’ means, and if a judicial assistant was the person who did the so claimed ‘non’ consult.

      • leander22 says:

        ay2z,
        I could understand she feels insulted. Remember judge Lester who was forced into extra work? Consider, she offers a special hearing during vacations. And they catapult her with a series of complex motions at exactly that point? Frederick may call it hot air based on his experience. So she is supposed to prepare herself both on matters she has already decided on and given her opinion and additionally face a complex case against state. They expect her to prepare herself during her vacation?

        Strictly and I am not sure about if it was the Crump issue already, but I think it was. She stated her position already but said a judgment would follow. I wish her all the strength in the world. And I hope she has the back of family and/or friends. And remains calm.

        Strictly I have no problem to understand their obsession with DeeDee and media statements, but whatever was spread in media is ultimately hearsay and there is no single “suspect” in this context. As she said depose DeeDee, after all she is the ultimate target. Pretty easy to see. The rest are distractive activities, it feels, maneuvering.

    • Rachael says:

      Well eff him, I know people who call all 7-11’s corner stores. I’m one of them. .

    • elcymoo says:

      SouthernGirl2 says:
      March 29, 2013 at 10:52 am
      Alright! Alright! I’m a glutton for punishment but I couldn’t resist. I mean really. I’m just stunned that he/she hit the submit button and published it for the world to see. (shakes head and weeps)

      Ejarra at 8:13 AM March 29, 2013

      When I read “decided” “complex” “cornerstore” “tragic story” I thought that it didn’t smell right.

      Instead of “decided” if she said, “thought to” and “apartment area” instead of “complex” it would have sounded more like her. No frickin’ way Trayvon said, “cornerstore”. He would have said, “7-11″. I know people who call ALL convenience stores “7-11s”. Her saying, “tragic story” is just a joke! She would have said, “Then I found out he was kilt.” (Using Brandi verbiage.)

      *************************

      I thought that interpretation of DD’s handwritten statement was ridiculous. The central VA city where I lived for 25 years before moving to another state was predominately black by the time I left, due to white flight, and most of the residents did call convenience stores ‘the corner store’, because most of such stores were traditionally located on the corners of streets in the downtown area, and most 7-11s, when they came along, located outside that area.

      I also thought it was demeaning for anyone to imply that DD was not capable of using a phrase like ‘this tragic story’; after all, she was addressing Trayvon’s mother, and would naturally have wanted to use her best language skills in that letter.

      • Here’s the deal. The reason the clown can’t/won’t accept DD’s statement is b/c he has created an image of how black people talk/think etc. Anything that goes against what he has conjured up in his mind just effs him up. It’s sad really.

      • aussie says:

        and if you intellectualise it by saying “this tragic story” you and the recipient are both less likely to break down in tears than if you say “found out he was shot dead”.

        It also doesn’t come across to me as a “cold” statement — it sounds like putting into writing, briefly, something that had already been discussed orally.

        The neat, legible writing, good spelling, good grammar, show DeeDee to be much brighter than a first hearing of the tapes suggest. It’s just the way the dialect “swallows” some words (that in writing she does put in) and the way she was humming and ahhing and muttering in both interviews, from nerves and being under pressure and being constantly interrupted.

        It’s also harder to answer questions when playing to an audience… this is why the hospital story came about. Had Sybrina not been at the interview, she could and probably would have said she could not face going but had given this excuse to Sybrina to not hurt her feelings. Answers can be inhibited by the presence of someone whose reactions you’re concerned about. Same as kids will speak more freely with an appointed adult in the room, rather than with a parent, who they may be in trouble with for the truth, if they tell it.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          aussie, i agree with your assessment of deedee’s letter completely. the one other thought that occurred to me upon reading it is that even if she had some discussion with the family beforehand, this would likely be the first time in her short life where she was in the position of writing what amounts to a sympathy note. a note to the parents of someone she for whom had deep feelings. in addition to telling what she did know, it is reasonable that she would turn to formalities to express some things, out of a sense of tradition as well as to protect all parties from some of the harsher realities as to why the note was even written.

      • Malisha says:

        Well well, now we think perhaps DeeDee did not write DeeDee’s written statement? Well until BDLR disavows it, I guess it’s hers!

      • gbrbsb says:

        I find every word in keeping except perhaps for “This tragic story”. But then I wonder what it would be like for an 18 year old to have to write something like “Then I found out he was dead”… horrific! Which brings me to think that maybe someone helped her with that last phrase to make it easier to write without it being too dramatic or traumatic for her.

    • Xena says:

      @SG2. It’s all part of bigotvoyent characteristics. They purport to know not only the future of Black teens, but also how they should speak and write.

    • jo says:

      most people don’t write the way they talk, especially to someones parents. When i talk i use a lot of ‘slang’ but when putting on paper you get to think things over a bit first.

  5. Rachael says:

    Just catching up on some reading – this is old (3/25) so you’ve probably read it, but its good. The last line is great:

    “Whether George Zimmerman is guilty or not, Robert Zimmerman Jr. is definitely guilty of being an idiot.”

    http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/index.php/2013/03/george-zimmerman-brother-compares-trayvon-martin-to-baby-killer/

    • ay2z says:

      I can hear Sybrina’s voice from a past interview, as she said about her son “He’s my baby”.

      That’s the truer comparison, two mothers.

    • Malisha says:

      I didn’t look closely at the “Trayvon Martin middle-finger picture” and I remember somebody saying it was not even Trayvon Martin, but consider this: What IS IT if it IS Trayvon Martin? It could easily be “Trayvon Martin saying ‘this is what you say to violence’ or ‘this is what you say to bullies’ or ‘this is what you say to drunk driving’ or anything like that.” How stupid!

      • dianetrotter says:

        to me it shows that there is something to the claim that the family, not just GZ, are racists.

      • gbrbsb says:

        Agree entirely with your conclusions Malisha, but out of interest IT IS Trayvon because if you watch the Phil whatever he’s surnamed interview with Tracey and Sybrina on YouTube (if you do have a hanky ready!) it is one of the photos that appear occasionally as a sort of intermission and which absolutely MUST have been approved by both Tracey and Sybrina. The same goes for a picture montage with a red painted naive skull and cross-bones with Trayvon’s name dripping “blood” in a sort of goth style which some posters here rejected as authentic on the basis they were faked by team Z to show Trayvon was related to gang culture! Yes, Trayvon was a normal kid of his time with all the trappings that entails… rap, goth style, etc.

  6. STATE’S REDACTED 13TH SUPPLEMENTAL DISCOVERY in Zimmerman case.

    http://ow.ly/jzo6S

  7. Trained Observer says:

    I took that to be a reference to the NEN dispatcher saying “We don’t need you to do that.”

    Also don’t see revelation on that point in DeeDee’s note that’s attached (Exhibit B, dated March 19, 2012.)

    • 2dogsonly says:

      Right, Exhibit b doesn’t speak to that but it was a beautiful thing in it’s “slap your momma” indignation.

    • ay2z says:

      Yes, NEN Sean hear what he heard, he is, afterall, a trained and experienced listener. Sean reacted to the noise, wind/breathing of movments after he heard an anxious sounding caller exclaim ‘Shit, he’s running’, all together told Sean he may be out of his vehicle and following.

      It was windy (weather reports have disputed that apparently) but nevertheless, the ‘wind shuffling sounds stop and we don’t hear them again.

      It isn’t just about the killer’s after thoughts to dispute following. Killer also has answered affirmatively, on scene, at that very moment, what he was doing. Not disputed. He could have said to Sean, need to get you an address.

  8. LLMPapa says:

    From page 6, is Bernie telling us something new?

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Not new, I don’t think – we know Fogen approaches Trayvon from behind per W8 phone call.

    • SearchingMind says:

      Good observation, LLMPapa.

      My answer would be yes, and no.

      No, because the charging affidavit stated exactly the same.

      Yes, because BDLR is now using the words: “undisputed facts”.

      My thinking is that both parties (prosecution and defense) have clear evidence that GZ “confronted” Trayvon. That evidence can range from (a combination of) (a) the “hidden information” extracted from the 911-recordings, (b) the gps-data retrieved from both Trayvon’s- and GZ’s phone, (c) testimony from DeeDee and other witnesses, etc. to other evidence we may not yet know of.

      IIRC, O’Mara himself has said that ‘what is important is not what happened before GZ caught up with Trayvon, but what happened after that (I am paraphrasing here)’.

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        I’m wondering… We need the expert opinion of Professor on this but:

        GZ claims that he rolled down his window when Trayvon approached. Trayvon then asked him “why are you following me?”
        To which GZ says he replied: “I’m not following you”. Then he rolled the window up.

        At that point in time, GZ claims to have lied to Trayvon, obviously the NEN call started before Trayvon approached him. Even though the tapes show no sign of the claimed encounter.

        But, here’s the question; Could this claimed lie be considered a confrontation? Because it certainly seems hostile, given all the bad things GZ has to say about a total stranger.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “GZ claims that he rolled down his window when Trayvon approached. Trayvon then asked him “why are you following me?”
          To which GZ says he replied: “I’m not following you”. Then he rolled the window up.”

          Help me and my less than perfect memory. When was that said and to who?

          Was it in one of the police interviews with Zimmerman?

          unitron

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Ah yes, working from memory it was in one of the versions he gave to Serino. He told Serino that TM was walking towards him as he was sitting there in his truck. He rolled down the window and Trayvon asked him “why are you following me?” That’s when he told Serino that he replied that he wasn’t following him and rolled the window back up. He told Serino he did this because he was scared of Trayvon. Which was a claim he made to explain why he didn’t identify himself then. It’s why Serino says “that’s not fear”, when GZ gets out of his truck and runs after Trayvon.

      • towerflower says:

        Lonnie, I think you are mistaken, in his first interview with Singleton he says that he rolled his windows up when TM approached…..not down. He also says he didn’t hear what TM was saying to him because the windows were up and he was talking to the dispatcher.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Yes, that was another one of the several versions GZ told. Another version, constructed to show that Trayvon was bold and aggressive, had Trayvon coming back from the T and circling GZ’s truck. Did you get that one?

          But no, GZ tells Serino in this version that he was afraid of Trayvon. That when Trayvon approached his truck he rolled down the window, then Trayvon asked: “why are you following me? GZ says that he replied that he wasn’t following TM and he rolled the window back up. Serino asked him why he didn’t identify himself and that’s when he says he was scared. Hmmm… Now that I think of it, it could have very well been on the tape of the walk through/reenactment video. Yeah, because when he gets out of his truck and goes running after Trayvon, Serino says “That’s not fear!” The fear he’s refering to is the fear GZ claimed when he lied to TM.

      • aussie says:

        @@Lonnie

        that was a quote from Tracy Martin, saying that’s what some unspecified police had told him about what happened. I always took it to be a misunderstanding, or mis-spoken by the police etc, I don’t think anyone took it as being really true. GZ himself never mentioned any talk with Trayvon at all until the “what’ your problem homie” allegation.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          I’ll come across it again. There’s a version where he says that Trayvon approaches his truck and he rolls down the window, answers Trayvon that he’s not following him and rolls the window back up. I know because I read it several times and it’s one of the two instances Serino mentions in the capias request that GZ has to identify himself. In the most popular versions GZ keeps the window up because, he says, he’s scared of TM. But being scared of TM is his reason for not identifying himself.

      • Malisha says:

        Lonnie, what I think happened is that the Fogen story “he came and circled my car and I rolled down the window and he said ‘why are you following me’ and I said ‘I’m not'” was not in any of the recordings that were released of interviews of Fogen by either Serino or Singleton. I BELIEVE HE TOLD TIM SMITH that sh*t and Tim Smith told Serino and Serino told it to Tracy Martin after they discovered the identity of the victim but while Serino still believed that Tracy Martin might (or would) believe that his son had attacked a guy with a “squeaky clean” record.

        I believe Serino told Mr. Martin that his son had accosted Fogen in his car. Clearly, Trayvon’s father did not believe that ridiculous story. But that’s where the incident appeared — in several news articles explaining why the Fulton-Martins were not accepting the official SPD “line” about how their son died. It was well before the demonstrations and the FDLE bringing charges against Fogen. That story died an early and unremarkable death.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          That’s probably it, I know it was before I started taking notes, and I was surprised that Serino didn’t use it more precisely when he feels compelled to remark “That’s not fear”, about GZ running after TM.

          We did have quite some discussions of that remark, though on bcclist.com back when we were talking about why GZ didn’t identify himself, that was one of the earliest points about his opportunity to identify himself that we had back then.

    • Tzar says:

      I believe he is and it is beyond the instructions of the NEN operator
      he is saying he has undisputed evidence that the killer followed and confronted the child
      O’Mara has also given us hints that there is undisputed evidence that the killer “first approached” Trayvon Martin by merely rearranging his case strategy and stating out loud the all that matters in what happened after this first approach. He had to pay a steep price in order to concede that his client was the first approacher, in that he had to directly contradict every single statement made by his client, why else do this unless there was direct evidence that his client did indeed do this and lied about it.

      This strategy however needs Deedee to go away, because she heard part of what happened after that point.

      good luck wif dat!

      • pat deadder says:

        Tzar so is that why in the beginning Omara said it was Stand Your Ground then later he changed to Self Defense apparently there is a difference.Now it seems he is doing neither.They all know something we don’t and it doesn’t look good for fogen.

        • Tzar says:

          I think those stages reflect his epiphanies secondary to sporadic cracking open of the evidence files or being handed stuff from Bernie, like gps data.

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      I believe he is. This is the first time we’re seeing the DD letter to Sabrina? Why? Originally we thought that Trayvon came in through Taaffe’s, Just noted that it didn’t seem likely that GZ would notice him there, because of the way the road turns west then east, in the rain and dark, with TM being first noticed so far back from the road.

      DD, it seems had mentioned something cryptic about “apartments”, which seemed to indicate that TM might very well have come that way, to be able to shelter from the rain. Of course, this was before we leaned that TM left 711 with plenty of time to make it to mail shed by 6:54, using either route, and the dropped phone call and reconnect seem to fix that TM was in the mail shed by then.

      Then came Attorney Crump with “He hit the code” and suddenly we were back with the theory that TM had used the front gate.

      Now this, we get this March 19th letter where DD appears to confirm the Colonial Village Apartments route.

      If you want to know what I think, it’s that; Since BDLR is under no obligation to use any particular theory of guilt, and he can select what evidence he believes will support the case he intends to make. He has had this evidence that, he couldn’t see how to use, and would therefore probably leave it alone. But, that now he’s developed a new theory that includes it, and perhaps some of our theories and propositions here and elsewhere have led them to see these alternatives.

      If so, they’ve decided that it’s now prudent to share, and see what we are able to make of it, now that they have a good idea of the fit. After all, released evidence sort of locks both sides into a narrowing set of theories.

      • PYorck says:

        What I have wondered before is if GZ’s account might be a composite of several events. That could perhaps resolve some of the timeline issues.

        It is possible that he thought nobody would ever know if he pared down the story a bit and omitted quite a few minutes between him (or his informer) spotting Trayvon entering the retreat and the NEN call.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Okay, here’s the timeline, created from the various docs and the phone logs. If you find something that can be corrected by a better doc, just post it in a comment there and I’ll get to it.

          Note how Trayvon has left home and reaches the 711 before sunset.
          The Civil twilight would be the brightest of the three twilights and because of the overcast conditions, you would get a diffused brightness, instead of the shadows and silhouettes normal twilight yields. By nautical twilight the ambient light is beginning to substantially dim. By Astronomical twilight it’s already dark because of the overcast conditions.

    • ay2z says:

      What Bernie included was the ‘text messaging’ by Trayvon’s friend to try to reconnect with him after the phone cut off.

      We haven’t seen any text messages if they even got through, in fact, we haven’t seen any of Trayvon’s phone records from the 26th, but they went to the defense ages ago and they haven’t held a presser yet.

    • onlyiamunitron says:

      “From page 6, is Bernie telling us something new?”

      Bernie’s got a star witness (#8) who says Trayvon spoke first, challenging Zimmerman about why he was following him.

      Does he really want to go with “Defendant confronted Trayvon Martin”?

      Answered the confrontation in a confrontational manner, perhaps, depending on whether you go with “What’re you talking about”, “What are you doing around here”, or “I don’t have a problem”, but saying that Zimmerman did the confronting implies that he, and not Martin, acted and spoke first.

      And that’s not the way she tells it.

      unitron

      • fauxmccoy says:

        @ unitron

        ‘confrontation’ need not refer to which party vocalizes first. one who has tracked down another and presumably invaded the personal space of another in a manner which impedes the progress of another can certainly be the one who instigates the confrontation.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Exactly fauxie Trayvon might just as well have asked “Why are you scaring the hell out of me?” Which is an acknowledgement that he’s been confronted already. The situation GZ creates is what Trayvon is confronted with. So, if GZ goes away, so does the confrontational situation.

          Worse yet is, GZ knows that he’s in the wrong. Otherwise, why does he lie to conceal the truth? There is no surer way to know that someone knows that what they are doing is wrong, than to have them lie about it, in an effort to make others believe that they did not do what they know is wrong.

      • Jun says:

        Look up in the dictionary the word confrontation

        There is nothing written regarding speaking first

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        Yep, I think BDLR has it exactly right. You see, the problem with the confrontation is; not that Trayvon spoke first, but that GZ was there at all to be spoken to!

        GZ was behind Trayvon or somewhere near him when Trayvon turned and asked GZ why he was following him.

        The problem is Trayvon is somewhere south of the t at the time, and GZ is heard to answer him back, which means that GZ is also somewhere south of the T. GZ is not supposed to be there at all, and his testimony about this particular time is, he was on his way back to his truck. Obviously he could not have been on his way back to his truck, and still be close enough to TM to be asked any question.

        GZ’s presence, therefore, was confrontational, so much so that it provoked Trayvon to speak. GZ, in effect, affirms that he’s been following Trayvon, when he asks “What are you doing around here?”
        Indicating that this is the question his following was in search of an answer for. Of course, it was, as we know, a rhetorical question, because GZ had already made up his mind about what Trayvon was doing around there.

        But, to later tell the police that he wasn’t there. That he wasn’t close to Trayvon when Trayvon was south of the T, is ludicrous! To add to the lie by saying that Trayvon doubled back to attack him, is just ghoulish beyond belief.

      • Dan Q. Smith says:

        Seriously? The man is following this child and the man is doing this first with his truck and you’re suggesting the child may have “confronted” the man by asking why he was being followed? Was the child not supposed to speak unless spoken to first? We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Fogen stalked Martin. Fogen sure as hell did confront Trayvon Martin. Then he murdered him in cold blood. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Yep, right you are Dan. Provoking a question is a confrontation. GZ should not have been so close to TM that he could provoke any question, and he certainly should not have been close enough to answer. Of course, he knows this, which is why he lies about it, and tries to tell us he wasn’t there, but was being beaten to death 40.5 feet away by an unarmed rail thin and timid youth.

    • Didn’t MO’M recently state that GZ approached Trayvon. There is something new here if the claim is that the defendant confronted trayvon isn’t in dispute anymore. Remember that the defendant claims that TM approached him and put him in a position that he could not escape from.

    • Malisha says:

      Well now BDLR has said Fogen CONFRONTED Trayvon and O’Mara has said Fogen APPROACHED Trayvon Martin.

      How much dispute can there be?

    • gbrbsb says:

      @LLMPapa
      Sure you saw DD’s letter with the reference to the “other complex” tying GZ first seeing Trayvon either in “Lakes Edge”, first after 7/11, or “Colonial Village” the one after that before RATL. I forgot which complex the defence subpoenaed CCTV videos on but looks like our suspicions may be confirmed and GZ may have followed Trayvon from one of the other complexes or could it possibly from even when he left RATL to go to 7/11 if GZ was bored patrolling that evening and he told Serino he had not seen Trayvon before and knew all of the residents!

  9. aussie says:

    From BDLR’s response, Appendix B, handwritten letter from DeeDee to Sybrina. Good legible writing, only 2 words misspelled (including Trayvon’s name). I’ve transcribed it as is.

    “March 19,2012
    I was on the phone when Trevon decided to go to the Cornerstore. It started to rain so he decided to walk through another complex because it was rainy to hard he started walking then noticed someone was following him.Then he decided to find a shortcut cause the man (c)(w)ouldn’t follow him. Then he said the man didn’t follow him again. Then he looked back and saw the man again. The man started getting closer. Then Trevon turned around and said Why are you following me !! Then I heard him fall, then the phone hung up. I called back.and text.No response. In my mind I thought it was just a fight. Then I found out this tragic story.
    Thank you (name blacked out).”

    • SearchingMind says:

      My senior brother’s name (the name on his birth certificate) is Shaul. We grew up calling him Paul, and writing his name as such – till date.

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        Also T-r-e-y-v-o-n has a lot of “3 key” letters in it, likely that text savvy kids would drop a letter or two. t-8, r-777, a-2, y-999, v-888, o-666, n-66.

      • onlyiamunitron says:

        “My senior brother’s name (the name on his birth certificate) is Shaul. We grew up calling him Paul…”

        Was he by chance on the road to Damascus at any point early in his life?

        : – )

        unitron

      • Malisha says:

        What’s the deal with “Saul” and “Paul” of Tarsus — if you know. I never got that. (Not that other stuff in the Bible was immediately or ever clear to me, of course –) ❓

        • dianetrotter says:

          Possibly symbolic of him being a new person. He had been a murderer of Christans as Saul.. On the way to Damascus he changed and was named Paul.

        • Xena says:

          @Malisha

          What’s the deal with “Saul” and “Paul” of Tarsus — if you know. I never got that.

          Saul was the Hebrew pronunciation. Paul was the Greek pronunciation. Saul was called as an apostle to the Gentiles so “Paul” was more acceptable.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I liked her handwriting – clear and straightforward.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        @two-sides … likewise on deedee’s writing. she is far more articulate than i thought based on the spoken interview with BDLR. her writing is clear and concise. i hope that she will perform as well on the witness stand. although i think bernie writes delightful responses to frivolous defense motions, a good interviewer he is not. i think when deedee is allowed the time to tell things in her own words, she is able to do the job. i definitely am far less concerned about that after reading her letter.

    • FactsFirst says:

      “I called back and test. No Response”
      OMGOODNESS!!! I wanna know whats in Trayvon’s text messages, because even if the phone was off, those messages would still come through… I know the recent calls wouldn’t but the text messages MOST DEFINATELY will! I’m willing to bet DD BLEW her boo phone up with texts and calls in the days after the shooting.. NO WONDER the SPD were so anxious to get Trayvon’s code….. Oh THE DRAMA! ON TOP OF THAT, I saw a pic of trayons phone with an outgoing phonecall to 911 2-27-2012.. so how in the hell were SPD able to dial out if Trayvons phone was locked? Things that make you go hum…

      • I’m willing to bet DD BLEW her boo phone up with texts and calls in the days after the shooting.

        You’d better believe it. Oh, I wanna know what’s in those messages too.

      • FactsFirst says:

        Imagine all the texts from Trayvon’s father, mother, DD, and all of Trayvon’s other friends/family.. Then, Imagine GZ’s texts from John, his brother, Frank Taffe and whom ever… Now~~~> Imagine all those texts put together in chronological order… DAMNING to the DEFENSE I imagine…

      • towerflower says:

        FactsFirst, I don’t know about TM’s phone, but with mine, if it’s locked it still has an emergency call feature to use even if the phone is locked.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          “if it’s locked it still has an emergency call feature to use even if the phone is locked.”

          Which, I think, is what accounts for the call from Trayvons’s phone to 911 on the day of his funeral.

          The police used it to dial 911 so they could use 911’s caller ID to get his phone number.

          unitron

      • FactsFirst says:

        LOL! That’s right! I forgot about that! Thanks @towerflower & unitron..

      • Malisha says:

        FactsFirst, where did you see the outgoing phone records for Trayvon’s phone?

        Anybody remember that there was a news article that Trayvon called 911 and then it got scrubbed from the net? HEY HEY!

        What went on there??

    • gbrbsb says:

      Not sure why the doubts about whether DD wrote “couldn’t” or “wouldn’t”. Comparing other words she writes that start with a “w” (“walk”, “was” x 2, “walking”), it is quite clear she wrote “wouldn’t”, which could be either her shorthand way of saying “wouldn’t be able to…”, or that she uses “wouldn’t” as if it were “couldn’t. None surprising.

    • gbrbsb says:

      @Aussie

      Apart from it being very definitely “wouldn’t” and not “couldn’t” when comparing other words DD writes that start with “w”, I suddenly realised it is “raining” not “rainy” (more logical) if you compare other words that end in “ing”, i.e. “walking”, “following” x 2, and “getting”, this last being the best for the comparison.

  10. Jun says:

    LMAO

    Jodi Arias is using the PTSD motion LMAO

    • Dan Q. Smith says:

      Juan Martinez destroyed Jodi Arias’ hack psychologist. Did he ever deserve it too! “She created an alternate reality for herself” blah, blah. No, Dr. Doofushead. It’s called covering up a crime. I haven’t watched “Expert” 2 yet. “Travis abused Jodi the delicate flower” blah, blah, yet. These people are rationalizing the behavior of a murderer (for $250 an hour). Who does that? It’s just sad. I know someone with PTSD. He was a soldier in Vietnam. Jodi Arias does not have PTSD. To say she does is plain insulting.

      • Thank you Dan…….They have said I have PTSD….yet I won’t accept it………..Can’t think of many people that haven’t had some tragedy or trauma in their lives……Tornado victim’s included…

        And this “expert” will tell you all about it for $250.00 an hour……..Wonder if he believes in her so much he’s do it for free?

        Nope….just bought himself a new Mercedes……..Martinez did rip him to shreds though 🙂

  11. ay2z says:

    Another quote of today:

    “Counsel for Defendant apparently feels that the State Attorney’s Office should keep him from publicly humiliating himself and his client. Rule 3.220 does not appear to contain such a requirement”

    BDLR Response to motion for sanctions

    • Trained Observer says:

      Another zinger!

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        Yes, it is hilarious at first blush. On a second thought, however, it’s the SP “jumping froggy” on the defense. Boy, oh boy, for them to do that, they’ve got to have found so many nails to put in the coffin, that there no way MOM can keep them from slamming and nailing it shut.

        Hardly a wonder that BDLR is letting us have a few tidbits of info that are standing our current assumptions on their head.

        It now seems to me that the following probably started at the 711, meaning that the trip to the store was caused by a lure of some kind. But, Trayvon, it seems was probably targeted, almost from the moment he set foot on RATL. This was either an initiation or Trayvon was being made a fall guy for something someone else did to fogen.
        For example Ransburg(berg) could have told GZ that Trayvon was the rat, who cost them the 3,000 dollar laptop, that GZ hoped to sell on eBay to raise much needed cash. They wouldn’t want to tell GZ the truth, that they had been so abysmally stupid as to be seen together the very next day, hanging out near the scene of the crime, wearing the same damned clothes. To make matters worse, they could say that Trayvon also knew GZ’s business as well. Boy would that cause the wagons to circle around GZ, eh? I mean, if anything like that were true.

      • gbrbsb says:

        @Lonnie
        And what if it started with GZ observing Trayvon on his way to 7/11 and it all followed on from there? Just saying… asking… putting in the mix…!

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Not a problem, like I’ve said before, we are not policemen, we are not prosecutors nor defense attorneys, we are the public and we have a right and a duty to speculate about what the evidence means. Obviously some speculations and theories will make better sense than others do. Of course, the best effort is to stay as close to the evidence we have as is possible. Unless the effort is to connect or explain some truly arcane artifacts or present hunches. Experience investigators work with hunches all the time. Because some times that’s all you have left to go on.

          Okay, I don’t think GZ observed Trayvon himself. Because, if he did, then it seems likely to me that he would not be at home, but in his truck parked somewhere near the east gate or on TTL. So, we would not see a vehicle coming down RVC west in the appropriate time frame. Because we know within seconds, when to expect the appearance of a vehicle on the roads, passing the cctv’s, we can surmise that this vehicle is GZ coming from home. Sure enough, the vehicle does this little time consuming “dance”, but still winds up in position to be the one from which the NEN call is being made.

          The NEN call, when compared to GZ’s other NEN and 911 calls, appears to be impaired. If so, this makes it even more likely that GZ needed assistance to accomplish any goal, no matter what it might have been.

          This is where my hunch comes in. See those three guys at 711? they don’t pull up to the store until they see Trayvon outside. Trayvon appears to wait 30 seconds for them to arrive. At least the time from when he leaves the store, until that headlamp appears in the store window, as the car whips into the parking space, is more than enough time for Trayvon to have cleared the front store windows headed back east. So, he’s outside the store just standing and after he stands there for some 25 to 30 seconds, we see this car whip into the parking space. Within a few seconds more, we see these three guys come into the store.

          All three have their faces covered, eh? Now why would normal customers, and/or people not planning a robbery, be concerned to cover their faces on a public store cctv? Well, if you’ve been watching the fronts windows, you’ve noticed that Trayvon is still waiting patiently outside. It will be almost 5 minutes before these guys leave the store, and only after that, will Trayvon start back east.

          So, what was the important business? Acquaintances? Nope, you don’t wait 5 minutes for acquaintances, you say your greetings and go. Trayvon wasn’t seeking beer. He could have been seeking a black and mild, as some have said, but no, his cousin could have gotten that for him at anytime. After all, his cousin took Trayvon to the store that morning and brought a black and mild for himself. Trayvon waited outside in the car and did not come in.

          Funny thing is, on 2/7/12 a white guy name Ransberg(burg) is caught carrying a backpack in which there is two laptops and a large screen phone. This Ransberg(burg) is traveling with 3 blacks. One of the blacks (Burgess) has stolen a laptop. That laptop is now in the bag that Ransburg(berg) is carrying. EH? Okay, all four are taken to the station and Burgess parole is violated so he stays in jail, he has claimed ownership of the stolen laptop, so Ransberg(burg) and his two black friends are released.

          Now, fast forward to the 711 and note that there’s one white guy, and two blacks… Hmmm, eh? Police claimed on 2/7/12, that the large screen phone found in the backpack Ransberg(burg) was carrying, had been used to traffic in stolen merchandise. Meanwhile people on the net, have theorized that GZ’s NW activities, would have made an excellent cover for casing the neighborhood residents for valuables and such. I’m sure people who had such ideas won’t mind posting them and the relevant support data again.

          Which is to say: “Could there be some connection?” GZ did make a rather mysterious 135 dollar mailing after he was released from the station. So, claims that it might have been stolen goods is a possibility not so easily dismissed.

          I also note, via the timeline HERE, that Trayvon would have made it all the way home, if not for this 5 minute delay at 711. When the rain started to get heavy enough to impede his progress, he was about 5 minutes less from home. So, if he had been walking for that entire 5 minutes and 30 seconds, he’d probably have been within seconds from his house if not already inside.

          The “3 Stooges” delayed Trayvon, and then the rains came and delayed him even more. So, it looks like even with help or assistance, GZ was unable to meet the schedule. Only because of the rain did GZ manage to capture Trayvon. So that WAS as stroke of “luck” if you want to call it that, for GZ. Still, if not for those clowns at the 711, the rain would have come to late to help GZ complete his designs.

          So, it looks to me that GZ was out “caterwauling” around, while being directed by who knows who. But, whom ever they are, they’ve so far managed to stay out of view. All we can see is the shadows left by their hand(s).

  12. fauxmccoy says:

    excellent article, professor. i am personally opposed to labeling anyone a ‘troll’ for merely asking a question although i fully support factual push back. my preference is that it be respectful and i do not feel that we must all engage in group think. i do honor the group consensus model that we have appeared to adopt and agree that it behooves any commenter to review past topics prior to making statements which have been covered previously.

    i am delighted with both judge nelson’s and BDLR’s responses to what i see as frivolous motions on behalf of the defense. nelson’s i like for it’s succinctness and bernie’s for just being bernie while pursuing legal merits of the entire defense strategy.

    • gbrbsb says:

      @Faux
      Erica didn’t make a statement as far as on that post goes, she asked a question, and even if you are fortunate enough to have the free time to do as is behoven to read, review and research all the topics, are you then saying that those who do not have that free time should not even ask a question?

      • ks says:

        @gbrbsb,

        Whoa, given fauxmccoy posting history and the general polite tone of this post, I doubt that’s what he/she is saying and frankly, you should give your “defense” a rest. You’ve made your point.

        • gbrbsb says:

          @ks
          I don’t think I was impolite (dry maybe) but if it can be taken that way I apologise as it was not my intention nor is it my form as my long posting history also shows. I have followed and appreciated Faux’s posts here and elsewhere over a long time, thus my surprise they referred to Erica’s question as a “statement”. And if questions are statements then the new rules make it more difficult for those with less time, myself included, to collaborate and yes that upsets me as I have been here a very long time, believe fervently in justice for Trayvon, and support the blog when I can.

      • ks says:

        @gbrbsb,

        That’s fair and I don’t doubt your good intentions.

        Maybe something is being lost in translation. I don’t think Fred and others are making any new mandatory rules or requirement that previous threads must be read before one can ask a question or make a statement. I think they are just making suggestions to nudge things along to try and avoid too much repetition but even then, most questions are usually answered regardless. Cheers.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        gbrbsb — i must say, i am a bit confused by your comment as you seem to be a bit confused by mine.

        erica asked a question and was branded a ‘troll’. i do not engage in this type of response myself and prefer that none of us do until it is beyond obvious that trolling is the sole purpose of posting here. i think it is always best respond to such a question with facts (the push back noted above) along with links to either previous articles here or elsewhere to support one’s position. this is how i was taught to argue formally whether it was my father at the dinner table or my debate team coach in college.

        i would in no way imply that no one should ask a question, that would be a ridiculous position to maintain. don’t you think? newcomers show up all the time and ask ‘what is a fogen’. i do not expect a newcomer to have discovered the meaning of that if they are just stumbling onto this blog. there is no reason to ever be rude or condescending to such a question.

        erica’s question was a bit more ‘loaded’ in my view and as such, she got some strongly worded responses. some of them were helpful, some less so. that is just what i would expect, for better or worse.

        i realize that time is a luxury in this world. it would be silly to expect anyone to keep up with every comment posted to every article fred posts, i certainly do not. i do however read each new article and have done so for a good year at this point. i would expect that much, at least, of regular posters. erica’s questions were answered in more than one of fred’s regular articles and i know that she is not a new comer. that is why i considered her question to be ‘loaded’ and i chose personally to not engage.

        i know that for myself, if i choose to join a forum or blog discussion such as this, i do spend a reasonable amount of time reading and exploring before i post. the primary reason i do so is so that i know that i am in the right place but secondarily, i want to know that when i do post what the general level of expectation for a post would be. i consider this prudent.

        i hope that this clarifies my position, kindly let me know if it does not and i’ll do my best.

        • gbrbsb says:

          @Fauxmccoy
          Thank you faux, yes clarified. I sincerely did not mean to offend you so I apologise if I did; yes point out, probably too abruptly, that a question is not a statement, and Erica’s was the first not the second as seems to have stuck, which IMO was causing the confusion rolling around and could adversely affect participation here including myself. I personally did not find her question at all “loaded” because of her history but agree posters would best serve the cause waiting before crying wolf because trolls always betray themselves otherwise there would be no point to their existence.

          We have been here from about same time then, (i.e. 30th March was PL’s first post on the case), and read the same posts, in my case depending on subject, interest, and time, more or less in depth and with more or less research. It was sometime after the banning of justincaselawgic and almajazan (the first a troll the second I was never fully sure) the cry “troll” started to become ever more frequent and too often against those who weren’t, or were merely questioning or disagreeing with the group view. IMO this has caused more distraction and upset than a question ever could which is sad because IMO a rush to judgement is what GZ made with Trayvon and in his name we should try to avoid making the same mistake here. Hope no confusion from your side now.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            @gbrbsb — no worries on this end my friend.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            The best I could figure out from almajazan’s time here was that it was a way for all of us to take an LSD trip without having to actually ingest LSD.

            Or as someone else might have said “I don’t know what her deal was”.

            unitron

          • fauxmccoy says:

            @unitron

            yes, the experience with amajazing was reminiscent of a bad flashback, to be sure.

          • gbrbsb says:

            So that’s what it was… hallucinations!

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “So that’s what it was… hallucinations!”

            I’m just not sure if they were hers or mine.

            Although the notion that the death of Trayvon was supposed to set off a black riot during the Republican convention so as to swing the nomination to Jeb Bush doesn’t seem to have panned out.

            unitron

          • gbrbsb says:

            You made me laugh… I had completely forgotten about that one! But surely even that doesn’t place her on the Zed team even if it doesn’t place her on the Tee team T either… the loopy team?

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            She started out smart as a whip, if a little quick to take offense, and with an interesting sense of humor, but eventually wound up “way out in left field” so much that the “pro-defense” or “pro-prosecution” labels were meaningless.

            She does seem to have been one of the imposter victims about the same time as Nef and I were, so I don’t know how or how much that factored into things.

            But her 180 on the professor was pretty whiplash inducing and unforseen, and I never managed to figure out what triggered it.

            unitron

          • fauxmccoy says:

            my guess on the sudden turnaround would be paranoia. i base this on elaborate conspiracy issues she attempted to detail here, at the huff post and other web sites. she is easy enough to track down across the net and there is some debate as to her authenticity. she would post some places as a young asian male.

            one of her enduring impacts on this case is that she could speak with what seemed to be great authority. stories of a long standing relationship between wolfinger and zim sr. began with her as well as complicated genealogies which brought into question the true parentage of some of the zimmerman children, but especially that of george and robert jr. i have seen numerous people repeat aspects of these stories, but never with any original reference source. to be clear, i have attempted to confirm these stories with some degree of determination, because she could not or would not back up her claims, with no success.

          • gbrbsb says:

            Yes, she was imo a highly intelligent free spirited youngster (do we know for sure a she? and young? or was that just my female intuition… ok, well maybe the sexy pic helped!).

            I had some fun exchanges with her and liked following her debates with the oh so arrogant (or was it pedantic or boorish or all?) justincaselawgic, against whom she appeared a fitting jouster, both here and on his blog “Empathy’s Sword” where I remember she defended PL fervently so I can’t remember if I actually saw her turn against him. When he banned her I was sad as I was fond of her so I wanted to say something in her favour but it was the time PL ruled anyone complaining about his banning a poster would be themselves be banned so I dropped my high principles and kept schtum… not sure one of my better judgements!

          • fauxmccoy says:

            @gbrbsb – he/she (there is some controversy over the net) made some outrageous claims about the professor’s father having a connection to zim senior’s father. fred’s father was in the foreign service and fred was born in cuba (i may have my island slightly off) and that zim sr’s father also worked there in the foreign service. her insinuations were kind of nasty and fit into an elaborate conspiracy theory.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “…her insinuations were kind of nasty and fit into an elaborate conspiracy theory.”

            I don’t know if the insinuations were nasty or not as I could never quite work out exactly what they were, but the conspiracy theory or theories left merely elaborate far, far behind.

            I think she was on the verge of working the Bay of Pigs fiasco and, by extention, the JFK assasination in there somewhere as well, but, alas, now we will never know.

            I almost wish the professor had kept her around, just to see what would have happened next.

            unitron

          • fauxmccoy says:

            understood, unitron. the entertainment could have been sublime, but at what cost?

            i did do some serious checking around on the net at the time. largely to try to find some, if any, confirmation to her zim family history claims and also about ‘her’. nothing added up as presented – shocking! 😉

            i suspect her twitter feed is still quite interesting, if past history is any indication, although i have not checked recently.

          • gbrbsb says:

            PL born in Cuba? Wow, I love the place… La Habana… so majestic, beautiful, decadence… not surprising the US was so embittered to be ejected… similar with the French and Algiers… majestic, beautiful, decadence… not surprising they fought so bitterly to not to lose it.

          • gbrbsb says:

            errata, I meant decadent (not decadence) in both cases

          • fauxmccoy says:

            no hay problema — i speak fluent typo 😉

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            ” i speak fluent typo 😉 ”

            How convenient. That’s what my keyboard is fluent in.

            unitron

          • fauxmccoy says:

            unitron says

            How convenient. That’s what my keyboard is fluent in.

            and that, my fellow traveler is why i never give another any grief over how they express themselves if it is remotely possible to make a logical inference. we are all human and as such, prone to errors (regardless of education or profession). some of us have learning disabilities others speak english as a second language.

            i do have one solid principle in this matter though, as a sister and mother to dyslexics, i will vigorously defend those who err in their written presentation. i do this by doggedly hounding those who would correct them. i have struggled to become bilingual myself and although my spanish is far from perfect, those who converse with me show nothing but kindness.

            i would be more than happy to bury the hatchet if we could agree to treat others with the dignity which we all deserve.

            deal?

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “i have struggled to become bilingual myself and although my spanish is far from perfect,”

            If you’re using the wrong palabra, would you rather know, or continue in ignorance?

            Especially if a major figure in what you were talking about had made the same mistake?

            unitron

          • fauxmccoy says:

            unitron – i would consider that to be akin to receiving advice. no one ever welcomes unsolicited advice. if i ask for such, then i will happily listen.

            when i am in spanish class or have made it clear with a spanish speaker that i wish to converse for the sake of practice and to please correct me if i make a mistake, then it is a non issue.

            no one deserves to be corrected unless they specifically ask for such. now, i feel i have made a very friendly gesture here and i think it would be best for all concerned that we come to an agreement.

          • dianetrotter says:

            comprendo

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “if we could agree to treat others with the dignity which we all deserve.”

            I believe you are attributing to me a motive which I did not possess.

            I wasn’t out to belittle anyone and probably wouldn’t have mentioned it if it were not the same mistake for which Judge Lester became so famous.

            I think the agreement to which we can come is to leave this topic in the past from here on out.

            unitron

          • fauxmccoy says:

            unitron –correcting others, regardless of intent IS belittling unless one is fulfilling a specific role which requires it.

            on this blog, it is leatherman’s role to clarify legal issues and to correct others when they have erred in interpretation or analysis. he has made it quite clear to you that your corrections are unwelcome as have many others.

            i was doing my best here to be gracious, if you cannot accept that then once again, i pity you. if you are unable to control yourself from needless corrections to others, then i suspect your days are numbered.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            Then I guess the agreement to which we can come is that one of us will be leaving this topic in the past.

            unitron

      • gbrbsb says:

        Faux, Unitron, anyone
        From the long thread below I have finally realised why my notifications icon doesn’t flag all replies to the thread and I have to chase them scrolling up an down every so often. For example, if you or Unitron reply directly to one of my comments then I get a warming yellow glow from the icon, but if you reply between each other, even though the reply thread was started by me…. zilch! I don’t think it fair but at least is it normal?

        • fauxmccoy says:

          i would not know, gb. i do not use the notification bar – i always respond from email because it is simply easier for me. i am also diligent in typing the name of the person to whom i am responding. once threads start to nest, it can become quite confusing.

          • gbrbsb says:

            I usually do the same, type @name, but sometimes forget as with this thread.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “I usually do the same, type @name, but sometimes forget as with this thread.”

            I generally try to quote the relevant part of that to which I’m replying so that people know if I’m talking to them or not, and so that it still makes at least some sense if/when some comments get “disappeared”.

            unitron

          • gbrbsb says:

            Thanks for another tip. I usually do unless I think it is evident, but just today I found in a simple thread like this many got posted out of order so your idea is much better.

        • onlyiamunitron says:

          ” zilch! I don’t think it fair but at least is it normal?”

          I have no idea, I just deal with an ocean of emails notifying me of every post, and not just the ones where someone clicked the reply button attached to one of mine.

          Which works out better, because a lot of the ones aimed at me are replies to my replies a few layers deep where there is no reply button so that it appears they’re replying to someone else, so it’s only by going through the emails that I find out about them in the first place.

          It’s kind of a pain, but not as much as loading the page and starting at the top and reading all the way down to make sure I saw everything and then doing it again after a short while.

          Also, it’s the only way to find out when someone says something on an old thread.

          unitron

      • gbrbsb says:

        Faux, Unitron, anyone
        Silly me I forgot I type in a box above but it posts way down below. Please read:

        “From the long thread above…”

  13. colin black says:

    Its like pavlovs dogs .
    Attention is a reward to junior .
    Write offensive tweets print offensive images.
    Get lots of attention so repeat behaviour an generate more attention.

    He said to peers moron its not that theyre both black but both are or in Trayvons case were 17..
    So why didnt he say 17yr olds can be seen as risky?

    • ay2z says:

      and as MOM said on tv this morning, both teens share that they have fingers too. We have to admit, that’s a lot in common!

    • Jun says:

      Because Fogen Jr thinks people are stupid and he thinks he’s better than everyone, he’s high siddity

      It’s obvious he meant blacks, that is why he used the word, blacks as a whole

      • Rachael says:

        It is what I have been complaining about with regard to the outhouse for a long time – posting stories about black teen crime, therefore Trayvon must be a thug because he’s a black teen. BLATANT racism. I do not understand why Jr., GZ, his family and the outhouse can’t see it? Even O’Mara see’s it and he’s not real bright.

      • Jun says:

        Its silly, because you could take any race, any age, and find criminals and thugs of that race and age

        I could probably find a huge list of white teen thugs and send them to Sundance, and according to his twisted logic, it would make him a thug, based on that

        Racism is stupid, and makes people stupid and blind

      • ladystclaire says:

        @Jun, you can start with sending him a picture of the teen hoodlum from Ohio, who was sentenced last week IIRC and, how he acted in court. he sat at the defense table just smiling as the families of his victims gave their victim impact statements.

        He not only smiled and, threw up his middle finger, oh no he also cursed them all. we are not going to hear about him being trashed for what he did now are we? Trayvon did nothing wrong nd yet, these yahoos are trashing him at every turn.

    • Hey Colin! Did you see this?

      Daughter Of Georgia Mom Whose Baby Was Killed Claims Mom May Have Killed Him For Insurance Money

      http://newsone.com/2313413/sherry-west-antonio-santiago/

      **************
      Lord Have Mercy!

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        When a child is murdered, the chances that one of the parents is guilty, are way higher than that a stranger did it. Chances that the murderer was of another race, are even lower.

        This story sounded like a load of crap from the beginning. Blame it on the black kid.

  14. KA says:

    Was Robert Jr. dropped on his head as a baby? Honestly. I cannot understand his stupid rant and then while going on TV to face hosts that are obviously going to challenge his racism while he gets flustered. I just saw his tweets. His followers should have FBI files. The are truly scary.

    After getting beat up last night and a topic of public ridicule by every national newspaper…he retweets another offensive meme.

    What in this world is his goal? He is just drunk and out of it?

    He is more repulsive by the moment. Notice none of the family is speaking out against his rants…

    • Bill Taylor says:

      i think he hates his brother and is trying to help get him convicted.

    • Jun says:

      I think his personal motivation is that of an attention whore

      He just wants media attention

      Just my theory anyways

    • texad says:

      KA You might have hit upon the truth about Robert re: dropped on his head as a baby. I have a relative who, when he was in junior high school, had his head banged on the gym floor more than a few times by boys who would be called bullies today. As time passed he has become obnoxious just like Rober and thinks he knows everything. And just like Robert, he talks and talks and talks. Needless to say, no one really likes to be around him for any length of time.

    • KittySP says:

      I don’t bother with ‘following’ any thing RZJr has to say, tweet, etc.
      However, if I were to ‘follow’ him…it’d be down a dark alley to beat some sense into him.

  15. Rachael says:

    “In a staggering, but not unexpected, display of judicial bias Judge Nelson has ruled against George Zimmerman’s defense,… again. ”

    Waaaaaaawaaaaaaawaaaaaa

    • Rachael says:

      “I am astonished by Judge Nelson’s obvious corruption.”

      LMAO

    • jo says:

      can you believe they are all worshiping robert. Patting him on the back etc. Do any of them even see the hypocrisy in what he is stating…..and what the fuck does it have to do with the case. He is accusing them of misrepresenting his brother while he consistantly misrepresents the facts in the media all the time. Where is the fucking humanity. Your brother killed a teenager and you know he wasn’t robbing houses or carrying a weapon (even if he was it’s not up gz to shoot him for it)….yet there is no remorse or understanding for what your brother did.

      This case has shown me that there are a lot of really disturbed, self righteous, arrogant bigots in this world, and they all seem to love guns and hate black people. And they are stupid. Really really stupid.

      • ladystclaire says:

        Thank you and, everything you have stated in your comment is true. I think it’s such a shame that we are still dealing with people like the Robert Zimmerman’s of the world ad those who are just like him.

        Let him keep it up while he can because, I have a gut feeling that he and the others who took part in plying musical bank accounts with his ill gotten money, will be facing some charges of their own. the federal government shouldn’t let them get away with what they did.

        His sister was fired from her job because of her taking part in something illegal and, what do the Zimmerman’s do, they blame it on people who had nothing to do with her actions. they actually blame her job loss on imaginary people making threats agaist her. she lost her government job because of the illegal decisions that she and she alone made.

  16. Trina Cosbie says:

    I declare today….”Sore-Azz Thursday” for all the sore azzes in Zidiot Nation!!!

  17. dianetrotter says:

    Today I learned “follow!” I thought, well, forget what I thought. Anyway….

    follow

    • ladystclaire says:

      How do you guys do that follow?

      • onlyiamunitron says:

        “How do you guys do that follow?”

        I just go down to the text box at the bottom, enter the word “follow” and then check the ” Notify me of follow-up comments via email.” box and then click the Post Comment button.

        Theoretically one could do the same but substitute something or anything or maybe even nothing for “follow”, and as long as the “email me” box is checked, it’d still work.

        (I’ve never tried submitting an empty reply, so I don’t know if it throws an error message or not)

        Follow is basically “I have no reply to make to the original article or any other comments at this time, but still want to get the notification emails.”

        An advantage to the notification emails is it gives you a reply button for each comment even if one is not available on the page itself because the comment is too deeply nested.

        unitron

  18. Junior just tweeted another comparison pic of Trayvon. He is really being a bully. I cannot post it… do not know how.

  19. Trina Cosbie says:

    BDLR should’ve added in his response…..DD’s misstatement is about as irrelevant as MOM not letting the court know Fogen had a 2nd passport & MOM’s knowledge of fogen’s indigence of only $35,000 + dollars in fogen’s pander account before his bail hearing….

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      He did.

      • Trina Cosbie says:

        He did??….(smiling hard)….can u post me a link pretty please or anyone. I read OS article, but haven’t seen anything else. Thanks in advance!!

      • Trina Cosbie says:

        Okay….nevermind, I just found it!!! ALL RIGHT BDLR!!!! That was a perfect response!!! I love that he made a little side note saying in a nutshell MOM has yet to be disavowed of that. This has absolutely made my crappy day, HAPPY!!!! Nice start to Easter weekend & Good Friday!!

    • ay2z says:

      Plus, we have never heard what benefits the defendant gleaned from his trip to Hannity.

      They are smooth! Everyone speculated that Hannity would be, by some rumor of an offer, paying legal fees for fogen.

      Listen to this, and see if this doesn’t leave the door wide open for other benefits, cash for interview, hotel room stays for interview, and so on. Fox could have paid dearly for that interview, but not paid ‘legal fees’.

      One question asked by Hannity was the killer felt the need to carry a gun, and then the smooth edits come in, as Hannity goes on about this question for a few moments, then asks it again but adds ‘and why did you carry it that night’.

      The killer never answers the first question, of why he felt the need or carried a gun, he ‘skips’ that question and answers the second, with the answer ‘carry the gun always except to work.’

      Is this smooth editing, eliminate a question that MOM stopped during taping, repeat the question, add what the lawyer wants answered, then only the second point is addressed, no one the wiser.

      This double barreled questioning happens several times in the interview and I’d always assumed that was a choice for the defendant to make, just choosing. But it could be a technique for crafting the answer advised by lawyer, without the lawyer’s involvement included in the final edit.

  20. ASA John Guy contacted MOM the evening before the court hearing and told him that there were no hospital records to confirm Dee Dee’s statement that she did not attend the funeral and the wake because she was in the hospital.

    At the hearing the next day, the judge ruled that the defense motion for SDT was moot.

    The bottom line: There was no Brady violation (i.e., prosecution failure to disclose exculpatory impeachment information) because the prosecution disclosed the evidence before the court hearing, which was approximately 1 week before Dee Dee’s scheduled deposition and 3 months before the scheduled trial date on June 10th.

    There was no previously scheduled deadline violated by the timing of the disclosure and the defense received the disclosure in time to adequately prepare for the deposition and the trial.

    Since the defense has not alleged and cannot show that it suffered any prejudice due to the timing of the disclosure, its motion to impose sanctions and to order the prosecution to pay the defendant’s attorney’s fees and costs is frivolous (i.e., without any basis in fact and law) and should be denied.

    Finally, the defense could have scheduled Dee Dee’s deposition anytime since last summer, but chose not to do so. Since the defense did not schedule the deposition until March 13th, it was not entitled to receive the evidence before the prosecution disclosed it.

    Conclusion: BDLR is not in any trouble and Judge Nelson would be acting well within her authority if she were to assess terms against the defense for filing a frivolous motion.

    Will she do that?

    Probably not because it would no doubt provoke the defense to file a motion asking her to recuse herself and that snipe hunt might jeopardize the trial date.

    • KA says:

      DId you see the State’s response Prof Leatherman? There is a link above posted. I could not help laughing and cheering. It appears the State has had enough of the circus.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        “Exhibit A – presumably he is seeking compensation now for the time he spend following bad legal advice from internet trolls.”

        LOLOLOLOL! Take that Sundance, Diwataman, Elaine Kelly, et al!

      • Rachael says:

        LMAO Bad advice from anonymous internet trolls!!!! OMG. Good stuff!

      • ladystclaire says:

        LMAO Bernie I’ll bet has really struck a raw nerve in O’mara’s @$$ when he said that. but, he’s only telling the truth because, he has been taking legal advice from (not in Bernie’s words) racist bigots.

      • Malamiyya says:

        Justifiably snarky as Bernie is in this reply, it should be noted that he omitted “told by an idiot” from the Shakespeare quote he includes.

      • Tzar says:

        Malamiyya says:
        March 28, 2013 at 6:58 pm

        Justifiably snarky as Bernie is in this reply, it should be noted that he omitted “told by an idiot” from the Shakespeare quote he includes.

        that’s ok, he dot dot dotted it in there
        it’s the gentlemanly thing to do

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          “Tale told by an idiot” but it’s reflexive to think that line in. It’s “shadow verse”, where what is said calls to mind what remains unsaid. Ex.: “Quote the Raven!”

      • Oh My God, that made my day. Brilliant!

      • Trained Observer says:

        Yowza — what a ripsnorter response. Rich in its entirety, here’s my fave passage:

        “Whether the witness attended the victim’s funeral has nothing to do with the defendant being the person who caused the funeral to happen. What becomes clear, then, is that Defense Counsel either does not know what ‘exculpatory’ means, or he is willfully misrepresenting the same to this Court.

        In short, this allegation is rife with sensationalism and yet bereft of substance.”

        Truly an Easter egg splat for MOM.

    • Trina Cosbie says:

      Thanks Professor!! I think you should put this post up top. Your post should help clarify anyone’s questions of the whether or not DD’s misstatement will land the state in hot water.

      • ay2z says:

        Trina, not sure if you have read these, but both articles are related to the Witness 8 alleged issues.

        “Trayvon Martin: The prosecution is not crumbling”

        “Defense files pretty glittering balloon to keep hope alive in Zimmerman case”

        (Both posted Tuesday, March 26, 2013)

        Our Prof has been on the mark with these as we now see his predictions knock the defense down one by one in real life.

        It’s safe to say, that we are probably well into the toss kitchen sink stage. and if Judge Nelson holds her reactions as she has been doing, they won’t pry any excuse to get her tossed from the case.

        We know what junior will be doing this Easter weekend. His field of view seems to be as narrow as his audience now.

      • ay2z says:

        Malamiyya, there you go! Bernie knows that people will fill in the blanks, and he has done well to at the same time, allude to the idiot and yet never speak of it himself. hehe….

        Judge Nelson informed the lawyers early on in the case, that she does not read the media. She does now!!

    • bettykath says:

      A good and complete answer to Erica’s question.

  21. Judy75201 says:

    I have a full-time job and cannot possibly read everything written here. Be careful that you don’t turn into a 10-member mutual admiration society.

    • Valerie says:

      @ Judy…as a frequent lurker here, I very much enjoy this site. There has to be more than 10 frequent commentors here… I will not attempt to name them all for fear of leaving out one.However I enjoy their commentary and find them to be informative and at times entertaining. I do want you to know that there are “watchers” on this site…

      • Bill Taylor says:

        in talk radio there is a rule of thumb, for every person that will call in and speak there are over 1000 more listening that will never call in.

    • Tzar says:

      Be careful that you don’t turn into a 10-member mutual admiration society.

      but what if we are having too much fun? 🙂

    • Dan Q. Smith says:

      I actually think our host has gone out of his way to give people who post here the benefit of the doubt. There have been people here who have engaged in playing both sides of the fence while claiming to support justice for Trayvon Martin. Still he has not failed to give everyone the benefit of the doubt nor has he failed to be welcoming. I would not have been capable of doing the same. I do not fear that this site will become a mutual admiration society with all due respect.

  22. Romaine says:

    sorry about the first mess up with the link

  23. KA says:

    I just saw in a random comment on another site that the judge denied the Defense request to depose Crump a second time (no real surprise I assume). I didn’t have time to validate. Did anyone see that?

    • KA says:

      OMG….That is the best response I have ever read.

      I was quite amusing and true all at the same time.

      • Mike says:

        Highly amusing I must say, BDLR quoting Shakespeare left a huge smile on my face.

      • towerflower says:

        That was a total slap down, loved it.

      • Dan Q. Smith says:

        I enjoyed it. Our legal system is adversarial. I am comforted that maybe earlier discussion here that the prosecution and defense might be/ might collude to bring about a plea bargain in order to save the authorities from embarrassment might not be the case. I hope Fogen spends the rest of his life in prison. I believe he is guilty of premeditation. I believe he formed the the thought in his mind to execute Trayvon before he pulled the trigger. I would wish that it were a murder 1 (upcoming) trial except for the fact I do not believe in the death penalty under any circumstances. BDLR is correct. MO’M attacks anyone and everyone without judgement nor discretion as part of his campaign to distract from the fact Fogen has no legitimate self defense claim at all and in order to taint the jury and so it makes sense he would get around to attacking BDLR. BDLR basically called MO’M an idiot. Very clever, well done, and appropriate IMO.

    • lurker says:

      Thank you so much–I thoroughly enjoyed reading it, and it leaves no doubt in my mind about the relative strengths of the two legal teams. Parts of it were worthy of The Onion and it was a complete slam dunk at putting O’Mara in his place.

      Still worried about the second interview, however. It wasn’t addressed.

    • Tzar says:

      absolutely fucking hilarious
      it’s almost like I wrote it(except for all the fancy legal stuff)

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I love a man and especially a lawyer who can make literary quotes! Priceless. Best.Response.Ever.

    • Big Willie says:

      Wouldn’t it be ironic if Fogen was secretly rerecording MOM and West, in preparation of selling a book to add to his Schadenfreude Profit Fund.

    • Tzar says:

      You know what I get it
      Bernie is trying to help the judge get through these shitty motions with levity because this response is pure comedy.

    • Tzar says:

      OMG
      Bernie went Shakespeare on them
      ha ha ha ha h aha ahaha

      • Xena says:

        I must say, BDLR laid it on the line. He sounds as though he’s had enough of GZ’s BS. “…minions of his client.” INDEED. Oh — and the part about O’Mara engaging internet users in his legal strategy costing him time and money.

        BDLR did not mince words — DeeDee did not want to get involved. Minions of O’Mara’s clients have done everything possible from behind a computer to disparage, frighten, and identify her.

        DeeDee — my little sister. Ask yourself what Trayvon will have you to do, and tell Zidiots to kiss you where the sun doesn’t shine.

      • Jun says:

        LMAo I dont feel Omara nor Fogen can even spell Shakespeare

      • Rachael says:

        Yeah, except DeeDee spelled Trayvon’s name wrong 😦

    • Tzar says:

      So the moral of the response
      Dear Mr. O’mara watch your fucking mouth!
      lol

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      OMG he called MOM “a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage…” Hahaha… “Full of sound and fury signifying nothing!” Yep, right on target! The immortal Bard rests peacefully in his grave tonight.

    • kllypyn says:

      I’m not a lawyer but even i know what excupatory means. I can’t spell it but i do know what it means.

    • jo says:

      that was gold, and spot on, and i love how he brought up that gz had implicated o’mara in lying to the court.

    • Nef05 says:

      That is a true classic. Laboring mountains producing a ridiculous mouse and Shakespeare; courting anything resembling a microphone/camera and taking legal strategy advice from internet trolls? ROTFL! GO BERNIE!

      Think I’ll make a cup of tea and read it again. Thanks so much for posting this!

    • texad says:

      Bernie is going to be a beast in court if this response is any indication. It is clear that he has had enough of the defense obfuscation and nonsense. It is also clear that he is aware of every tweet, every lie, every TV interview, and every slanted newspaper article written. Of course quoting Shakespeare is always good, but the line I really love is this: “The world is full of pots jeering at kettles.” Looks like there will be three incompetents crying at the defense table come June 10, 2013, and I am more confident than ever that there will finally be Justice for Trayvon Martin.

    • FactsFirst says:

      Now that was a good read! It would be in O’Haha’s best intrest to stop poking the bear.. I CAN’T WAIT to see Bernie snatch a knot in O’mara’s ass at trial..

  24. Romaine says:

    here is anhttp://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/os-zimmerman-sanction-response-20130328,0,3695377.story article on Bernie and the DeeDee issue

  25. onlyiamunitron says:

    “Erica said she really did not see any difference between Dee Dee’s lie compared to the defendant’s lies.”

    I’m having trouble finding the post where Erica says that.

    Or any post in that other thread where she mentions the defendant at all.

    Anybody got a link?

    unitron

    • gbrbsb says:

      @unitron
      You probably have by now but if you look up-thread everything will be revealed… well, not exactly “everything”! I was present at the time of the “dust up” and since reading with sadness today’s post have also searched and the only comment I was able to find is her now notorious question… you know which… and no link has ever been given to the part you quote because IMHO there it didn’t happen unless in a prior post.

      As an aside some did try to answer her question but I think too late because a few had already laid in after which Erica reacted strongly to defend herself… and it all flew off again!

      • onlyiamunitron says:

        Could she have said what the professor said that she said in some thread other than “Featuring: LLMPapa’s video: Dee Dee’s story”?

        Because I’m not seeing it, or anything I think could be taken for it, in that thread, which is where “The Question” appears.

        unitron

        • gbrbsb says:

          Not as far as I have been reading back threads and Erica denies it so very vehemently I think not.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            It seems that would leave us in the uncomfortable position of the professor having made an unfounded allegation.

            unitron

          • gbrbsb says:

            Yes I think it could be he got it wrong… He may have picked up on what another poster said or what another poster interpreted from Erica’s question… It’s sad how such altercations keep getting in the way.

      • bettykath says:

        I went back to Erica’s original question. There were a couple of helpful responses before the attacks started. If the attacks hadn’t been posted, Erica could have read the helpful responses to get her answer and there would have been no reason for her to defend herself. The people who should be reading first before posting are those who attacked Erica.

        • gbrbsb says:

          I fully agree. Some seem far to quick to accuse and insult. I re-read Erica’s question too and it didn’t seem at all “loaded”, at least to me and she has been here some time. In respect of replies it depends on the order of receipt. I don’t receive mine via email and those not directly under a post don’t show in the notifications icon of the menu bar either so I have to scroll & search each post and obviously miss some. I tried via email but they came so thick and fast and inside each email a subsystem of more emails, I was overwhelmed so had to stop. It was at a difficult time for me so I may try again one day.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I agree. There are several otherwise good commenters who are far too quick to jump off the handle and accuse people of trolling when they simply have questions or concerns.

      • Malisha says:

        I think one of the reasons some of us have a “hair trigger” to shoot each other down is that the tension is so great right now. We’ve been waiting for justice, pushing for justice, while being exposed to all these nasty attacks from the guilty parties and their cheering section. It’s stressful. We need to realize that we’re OK we’re OK. :mrgreen:

        • fauxmccoy says:

          @malisha who says

          I think one of the reasons some of us have a “hair trigger” to shoot each other down is that the tension is so great right now. We’ve been waiting for justice, pushing for justice,

          agreed. i think most of us also have an innate drive as humans to protect the legacy of the victim, his family and loved ones. when doing so, tension and passion can run high. this does not excuse bad behavior exactly, but does make it more understandable.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            The real reason this question drew so much ire is that, while the question may have been asked by an innocent person, it was exactly the same question that was currently being used by trolls who had insinuated themselves into many pro Trayvon boards with the intent to use exactly this question to stir things up.

            So, here she comes with this question at exactly the wrong time making it appear that “oh, here’s another one”. When it was just an unfortunate coincidence.

        • gbrbsb says:

          Yes we are OK… “…getting there” as a special witness would say!

    • Trained Observer says:

      Unitron — For your research, go to DeeDee’s Story (March 26) where E-person’s original “inquiry” reaped multiple measured responses. E quickly escalated with juvenile personal attacks denials, whines and rants (a la the Fogen Family, with whom we all are so familiar) before the professor told h/she to knock it off. Below are a couple of early nuggets.

      Erica says:
      March 26, 2013 at 7:13 pm
      Will she be impeached? I can’t figure out why she would lie about going to the hospital and what did she really do? This lie seems to be favorable to the defense so is BDLR in trouble?

      Erica says:
      March 27, 2013 at 12:16 pm
      I guess you are a trollologist? and you are not a ST aka Saint. Im not a troll Im a juror and I just was wondering why. Im sure Sabrina Fulton wanted to know why. The jury may want to know to why. You all have turned a simply and logical question into trollism. MAYBE you need to do your homework. In the defense’s motion, it has been confirmed…she lied. She admitted it to the defense. She lied! and its has nothing to do with the case but I am concerned about the character issue that may come up during trial. Name calling is not for necessary!

      Erica says:

      March 27, 2013 at 12:46 pm
      Are you serious…….. heartless? I asked a simply and logical question and now Im a troll. I have always supported Trayvon. You are non objective people. Your emotions have caught you and given you a black eye. I support Trayvon. It is despicable to be called a troll by this unbiased site, that supports Trayvon but in a non biased matter and to be a child by a not so trained observer. I’m not a troll nor am I a child to you three idiots. You don’t know me at all. I’m a realist. I have to prove nothing to you 2 fools. I suspect my comments after this will be moderated but F@@K TRAINED OBSERVER, LADY NOT A ST. Claire Rachael and all you others who have called me a name because I asked a question you may as well be a Zimbot because they don’t use common sense just as you have not so you are a Traybot. It will not be a non-issue to the jury if the defense brings it up. They will at least think about it…just as I have done and I have read all the professors articles but the jury wont read them. I’m a Trayvon Martin supporter not a Traybot! Its ok to disagree but to disagree and disparge one for a question? I guess but to be called a name…no not ok! If someone calls you

      • gbrbsb says:

        @Trained Observer
        It depends on the order in which E received replies to be able to judge her reaction. For example, I don’t receive replies via email so for those replies that for unknown reasons are not flagged by my notifications icon, I must scroll and search each post quite often missing several. Further, only recently my notifications icon stopped flagging any replies for over a week and I had to contact Word Press, no mean feat, for them to fix it. Call it what you like, but IMO E was clearly upset and even if they went overboard (some are more sensitive than others) all in all wouldn’t it be to the blog’s advantage that we made sure a poster was in fact a troll (trolls always betray themselves) before ridiculing a person unnecessarily rising all this distraction and bad feelings? And wasn’t it precisely GZ’s rush to judge Trayvon as a criminal that brought us here in the first place? And don’t you wish, as I, that Trayvon could have hit, kicked, scratched and screamed a lot more than he did, if he could at all, because in that case maybe, just maybe he would be still alive today.

      • onlyiamunitron says:

        And nowhere in any of that does she mention the defendant.

        How does one say they don’t “…see any difference between Dee Dee’s lie compared to the defendant’s lies…” without mentioning the defendant?

        unitron

      • gbrbsb says:

        @unitron
        They can’t.

  26. Big Willie says:

    Forgive me if this has been discussed already, but will the picture of Trayvon with one single tear on his face be considered direct evidence of his emotions and psychological state, as he struggled for his life? If so, how much impact will this have on the case?

    Also does the photographed of Trayvon’s single tear help prove that he was the person screaming/crying/begging for help? I believe it does. But would appreciate the opinion of others.
    ______________________________

    Wikipedia defines crying as : “Crying is shedding tears as a response to an emotional state in humans. One need only shed a single tear to be crying.

    Recent psychological theories of crying emphasize the relationship of crying to the experience of perceived helplessness. From this perspective, an underlying experience of helplessness can usually explain why people cry. For example, a person may cry after receiving surprisingly happy news, ostensibly because the person feels powerless or unable to influence what is happening.”

    .

    • Jun says:

      I believe so. Its forensic evidence.

    • Rachael says:

      It has been discussed.

      http://uniquenurses.blogspot.com/2009/05/lacrima-mortis-tear-of-death.html

      Feel free to disagree, but this has been my experience as a nurse.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        my experience as well, rachael, although i am not a nurse – only a daughter willing to hold my father’s hand until his dying breath, just he had always held mine in times of grief and illness.

      • towerflower says:

        I was with my sister in her last couple of days following a massive stroke in her brain stem. I observed her tears twice, once when talking to her while they were doing a brain scan (she was in a coma) and the last time in her final moment. It was hard to see that, it’s as if it was a last good bye.

    • Nef05 says:

      IF I understand your post correctly, I wouldn’t use the photo in that way.

      ” will the picture of Trayvon with one single tear on his face be considered direct evidence of his emotions and psychological state” and “Recent psychological theories of crying emphasize the relationship of crying to the experience of perceived helplessness.” seems to imply showing the photo to the jury during the testimony of a mental health professional who would state that generally speaking tear(s) were indicative his helpless/psychological state.

      I believe a more impactful use of the picture would be to show it to the jury while Ms. Fulton is on the stand (to ID Trayvon’s voice), and the 911 call is being played to the jury. There you have the picture of his face with the tear, the screams of terror, and his grieving mother on the stand, all at the same time, for the jury to see and hear. An inundation of the senses, so to speak. The jury will draw their own conclusion. And I would schedule that as the last witness of the day, so it would be the last thing the jury saw, so it would marinate in their consciousness overnight.

      That could also include questions to Ms. Fulton, herself, regarding her experience with situations involving Trayvon crying. She would certainly be considered an “expert” when it comes to her son’s emotional state. More, I think, than a professional who never met him and could only give a general statement regarding tears and their psychological effects. I believe the emotional impact on the jury would outweigh any clinical explanation of what his tears represent. (JMO)

    • onlyiamunitron says:

      “Forgive me if this has been discussed already, but will the picture of Trayvon with one single tear on his face be considered direct evidence of his emotions and psychological state, as he struggled for his life? ”

      I’m not sure if it could be proven to be evidence of anything other than “this is how his face looked shortly after he died”.

      There’s no one (to my knowledge) to testify whether the tear appeared pre- or post-mortem, and if pre-mortem, whether it was the result of sadness or physical pain.

      And that’s after they somehow prove that it was a tear, and not a raindrop.

      I have no doubt that he was emotional and fearful in his final moments (who wouldn’t have been?), but I don’t see how that photograph would be acceptable in court as proof of that, or why someone would be completely convinced otherwise until and unless they saw the photo.

      unitron

  27. lurker says:

    Forgive me if this has already been dealt with here–I haven’t been able to keep up the last few days (and totally missed the dust-up with Erica). I read through O’Mara’s latest round of documents, which include an allegation that there was a second sworn interview with witness #8 sometime in the fall of 2012 (not sure if it was with BDLR or FDLE) and that she was asked more directly at that time about the hospital trip, etc. O’Mara is claiming that this info was withheld from him–not provided with other discovery materials, etc. Not clear exactly when he got official info about it–sometime since the last court hearing was my impression.

    I am wondering how it is that this could have occured. How would O’Mara NOT have been provided this along with other discovery materials.

    I get why there was not much response to his requests for hospital records–prosecution didn’t have them, had no obligation to go after them for O’Mara even if they existed, etc.

    So–did DBLR goof? Does O’Mara have a point with regard to not having received info from the second interview?

    • Trained Observer says:

      No, BDLR did not goof IMO … I have come to believe even his “… or something” was deliberate, and not inadvertently sloppy.

    • gbrbsb says:

      @Lurker
      Didn’t you read the title Lurker, “Read before you write”? And the whole post? If I were you I would put on your insult proof vest because you just tripped over exactly the the same stone, and I mean EXACTLY, as Erica which will or will not raise group wrath depending on which bloggers read it and how they take it, because no matter what took your attention away from our search for justice for Trayvon, you should have read and researched all the posts first before asking a question that can be considered aggressive and or provoking !!!

      P.S. if I sound a bit cynical, I am. I am unable to keep up with the blog all the time due to caring 24/7 for two severely disabled adults with one other person, and the long threads often of just banter makes it all the more difficult to keep up too.

      • gbrbsb says:

        errata last line first para:

        … before asking a question that could be construed by some as aggressive or provoking!!!

      • lurker says:

        I am honestly looking for info/opinion. If it has already been dealt with, feel free to direct me. I just know that in the past several days traffic here has been really heavy and I have been unable to keep up. There are multiple possible answers, including some legal reason that BDLR did not have to provide the info, or that he did in fact provide it.

        Trust me, I am a fervent supporter of justice for Trayvon and have taken a beating on boards elsewhere trying to bring in facts instead of emotion.

        It just struck me, as I read through O’Mara’s latest–most of which was simply reiteration of the long list of the same-old-same-old–that not handing on that interview could be problematic. And there have been mistakes (not from BDLR, but from other’s on the state’s side) along the way. It was the Sanford PD that managed to leak Trayvon’s school records, and there was something (I forget what it was) in the first release of discovery that was supposed to have been kept under seal. So, it is not unthinkable that this could have been an error. Not a critical one (after all–the point on which all of this hinges is not pertinent to the case, meaning the hospital claim), and O’Mara could have known sooner had he deposed the witness sooner.

        • gbrbsb says:

          @Lurker
          It is reassuring to note that some have answered your questions. IMHO Erica was not afforded that courtesy.

          I think you misunderstood me. I was absolutely NOT having a go at you. I know you… I have read your posts… why would I suspect you were doing anything but seeking justice for Trayvon like the rest even if you had not read all the posts, disagreed with a mainstream “fact” or asked what the more erudite bloggers considered a “stupid” or “provocative” question… same with Erica! But then what if I am wrong, and you are a troll, (I am hypothesising so don’t worry) but as it was precisely distrust and suspicion that set GZ chasing after Trayvon and we all know how what that led to… Trayvon’s death… I try to err on the side of trust rather than on the side of a vocal few who scream “witch” to test whether the victim of distrust sinks or floats so as to hang those that swim and mourn those that sink. As I tried to infer with my sarcasm I am disheartened by such upsets. I have assiduously followed this blog since my pain at the killing of Trayvon Martin led me to the Professor’s third post on this case “Stand your ground explained” in April 2012 and I subscribed from September. I have neither the time nor the funds (money = time and I often only sleep a few hours trying to keep up) to dedicate all hours of the day to Trayvon’s cause even though I wish I could, and although I am sure it is not enough I have tried to support the professor to continue the search for TRUTH & JUSTICE with as much as I can afford considering the desperate economic situation and the brutal cuts financial and physical (i.e. support), all those that rely on the State, including those of us caring for loved ones, are being subjected too in the UK.

      • Judy75201 says:

        Can I get an Amen?

      • Judy75201 says:

        Both. Most definitely, GB.

      • amsterdam1234 says:

        @lurker
        Ianl but let me give you a short update as I understand it.
        Only recorded and written statements are part of discovery. If no recording was made of the 2nd interview and there is no memo or transcription made, the prosecution had no obligation to provide the defense with information about what was said during the 2nd interview unless;

        It contained Brady material. DeeDee telling a white lie about why she didn’t attend the funeral, is not Brady material
        or
        Potential impeachment material. DeeDee’s statement could be considered to be potential impeachment material and it was therefore communicated to the defense within the required time limit.

      • pat deadder says:

        to gbrbsb I just want you to know I admire how you two are able to do all that you do in taking care of your two special people.I came to realise how much empathy you have when your beautiful dog needed you.Were you being sacastically funny in your post.Hope you have time to read and share your thoughts here.

        • gbrbsb says:

          @pat deadder
          Thank you for your thoughts today and again for those at the time we lost our Denny (I remember you). Yes, sarcastically funny, I was trying to be at least, but there is hurt in the mix because these altercations IMO hurt the blog, or at least contribute nothing to uphold its purpose… fairness and justice.

          at the continued altercations and distrust over the past months. Perhaps the professor should make a

          @Tzar
          I am so glad you can assure the professor will have enough funds to keep this blog afloat so that those who are unable for personal committments to read all posts can just go f**k themselves. Nice and democratic, eh Tzar!

          I can neither find it nor remember even though I was present. All I saw was the one now notorious question.

          that make me wonder if I should continue because being outspoken and in a few things not in agreement with the main I feel it is only a question of t

        • gbrbsb says:

          @Pat
          Sorry Pat, my indignant comment to Tzar (and the text after) was not for you nor meant to post with yours and indeed I may not have posted it at all. When tired I forget to cut out thoughts and roughs I carry along as I comment, and it is 4 in the morning here and I’m still trying to read up! I need to be up by 8 so now to bed!

      • pat deadder says:

        to gbrbsb I love sarcastic humour.

      • Dan Q. Smith says:

        I’d like to briefly respond to something you said downthread. I’m glad you have respect and empathy for all who post here but we are not like Fogen. He Is not an honest person who rushed to judgement. He is someone who prejudged Trayvon Martin because he (Fogen) is prejudiced and he was on a mission (either to “protect” his neighborhood from African Americans or specifically on a mission to target an African American or even to target Trayvon Martin per se). I hope what I am saying makes sense and that I have expressed in a way that makes clear my thoughts about your analogy are in no way meant as personal. Please accept my comments in the spirit in which they are intended and have a nice day. 🙂

    • they know how to word lies to sound like undeniable truth. it’s the nuances in the speech, kinda like magic. when you’re focused on one thing but missing the other thing.

      like the “or something” too. those are easier to spot when written.

    • Jun says:

      Lurker

      The source of the information they seeked was witness 8. They were told repeatedly in their requests for witness 8 information, to go straight to the source of the information and depose witness 8 since about August. They have had since April 11, 2012 to depose witness 8 and conduct their investigation into a moot matter.

      Look at it this way… they say w8 lied and she is not credible… it’s not admissible because it is circumstantial character evidence if even used but at most, lets just say her story is not credible

      The defendant lied, therefore, his story is no longer credible, and now there is no self defense claim… therefore murder and no loss

      Its a two way street… the defense cant argue that she is not credible because of an alleged white lie to protect the victim’s mother’s feelings, and call their defendant credible after purposely and manipulatively lying regarding his self defense and bond claims

      Besides, people are also allowed to bolster witness’ credibility and w8’s testimony matches forensic and witness evidence, and even Fogen’s own NEN phone call

      do the math and you will see it aint no thang but a chicken wang

      • lurker says:

        Yes–I understand why the hospital/not hospital point is nearly irrelevant.

        I also understand that O’Mara could have discovered the same info by getting down to deposing the witness.

        However, the specific I am asking about is O’Mara’s claim that the witness was interviewed a second time by the prosecution and this was not shared with the defense. It seems to be a procedural matter, and one that could fall in Z’s favor (short-term anyway) by giving credence to O’Mara’s claim of stonewalling.

        If there was a second interview, was the prosecution NOT obligated to share it as a part of the discovery process?

      • Jun says:

        Freddy answered and it is a resounding NO

        I am not sure of any proof of this alleged interview but the information was received in a timely fashion and the defense could have found the information they seeked long ago

      • ay2z says:

        Lurker, the material in question does not fall under ‘exculpatory’ evidence, it has nothing to do with the murder and would not alter the events of that night. The prosecution was (IF I have this right) required to provide this class of material, which can be used to impeach at trial, but they only must disclose this once the defense files notice to depose the witness. Last summer, last fall, last winter, no defense filed for deposition of Witness8. Once they did, they were provided with the statement re: hospital etc, and as this was provided before deposition, there’s no problem.

        Hope I got that right, without going back and doing research. I do want to re-read the state’s reply though.

    • Judy75201 says:

      I forgive you. Cheers.

  28. colin black says:

    Xena a conflict of intrests.

    Its in the court an Judges intrest that the accused receives a fair an impartial trial….
    That is in conflict of what the foggage an his defence team want.
    A fair trial an impartial jurours will convict him so he wants an unfair trial an a jury biased towards the victim .
    And willing to set him free based on there biggoted beleifs…

    • Xena says:

      @Colin Black

      A fair trial an impartial jurours will convict him so he wants an unfair trial an a jury biased towards the victim .

      Reminds me of that comment posted by “George Zimmerman” on the CTH where he said his jury had to be all White.

      • Tzar says:

        but but why would an Afro-Peruvian need an all white Jury?

        • Xena says:

          @Tzar

          but but why would an Afro-Peruvian need an all white Jury?

          Well you see, it’s like this. (Xena. Sitting back, crossing leg, leaning to one side.) GZ and his minions believe there is a Black Agenda to take over America and enslave Whites.

          GZ, as an Afro-Peruvian, relates more to Whites because Whites understand that Afro-Peruvian husbands are concerned for the safety and protection of their White wives. Afro-Peruvians protect Whites. Whites depend on Afro-Peruvians to oversee things. GZ was only protecting his White neighbors from an unarmed Black teen and Whites will understand that.

          Along with this, Whites may not mistake him for being Mexican or Colombian — stuff like that, because his brother continues to make sure that the public knows they are Afro-Peruvian because their father is American.

          • Tzar says:

            well that would make sense to the owner of such classics as this doozy

          • Xena says:

            Each time I watch that video, I am drawn to how O’Mara looks at GZ. It’s a parent watching a child riding a bike for the first time without training wheels, anticipating a fall. LOL!!!

  29. pat deadder says:

    This is my take on the murder that night.Shelley was with him because in the reanactment in the beginning with Smith and fogen in the car fogen tells Smith He was looking about meaning Trayvon he was just staring says the fool then fogen says I think he was trying to see who else was in then he suddenly stops his sentence and says I don’t know why he was staring.Then he starts to stalk the kid.My God as someone else said here he could have rolled down his window and offered the kid a ride.That’s what most normalpeople would do .I think he realised Trayvon was not a thug and knew Trayvon could tell the police what he had done so he killed the kid in cold blood to save his own skin because he had the unmitigated gall to think his father,his gift of gab.his friend Osterman,and his previous dealings with police he was home freeAlso I think he had Trayvon pinned to the ground Trayvon’s arms pinned with fogan’s knees;he pulled on his shirts and shot him making sure not to hit his own g damn hand.May Trayvon rest in peace and fogen rot in jail.Ifinally saw fogen in LLMPAPA’S video of the clubhouse.

    • Trained Observer says:

      And don’t forget the button … I think he used Trayvon’s button as a lift-up locator for his targeted effort to silence the screaming witness to the criminal genie he couldn’t put back in the bottle. .

      • pat deadder says:

        to Trained observer Wow I never thought of that.I leave the hard stuff like time line etc to to all of you.It takes me forever to figure it out.I call you the smart ones Love JN reply to Omara short and sweet.

      • Trained Observer says:

        Wasn’t that a beauty? … In glorious caps, no less. DENIED.

      • @Trained Observer

        Wasn’t that a beauty? … In glorious caps, no less. DENIED.

        Sweet!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • leander22 says:

      pat, my impression, and I can of course be very, very wrong is that GZ uses Shellie as some type of alibi, or rationalization for his burglar hunt. His neighbor with her baby, Olivia Bertalan, was afraid, his wife Shellie was. That’s why he keeps mentioning her, didn’t he already in his written statement start out with the fears of his wife? That’s some type of macho rationalization, he had to do this to protect the women, like a real man. (makes me wanna puke, sorry)

      I find the abrupt interruption very interesting too:

      he was trying to see who else was in then he suddenly stops his sentence and says

      He realizes his tale becomes too embellished, didn’t they teach him something like that at college? He realizes he may go too far. Then he stops himself shortly before finishing his sentence that Trayvon was looking around to check if anyone else was watching him. He describes the action of a criminal, someone who is instinctively prepared to look for shelter from looks, to watch out if he is not observed. Till he realizes he may take matters slightly one step to far

      Yes, I find that a very, very interesting passage too. And apparently Randy Smith sitting next to him as well. Otherwise he wouldn’t have made Fogen elaborate further. 😉

      • pat deadder says:

        TO Leander I understand what your saying.It is very difficult for us to think like fogen thank God but somewhere in my mind I can’t believe if Shelly wasn’t like him why was she with him.I guess I’m just grasping at straws.

      • leander22 says:

        Pat, I am no fan of Shellie either and to one extend or another they must agree on some matters–like carrying concealed guns? The story about the dogs, at least as the infamous positive article challenging the negative image of GZ suggests, that both Shellie and her mother demanded protection from the pit pull. But was the story told that way to support the basic Fogen the protector of weak females image? Could be, but could be true to.

        I don’t know enough about them. The only thing that sticks out is that she seemingly isn’t as wild about bearing him children as he is about becoming father. And that seems something he seems to be pretty obsessed with. Remember the sorries to his “still unborn children”. That’s the only grain of independence, or an existence beyond the existence of a wife, I can see.

        I can’t believe if Shelly wasn’t like him why was she with him

        The main points the suspicion, she was with him that night seems to rely on is that GZ says, “they” always went to Target on Sundays. As far as I can tell, that could be a shortcut for “either of us”. Sometimes “we” go both, sometimes “one of us”. I wouldn’t completely rule out that they had some kind of strife and he went out to take his rage somewhere else and had not the least intention to drive to Target. The other item seems to be, my keys are in the ignition, a phrase sometimes mentioned here, but I cannot place it, admittedly. Seems to suggest that he wouldn’t have left the keys in the car had he been on his own. Always? Really?

        Let’s try something else. Let’s suppose Shellie was around, do you really think he would have needed to ask w #13 to call her? If so, she couldn’t have been that far away. No doubt it could also signal to her, stay away. Yes, complex. But I just don’t see Shellie anyway but at RVC 1950.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Don’t miss the point that “call my wife” is also needed to arrange cover fro Osterman if he’s already there. Otherwise, where does Osterman get his cover for being on scene? He’s simply not supposed to be there at all. So, if he’s to be called, he’s not to be called directly by GZ, since that does nothing to put it in the minds of the public that MO isn’t there.

          “Call my wife” sets her up as the point of contact for MO, who then magically manages to drop everything and race to RATL, to arrive right behind SZ at the rear gate, in time to “draft” in behind her when she uses her code. Thereby explaining how MO gets inside, without having to enter a code at all.

          As far as we know the entry system is code driven, and the codes are completely configurable by the owners and tenants, by simply using their phone’s keypad. They can create one-time codes for delivery people, they can create dated codes for visitors, and/or they can even create permanent codes for their friends and family, or even give them their code. It’s entirely up to them. Osterman says somewhere that he has keys to GZ’s house, if so, then it’s obvious that he also has his own gate code as well.

          What this means is that the system stores gate codes and, because code can have expiration times/dates, the system must be able to store code usage as well. IIRC the brochure says that it takes a code to enter the gate, while it takes a code and a key to enter a house. Trayvon had no key, thus he must have been relying on Chad to let him back inside. Chad was playing video games, but, we now know that Chad also had a phone, because he called Trayvon to find out how much longer Trayvon would be getting back.

      • leander22 says:

        somewhere a to should be a too and “anyway” in the last phrase should be “anywhere”. Additionally the sentence concerning the PR type pro Fogen article, Associated Press?, would have deserved a little more attention. 😉

      • leander22 says:

        Lonnie, I don’t know much about this. Yes I noticed it but since I had not looked at this independently it somehow seems to be hard to store.

        “Call my wife” sets her up as the point of contact for MO, who then magically manages to drop everything and race to RATL, to arrive right behind SZ at the rear gate, in time to “draft” in behind her when she uses her code. Thereby explaining how MO gets inside, without having to enter a code at all.

        What source are you relying on here? Where exactly would I find documentation of that scenario?

        I cannot imagine anything more crazy than an elaborate gate code scenario and a not complete wall. Had I been GZ I would have concentrated much more on this absurdity than on NW.

        You read Osterman’s book, correct? It obviously has an agenda, but does he tell us how far away he lives?

        For whatever reason, I seem to remember Shellie and Osterman on the crime scene at around 19:30. Reminds me that this is about the time Diwatman has Smith/Johnson/Fogen leave. which makes absolutely no sense. I have no idea were and how I stored this date. Can you help me?

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          I’m trying to sort it out myself. Xena, I think, has Osterman’s book. IIRC she says that MO says that Shelly received a call that said GZ was alright and is sitting in a police car… Then MO seems to slip and say that “she can see him there now”.

          So, starting with this first — Wasn’t the call to Shellie placed by John while GZ was still standing near the body? Isn’t that where he snaps “Just tell her I shot somebody?” As if to get the caller to speed things up and end his call?

          [Why would he want the call to end quickly? Oh, right, because Shelly has to quickly call MO, right? Then in that light consider how urgent it would be to get this call over and done with, if Shelly and MO were already there at the scene somewhere. Since the longer this caller stays on the phone with Shelly, the longer it takes for her to call MO. Meaning the longer they have to stay hidden at the scene and hope that they’re not discovered before they can arrange a cover story about how they got there.] — Now this comes from evidence dump about what went on at the scene after the shot.

          Now back to the book where MO says that Shelly calls him and tells him that GZ is alright and that he’s in the back seat of a squad car.

          Okay, the trouble with this is that, if John, who made the quick call, as requested by GZ [loudly enough so people would know that Shelly was about to be told now! Yet, quickly enough so she could call MO without delay [or at least pretend to.] GZ isn’t yet in the back seat of any police car before John ends his call. Thus, John can’t tell her that GZ is in the back seat of a police car, and he can’t even know at this point in time, if GZ will go with the medics to the hospital, be treated at one of the fire rescue trucks, or placed in a squad car to wait for treatment.

          So. MO is relating to us in his book, information that he supposedly got from Shelly and that she got from John, all before any of it could have happened.

          So then, we’re now supposed to believe that Shellie wasn’t already there at the scene when this call came in? We’re not supposed to realize that by the time she called MO, if she did, she was watching them put GZ in the back of the squad car? Or is John supposed to have called her back and told her this on call waiting so that she could then tell MO? Nawh, Occam’s Razor, she and Osterman were already there.

          Because with her at her fathers place and Osterman at home, it’s unlikely in the extreme that they’re going to be lucky enough to arrive right behind one another at the back gate, so that only one of them has to enter a code to get in? So then, when did GZ tell Shellie where his truck was? Other residents saw the front gate blocked, they parked their cars and walked into the community. How does Shellie and MO realize together that the back gate will be unguarded?

          Most likely Shelly would have gone to the front gate, and had to park and walk in like the rest of the people who lived there. MO, then would have had to use his code at the back gate to get in.

          Of course, we shouldn’ t have these questions if SPD had done it’s job and secured the area properly. And kept a proper CSCL, instead of the sloppy work they did do.

      • Nef05 says:

        @Lonnie –

        You’ve laid out a great case there, point by point, which leads me to wonder if that has anything to do with O’Mara’s recent motion for any information the prosecution has on Shellie’s phone. When I first read the motion, I posted that I believed they were really after Shellie’s phone info, fogen’s name all over the motion, notwithstanding.

        While fogen’s supporter’s have been adamant that Trayvon’s phone records, GPS and “ping logs” would show Trayvon was/wasn’t on the phone and his whereabouts during the time in question; it’s fair to assume that Shellie’s records, GPS and “ping logs” would show the same. Correct?

      • leander22 says:

        Lonnie, I just discovered the publisher has a ebook version. You make me do something I strictly hate to do. This book has not lost much of it’s price yet, strictly I am very, very hesitant about the informative value of such a publication, or giving my pennies to him. 😉

        I am very skeptic about a former police officer joining a conspiracy resulting in the killing of a teenager and then publish a book about someone he conspired with. You seem to rely on the hypothesis that he published the book to disguise something but in doing so shows us what really happened. That’s a complicated scenario. Sorry, if I misunderstand.

        I have told this before I see GZ as a “lone crackpot”. That’s the only firm basis he has, the firmly clutches at the straw that nobody but him knows.

        Random pick: The story about sitting in the back of the car already in the phone call, could have happened from merging Shellie’s call with what he later witnessed on the scene.

        What I find interesting though, is that Osterman writes Shellie wasn’t home herself, but with her parents. …

        Absolutely correct though, GZ’s impatience with Jon may signal some type of agreement between Shellie and GZ that if something like that ever happens, she had to immediately call Osterman. Or they have a telepathic relationship ;), or she understood that GZ will feel much better with this former SPD insider around at SPD as a support asset. In any case she immediately knew: he shot “a suspect”.
        And that suggests enough to me.

        I’ll take a closer look at this at a later time. I am not saying your story is bad, I am simply saying it is not my story. You were much closer to what I see on another thread.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Of course, you are correct, they could have been imagining anything when the story was constructed for print. All I can do is use what they have said, and point out what it would mean in the context that it has been given.

          So, I’m simply pointing out that in the original quick phone call, there could not have been the information that the book assigns to it. So, there must be something wrong. Usually when something goes wrong with a story, it’s because reality conflicts with what the author is attempting to paint a picture of. In this case it is how he managed to arrive at RATL and getting his vehicle inside, without having to enter a code to do so.

          I’m pointing out that there is another way to accomplish this, and that way is much easier. Simply be there inside the gates already.

    • Thank you, beautiful, LLMPapa.

    • PYorck says:

      Great video.

    • Xena says:

      @LLMPapa. Get him, LLMPapa. Gethimgethimgethim. Get Junior and his killer brother.

    • willisnewton says:

      nice video, but I wish LLMPapa would have mentioned that GZ followed TM with his vehicle before the got out an followed him on foot.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Keep making them pound sand, LLMPapa!

    • Jun says:

      LLM PAPA

      Technically, Fogen first approached Trayvon, the victim, by car… he began his stalking by car and approached Trayvon by car

      SO Fogen Approached Trayvon at night time by car, causing the teenager to react and get scared and run… to which Fogen got agitated that the teen was trying to get away from him, got out of his truck, and called Trayvon a “fucking coon or punk” while chasing the unarmed teenager on foot utilizing a firearm that Fogen always carries and a flashlight

      • Brandi Kansas City says:

        Please tell me what fogen is?

      • aussie says:

        Brandi, “fogen” is short for “Forget his name”, started after Melisha explained that in Jewish custom if someone was particularly evil, when they talk of him they add “may his name be forgotten”.

        Some people have lengthened this to Fogenhats or Fogenphoole.

        I TOLD you guys, this name is going to confuse some people. Especially any occasional reader or anyone new coming in via Google.

      • Dan Q. Smith says:

        LOL! He muttered the slur coons” under his breath. 1. I heard the word as plain as day. 2. That is what a person mutters under their breath- a slur. 3. “Punk” is derogatory but it’s not a slur 4. What objective person would think Fogen incapable of using a racial slur? I mean really.

        This is NOT directed at you Jun. it’s directed at the whole coons vs goons vs punks farce.

    • vickie s. votaw says:

      Bravo!

    • Malisha says:

      Absolutely right ON!

      Marked (“There’s a real suspicious guy”), profiled (“the suspect”), followed (“Are you following him?” “Yeh”), approached (“after [Zimmerman] first approached [Martin]”), and KILLED.

      = Murder in the second degree.

  30. Here’s the new petition started to get Judge Nelson OFF!! they have 11 signatures so far!!
    LOLO
    http://signon.org/sign/recuse-judge-nelson?source=c.tw&r_by=7444768

    Judicial impartiality is a significant element of justice. Judges should
    decide legal disputes free of any personal bias or prejudice. As a result of a
    conflict of interest, a judge may be unable to maintain impartiality in a case and
    thus should be disqualified. Even where a judge is impartial, but appears not
    to be, recusal is necessary. To promote the goal of judicial impartiality, most
    states have adopted the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial
    Conduct.’ The Code prescribes disqualification for judges who recognize2 the
    existence of a conflict of interest, or who encounter allegations of a conflict of
    interest in a motion to disqualify

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Pffft. What nonsense. They want Nelson to allow OM to walk all over witnesses and opposing attorneys.

    • towerflower says:

      Funny how their petition never mentioned exactly why she should be replaced. Are they suggesting that she is impartial but due to the repeated denials of motions it appears she might not be?

      • Xena says:

        @towerflower. Did you read the comments? They are:

        she’s not following the law. She’s showing Bias. she seems to favor crump’s attorney Blackwell. She’s not allowing due process.

        Attorney Crump is a non-party in the case. He has nothing to do with due process in GZ’s case.

        Another says;

        The Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit was Irresponsible as it was Unethical.. The DA has a legal obligation to present the truth..The Whole truth and nothing but the truth and thats why there were not chargers brought in the 1st place. Corey knew DD was a fictitious witness and used her for the affidavit for political gain. This is an obstruction of Justice that any 1st year law student can see

        Nothing providing evidence of a conflict of interest, right? Like I’ve been saying and continue to say, Zidiots did not want GZ charged and so, they don’t want him going to trial. And that is confirmed by the next comment;

        Exonerate George Zimmerman. Recuse Judge Nelson do a further investigation as to why Crump lied.

        So stupid, because if GZ is exonerated, there is no need for a judge as there is no case, right?

      • Rachael says:

        she’s not following the law. She’s showing Bias. she seems to favor crump’s attorney Blackwell. She’s not allowing due process.

        Examples? bunchoidjits

        • Xena says:

          @Rachael. Yep. Zidiot thinking; How dare that Black lawyer Benjamin Crump, represent that thug’s parents. We need to make an example out of him so no Black parents ever will demand justice when their unarmed teen sons are killed. Why does that Judge think that Crump is anything other than a shoe shine boy just like the one in the White House. She is suppose to do what the white lawyers want.

      • Jun says:

        Its called propaganda and lies

        They do not have a valid reason, so they simply make up lies about the person they target, as if it is proven fact, while stating the lies and not giving backing proof

        IMO it’s really stupid of them because she’s been fair and impartial and listened to both sides of arguments and made valid rulings

        Fair and impartial is giving both sides a chance to plead their case and for her to weigh it legally

        Even though the defense files motions against the opposing party, the opposing party has a right to be heard and plead their case

        They claimed Lester was biased and he’s been voted by numerous defense and state laywers how fair he is (Fogen got second bail, while most judges would have kept him in jail)

        and then they got Nelson

        Do they really want to see what is behind door number 3? LMAO

      • towerflower says:

        Xena, I don’t know why but I don’t see those comments. 😦

      • towerflower says:

        For some reason I only see the post of the last person and not everyone else. I’ve tried clicking on the box with the person’s name and no luck. I’ll try again later, it may just be a glitch.

      • I know really, what took them so long!

      • Xena says:

        Bwa-aah-hahahaha. That petition alleges a conflict of interest as its basis for judicial partiality. What conflict? Also, it says;
        “Judges should decide legal disputes free of any personal bias or prejudice.”

        Uhhh — Professor. Here’s a question. Are discovery issues considered “legal disputes”?

    • 2dogsonly says:

      If I were her, I would be begging to be thrown in that briar patch. MOM and West are so unorganized and goofy it just has to be trying to maintain a flat non-committal posture. I love trials and I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed lawyers floundering around and saying things like” well, Judge even though I agreed to court date and you are holding me to it, I just won’t be ready. Not going to happen..

      • Dan Q. Smith says:

        Yes! It felt to me like MO”M was trying to intimidate the judge. He wanted to have the last word and he told he might not be able or willing to comply with the trial date. It seems profoundly disrespectful for him to say these things to her. IIRC, she just said, “Thank you” and moved on. MO’M is some piece of work. He’s a rascist, btw. I knew this since one of his first news conferences. He used the rascist code word, “watermelon” not about the flavor of Trayvon’s drink but in an analogy about drug smuggling. He’s a nasty piece of work with a pseudo professional and pseudo mannered veneer IMO.

    • What exactly are they alleging now? Tell you one thing. This judge is being extremely careful, I think. I think that is why we are seeing simple orders denying without comment. Because on the last judge, or was it two, he didn’t like the comments. This time there is nothing. She hasn’t done anything. What statement are they referring to?

      • but now they’re complaining that she didn’t explain herself purposely so omar has nothing to argue about!

        it doesn’t occur to them that she’s already told them exactly what they needed to show in order to win, 3X!

        • She doesn’t owe them any explanation on a motion to reconsider if it’s denied. The reason they are getting crickets out of this judge is that they insisted on it with the way they did Judge Lester. They are their own worst enemy much of the time. Judge Lester was being good to him, many folks would not be out walking around on murder 2 charges, period, but especially after that stunt he pulled.

          And THEN to look a gift horse in the mouth and appeal a motion to recuse? STFU.

    • tonydphotog says:

      So let me get this right…..If a judge doesn’t side with the Zidiots, then he/she is being impartial?

      Aren’t they at their limit of removing judges?

    • elcymoo says:

      When I clicked on the link to the petition for removal of Judge Nelson site just now (3:29 CT), there was a grand total of 14 signers, few of whom understood the case or the laws, judging by their comments.

      • Trained Observer says:

        At 5:20 EST, the grand total had skyrocketed to 16. Only one — Debbie Sechrest — claimed to be from Seminole County. Guess she’s effectively removed herself from eligibility to serve on that jury.

    • Jun says:

      I called it first LMAO

      I knew there was a reason for the ridiculous motions LMAO

      I wish Zidiots would get another plan of action LOL

      it is too easy to predict their next move

      I also predicted the Piers Morgan “We Are Not Racist” media tour number 2 start

    • ay2z says:

      In preparation for the motion yet to come to ask Judge Nelson to recuse herself, sway her with signs that the ‘masses’ of supporters aka voters are unhappy. It’s like a threat, not too well veiled.

      • Xena says:

        O’Mara and West would do good to have a statement prepared removing themselves from having interest in that petition. They should research Jad Savage who posted it, and how he continuously refers to Blacks as “Negroes.”

        • dianetrotter says:

          Looks like rene Stutzman is tweeting with Jad Savage. Look at Nov 8 https://twitter.com/JadSavage4GZ

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “Looks like rene Stutzman is tweeting with Jad Savage. Look at Nov 8 https://twitter.com/JadSavage4GZ

            Couldn’t anyone “subscribe” to Stutzman’s Twitter feed and re-tweet any of them if they wished without Stutzman having any control over it?

            unitron

          • dianetrotter says:

            I looked at it wondering about the possibility. I refuse to tweet so I don’t know.

          • onlyiamunitron says:

            “I looked at it wondering about the possibility. I refuse to tweet so I don’t know.”

            I avoided it until recently when it was either that or Facebook in order to be able to upvote

            http://www.butdoctorihatepink.com/

            to help her win some money for her son’s college fund, but I’m almost entirely in read-only mode with it, but my limited experience leads me to believe this other guy is following Stutzman’s feed, as are who knows how many other people because of the Martin/Zimmerman case, but that doesn’t imply an endorsement by her of any of them, or even awareness of them by her, and of course you can re-tweet anyone else’s tweet without them giving permission and maybe without them even knowing about it.

            It’s sort of amusing to see all the hate for Stutzman here and then see it appear like a fan club in comparison to the loathing she gets over at the treehouse.

            Finally something on which both sides can agree.

            unitron

          • Xena says:

            @dianetrotter. That doesn’t surprise me.

      • yeah really!
        except the masses/17 supporters/voters hardly worry Judge Nelson! lol
        they only *wish* they were that relevant to the world!!!

    • Dan Q. Smith says:

      How pathetic.

  31. towerflower says:

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-zimmerman-no-crump-depo-20130328,0,5867222.story

    Judge: Crump need not answer questions from George Zimmerman’s lawyers

    By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel
    11:25 a.m. EDT, March 28, 2013

    A Sanford judge today said no to defense attorneys for George Zimmerman, who had asked a second time that the attorney for Trayvon Martin’s family be required to answer their questions under oath.

    Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson made that ruling in a three sentence order that offered no explanation.

    In her earlier ruling, three weeks ago, she wrote that Zimmerman’s attorneys had failed to show that they could get the information from no other source, that it was relevant or crucial to the case.

    Zimmerman is the 29-year-old former Neighborhood Watch volunteer charged with second-degree murder for shooting Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black 17-year-old, in Sanford Feb. 26, 2012.

    Zimmerman says he acted in self-defense.
    His attorneys wanted to question Benjamin Crump, the attorney for Trayvon’s parents, about a young Miami woman who was on the phone with Trayvon just before the shooting and about the circumstances surrounding a March 19, 2012, interview with her that he recorded.

    During it, she lied about her age, saying she was 16 when she was 18, and that she had missed Trayvon’s wake and funeral because she was in the hospital.

    Crump objected to being deposed by Zimmerman’s attorneys, saying that information is protected by attorney-client privilege and because it was part of his work product. He also argued that it isn’t relevant to the criminal case.

    • SearchingMind says:

      Pauwch! That hurts! IIRC, the Motion to Reconsider is about 68-pages of many hours of strenuous work. And JN threw it out with no more than three sentences?! That’s “Blitz Krieg” in my book. Beware George, Lady Justice is closing in on you with her sward drawn. Soon she will strike with vengeance – for Trayvon. Be afraid, George. Veeeery afraid!

    • Bill Taylor says:

      why does this reporter simply lie? there is no record of her lying about her age.

  32. SearchingMind says:

    Quite infuriating …,

    Sorry guys, but I just can’t let this go. The more I think about O’Mara’s video deposition- and Donald West’s handling of DeeDee, the more infuriated I get. There are many aspects to DeeDee’s treatment that infuriate me. But this is the most infuriating.

    What would have happened if BDLR had consented to the video deposition of DeeDee? Would it have mattered at all what DeeDee thought and wanted? Would it have mattered if DeeDee had not wanted to be videotaped by anyone for any reason whatsoever? Would it have mattered if DeeDee had not wanted to be videotaped while in pain answering questions from the attorneys of the racist murderer of her childhood love? Which woman in the world would want to be videotaped by strangers without having any control as to where- when- and how the videotapes made of her will be used? What exactly has DeeDee done to warrant others making these kind of privacy-decisions for her and imposing it on her? Even criminals get to decide whether or not they want to appear on camera. But DeeDee is a Black girl and no one is drawing line in the sand for O’Mara and Donald West. O’Mara and West can trash and trample on DeeDee as they wish – calling her a perjurer/criminal without evidence. O’Mara- and West’s racist donors find DeeDee quite exotic. Mention DeeDee and they all go wild with criminal energy. Their frenzy is just breathtaking. Aggression towards DeeDee appears to be orgasmic for the donors. When in that orgasmic state, those donors donate more and more. And O’Mara and Donald West see to it that their donors always have a constant supply of more of DeeDee. There is no outrage. No one is telling O’Mara and West: “Stop! Or else….”. That’s more than infuriating.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      It’s just simple harrassment. Either you videotape all the depositions or you don’t videotape any of them.

    • truthseeker66 says:

      Seems to me deedee would have say so. What person in her position would agree to that?

    • Rachael says:

      They are just a bunch of sick *ucks.

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      It is witness intimidation. I’m very happy Nelson canceled the hearing and denied the motion for reconsideration and clarification.
      It looks to me as if the defense is using these motions to depose Crump as an excuse to talk about DD on live tv. Good to see Nelson is not falling for it.

    • Valerie says:

      Fogen’s donors/supporters so strongly believe (and saying strongly believe is putting it very,very mildly) that DeeDee is the final linchpin in the “crumbling” of this case. Their belief is if DeeDee is discredited, the whole case falls apart. They site the Duke Lacrosse case, Twyana Brawley…and then they go spastic. I believe I heard BDLR say DeeDee is a “protected” witness and the State have done a superb job on maintaining that status…therefore the defense is denied all access to her except through deposition. That is what infuriates Fogen’s donors/supporters.

    • Yes it’s very infuriating! DD is a WITNESS for the state. As a witness and not a defendant she still has her RIGHTS!!

      As a matter of fact this BS video taping is clearly another intimidation tactic on omar’s part. and his hope is to scare her into refusing to testify at trial.
      Remember, she’s not on trial, she could always just say NO to this whole thing! she has NO legal obligation to testify ( I don’t think ), she can’t be forced to testify and could easily just say no! That’s their hope. That’s what they are doing when they encourage the doxing and name calling and harassment of her and everyone around her. They are counting on it!

      This really needs to be addressed by the judge and legislation because it’s like legal/criminal terrorism and intimidation of witnesses to crime everywhere. and the demonizing of Trayvon needs be looked at very seriously and the laws need to catch up with what’s going on in this case. it’s so wrong.

    • Jun says:

      You do not have to worry. Omara never got consent from anyone to videotape, so he can go suck lemons. You need consent to videotape people.

      • Judy75201 says:

        In my neck of the woods, if you object to a deposition notice, you file a motion to quash.

      • Jun says:

        It does not matter. They were not objecting to the deposition. They were objecting to terms of being videotaped. Omara never asked for permission to videotape the witnesses and tried to force witnesses to be videotaped. There was no need to file any motion, just simply ask permission to videotape and get waivers signed. Not exactly difficult procedure.

  33. 2dogsonly says:

    I was greatly relieved to see DD could not be prosecuted for an immaterial lie. But that is the legal bedrock which means she won’t face any legal repercussions. That does not mean that MOM won’t use this to do his job as a defense attorney if he can get it in. This seems to me an open/shut case against GZ but I am not objective. being a LCSW I understand human behavior and human beings on jury’ do, if they like the defendant or hate the prosecutor ignore the actual law and go with their heart.

    Her asking again about this clear misstep on Crump & BDLR’s side is not trolling but is asking if this will discredit her. It was a leading question by both and why they led her I don’t understand. They were spot on and evidence was clearly going our way. This screwing with evidence is one of the reasons OJ got off, the glove.
    Casey Anthony,s jury hated the arrogance of prosecutor.

    Professor, I know you were burned badly by that troll, beautiful lady avi, but if we don’t welcome difficult questions and try to see the person’s reasoning, it just leaves a cheerleading squad with no critical thinking outside the statues themselves.

    A famous defense attorney had just gotten his client off..a very charming fellow but also guilty of charge. As he was walking down the stairs with his client, a jury member who had voted ” not guilty” passed them and said to his client ” and don’t do it again”

    • “Her asking again about this clear misstep on Crump & BDLR’s side is not trolling but is asking if this will discredit her.”

      I don’t know what “misstep on Crump and BDLR’s side” that you are talking about.
      What are you suggesting Ben Crump did wrong in this case?
      Who’s screwing with evidence? I hope you aren’t referring to Ben Crump’s personal recording of DD’s statement.
      Because it is what it is, and he didn’t screw it up. He found it!
      It’s not his job to make recording for the defense. He simply made a copy for his own records and referral, for his own use! Once the state was aware of her, they could talk to her, and so could the defense.

      You know Crump’s not here to help the killer of his client’s kid to obtain a nice and clean copy of DD’s statement right? I’m sure ABC allowed the state to listen to their recording. But they certainly have no obligation to allow the defense!

      I just feel the discovery of DD is a gift to justice, and not some basis to criticize the one who found her. And that’s what they ( the defense ) are doing in an attempt to discredit her account of what she heard. I expect them to try anything they can to win, it’s their job, but just because they *say* Crump did something wrong doesn’t make it so.

      Crump covered himself from these false accusations by having ABC there making their recording. It’s just none of the defenses business. that’s what happens when you murder someone, sometimes other people don’t let you get away with it!

      Thanks Ben 🙂

    • Dan Q. Smith says:

      Are you saying DD lied?

  34. kllypyn says:

    These lies aren’t exactly in order…..(LIE 1) Trayvon said you got me and was cussing and moaning after he was shot.Trayvon was severely injured,he was not able to say anything.He didn’t live long after being shot to even try to talk. (LIE 2) Trayvon repeatedly slammed his head into the sidewalk for nearly a minute. tried to smother him and punched him in the face 12 times or 30-40 times.Now how would trayvon do all that during a confrontation that lasted less than a minute.Trayvon was not physically capable of doing what he claims he was not super boy.It also would have made it impossible for him to scream while trayvon was supposedly beating him like he claims. (LIE 3) Trayvon said “you’re gonna die tonight motherfucker”,after seeing the gun. No unarmed person is going to threaten the life of a person who has a gun.Especially when they know nothing about guns. I believe he said that to trayvon prior to killing him.(LIE 4 AND 5) He said Trayvon jumped from behind bushes and attacked him. Then he said trayvon came out of the darkness and attacked him from behind. Trayvon had no way of knowing he would come that way. The last time he saw Zimmerman he was in a car.He ran to the dog path specifically because a car couldn’t go there.He had no reason to believe he would get out of his car to pursue him.those bushes are too small and too close to those buildings for a 6ft tall teenager to hide behind. (lie 6) He was screaming for help.No he was not.He is a 200lb former bouncer armed with a 9mm weapon,he had no reason to scream for help. That was obviously a teenager screaming. (LIE 7)He said Trayvon tried to take his gun.He gave 2 different stories of how trayvon supposedly tried to take his gun. The gun was on his waist at his rear hip,Trayvon never saw the gun until it was pointed at him. He would never have been able to grab the gun in the way he described because he would have been laying on it.Trayvon wasn’t just screaming for help,he didn’t just scream “i don’t know!!”he was crying that boy was literally crying before he was killed.Do you know how scared a 17year old boy would have to be to cry like that? Trayvon didn’t know this man,he had never seen him before.He only knew him as some creepy guy who was watching him.Who then began following him.Trayvon never knew who he was or what he wanted from him.He died without ever having a clue who the creepy guy was Or why he was after him. Zimmerman had already called the police,despite the fact Trayvon had committed no crime.He should have waited for them and let them handle it.Because he didn’t want Trayvon (who had done nothing)to get away he went after him,which he had no right or legal authority to do.When Trayvon resisted him he got angry and became enraged and killed him while he begged for his life and tried to escape.The one simple task he could have done to avoid what happened he couldn’t do,and that was to wait for the police and let them do their job. He had no right to even approach trayvon.Now he hopes if he and his family tell enough lies or drag Trayvon and his family through the mud he will get off.I DON’T THINK SO. Trayvon was innocent he never did any harm to anyone. ZIMMERMAN SHOULD HAVE MINDED HIS BUSINESS AND LEFT TRAYVON ALONE.

    • Tzar says:

      for a 6ft tall teenager to hide behind.

      * 5’11”
      see autopsy report

      • kllypyn says:

        5-11 i stand corrected.

      • kllypyn says:

        Actually an inch isn’t much of a difference. But i will remember to get his height right next time.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          An inch may not seem like much, but in height, an inch taller or shorter translates body weight into more or less muscle mass. As a body becomes shorter at the same weight muscle mass goes up, making them significantly stronger. Trayvon at 5′ 11″ and only 158 lbs, he had almost the bare minimum muscle mass, needed to move himself around. In a gym, for example, you wouldn’t expect he could bench more that 50 – 60 lbs if that, and have trouble doing it. While GZ at 5′ 8″ and 207 lbs, had a terrific amount of muscle mass, in a gym you’d expect he could easily bench press over 100lbs and most likely 150 or even more. Giving him at least 3 times the strength of Trayvon. Which is why, for men who have had physical interactions with other males, either boxing, wrestling, weight lifting or other competitive sports, the feel of GZ being bested by Trayvon is simply a fiction.

      • Tzar says:

        If an inch makes little difference then I’d like to consider him to be 5’10. OK?

    • KittySP says:

      @kllypyn…repeat these phrases…”when in doubt George leaves it out, what George did, he blames on the kid”.

  35. Wonder if GZ is considering begging for Judge Lester back:

    Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS 3h
    PDF of Judge Nelson’s order denying #GeorgeZimmerman’s 2nd motion to depose #TrayvonMartin family atty Crump: http://twitdoc.com/1WTO
    Followed by WE•ARE#TRAYVONMARTIN and 11 others
    Expand Reply Retweeted Favorite More

    • SearchingMind says:

      Crane, can you link the pdf doc? Pleeeeeeas? I am dying to read it. All day I have been digesting Shelton, Hickman v. Taylor, Horning Keating v. State, etc. and trying to make sense of O’Mara’s non-responsive response. I knew the Motion to Reconsider will be thrown out. But I did not imagine that JN will be soooo swift.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Swift and sure! No hesitation whatsoever.

      • leander22 says:

        All day I have been digesting Shelton, Hickman v. Taylor, Horning Keating v. State, etc. and trying to make sense of O’Mara’s non-responsive response.

        😉

        This time I didn’t even take a closer look. His core “Benjamin-Crump-waived-every-priviledge-he-may-have-had-when-he-went-public argument is thin, really thin. … I was already puzzled in his motion that they did not delete the exemption in the law they rely on, it does not apply if whoever concerned consents.

        Interesting that Debra Nelson didn’t even consider to explain anything; and strictly it would be rather repetitive. I love it, no need to explain.

        Considering her “motion denied”: it could well be she canceled the hearing herself, NO, not all over again!

      • leander22 says:

        in his (one of the earlier ones, I forget which) motion

    • 2dogsonly says:

      Having Judge Lester removed was the first big error on MOM’s part. He was voted top in all areas by both defense and prosecuting attorneys. Most respectful to all sides, knows law , etc. he was #1 and would have been able to judge case in spite of his personal feelings. He was spot on to overlook domestic TRO as young lovers and he knew the sleaziness of the undercover ATF cops so discounted that also.

      I was stunned when they moved to replace him. The article had just come out in OS but MOM would have known of his extraordinary reputation through journals, etc. Judge Nelson was ranked lower on tolerance to attorney’s ….(can’t think of a tactful word so ….instead)

    • Nef05 says:

      LOL – literally. No hearing, no oral arguments, no fanfare, no explanation, no “hoopla” (as my friend JN would say) – just DENIED! Priceless! Yes C-S, I’m guessing fogen rues the day he decided Judge Lester had to go. If this isn’t a “reaping what you sow” moment, I don’t know what is.

    • Dan Q. Smith says:

      Yes, Judge Lester let him out on bond after all of those lies, in fact arguably crimes in themselves. Yet they went judge shopping, and lost.

  36. vickie s. votaw says:

    Wellspoken

  37. Trained Observer says:

    It appears to me that Erica — whoever h/she may be (pal of a MOM intern, maybe) — succeeded in a goal of attracting inordinate attention to h/herself with her cutesy “Is BDLR in trouble?” inquiry.

    Then in true narcissistic fashion, h/she had a pathetic toddler-style temper tantrum when encountering grow-up-and-get-real pushback.

    • Trained Observer says:

      H/she’s an unwarranted distraction to genuine debate, parsing and insights on finer points in this compelling case being presented on the professor’s blog.

      • abbyj says:

        TrainedObserver,
        Agreed. S/he is a serious distraction and highly defensive. I followed for many months and tried to familiarize myself with the professor’s thoughts and the discussions before submitting a single comment. To come on here with an adversarial stance, not to say open antagonism, defeats the mission, IMO, of this rich blog. “Unwarranted” is a key description, T.O. This site functions smoothly and intelligently without such distractions.

    • Erica says:

      Your character is more pathetic, calling names when noone called you a name. Say wanna you want to say. I don’t let jerks bully me. You should be considered a wanna be cyber bully. I called you no name but your pathetic character called me one based on a question. You my friend are pathetic and will always be alone. Grow up because if you dish it out, you better be ready to get it back.

  38. ERICA says:

    WHAT? You must post a redaction all of this non sense that I did not say. I did not support the defense argument. I asked a question and I get this crap?. I asked a question, I made no statement in regard to what you have accused me of.What was so bad about my question and you talk about previous post and articles. You have to admit Professor, you have not always gotten it right. You have good articles that consist of good information but that does not mean it may still leave people questionless. Its not even an understanding issue. I understand well. You have a trollism problem and by reading this article you are certainly not a trollologist. This is not the first time I have posted. I have been posting for over 6months and never have I been considered a troll. but the one question that disagrees with you is TROLLISM? I may have or may not have a learn disability but you fools have admonised me for asking a question? Is this site to be for only those who believe what you want them to believe? Is noone ever to challenge you aon a logical issue? You say you posted articles but all your articles are one sided so you always want one sided anwsers? You can ban me IDK. Its not about none of us. So get off your smart ass horse. And stop falsely accusing of things I did not say.

    • Bill Taylor says:

      your question was in no way logical and as you have been told has been answered already beyond a shadow of doubt.

    • Watch your mouth, Erica!

    • Xena says:

      @Erica. Your use of “we” has been observed previously. Now you use “you fools.” You do realize that such generalizations speak volumes; i.e., that you see yourself apart from everyone else who participates here.

    • Tzar says:

      What was so bad about my question

      Remember the one about “how often do you beat your wife?”
      I think the operative word here is “loaded” 🙂

    • Xena says:

      @Erica. Sorry for the length of this. At times it becomes necessary to use an outline approach to develop reasonable questions and answers. For instance, “Is BDLR going to get into trouble?” This pertains to the State’s knowledge that there are no hospital records confirming that Witness 8 went for medical attention rather than attend Trayvon’s wake and/or funeral.
      A. When interviewed by BDLR, did he request hospital records?
      (1) No.
      (2) Why not? Possibly, the question was to demonstrate empathy. Witness testimony that is relevant pertains to the phone calls on 2/26/12 between approximately 6:30 p.m. and 7:16 p.m between the witness and victim.
      B. Since the State did not ask for hospital records during their interview of Witness 8, when did the question arise; when would the State know that Witness 8 did not go to the hospital?
      (1) When the defense requested the court to issue a subpoena duces tecum for the hospital records.
      (2) The State makes arrangements for Witness 8 and other witnesses who are not represented by legal counsel, when requests are made by the defense. The defense, represented by West, stated in open court that the State contacted him the day before the hearing to advise him that there are no hospital records.
      (3) This makes it reasonable to believe that the State did not know there are no hospital records until the defense requested them by way of the subpoena duces tecum.
      C. What is the relevance of this matter, and what do we use as a basis?
      (1) The Affidavit of Probable Cause. Said Affidavit provides:
      “During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn’t know why.”
      (2) Anything beyond the scope of the phone call(s) as provided in the Affidavit is also beyond the scope of relevancy on this issue.
      D. Has the court already made a ruling on this matter?
      (1) Yes. The court rendered the subpoena duces tecum moot without prejudice. The court advised the defense to conduct deposition. If there are hospital records, the defense can then return to court on the subpoena duces tecum. Since the witness has stated that she did not go to the hospital, there are no records and the subpoena therefore remains moot.
      E. Can the witness’ credibility be attacked during her testimony at trial. If so, why. If not, why.
      (1) It is now recorded on the witness deposition that she was dishonest because she did not want to hurt Sybrina Fulton, the mother of the victim, by not coming to the wake and/or funeral. That part of the deposition can be presented and entered into evidence to support that it was not a lie to change the truth of what she heard when on the phone with the victim, neither the victim’s words.
      CONCLUSION:
      The hospital records for Witness 8 are only important for the defense in effort to taint the witness’ credibility. They were not important to the State who did not request any proof for what the witness did because she did not attend the victim’s wake and/or funeral. The State is not responsible to go beyond the scope of collecting evidence that does not pertain to the killing of Trayvon Martin. Thus, the defense, having interest in the witness’ hospital records, is solely responsible for conducting that discovery.

    • what’s wrong with you? so you want to call people here fools and expect to be taken seriously? and make moronic suggestions that Prof doesn’t know what he’s talking about? can’t you read the titles of articles on the right side of the pages and see that it’s YOU that’s the fool?

      You need to get back on your stupid ass horse and get lost!

    • Jun says:

      I answered you numerous times but let me put it very simple here for you

      According to you Deedee lied, and therefore her story is not credible. At the most her story gets thrown out.

      The defendant lied, therefore his story is not credible, so his story gets thrown out, and now there is no more self defense claim.

      Look at it that way, and you will see there’s no loss.

    • Erica,

      Give it a rest. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and concluded that you were not a troll and told you that I would not be screening your comments before allowing them to be posted.

      I also advised you and everyone else to be prepared to defend your opinions when they disagree with group consensus.

      That is only fair because people who do that should expect to be challenged.

      If they are right, the old consensus will be replaced by the new one.

      Notice that I never said my opinions cannot be challenged and, in fact, I have admitted that I was wrong several times when they were challenged.

      I am not going to argue with you any more regarding this issue. You either get it or you don’t.

      Good luck.

      • Erica says:

        ok Prof, I wil! My comment below was sent first, but I am letting it go!

      • Brandi Kansas City says:

        Professor I hope I am not beat up for this but I too have asked a question or shared opinion and felt attacked too. I have always supported Trayvon from the beginning. When searching for new news and event on Trayvon your blog does come up. I like your articles and appreciate you calling it like it is but even as a fan of yours I haven’t read every article. Just saying.

    • Erica says:

      Prof: Erica said she really did not see any difference between Dee Dee’s lie compared to the defendant’s lies
      Me: I said no such thing, I asked a question

      Prof: However, I think she had a duty and responsibility to inform herself as best she could regarding the matter before she expressed her opinion and she should have explained why she thought her idea had any merit, rather than merely assuming that she was right, a telltale sign of troll behavior
      Me: I had no such “idea”, I asked a question

      Prof: she should have realized that she was expressing support for a thoroughly discussed and discredited idea and therefore she should have expected to be challenged and maybe even accused of being a troll.

      Me: You can’t accuse me of TROLLISM baised on an objective question. I have been on this site for at least 6 months and with all my comments, I have never been accused of being a TROLL. Name calling (other than calling one a troll) and trying to belittle people is not acceptable to me.

      Prof: However, she and everyone else, including me, has to acknowledge that from time to time someone is going to disagree with something we say and challenge us.

      Me: I didn’t disagree with anyone, I ASKED A QUESTION.
      Now why didn’t you mention the people that said awefully things about me in your article? They behavior was 10 times worse the the question I asked? It appears to me that donors can say anything and don’t dare oppose them. Their silly behavior was something to address, not my question. Cyberbulling is not ok.

      MR. LEATHERMAN please show us all what exactly I said to validate this article.

      JUSTICE is FAIR and BALANCED. Its not balanced to not let people ask objective question. How can anyone expect a juror to be balanced but this site can’t be balanced without name calling. You want fair and balance justiced but you can’t even exhibit that on this site and Prof, you have not always been right but no one said to you your brain is made of stryfoam. And because my question is in no way logical to you, doesn’t mean its not logical.

      • Jun says:

        Erica, to be fair, I tried to answer your question

        Not saying you are a troll, but it comes off trollish, when you try to blame Bernie for someone else’s alleged lie

        Comparatively speaking, the question you proposed, can come off as being perceived as comparing to the defendant’s lies

        Yes, some people may have reacted negatively to you, however, they may feel strongly because they feel w8 is being bullied

        Why not let w8 speak for herself, because, as we all know Omara is a dishonest person and we will not know the truth from her?

        The best thing to do, if you want to be objective is whenever Omara makes a claim, be sure to hear all sides of the story before making a judgement, because on more than one occasion Omara misrepresents information

    • Dan Q. Smith says:

      This is no way to talk to our host. You should take a deep breath before posting like this. It accomplishes nothing.

  39. bettykath says:

    I’m not sure that newcomers to the site are aware of just how extensive the various questions have been researched and commended on. If Erica came here for the first time, and asked what some considered an inappropriate question because they have known the answer for a week or so, why should she be subjected to ridicule? Wouldn’t it be more welcoming to just answer her question at the summary level and point her to the thread that goes into the subject in more detail? Even with a lot of discussion that kind of goes all over the place, it’s sometimes hard to find an answer to a specific question. It’s also possible to find conflicting answers b/c some of the “experts” here aren’t so expert. If I were a newcomer and was treated as Erica was, I’d see this as a hostile site and move on, never to return.

    • Xena says:

      @bettykath

      Wouldn’t it be more welcoming to just answer her question at the summary level and point her to the thread that goes into the subject in more detail?

      Some did, including myself. Rather than Erica responding to comments that addressed the merits of her questions, she focused on returning attacks on those whose responses were personal. This is not to say that Erica should not have defended herself, but she turned her focus away from answers to her questions as though the answers really didn’t mean anything to her.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I agree, Bettykath. For one thing, Erica isn’t new. Yes, she should be reading, but the responses to her were appalling and unnecessary.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        And many of the responses below are appalling and unnecessary.

      • bettykath says:

        yes, some of the comments that follow are also appalling and unnecessary.

      • bettykath says:

        I went back and looked at the thread where Erica asked her question, her reasonable question.

        The first response is true but not helpful.
        The second response was a pointer to the thread where DD question was addressed (I didn’t look to see if it answered Erica’s question (Parrot)

        The next couple of responses were helpful. Started by Xena, with the professor responding to her.

        At this point Erica hasn’t responded to anything. We have one question and 2-3 helpful responses.

        Then it starts getting nasty. Name calling, sarcastic questions, etc.

        Then Erica responds to the not-nice comments. If the not-nice comments hadn’t been made, Erica could have read the helpful responses and the thread and there would have been no reason for her to make a defensive response.

        The reading that needs to be done is by those who want to jump in to denigrate those who ask questions that have been answered by previous posters.

    • jo says:

      i’m with you here, bettykath. It sounds like once the majority decides on an issue any differing opinion or questioning is continued trolling. No juror is going to care if we have decided it shouldn’t affect the case, they will have their own thoughts and possible agenda’s.

      And it’s not ok to attack someone for asking a genuine question.
      Yes make sure you can back up your argument but if someone attacks personally then they should expect retaliation as well. I think Erica has a right to defend herself and not be chastised for that defense.

      There are many people who are trying to look at this case on evidence and are trying not to get carried away with emotions which can be hard. But fact is this is exactly what the defence was sniffing around deedee and crump for, to discredit them, so even if WE don’t think it should matter, others still might think it’s an issue and that is their right.

      I think it’s obvious when someone is a troll. Just because someone doesn’t agree or has more questions on a legitimate issue does not a troll make.

    • leander22 says:

      Betty, yesterday I would have written a more philosophical response, or psychological if you will, which would have been something like:

      This space offers a lot of positive energy for everybody with a critical position as to GZ’s narratives, I am firmly in that camp, the furthest I would go into a “realist camp” is the assumption that Fogen was completely unable to ever read reality beyond his preconceptions and whatever Trayvon did, only served to convince him further. In other words that Trayvon had not have the least chance to do the right thing. E.g. simply find out who this man was and why he observed him. Or the larger unfortunate encounter narrative. But in this context it is very important to ask who triggered events.

      To a certain extend DeeDee’s story arrests our perception just as much as GZ’s. Yes that is true, and you have to ultimately choose.

      But I somehow doubt that one can be both “a realist” on the issue, thus accepting that Fogen’s story as at least “realistically” possible and a “Trayvon Martin” supporter at the same time.

      F@@K TRAINED OBSERVER, LADY NOT A ST. Claire Rachael and all you others who have called me a name because I asked a question you may as well be a Zimbot because they don’t use common sense just as you have not so you are a Traybot. It will not be a non-issue to the jury if the defense brings it up. They will at least think about it…just as I have done and I have read all the professors articles but the jury wont read them. I’m a Trayvon Martin supporter not a Traybot!

      At least I cannot wrap my head around this option. The closest I can get is that one would like to really know what exactly happened. But one would need to leave the frame of juridical justice behind, and even truth commissions have their limits. Yes, I am a Traybot, at least with cases of the mindset of GZ.

      If you support the possibility that DeeDee lied and could be tainted, claiming you are a juror, odd little detail isn’t it? You ultimately embrace the possibility of DeeDee could be some type of artificial creation to counter Fogen’s narrative. And that is something that I don’t consider “realistic”. Or that the family/Crump did force her to tell a very different story than what she at least partially experienced. Is it likely e.g. that Tracy or whoever reached her on her phone but it really belonged to someone else?

      I don’t want to decide if Erica is only confused, a troll, or someone who feels pressured to be “unbiased”, in a tale where being unbiased somehow means you have to adopt a biased perspective, if we return to the start of our the tragedy, or ignore who triggered it. You have to ignore that part. Is that “realistic”?

      • onlyiamunitron says:

        “…claiming you are a juror…”

        Admittedly an odd way to phrase it, but perhaps shorthand for “I’m looking at this from the perspective of a member of the jury”.

        It’s just a theory, I do not claim to be able to read minds.

        unitron

      • leander22 says:

        unitron, that’s what I meant with some type of pressure, superego calling: you shall be unbiased.

        above:

        or someone who feels pressured to be “unbiased”

        What do hear.What do you hear?–now that Jeralyn has finally published her long awaited analysis–again heavily relying on her favorite Diwataman. This is suggestion (psychologically speaking), psychops, if you ask me. I fail to hear what he hears again, but he surely loves to visualize acoustics for the sheeple out there.

    • leander22 says:

      sorry, Betty for the bad proofreading, I hope you will make it. ;).

      DeeDee lied and could be tainted, claiming you are a juror, odd little detail isn’t it?

      Could this may be a lie, interesting in the context of the question that triggered the debate..

  40. liquidmark says:

    Erica should understand that telling a fib about going to the hospital is insignificant next to the veritable mountain of lies that Zimmerman has told from the onset of this event.

  41. Caution–this may hurt your brain.

    Like I said before George needs to take the gloves off and throw the rules out the window. Time to have an oops moment release Dee Dee full name and address and release Trayvon school records. At this point it doesn’t matter how it may make George look as I said before he can’t look much worse then he does now.

    Neither O’Mara or the GZ supporters wanna go there…

  42. Bill Taylor says:

    the more information i have acquired over the decades has simply shown me how LITTLE i do know in relation to the total info available……..the other side of that coin is a well known phrase “ignorance is bliss”.

  43. Tzar says:

    We do not stop learning when we leave school. We go to school to acquire the tools to learn and communicate, Our true learning begins when we leave school and continues until we cease to exist.

    Amen!

  44. Bill Taylor says:

    TY, i have always said life itself is a LEARNING experience from birth to death…….the thought “i know everything i need to know now and dont want to ever learn anything else” has never entered my mind, i have heard others express that concept in other words though often as in i sure am glad school is over i dont have to learn anything else now!

    that was the original concept of the public schools in this nation to teach the BASICS of readin ritin and rithmatic, the skills required to learn more advance info…..teach ALL the very basics and then allow them to use those tools in whatever direction they choose to go.

    • Tommy's Mom says:

      ITA it is however to bad we can’t teach people how to use common sense.

      • Bill Taylor says:

        i think follow means they after posting that will get notifications when new posts are up but that is just my guess about that…..as to common sense that is becoming an oxymoron in todays worlds because it sure isnt very common at all.

  45. Xena says:

    @Professor. Excellent article. It reminded me of what my political science professor told the class:
    “College teaches you to think. Once you learn to think, then you know what to question.”

    • omg my economics professor told me the same thing when I was blubbering ( fact ) to her about studying 41 hours and still getting a D on my first exam!

      she also told me not to take it so hard since my major didn’t have anything to do with economics. I took eco 2 with her too and ended up passing both with B’s.
      But they were total gifts!
      I loved her 🙂

    • Tommy's Mom says:

      I’m sorry if this is a dumb question,howevee I don’t know what “Follow” means as a comment.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Readers who receive the e-mail updates on comments do that.

      • Xena says:

        When you post a comment, there is a box below the comment box that says “Notify me of follow-up comments via email.” That box only appears however, if you post a comment. Posting “follow” is a way of getting the comment box to generate the “Notify me …” box. By clicking it, comments posted on the blog article are sent via email.

        The other advantage to using the “Notify …” option is that when you receive comments via email, they provide a “Reply” box to click, so you don’t have to worry about whether your response is getting posted in the right place in discussion.

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: