What does Shellie Zimmerman have to say about the shooting

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Good afternoon:

I have a short article today to serve as food for thought.

Many of you may have missed it at the beginning of the May 28th hearing, but Judge Nelson ruled that Shellie Zimmerman will have to submit to a deposition by the prosecution in her husband’s case. Shellie Zimmerman is charged with perjury for lying under oath about her husband’s assets at his bond hearing.

In support of his request BDLR told Judge Nelson that she had appeared for her deposition with her attorney, Kelly Sims, and she cooperated for the first 20 minutes or so when defense counsel, O’Mara and West, interrupted the deposition to confer with her attorney outside the room. Following a short meeting, her lawyer advised that she was going to assert her 5th Amendment right to refuse to answer any other questions. That ended the deposition.

She will still be able to assert her 5th Amendment right to remain silent in response to any question asked. BDLR will then have the option to certify the transcript of any questions to which she pleads the 5th and ask Judge Nelson to review her claim and order her to answer, if she determines that she cannot claim the Fifth.

In support of the State’s motion to compel Shellie Zimmerman to submit to deposition, BDLR said:

She has information germane to this case in that she was present when the defendant made statements, not just to her — there’s no husband wife privilege — he made statements to other people when she was present, and she is also germane to what happened after the shooting itself.

Intriguing situation that suggests to me that the State may have promised her use immunity. That would be a promise not to use anything she says against her, so long as she answers the questions truthfully.

Such a promise would have no impact on the perjury case, even if she is questioned about it, so long as BDLR can show that the State did not use any of her answers to prosecute her. In other words, the prosecution would have to show that they relied exclusively on evidence that they already had before the deposition.

I do not believe they will have any trouble doing that and probably have already segregated the evidence they have against her for perjury in a separate file.

Now what do you suppose this “cooperative witness” has to say?

FYI: Here is a link to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. The rule on depositions is 3.220 (h), at page 149.

______________________________________________

Please keep the donations coming.

There will be no free time between now and when the jury renders its verdict.

Nobody else is going to write articles like this one.

I’m your ticket to Unspin the No Spin Zone Inside the Game.

Fred

228 Responses to What does Shellie Zimmerman have to say about the shooting

  1. dianetrotter says:

    If Shellie’s testimony indicates that they tried to detain Trayvon, could that be considered attempted kidnapping?

    • Dennis says:

      I do find it odd that they didn’t charge Fogen with the crimes that led to the shooting in the first place. There is circumstantial evidence that proves he assaulted and tried to detain a minor, just as there is circumstantial evidence that he committed 2nd or 1st degree murder.

      If they actually charged him with false imprisonment of a minor, maybe there would be less fools that think he is innocent.

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      That would prove that they were engaged in a criminal enterprise and remove any possibility that gz could have a self defense claim of any kind at all.

      Once it’s proven that gz was committing a crime, he has no defense at all.

      The fact that Trayvon ran because he was scared means that gz was committing a crime to begin with. He has no right to be doing anything at all that would scare anyone. Which is why his story has so many twists and turns in it.

      But, he has no reason to even be out of his truck, and even less reason to be anywhere on the dog walk on foot, since there are plenty of meeting places that do not involve the path that the frightened teenager took.

      The real self defense killer is, he says that when the teen saw him for a second time, the teen asked him a question. His response was not a proper one, nor was it an effort to dispel the hostile atmosphere he created by following. You see, while he admits that he was following Trayvon, he also says he does not know where Trayvon is, so it could very well be that Trayvon was watching from the shadows. If so, gz running in the same direction that he had traveled, now that gz was on foot, it would give the serious impression that gz was hunting Trayvon down. That would be a crime! Meaning that Trayvon could punch him, knock him to the ground and even take his weapon away from him, and all within the law. Nor would the law recognize any right of gz to shoot Trayvon for any reason at all.

      Once you are committing a crime, the law gives you two options if an innocent person attacks you, either flee if you can, or lay down and die! Anything else puts you behind bars, if you’re lucky.

  2. annahkonda says:

    excuse me, I meant “profession

  3. annahkonda says:

    Mark O’Mara ought to be a virtual embarrasement to the legal porfession.

  4. Woow! says:

    @professor – What does the legal community think about what O’Mara is doing? Do you think anyone will file a complaint with the bar?

  5. bettykath says:

    MOM’s “misstatements” have me wondering how he is going to fare on cross-examination of state witnesses. I’ve heard that it’s important to know the answer to the question you ask before you ask it. MOM doesn’t know the answers for his own “questions”!

    Your honor needs to know what’s on the tape? Why it’s a couple of Trayvon’s friends beating up a homeless man. oops.

    The jury, uh, public needs to know who is in the photos? Why it’s Trayvon, of course. oops.

    The jury, uh, the public needs to know about fogen’s injuries? Well, it’s been established that his nose was broken. oops.

    I could go on, but you get the point. If he can’t answer his own d… questions accurately, watching him trying a cross-examination will be interesting.

    • Lynn says:

      MOM is trying to change his oops lately. I noticed in an interview yesterday that he used the phrase “smashed” when referring to Fogen’s nose. Broken sounds so official and medical, better change that wording now.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        LOL – it looks a little smushed to me. That’s about 5 degrees below smashed on the nose Richter scale. 😀

  6. Katy says:

    Edgy, you’re very welcome. I’ve been to Florida and really liked it.

    I’m working my way around the internet today and leaving comments about Trayvon and horrific and false allegations made by MOM. Trayvon Martin and his family and community absolutely have my support. If there is anything else I can do, please let me know.

  7. Katy says:

    Hi everyone, I posted earlier for the first time on this thread, but I’ve been reading here for months and participating on a different chat board about the case. When I found out yesterday that O’Mara had been posting photos of other people and passing them off as Trayvon (or as taken on Trayvon’s phone), I was appalled. Then I read about the “apology” for the video NOT being as MOM had earlier claimed. I’m even appalleder.

    I live in Australia, and here, a lawyer owes a bigger duty to the court than they do to the client. If that same duty is owed in Florida, then O’Mara has sadly and unforgivably breached it.

    Not only has he done that, he has deceived the public in depicting Trayvon as a fighting, smoking thug. I know people that have been convinced that Trayvon took the video of two friends of his beating a homeless man and that he must therefore be guilty of assaulting Zimmerman.

    • EdgySF says:

      Katy, thanks for your post. I live in Orlando, and am so grateful for the international support for Trayvon Martin. My community needs inspiration during these painful times.

    • Leisa says:

      I was looking for the paper mom had in his discovery re: a trespass citation on 11/1/09. It was in the reports of Fogen’s NEN calls. Funny, this is only report that did not have an officer assigned. It was Fogen’s address (who made call) it was also created at 14:27. The address was 1701 Lowe Rd. That is the location of a park (as well as a cell tower location)
      What can this possibly have to do with anything? Is this just smoke and mirrors?

    • fauxmccoy says:

      hi katy! welcome and thanks for coming out of the shadows 🙂

      a lawyer here has a similar duty to the court. i don’t think this particular ‘mis-statement’ will go down well, but also think that judge nelson may wait until trial conclusion to deal with it and wisely so.

    • ladystclaire says:

      Welcome from down under Katy and, thank you so very much for your support of Trayvon and his family. we can use all of the support that we can get. I mean between this LYING attorney, the tree slum and, of course Rene Stutzman and the OS, these people have really got a ongoing smear campaign going against a deceased child who they never knew.

      I have been very active on my facebook page trying to get all the support I can for Trayvon and his family. people need to realize that, this can happen to someone they love as well. this is why Fogen has all of this support because, those who support him, are just waiting to get their turn at doing the same thing. I really appreciate you as well as your support.

      • Katy says:

        Thank you, Fauxmccoy and Ladystclaire.

        I agree on the judge waiting until the trial is ended both that she will and that she should.

        One thing that saddens me, though, is that MOM’s behavior seems to leave GZ with the option of appealing (if convicted) based on the grounds that his defense team were inadequate.

        I visited half a dozen online news sites yesterday commenting on the case, including the OS. It’s so easy to log in and write your views.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Not to worry Katy, appeals are not mini trials. The foundation of an appeal is that “but for this error/failing/whatever” the verdict would have been different because….! Thus if gz is convicted because of a clear lack of credibility and overwhelming physical evidence, backed by witness testimony lacking in sufficient controversy, it will be a very hard sell that better attorneys could have made any difference. After all, isn’t the theory behind a trial, that a guilty person should not be able to prove themselves innocent?

          Of course, in this case it’s the defendants big mouth that robbed his attorneys of a defense. Thus, if he’s convicted any success on appeal will simply be wishful thinking.

          • Shari says:

            GZ has had the benefit of a legal team and many thousands of dollars. He will not be able to assert ineffective assistance of counsel. I’m not a lawyer and I think I can say that for sure.

            I think that is reserved for the most extreme cases of gross negligence. He has an advocate and a whole news channel dedicated to him. And because of the way our laws are written there are built in pro defense processes.

      • Katy says:

        Thanks, Lonnie. We only recently allowed barristers to be legally liable for incompetence (previously they were generally immune). What did you mean – in particular – about GZ’s big mouth? Which … er … misstatement in particular?

        Thank you Shari. I have been saying for months that MOM is inefficient … and he is … but I am glad you both agree that this will not lead to an appeal.

        • Shari says:

          Well like I said I’m not a lawyer but I think the conduct has to be severe, like a lawyer falling asleep at the table, failing to even mount a defense. GZ is most definitely getting a defense. Most defendants can’t afford an attorney like OM.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Yep, you know what they say: “If the evidence is with you pound the evidence, if the law is with you, then pound the law, if neither the evidence nor the law are with you then, pound the table!” OMara is “pounding the table”. 😆

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          What did you mean – in particular – about GZ’s big mouth? Which … er … misstatement in particular?

          Oh wow… Let me not spoil the fun of discovery for you and just say that it was: “I shot him in self defense”. Somewhere around misstatement 100 as you go through this case, you’ll begin to wonder why you even asked such a question. 😆

  8. BigBoi ‏@BigBoithedog 4m
    Misstated – courtesy of @LLMSPapa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0haiN1eafxw&feature=youtu.be
    View media

  9. acemayo says:

    In court Tuesday, defense attorney Mark O’Mara described it as Trayvon video-recording two friends beating up a homeless man.
    But in today’s statement, O’Mara apologized and said it really shows Trayvon video-recording two homeless men fighting over a bicycle.
    Trayvon, along with a friend, had come upon the fight and Trayvon had merely recorded it, according to the statement.
    In his statement today, O’Mara described his mischaracterization in court as unintentional and said he was unhappy about it.

    MOM did like GZ did he profile TM cause he could not think beyound he belief that TM
    is a thug, and his thuggish friend likes to fight. GZ was a bouncer and he also like to fight
    let talk about why he was firer.
    also

    he released text messages from Trayvon’s cell phone.
    In one,the Miami Gardens teenager wrote that in one fight he got pummeled in the first round because his opponent got him on the ground.

    So TM and another person agree to fight each other, TM did say he jump the person fron behind.
    Why didn’ this MMA figthing style help him, TM said a normal fight not an MMA fight.
    O’Mara characterization in court as intentional he wanted us to beleive that TM is a bad person.

    After readers found a cached version of the story online Sunday, Zimmerman’s attorneys released their statement and decided against posting the video.

    If the readers didn’t find a cached version of the story online Sunday, would Zimmerman’s attorneys would have released their statement and decided against posting the video.

    hopesparechange at 5:26 PM June 02, 2013
    If Trayvon wasn’t a thug why did his mom kick him out, why did he want an illegal gun at age 17 (illegal) and why did he approach George’s car? (He admits he’s being checked out during his 911/nen call)
    Why did he end up with stolen jewelry as part of his suspensions?

    So he was not getting along with mom that does not make him a thug.
    Where is this gun that is showing illegal show me the law
    Why did he approach George’s car
    If you are parked on the same street I use to go home I would approach your car than
    and pass you to get home.
    Who reported the stolen jewelry and it was not part of his suspenions
    No came forward to say someone stole jewelry
    Because he had jewelry on that makes him a thief

    • LadyStClaire says:

      I believe these kids are referring to a game being played on either the XBOX 360 or the Nintendo video games. they do have games like that for both of these video games.

      the slum house is really making this attorney look like the JOKE that he really is.

  10. crazy1946 says:

    I’m sure that it has been said, but somehow I have not seen it, Fogen had Shelie’s gun that night and used it to commit murder, where was his gun and why did he have Shelie’s? Is there even a remote possibility that he was not the shooter, and Shelie was?

    • Shari says:

      No. Fogen/GZ murdered Trayvon. Stay within the bounds of reality.

      • crazy1946 says:

        Wow, guess it’s time for me to slither back to safety under my rock!

        • Shari says:

          Was I rude? Didn’t mean to be. Sometimes a person has no idea how they come across on the internet. I’m not interested in being rude to anyone. Apologies.

        • cielo62 says:

          Crazy/ don’t go! Shellie’s gun is probably the only gun they owned. There is no evidence they owned 2 guns.

          FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

    • Dave says:

      Apparently the couple owned at least 2 handguns: the compact 9mm murder weapon and a bigger, heavier .40 caliber KelTec. He was probably carrying the 9mm because it was lighter and more comfortable to wear. He admitted shooting Trayvon and was found wearing a holster that fit the murder weapon. Whatever Shellie may have done , I can’t see any possibility of her having pulled the trigger or GZ taking the rap for her if she had.

      • ay2z says:

        Well then, witness John said he’d never heard a gunshot before, yet the first question he asked fogen that night, was ‘what did you use? As in which gun, and if I remember right, he named a larger calibre. One would think there was a reason he would think about that calibre and fogen as in posession of one.

        Begs the question how much gun discussion happened between John and the NW captain.

        • PiranhaMom says:

          @ay2z,

          There’s a witness Jon (“what caliber you shooting?”) and W6 John (“I’m calling 911” — then notice the call placed after the shot, when John was upstairs looking down he tells 911 it’s a BLACK kid killed – how could he tell IN THE DARK that the victim was Black?

          Anyway, 2 separate guys. Looks like you’re talking about Jon, not John.

        • dianetrotter says:

          That is an odd question to ask indeed. “What did you use?” sounds like he was in awe.

      • ay2z says:

        ()meant John asked fogen what did you use,a 9 or a 40? for example. (without reviewing the interview for exact quote)

  11. Katy says:

    It appears that many of the photos on the gzlegalcase website are not of Trayvon. Lawyer Crump has made this quite clear, but it is easily provable by individuals.

  12. Jun says:

    The only problem I have with this is that Shellie is a proven liar regarding material matters and had no good reason to lie, so, how would they present her information?

    • fauxmccoy says:

      jun says

      The only problem I have with this is that Shellie is a proven liar regarding material matters and had no good reason to lie, so, how would they present her information?

      while i agree that ms. defendant (in her own right) is a known liar, she did have financial motive to lie. i would argue that is reason enough, be it good or bad. the court sets bond according to family finances and she benefited by lying in order to get a lower bond thus not spending any of the assets the ‘defense fund’ was gaining. like her husband during questioning, she had every reason to lie.

    • Interlocking statements by multiple people independently confirming each other usually works pretty well.

  13. crazy1946 says:

    Shelie is in a real bind! If she gives any damaging testimony to the state, then the Fogen clan will throw her under the bus when her trial comes up! If she refuses to provide information, and it becomes known that she was more involved than we know as of now, then she stands a chance of being named as an accessory to the crime. There are still a lot of things that don’t seem to make a lot of sense, why did Fogen use her gun? Why did they flee the neighborhood immediately after the crime (or as soon as Fogen was turned loose)? How did the bloody handprint get on the other side of the complex from the murder, did Shelley slip and fall while fleeing the scene of the murder? For her the real problem is that even if Fogen somehow escapes conviction, she won’t and it is possible she will go to prison and Fogen won’t. I would love to be a fly on the wall listening to their conversations about this whole case…. I wonder who will end up with the book and movie rights to this case?
    Professor, is it too late for Fogen to plead guilty and throw himself on the mercy of the court? I don’t see much chance that the pan handler routine will raise much more money and MOM really does not seem to have devised a defense strategy that will work…

    • ladystclaire says:

      Didn’t the ask for and receive ALL of her phone records as well? I believe someone has turned states evidence. I read something on FB that leads me to believe that.

      Someone said, that Jon told fogen not to shoot Trayvon and, after he did so any way, he asked Jon to help him cover it up. This was on Ben’s facebook page.

      • ladystclaire says:

        Correction, didn’t the state.

      • BillT says:

        when i first heard jons reaction to the shot i thought he KNEW what was going on, it was disbelief as in no he didnt shoot that kid? and he says he was outside before coming in she he KNOWS there was NO fighting going on, he heard both fogens cursing and questioning and Martin pleading for his life…….listen to his 911 call and see if his reaction isnt shock as he KNEW there was no reason to shoot.

      • ladystclaire says:

        @BillT, there are at least two more who knew what was taking place outside as well. For instance, Jenna knew who was screaming for help and why. She knew exactly what eas going on and, she lied.

        To think that these people could have saved this kid’s life, yet they all turned a blind eye to what they saw, and a deaf ear to his begging for his life and for help. Smh

      • Lynn says:

        http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/discovery_demand_326.pdf

        Written in March and covered at the 4/30/13 hearing. MOM demanding all the State has concerning BOTH Shellie and Fogen’s phone records.

    • ladystclaire says:

      Here’s hoping the state has a photo of that bloody hand print.

    • I don’t get the impression that Judge Nelson is feeling merciful.

      • Trained Observer says:

        I’m thinking she’s keeping a running tab on transgressions of O’Mara and West. … Well beyond the level of “I’m telling you for the third time.”

      • ay2z says:

        I think O’Mara was testing the waters to see how far he could push her towards anger about his comment in court about what court decided re sequestration. She was ticked, but held her own well.

        As if he wanted her to show some frustration or anger that he could use to have her tossed. She wasn’t biting, but she was anoyed at his putting words in the court’s mouth about a decision, and asserting what was to be confidential discussion but not yet ‘decided’ by the court.

    • EdgySF says:

      Hi…this is the first I’ve heard about a bloody handprint…can you tell me what that is about? Thanks…

  14. Valerie says:

    For our consideration:

    I read this on my Facebook page…sent from the “Arrest George Zimmerman” site. The article was in the “Daily Beast” titled “46 Calls.”
    They allege that a 911 call was made @ 7:20 pm… After Trayvon was shot

    45. Feb. 26, 2012 (night of Martin shooting) – 7:11 p.
    Type: TEL
    Subject: Suspicious activity
    Report: Black male “late teens lsw dark gray hoodie jeans or sweatpants walking around area” … “subj now running towards back entrance of complex”

    46. Feb. 26, 2012 – 7:20 p.m.
    Type: TEL
    Subject: Suspicious activity
    Report: Repeats prior report

    I remotely remember a call placed after the shooting, but can not find a verification at this time.

    If this is true…could this call have originated from fogens phone…a call made by Shellie? at the crime scene after the shooting? Was this call withheld for further investigation? was this why she took the 5th?

    • ladystclaire says:

      That is very interesting to say the least. Remember, she was suppose to be so afraid of all (NOT) the crime in the neighborhood. These POINTY HEADS just wanted to be rid of AA, in their hood and that’s why the lies about all the crime that never existed.

    • Was someone trying to help GZ w/this call? GZ described TM w/those exact words, “dark grey hoodie, wearing jeans or sweatpants”. Now, Georgieboy, that’s suspicious, someone calling a few minutes after you shoot TM and using the same words as you. However, walking in the rain by a young black teen is NOT.

    • PYorck says:

      Wait, this list is using the “Serino timeline” based on police database entries and not the time the call connected (NEN call at 7:11 vs. 7:09). That would mean that the call connected a bit earlier than indicated. Could this be the mystery call in the photo?

      It is all very strange. Is there an official cite for this list?

    • Malisha says:

      If it was logged at 7:11 pm it was not AFTER the shooting. It could be that there was a little plan to make Fogen a hero: He’d call NEN and be reporting suspicious activity and THEN Shellie (or some other confederate) would call in a 911 about the same “suspicious activity” with some alarm in their voice so Fogen could SAVE THE DAY. Juss sayin…

      • PiranhaMom says:

        @Malisha –
        @Valerie –

        My review of that page & a half is that it is the police report with officers’ activity — and it’s all the report ON/FOR THE SAME INITIAL CALL FROM FOGEN.

        The second page is where they get to the activity at 7:20 p.m.

        You will see the codes of the officers responding, their vehicles, etc. It’s essentially a DISPATCH record, showing the officers summoned, when, how deployed. Most of it is computerized.

        Please look it over again, and you’ll see the pattern.

  15. Rachael says:

    I don’t know what She’lLie has to say but I’m really beginning to think the prosecution has something big in order for the defense to be behaving this way and risking this much.

    It just seems to me that if their case was as easy and tight as they think it will be, they would not need to stoop to this.

    And if they think that they need to stoop to this because of public perception – then perhaps they don’t believe in the system they are a part of and need to sweep streets or flip burgers rather than make a mockery of it.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Boom. If as the defense and supporters say, the prosecution has no evidence, GZLC would sail along without doing any of this nonsense. You wouldn’t hear much of a peep about anything from the family, either, IMO.

      • Malisha says:

        The prosecution has actual EVIDENCE that proves GUILT beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s what they have. It’s commonly referred to as “BOOM.”

  16. Tzar says:

    how about a few chuckles…or growls

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-trayvon-martin-fight-video-20130602,0,6996223.story

    By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel

    3:46 p.m. EDT, June 2, 2013

    George Zimmerman’s attorneys today released a statement, backtracking on what they say a video of a fight found on Trayvon Martin’s cell phone shows.

    In court Tuesday, defense attorney Mark O’Mara described it as Trayvon video-recording two friends beating up a homeless man.

    But in today’s statement, O’Mara apologized and said it really shows Trayvon video-recording two homeless men fighting over a bicycle.

    Trayvon, along with a friend, had come upon the fight and Trayvon had merely recorded it, according to the statement.

    In his statement today, O’Mara described his mischaracterization in court as unintentional and said he was unhappy about it

  17. ladystclaire says:

    Professor, I will make a donation tomorrow.

  18. Rachael says:

    Who is this crazy lady? Is she aware of GZ’s statements that Trayvon was coving his mouth and nose? What about the fact that the screaming stops immediately after the gunshot?

    http://video.msnbc.msn.com/weekends-with-alex-witt/52068319#52068319

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Two crazy ladies. THe lady lawyer thinks it’s proven that Trayvon slammed Forgen’s head on the concrete and that he had stitches. ???

      • Two sides to a story says:

        LOL – she also says he had a lot of injuries on his BODY???

      • Rachael says:

        Where did she get her info? And yeah, she’s the crazy lady I’m referring to. And she was a prosecuter? What’s wrong with her?

      • BillT says:

        how did she get a law license? she clearly hasnt even looked at any of the evidence or is simply stupid…….i am growing very tired of seeing “experts” that are in reality clueless!

      • Two sides to a story says:

        There must be some context. Maybe this moderator / newscaster is the MSNBC answer to FOX news or something. She doesn’t have her facts straight either.

    • ladystclaire says:

      @Rachael, that LYING thing is Wendy Murphy. She is undoubtly one of the misfits! The way I see it, if she doesen’t know what she is talking about, then she should stfu.

      She should have also been corrected by one of the other two.

      • Shari says:

        I remember Wendy Murphy. My first impression was that she was a very passionate partisan feminist. She was loudly in support of the Duke Lacrosse accuser and we all now know the supposed victim was lying. She would frequently appear as a commentator on Nancy Grace and I think O’reilly as well. I remember her as a “victims rights” advocate. Funny how she chooses who is a victim in this murder case. The unarmed child is dead, and the man with a gun gets her advocacy. I wonder why…

      • Trained Observer says:

        Talking heads get hired, in part, to take a position. Wendy seems to be a position for hire, with a willingness to take the losing side.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        News is not much more than infotainment. I don’t think networks care anymore – getting viewers and making profit seems to be the bottom line.

      • ladystclaire says:

        @Shari, I’m wondering the same thing.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Wendy, at best, seems to have gone out of her way to be ill-informed. Of the two talking legal heads, she was the worst.

      Meanwhile, her sidekick on screen, Kendall Coffey, founder of Coffey Burlington, PL, has a colorful, dishy background.

      When Coffey was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida in the ’90s, he had a habit of getting loaded at clubs.

      One night at a joint called Lipstick in Miami , he was accused of biting some stripper who just happened to be in his lap. (Seems he’d also been using his guv credit card to buy champagne by the gallon, if not the barrel.)

      Coffey had enough pull to keep it out of the papers for a while, but eventually it leaked (his penchant for biting women, not the champagne), the cork was out of the news bottle, a bit of legal nastiness ensued, and shortly thereafter he left government service, eventually to go into private practice.

      Nobody knows better than Kendall Coffey how a crazy action or two can derail a promising upwardly mobile career. That’s not to suggest downwardly mobile Fogen ever had a career.

  19. Shari says:

    Follow. This is something I am anxious to find out when the trial starts. What does his wife know?

  20. Zia B. says:

    New post, if I am not late on the news. lol

    http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/184-correction-and-apology-regarding-misstated-nature-of-trayvon-martin-video

    Even when they are pretending to be sincere all of the hairs on my neck stand up. That sleaze is just so yucky.

  21. Operacarla says:

    Willfully mislead the jury?

  22. Operacarla says:

    I am very alarmed by what PYorck shared on a previous link…

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TqQGK1mGVy4J:www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-trayvon-martin-fight-video-20130531,0,7127296.story+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    Professor..if the Orlando Sentinel published this and removed it a few hours later might that be possible evidence of a conspiracy once mentioned between MOM and West in regards to conspiring to willfully the jury Thank you!

    • Rachael says:

      I’m hoping this can be brought to the Judge’s attention at the next hearing – if not before.

    • Tzar says:

      How the fuck would that be relevant the the price of tea in China, even if it were true?
      These fucking people are grotesquely retarded.
      This is how an idiocracy begins smdh

  23. Judy75201 says:

    I wonder how tough it was for O’Mara to admit his lie about Trayvon and The Homeless Man, LOL. What a pig.

    • Rachael says:

      I don’t think it was tough for him at all. He knew it was a lie to begin with and he was able to achieve what he wanted with it – saying it in court on national TV to stick a worm in everyone’s ear. It doesn’t matter now if he admits it. He achieved what he set out to – just like with the irrelevant pictures.

      A sleazy lawyer is one thing. An unethical one is something else. But he is jury tampering which is beyond sleazy and unethical, IT IS ILLEGAL!!!!

      • Judy75201 says:

        He did it to encourage donations.

      • pat deadder says:

        Rachael Don’t you think these two low lifes need to be disbarred after this case is over.I’m laying odds the bullshit hearing about the pictures from the phone they claim BDLR didn’t turn over to defense will be cancelled.

      • Trained Observer says:

        Rahael, I agree. Not tough at all. It was done by design, not by accident.

  24. SRA says:

    Perhaps they were NOT on their way to Target to buy groceries. Perhaps they were visiting George’s sister at Colonial Village Apts.

    • groans says:

      Yes. It does make sense that Trayvon might have taken a shortcut through there, if he knew how the developments were connected.

  25. Operacarla says:

    Professor…I hope you are right about Shellie being truthful, and possibly witness 6 as well. You are the only one that I am aware of calling this situation correctly. MSNBC should be calling you for interviews and commentary. You make complicated topics easy for those of us without secondary schooling to understand. Thank you! (PS. The Olympics are out in force today on Puget Sound as are all of the rhododendrons.)

  26. PYorck says:

    “after the shooting itself”

    Perhaps she knows what he was trying to achieve with his mystery phone call.

    • PiranhaMom says:

      Surely de la Rionda can get answers beyond CONVERSATIONS Shellie heard or was included in: where was Shellie, with whom; what did she see; whom did she see; identification of her cell phone; location “pings” thereto, etc.

      She could also relate her observations of any back-of-the-head abrasions of Fogen BEFORE and after the killing.

      She could also relate the phone call “Witness Jon” made to her.

      Essential: what is Shellie’s response to Osterman’s statement in his book that Shellie said “George shot another guy” or “George shot somebody else.” Was she telling Osterman that George had shot SOME OTHER guy? or an ADDITIONAL guy?

      I think she was in the shruck with Fogen.

      I think another vehicle was tailing Trayvon as well as Fogen’s – the other vehicle lollygagging in the background with the “NVP” inside (Neighborhood Vigilante Posse). YKWIM.

      Was Shellie on her cell with members of the NVP while she was in “the schruck” with Fogen? Or on her cell with ANYone? Did she exit the schruck? Did she take the key + flashlight? Did others exit their vehicle(s)? Did she encounter any of them outside their respective vehicles? Did they travel together? Where? What happened outside? Did she hear screams? Did she hear gunshot? What did she do in response to those sounds? What did others do? Did she drop the keychain+flashlight? Where? Why? Did she later move the shruck? With what key?

      My understanding is that Bernie’s team had/have access to her cellphone. That in itself would prompt a myriad of questions by Bernie

      We want that info.

      • Rachael says:

        “Essential: what is Shellie’s response to Osterman’s statement in his book that Shellie said “George shot another guy” or “George shot somebody else.” Was she telling Osterman that George had shot SOME OTHER guy? or an ADDITIONAL guy?”

        Or perhaps the wrong guy?

        I know I’m generally not of the conspiracy theory type, but I don’t necessarily discard the She’lLie, Osterman, GZ triangle perhaps trying to set a trap for someone, be it Trayvon just because he looked like the azzles who always get away or if they trying to target a specific “azzle” and they all look alike.

        I don’t know. There are so many things, so many possibilities.

  27. Two sides to a story says:

    This is an oldie but a goody – my first viewing today. Maybe you missed it too – State of the Internet on how racist is central FL?

  28. fauxmccoy says:

    fas-kinating! i cannot wait to see how this develops.

  29. Animaljunkie says:

    What annoys me about Attorney Simms’s argument, in court, was that the reason he advised the killers wife to plead the 5th was that the same two prosecuting attorneys charging her for perjury are prosecuting the killer & I quote ‘..it didn’t seem cricket.’! IMO, this argument is disingenuous too, since all at the deposition knew, well in advance, who the prosecuting attorneys were! Yet another lie by an officer of the court. How do these attorneys get away with it?

    • elcymoo says:

      The defendant in the perjury case, Shellie Zimmerman, has her own lawyer, who’s not part of her husband’s defense team. Her case is being tried by a different judge. Since when does a defendant have any say in which prosecutors handle his or her prosecution?

    • groans says:

      Yes, everyone involved knew all the facts before the Shellie’s deposition began. So it was all BS to stop the deposition process. Simms was weakly taking direction from the killer’s attorneys, and that was made quite obvious (to me, at least) in the State’s motion and at the May 28th hearing.

      • Animaljunkie says:

        @groans

        I took an instant disliking to Simms, at the hearing, & I’m not usually like that 🙂

        Yes, I agree, from the BdlR’s motion, describing what happened at the deposition; clearly MOM & team were playing for time to figure out what to do & maybe even coach the killer’s wife.

        Yet again, a despicable/gutter defence!

  30. ay2z says:

    OT, O’Mara blundered in his characterization of Trayvon making a video of friends beating up a homeless person.

    He’s sorry now. Damage is done already, like partner West with his naming of a friend of Dee Dee in court for the media cameras, and his media statement after court about a matter of jury sequestration as deemed confidential by Judge Nelson in the afternoon.

    ….
    In court Tuesday, defense attorney Mark O’Mara described it as Trayvon video-recording two friends beating up a homeless man.

    But in today’s statement, O’Mara apologized and said it really shows Trayvon video-recording two homeless men fighting over a bicycle.

    Trayvon, along with a friend, had come upon the fight and Trayvon had merely recorded it, according to the statement.

    In his statement today, O’Mara described his mischaracterization in court as unintentional and said he was unhappy about it.

    “We have been committed to disputing misinformation in every aspect of this case, not causing it,” the statement said.

    That piece of video is among evidence O’Mara’s office notified prosecutors two weeks ago that it may use at Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial, scheduled to begin June 10 in Sanford.

    Natalie Jackson, an attorney for Trayvon’s family, was asked Tuesday what she knew about a video showing Trayvon video-recording his friends beating up a homeless man. She said she was not sure it existed.

    Gawd, hope Trayvon had time to get his killer on video at some point along the way home. Probably not as he was on the phone with Dee Dee.

      • ay2z says:

        Stuzman is back on this article, she introduces the word ‘hammering’ as to what Trayvon did to poor fogen’s head on the sidewalk.

        I don’t remember fogen characterize the action as ‘hammering’.

      • Rachael says:

        From your link: “On Thursday, in preparation for the anticipated release of the fight video, an Orlando Sentinel reporter drafted a story describing it, intending to publish it once the video had been made public. A web producer prematurely posted it to OrlandoSentinel.com Friday but quickly took it down after discovering the video had not been released. The story correctly characterized the video. After readers found a cached version of the story online Sunday, Zimmerman’s attorneys released their statement and decided against posting the video.”

        smh in disgust. Wow.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Um, yeah. Fogen supporters are spinning their excuses.

      • ladystclaire says:

        The DEFENSE LAPDOG, is still posting the video and photos, as being Trayvon when it’s not him. I think the family should sue her and the OS. just because the IDIOTS at the slum house, has found a video of an AA teen standing between two other kids presumed to be fighting and, theyare sayingit’s Trayvon.

        Other photos came from the Global Grind and not from Trayvons phone. The words Global Grind is written on them plain as day. It’s such a shame, that this kid can’t rest in peace because, RACIST BIGOTS see fit to drag him through the mud. SMDH

      • ladystclaire says:

        @T.S., Please don’t take this the wrong way but, a child was murdered here and, WE as a country should NOT be taking sides here. It has NEVER been done before (ie) Newtown Conn. And it shouldn’t be done now.

        GZ and his multitude of lies, have devided a nation. Not to mention how his lying brother, has got the nerve to be going around quoting Dr. MLK, when IMO he is NOT WORTHY TO DO SO.

      • Rachael says:

        “Not to mention how his lying brother, has got the nerve to be going around quoting Dr. MLK, when IMO he is NOT WORTHY TO DO SO.”

        And sits next to the family in court for the sake of tormenting them.

        Too angry to say more.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        No offense taken. After some months of considering the evidence and Fogen’s stories (i always felt the killing was immoral even if possibly legal under FL law, the Hannity interview tipped me to the side of Trayvon, his family, and the prosecution.

        I wish the other side some brain power to see daylight and be freed from their suffering.

      • ladystclaire says:

        @T.S. exactly, that is what I’m talking about. How the misfits and other hardcore racist can support someone who has killed a child. This is so unbelievable that some in this country are still this ignorant.

        I didn’t teach my son how to hate and, I certainly won’t instill it in my grand children.

      • Dave says:

        Released just a little too late to make it into the Sunday edition of the paper.

        Even the “innoccuous” photos posted are intended to thuggify Trayvon. An innocent portrait of him posing with a very small (“underaged”?) girl makes him look gigantic and those pictures of Trayvon on the horse suggest a very popular (and very violent) recent movie (“I’ve never seen a N***** on a horse!”).

      • groans says:

        @ Two sides, re:

        …[T]he Hannity interview tipped me to the side of Trayvon, his family, and the prosecution.

        Really? You didn’t “tip” towards Justice for Trayvon until mid-July 2012? Wow. Well, hearing you say that at least explains the ambiguity that I’ve sensed from your comments for quite some time.

    • gbrbsb says:

      I wish too, but wouldn’t that have had to be disclosed by the prosecution by now?

  31. Rachael says:

    I don’t know what this “cooperative witness” has to say, but I know it must be something. This whole case has gone totally wonky and I’m sure it’s not for nothing.

    • dianetrotter says:

      If they are separated are they allowed to communicate with each other? If not, that will break trust down and they’ll be suspicious of each other.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        That’s also a big possibilty, especially noting from the jailhouse calls Fogen’s control of Mrs. Fogen.

  32. ay2z says:

    Defense had the right to be present, presumably, during Shellie’s deposition, but they would have no standing to stop the proceedings except to find a way to ask the deponent’s lawyer to stop the depo?

    • bettykath says:

      “except to find a way to ask the deponent’s lawyer to stop the depo”

      That’s exactly what they did. They asserted that Shelly wasn’t on the defense witness list, thereby the state had no right to depose her. That’s why the motion before the judge was all about. Did the state have the right to depose her. Judge says “yes”.

      • The defense endorsed everyone on the prosecution’s witness list. Since she was on the prosecution’s witness list, that meant they endorsed her. Apparently, it didn’t occur to them to review all the names on the prosecution’s list before endorsing them. They aggravated their error by failing to notice that the prosecution had scheduled the deposition.

        I got the impression that they showed up 20 minutes after it started and persuaded Sims to call it off.

        This suggests to me that the defendant and his wife have not been living together or communicating for quite some time and that is definitely bad news for the defense.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Oh, we can only hope this is the case, because if the Fogens are separated, you know what that likely means.

      • Dave says:

        I don’t know what it would mean. One possibility is that, on the advice of her lawyer, she’s suspended all communication with her husband pending the outcome of her own perjury case. That’s how I would have advised her anyway.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Dave, I suppose that’s a possibility. But one that might lead to a real separation, considering that it gives Ms. Fogen some breathing room to consider more deeply her involvement and her options.

      • Dave says:

        I agree.

      • LeaNder says:

        I got the impression that they showed up 20 minutes after it started and persuaded Sims to call it off.

        Interesting theory.

        I assumed all the time they were present from the start.

        Might have been interesting to watch the direction of the questions by prosecutions interests. Could show something about strategy, or concerning the motion about Shellie and Fogen’s phones, if they knew something they are not supposed to know. I do not think that motion was pure paranoia?
        But at one point they had enough.

        My story is much more boring though.

        Maybe I do not expect any unusual move from Shellie. I don’t get her excitement about her husbands fame out of my head.
        It feels Shellie would only leave if the support for her husband would deteriorate, and maybe not even then.

        We’ll see. HLN shapes public opinion and in presenting the case, they don’t do a very good job.

  33. Trained Observer says:

    What fascinating prospects loom from what’s outlined in this post.

    As stated before, I’m still laughing about Mrs. Fogen’s lawyer’s statement that her perjury case is “loosely” related to Fogen’s murder charge. Loosely, as with HER husband doing the shooting with what’s believed to be HER gun: HER misleading statements under oath on witness stand about their finances, HER code chatter on the taped jailhouse calls, and HER role in sneak-shifting “defense” money around, not to mention HER texts and phone records, and HER chit-chat on or near the scene on the night of Trayvon’s murder. Oh, yes, quite loose …

  34. PYorck says:

    I have a question about her asserting her 5th Amendment rights. Assuming she was not a participant in the killing and that the deposition did not touch upon her perjury case, what could be the offense in question?

    For example would she be guilty of anything if the she had non-privileged incriminating knowledge but didn’t actively do anything illegal beyond that?

    • BillT says:

      not a lawyer but i think she could be charged with obstruction of justice if she saw what happened and wont say it…….the 5th ONLY protects one from being forced to testify when it could incriminate them, it does NOT protect them from admitting they saw the crime another person did, UNLESS they are a party to the crime and would be incriminating their self with the testimony.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        In this case, I doubt she saw it, and Fogen may or may not have described what really happened to her – and that would be spousal privilege. But they stayed with the Ostermans, where likely many conversations came up – as well as conversations with his sister and brother-in-law, so these could be mined for info.

      • gbrbsb says:

        @two sides
        Yes, they obviously did have conversations both with and held in front of the Ostermans, but unless the Ostermans testify to what GZ and/or SZ actually said during any such conversations, how would BDLR know a conversation even existed, that both Z’s were present, let alone the content ?

        I recall Boar_de_Laze noted in respect of spousal privilege and spousal communications in front of a third party (so clearly not privileged), that “you would question the third party” or words to that effect. IMBW, and IANAL, but after researching I concluded it was because unless MO &/or SO testify a conversation existed and what was said to or in front of them, conversations like this are a moot point as SZ could simply testify that she and hubby were talking about what to have for dinner, or say she couldn’t remember as so much was going on and they talked about a lot of things, and simply stick to GZ’s version which changes this way and that anyway.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        True, Mrs. Fogen could say anything, but if someone she spoke to is deposed and reveals something else that contradicts her, this could get interesting.

      • gbrbsb says:

        @two sides
        Yes, I agree with the “very interesting”, but methinks sadly that the Ostermans will be aiming to protect their own back so will be keeping shtum if they were privy to anything, otherwise they risk being charged with a conspiracy after the fact, or not ?

      • bettykath says:

        How many days did the fogens stay with the ostermans? and no discussion of what happened that night? I don’t believe it. that’s probably all they talked about, over and over and over again trying to rationalize and justify.

    • dianetrotter says:

      What if she knows others were involved? Could she testify about their involvement?

    • Conspiracy to conceal the commission of a crime.

      Elements: 2 or more people agree to conceal the commission of a murder by assisting the killer to concoct a false claim of self-defense.

    • tinytruthseeker says:

      Can O’Liar and West be at ShelLies depo? They aren’t HER lawyers are they?

      I think they have info about Fogens shruck…. that she moved that night with Osterturd. Something about that story just picks at me a bit…. something just not quite right….

  35. cielo62 says:

    Intriguing is BDLR’s assertion that there is NO husband/wife privilege. Are GZ and Shellie not legally married? I remember that was an issue here as well, as no marriage license can be found. Any thoughts?

    • Two sides to a story says:

      They said she may have made statements in front of other people and that there’s no husband-wife privilege for that. They can’t ask her what Fogen said to her in private.

      • ay2z says:

        Privacy hold when you are on the phone with a recorded NEN call operator and you converse with your wife in the privacy of your car? And what if wife was on the phone with a third party already, as she sat beside him? Third party such as Osterman, for example. “waiting on Retreat View Circle for an officer I had called’ or the other version, ‘heading back to my vehicle to wait for officer I had called’. (both versions in statements, paraphrased)

        That’s not private if they don’t put a phone on ‘hold’ or block the microphone.

      • gbrbsb says:

        Agree with you twosides, I think I heard same as you, i.e. basically BDLR only was thinking of questioning SZ on what she had said in public, and not that under spousal privilege, which I understood to mean that he accepted that what she had said in private would come under spousal privilege and therefore was not on the table… if that’s what your saying.

        I was just going to try to listen to the tape again but first did a search here to see if anyone had posted that part of the hearing with a time mark as I can’t remember which part of the long hearing it was.

      • ay2z says:

        gbrbsb, check out the ‘Alpha video’ under cielo’s alpha post top of page, it’s the important 22 seconds.

        For the rest, go to –> (and be aware there is a solicitation for donations to fogen, just click the X to remove, the original youtuber must be on fogen’s team.

      • cielo62 says:

        Two Sides- thanks! I thought there could be more to it than that.

        Sent from my iPod

    • He did not assert that there is no privilege. He asserted that it did not apply because she witnessed him saying things to other people in her presence.

      • gbrbsb says:

        I think I see how Cielo made the mistake, perhaps the explanation was a little confusing. First time I read your post, I understood the same as Cielo, and why I was going to listen again to the hearing as I was sure I had heard differently.

      • RobertSF says:

        But wouldn’t that be hearsay? Or is the purpose of the deposition to find out who those other people are to bring them in as witnesses? I know next to nothing about law, so my questions are real and not rhetorical.

        • As the party opponent, the prosecution can introduce any statement by the defendant to anyone pursuant to the admission-by-a-party opponent rule.

          The defendant cannot introduce his own statements, however, because they are hearsay, if he offers them to prove the truth of matters asserted in the statements.

      • LeaNder says:

        Or is the purpose of the deposition to find out who those other people are to bring them in as witnesses?

        I wouldn’t be very surprised if they mainly have Mark and Sondra Osterman in mind. After Singleton’s interviews the photographs and the changing of his clothes they went to the Osterman’s. Thus BDLR has a scenario were George first talked about what happened not in a private husband-wife conversation but with two other people present.

    • SearchingMind says:

      @ Cielo,BettyKath. My analysis of prosecuting team (BDLR, Guy and the new guy) is that it is not petty, it doesn’t bluff and it doesn’t waste time with frivolous/unimportant issues. I think the trio did their homework well before going after Shellie, carefully mapping out what falls under spousal privilege and what does not. There are lots of questions to be asked of Shellie with regard to witness tampering. Shellie may have contacted witnesses (e.g. witness 6) and rehearsed GZ’s story with them. Etc.

      (GZ and Shellie may have quietly divorced or separated and agreed to keep quiet to protect GZ from more negativity – just thinking out loud).

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Maybe separated. If they’d filed for divorce, it would be public record and we would know it.

      • bettykath says:

        The state has probably already deposed Ostermans or they are getting ready to. If Shellie was there, what she heard can corroborate their stories, nor not. I don’t think it likely that fogen, the ostermans and shellie can cook up one story. Four people trying to tell the same lies will either use all the same words, a sign that the story is rehearsed, or they will have conflicting details. I doubt that they can all relate the same story in a believable way, unless they stick to the truth (lol).

        It also gives the state the opportunity to see which witnesses would be the best to use. I’m more inclined to think they are looking for Shelley to corroborate, or not, the stories of others. One way to know some answers of Osterman and/or fogen before asking the questions.

        Beating up on the wife of the defendant on the stand isn’t a good strategy imo. Better to go after Osterman after knowing what Shelly knows.

      • pat deadder says:

        SearchingMind Me again will omara and west be there for the deposition.That could be bad for her health if she says something that goes against his many stories but then mrs fogen could always tell fogen she couldn’t remember all his versions.I luv that you all are calling her mrs fogen.

    • hotheadpaisen says:

      Wouldn’t that just be a hoot if they weren’t married? Osterman told FDLE that his wife married George and Shelly.

  36. bettykath says:

    I suspect that BDLR has a couple of specific points in mind. I hope she answers his questions. I also hope she is getting the support she needs to extricate herself from him. Unlike Trayvon, she just might stand a chance for a life after fogen. Of course, if she is truly implicated, she needs to go down, too, one way or another.

  37. Color me tin foil hat, but somehow I have the feeling she was at least in the car during the NEN call. I don’t think he was talking to himself, and there is no dispute that he made a statement that started with “These assholes” that was not intended for the NEN dispatcher.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      It seems possible that Shellie was in the vehicle, since there also seems to be a voice in the background addressing Fogen a couple of times. Fogen’s Freudian slips during his re-enactment seem to indicate that she was with him.

      I can’t speculate what she knows, but she certainly knows more than we do. And that they were willing to make a run for it rather than submit to trial sort of leans toward them knowing what Fogen did wasn’t self-defense. Of course, they would say they were escaping a railroading.

      • Ah yes, the ole Rail Road. This one is off the tracks, especially given that latest, what was it? O’Mara made up some story about something on Trayvon’s phone and now he has to apologize? Or some such? If he did that, what the actual fuck was he thinking?

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Perhaps OM was infected with Treestump logic.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        so perhaps we here should get together on skype to sing a rousing round of “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad” in three part harmony? i’m game 😉

      • Rachael says:

        TSTAS, he has always been infected with Treestump (il)logic.

        Kind of like a virulent form of Bacillary dysentery one might get from poor sanitation at an outhouse.

      • Rachael says:

        The filth and disease over there is rampant and incurable.

    • Rachael says:

      I have always thought it was a real possibility that she was in the car.

      • dianetrotter says:

        Didn’t GZ say that he and Shellie usually shop at Target but THIS time he went by himself?

      • Dave says:

        Yes. The idea that a married woman would miss out on a trip to Target and let her husband do the week’s grocery shopping on his own is pretty hard to swallow, assuming that she didn’t have something else very important to do (minding the kids, going to work, studying for an exam etc.). Am I being sexist here? I don’t think so. It’s a broad generalization , of course, but most women really do like to shop and a trip to Target, besides picking up food for the coming week and looking at clothes and housewares, would have been a rare opportunity for the loving couple to do something together.

        I think that there is an excellent chance that they were together.

      • acemayo says:

        Remember GZ have no money or money cards(C or D) on him
        to buy anything. TM had more than GZ

      • A loaded gun is probably most helpful for those sorts of shopping trips, where one has no money and no cards.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          crane says

          A loaded gun is probably most helpful for those sorts of shopping trips, where one has no money and no cards.

          as in “I’ll be taking these Huggies and whatever cash ya got” ? 😉

      • Trained Observer says:

        @Dave — No, in this context I don’t think you’re being sexist at all, and there’s logic to what you’re outlining. The only downside I see is that it could be mighty depressing to be cruising the clothing and housewares aisles when these two couldn’t even get together the rent money. Then again, maybe they were short on rent (after all ,Fogen did have a job) because they spent too many Sundays at Target. Like you, I feel the odds are excellent they were together in the shruck.

      • Lynn says:

        Isn’t her alibi that she was having dinner with dear ol’ dad. How convenient. Why wasn’t cutie pie invited for Sunday dinner? Did they forgo their routine of mentoring and shopping for an evening of ‘I got my dinner, now you get yours, George.’?

      • lurker says:

        Target is NOT the place to shop for groceries if you are on a budget. And I agree, it is odd that George would be doing the shopping alone, if at all.

    • pat deadder says:

      Crane-Station By the way I wish you would write a comedy.. luv your sense of humor.Just want to say I have always believed she was in the car,When fogen slipped up in reenactment and said to Smith He was just staring as in Trayvon to see who else was then he stopped abruptly and said he didn’t know why he was staring.But I’m wondering if BDLR has some evidence that she was with fogen and if so does he have to tell the defense.

      • I tell ya, I am dying to know what BDLR has/knows, Lord help us, there are still big pieces of this story missing!

        Thank you for the initial comment, which I will interpret as a compliment because I need all the help I can get. I do love satire, and have written some satire in the past for another site that was, let’s face it: straight-up gangster. My fantasy job is a gig with The Onion (we can fantacize, right?), and I absolutely love stuff like this video (parody), where people tell each other the God awful truth about what they are thinking, during a workday:

      • Rachael says:

        OMG Crane-Station, that is so funny. It reminds me of where I used to work. I want to send it to my ex boss but I’m too afraid to. I don’t know why though – he can’t fire me. LOL

        But they are now laying off the rest of the staff at the end of the year and my boss and his boss had this big meeting with a beautiful PowerPoint presentation for the department telling everyone how the hospital is going to be the medical care of choice, what was going in with finances, what her new title was and job description, his new job and job description and BTW, you’re all laid off as of such and such a date.

      • bettykath says:

        video………foflmao hilarious

    • Justchill says:

      I always thought Shellie, or someone, was in the car during the NEN call

    • PiranhaMom says:

      @Crane – When GZ whined “these assholes, they always get away, then, sotto voce, “but not from ME,” who was that under-the-breath “but not from ME,” to whom was this proud defiance directed?

      Why, to impress his “precious” (his term, not mine) wifey … the CO-CONSPIRATOR, in the shruck beside him.

      • That’s kind of what I was thinking. Folks can laugh if they want, but I actually talk out loud to myself, so I was thinking this through from sort of a personal perspective, and it does sound to me like it was more than just muttering to one’s self. It was more like he was adding something, just…I could be wrong, but I think someone else was there, his wife, or someone. BTW, my paternal grandmother talked out loud to herself, so I have a theory that it’s genetic. Just my .02.

      • Soulcatcher says:

        They have so much to be proud of. LOL
        I speak for myself, but if I found out my husband had cheatted on me, and I was sleeping with a (okay I have to be fair and say possible) child molester, I think that would give me thoughts about “the gun.” No question, I would be the one left standing.

    • racerrodig says:

      BINGO !!!! Axiom Amnesia has everyone of his calls to the police. Listen to the ones where he states there were break ins.
      As a matter of record, there are no witnesses to a single one, BUT, Fogens states on some of them that his wife has a description. How is that possible ???

      Several of them sound eerily similar to the 2/26 call.

      Common sense & history tells us that if a woman, the “..weaker, fairer sex” were to yell “crime” people might listen. If some buffoon like Fogen does, after awhile it becomes “who cares”

      I’d bet the farm she was there. Again I say phone records. There is a real reason that the story of her and Osterman “swiping” in are so off the wall. They’re as bad at lying as Fogen is.

    • hotheadpaisen says:

      Respectfully, I disagree. I think his comments about “fucking punks” and assholes always getting away was made for the ‘benefit’ of the dispatcher. The tone of his voice was utterly condescending. “…they always get away.” Why do they always get away? Because the cops never get there in time. Because the dispatchers waste time asking stupid questions. Zimmerman talked right over the dispatcher towards the end of the call instructing him to “get an officer over here.” I think that comment was meant to be heard by dispatch, and meant to insult and show his disdain for the SPD and rules in general. They wouldn’t “always get away” if Zimmerman could just take care of things. He decided to take care of this “fucking punk”, and for sure, he didn’t get away.

      • I see what you are saying and concede that that is definitely possible…and weirder (creepier?)…than muttering to one’s self or speaking to someone in the car.

    • hotheadpaisen says:

      Respectfully, I disagree. I think his comments about “fucking punks” and assholes always getting away was made for the ‘benefit’ of the dispatcher. The tone of his voice was utterly condescending. “…they always get away.” Why do they always get away? Because the cops never get there in time. Because the dispatchers waste time asking stupid questions. Zimmerman talked right over the dispatcher towards the end of the call instructing him to “get an officer over here.” I think that comment was meant to be heard by dispatch, and meant to insult and show his disdain for the SPD and rules in general. They wouldn’t “always get away” if Zimmerman could just take care of things. He decided to take care of this “fucking punk”, and for sure, he didn’t get away. BUT, I’d Love to know what he was about to say when he blurted out my wife when he was in the car at the beginning of his reenactment and the investigators didn’t bother to say “your wife what ??George?”. and also worthy of consideration is that he Told Doris Singleton that his wife found out about the shooting within five minutes and “she called my buddy (Osterman) who was there ….”. who was where?? where was Osterman? was he with Shelly?

      • dianetrotter says:

        Surely NEN operator is on the prospective witness list. If he says GZ said “coons”, how will that impact the case?

    • cielo62 says:

      >^..^< Yes, the Shellie Mystery. I doubt they (defense or prosecution) will ask for her testimony. She doesn't present as a credible or intelligent witness.

      • I am re-thinking this one. I initially agreed, but if things were said and there were other people there as well, seems to me the State can do a bit of corroborating, and if she invoked all of the sudden, there very well may be something to this. I would not be surprised to see the State certify some questions for Judge Nelson to review. Could be nothing, or, on the other hand, could be very interesting.

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        But, from her answers you can get location data for herself and other people, like who was around there at that time. When you go rummaging through a thrift shoppe one never knows what they’ll find.

      • lurker says:

        Strikes me that she may be able to blow Osterman’s claim of not having given any advice on how to construct the story out of the water. Not certain how much she could testify to without crossing over into hearsay, but I am guessing that she could testify that they talked and provide some interesting foundation to examination of Osterman. Might also be able to answer the question of whether they were together BEFORE spotting Trayvon.

    • ay2z says:

      cielo62, piggy-backing this video on your ‘alpha’ status.

      Alpha video… what Bernie said in Bernie’s own voice..

      • ay2z says:

        I looked at a photo of Shellie and added the NEN call to visualize her being present in the car, as I thought Benie might be alluding to with his little tinsy hesitation.

        But a couple things, the killer said “… now he’s looking at me” and ‘…. he’s coming towards me…’ That would not fit with Shellie sitting upright and visible in the truck, he would likely say my vehicle. AT some point, she could have been hiding crouched down and not visible and she could have driven the vehicle to a location to continue surveillance as fogen followed on foot, but we don’t hear Shellie warn her husband to not go out there, as she did on another NW call when he said ‘I’m going out there…” and she said “don’t go”, and fogen said “why not?”

        fogen may have dropped Shellie off somewhere, if the firsst sighting did not happen at Taaffee’s place, but instead, over at Sis gracies complex. Fogen could have dropped wifie off at sis’s place and circled back to cut off the guy at the Taffee pass.

        On the other hand, Shellie could have been on another phone with hubby, using sis’s phone, and leaving her phone with fogen, if both parties were surveilling.

        Not sure Shellie was in teh car, but she heard something and it sure sounds like it could be during the NEN call.

      • Tzar says:

        I have come to the conclusion that the killer was out on patrol and had zero intention to go shopping

        • Shari says:

          I’m going to have to agree with you. He only had pocket change on him. He bothered every black man he saw even though they owned property there. His racist gang, Taffee/Ostermann were out “patrolling.” Which is ridiculous because GZ is not a trained deputized police officer, no way he should be out armed “fighting crime.” I don’t get why more people aren’t outraged by this. I am aware of NW, and I have never heard of patrols. I always thought it was simply about being aware and reporting suspicious activity.

          And think about this. Think about how many GZ’s are on police forces all over the USA. They have sworn to protect and serve ALL but are biased against black males.

      • lurker says:

        @ Shari. You are right. NW does not include “patrols.” It is about ordinary neighbors getting to know one another and being vigilant. They may develop a relationship with the local police to the extent that they know what kinds of things indicate something amiss and who best to call and when.

        If you are correct that Osterman/Taafee and Zimmerman were out “patrolling,” it starts to sound more like Klannish behavior to me.

Leave a Reply to ay2z Cancel 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: