Defendant faces Hobson’s Choice

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Happy Independence Day to everyone!

I write today to allay concerns regarding the sufficiency of the State’s case.

First, we know they are going to call the Dr. Bao, the Assistant Medical Examiner who did the autopsy. I think we can reasonably expect that he will tie up any remaining loose ends regarding Trayvon’s death. Expect graphic and gruesome photographs that will firmly ground this case in the reality of a death that did not need to happen.

Second, the prosecution always ends its case-in-chief with what we call a wind-up or summary witness who ties everything together with the aid of charts, graphs and timelines that bring the evidence into focus. I am anticipating that FDLE Detective Gilbreath will be the witness and Bernie de la Rionda will ask the questions that steers him through the maze and haze.

Third, I am expecting the State will call Sybrina Fulton and she will identify her son as the person who uttered the terrified death shriek.

I believe the State will use most of tomorrow to finish up its case.

After the State rests, the defense will move to dismiss the murder charge and enter a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the State failed to present a prima facie case.

The test sJudge Nelson will apply in deciding that motion requires her to assume for the purpose of deciding the motion that all of the evidence introduced during the State’s case-in-chief and all reasonable assumptions that can be drawn from that evidence are true. Given those assumptions, she must decide if a rational trier of fact (i.e., a juror) could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder in the second degree.

Expect Judge Nelson to deny the defense motion.

After she denies that motion, the defense will have to decide whether to present any evidence. I believe sufficient evidence of self-defense has come in through the defendant’s statements to support instructing the jury on self-defense. Therefore, the defendant will not have to testify to get that instruction and the defense could rest without calling any witnesses.

Will the defendant testify?

As I commented last night,

The combination of the SPD photographs that show no significant injuries to the defendant’s face and head and the absence of any of the defendant’s blood and DNA on Trayvon Martin’s fingernails and his hoodie sweatshirt, particularly the sleeves and cuffs, put the lie to the defendant’s story.

Trayvon Martin did not hit the defendant repeatedly or slam his head against a cement sidewalk because, if he had done so, he would have been covered with the defendant’s blood and DNA.

Therefore, the defendant was never reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury.

Trayvon Martin’s fingernails and sleeves would have been drenched in blood, if the defendant’s story were true. The argument that the rain washed away the defendant’s DNA, and/or the packaging of the damp hoodie in a plastic biohazard bag degraded all of the defendant’s DNA is specious because Trayvon’s blood and DNA were detected.

There is no question that the defendant followed Trayvon Martin first in his vehicle and then on foot with the intent of preventing this “asshole from getting away.”

There is no question that Trayvon Martin attempted to run away from the defendant.

There is no question that the defendant had two opportunities to identify himself but decided not to do so.

There is no question that the defendant ignored the dispatcher’s warning to cease from following Trayvon Martin when he told the dispatcher to have the officer en route call him for a location and he subsequently pursued Trayvon Martin into the grassy area behind the townhomes south of the T intersection.

Given his unambiguously expressed intent to prevent Trayvon Martin from getting away, there is no doubt that he confronted him when he found him.

The defendant’s hostile pursuit makes him the aggressor and he cannot legitimately claim that he acted in self-defense, unless Trayvon Martin resisted his effort to detain him with deadly force and he could not withdraw from the encounter.

The defense claim that Trayvon Martin was “armed” with a cement sidewalk is controverted by Dr. Rao’s testimony and the DNA evidence.

I think the jury will likely find the defendant guilty, if he does not testify.

Yet, I cannot imagine how he can talk himself out of the mess he has created.

He has the right to decide whether to testify.

We will have to wait and see what he decides to do.

I am not expecting the defense to present any other evidence, with the possible exception of calling a family member(s) to identify the defendant as the person who uttered the terrified death shriek.

I suspect the jury will not believe them since the defendant was never in any danger and the shriek abruptly ends with the gunshot that silenced Trayvon Martin forever.


Your continuing support allows me to continue posting independent articles like this.

Please consider making a donation to keep independent journalism alive.

775 Responses to Defendant faces Hobson’s Choice

  1. nocamo33 says:

    Interesting to look back to a couple of weeks ago and the defense was crying that they needed more time and then they jump into the trial and act like things are going as they had hoped? No. They didn’t need more time, they needed more evidence which is clear. I wonder what “Fogen” defenders will say after they see no defense from the defense. When they learn it was all smoke-blowing and no “there there”. Will they finally start to admit that they were wrong? Or, will they continue in their stubborn ways?

  2. KA says:

    I have to say, I am not really seeing an issue. I have spent some time in Asia, in several countries and his demeanor is typical. I also have two children from Asia, and all interactions around them, as well as the US based populations of them, have similar traits.

    I guess I am trying to see the issue. He is being as factual as possible. The State has got to address the “discriminate” DNA bacteria eaters….

  3. KA says:

    I am going to assume the jury is not in the room, right?

  4. LeaNder says:

    I couldn’t help but watch. Are we entering outer parts of the the SPD conspiracy?

  5. MichelleO says:

    Dr. Bao is trying to over help.

  6. DruDo says:

    I can’t seem to get anything current on here. Something wrong with my computer, maybe?

  7. Nellie Nell says:

    GM All.

    What’s going on right now? I am working and the last I seen was that Trayvon’s brother was on the stand and MOM was trying to have him impeached, the court reporter read back some questions and answers. MOM asked her to read more and I was distracted by work and now the Seal is on the NBC feed.


    • Lonnie Starr says:

      Judge Nelson ruled that it was not impeachment material and ordered Omar to move on. He had nothing further so he passed.

      Judge Nelson spent the day cutting Omar and West to ribbons.

  8. Beverly says:

    Friday morning…..Om not having a good day; looks awful.

  9. YQ says:

    Happy fourth of July!!

    I saw some inconsistencies of Fogen’s story pointed out in this blog. One that really confused me was: immediately after he ended the NEN call he put his phone away. When he says he was confronted by Trayvon, he went to his pocket but he never makes it to that phone because he forgot where he put it. Whhaaat? He just got done using his phone. Could it be here that he was going for his gun and Trayvon saw it?

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      Nope, that was a lie, just another attempt by gz to make his story seem believable. Because nothing at all happened there by the T.
      gz went south and chased Trayvon back north. When he caught up to him DD heard the start of the confrontation.

      If gz was really interested in the welfare of the neighborhood, he would have simply answered Trayvon’s question: “Why are you following me for?” by identifying himself as NW and asking if Trayvon lived around there. Instead he challenges Trayvon saying: “What are you doing around here?” in a loud angry voice, then proceeds to manhandle Trayvon.

      He probably grabbed a hold of Trayvon and they fell to the ground. Trayvon rolled over, trying to break gz’s grip on him so he could run away, but gz held on tight and applied a wrist lock he’d learned at Kokopellie’s fighting gym. Trayvon began screaming and witnesses began to appear, but none of them stayed outside or kept eye contact, so gz drew his weapon and shot Trayvon. That way Trayvon would not be around to present himself as the childlike weakling he was, allowing gz to claim he was attacked and beaten almost to death.

      Who ever heard of an unarmed youth with no training in martial arts, who doesn’t fight and is not a criminal, beating bigger, stronger armed adults to death? gz is living in lala land.

      Even if Trayvon saw that gz was armed, Trayvon knew nothing about firearms, so what was he going to do? Pick this time to begin learning about them? And that’s if he could somehow wrestle the gun away from a martial arts trained professional bouncer who was 40lbs heavier then himself. Even Hollywood wouldn’t buy that script.

  10. MedicineBear says:

    I just found a video of someone named Irwin Mainway who the duhfence has obviously been using as a consultant on their case and whom they may call as an expert witness on GZ’s “life threatening injuries”. Take a look:


    • Lonnie Starr says:

      very funny. Anyway it looks like Tchoupi’s wind speed and rainfall will make it in. I don’t know if all those hours (over 100) they put into the cctv’s analysis will make it yet.

  11. crazy1946 says:

    I know this thread will close soon to allow the new thread for the day to be started, but I will not be here most of the day, due to a Dr. appointment. One little tidbit that I don’t think anyone has brought out yet is that the reason that I suspect that the Fogdoit actually did call Smith immediately after the murder is that with our semi-local sheriff department when you dial the nen you are give the option to dial a four digit extension, amongst those extensions are the individual officers cell numbers, ie. dial 7677 and it dials the cell phone number of the officer who is assigned to that number. Now perhaps some of you will understand why I have said in the past that Smith was the one who was call, explaining why he did not draw his weapon when he arrived on the scene of a shots fired call! He and his wife both have serious problems in this case… Neglect at best, willful disruption of the evidence is indicated for both of them…

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      I did not know about that phone calling technique, crazy. Thanks for that information.

    • Puck says:

      That’s what I wondered when I was going over GZ’s phone records and saw that he called what looked like the NEN, but looking at the SPD website I saw this was a general number as well, and that perhaps through an extension one can be connected to the cell phone of an officer on patrol. If so, we can reasonably infer that GZ might well have called Tim Smith.

  12. Nef05 says:

    In Honor of Trayvon, on the day the prosecution is scheduled to rest their case, and , of course, Xena – whose own website is named after the same as this inspirational and beautiful song. May Trayvon’s family’s justice and Xena’s core beliefs prevail!!!

    Morning light, silken dream take flight
    As the darkness gives way to dawn
    You’ve survived, now your moment has arrived
    Now your dream has finally been born

    Black Butterfly, sail across the waters
    tell your sons and daughters
    what the struggle brings
    Black Butterfly, set the skies on fire
    rise up even higher
    so the ageless winds of time can catch your wings





    Yeah, yeah, yes

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      Thank you, Nef, for posting this energizing and uplifting song of support.

  13. MedicineBear says:

    Professor~ After the Court has instructed the jury about Self-Defense law, can the State outline how Self Defense applies to Trayvon?

  14. Nef05 says:

    If we could remember
    The moment of our birth
    We give our voice to songs and whispers
    Remember, remember

    The days of dust at last

    And morning holds us
    When the worlds come tumbling down
    A dance of ghosts and ragged dreams
    Spinning ’round, spinning ’round, spinning ’round

    I remember
    Remember, remember
    Remember, remember

    If we could remember the power of the light
    That crippled prayers are sometimes answered
    And hope survives the night
    And hope survives the night, the night

    I remember, I remember
    Remember, remember

    Trayvon – Gone, but never forgotten. REMEMBER!

  15. Woow! says:

    I tried to find old articles from 2012 where neighbors stated that CAC was nuisance and many of the residents had complained to the HOA. Those articles have disappeared and/or been scrubbed from the search engines.

    I also tried to locate the older articles discussing CAC text messages and email and all I could really find were ones such as I posted above. I remember there was more stories surrounding his emails to residents and their racist nature right before his records records were sealed. I have had no luck in finding them either.

      • Woow! says:


      • Rachael says:

        That’s freaky – I went to check the comments and the first one there is me!!!!

        • elle says:

          Oh wow, I never read the comments. I do not have the courage. You are a strong lady to fight the good fight, Rachel.

          • Rachael says:

            Thanks, but do note the date: 08/17/2012

            I don’t go there anymore. I felt like GZ was grabbing my head and knocking it against a brick wall again and again and again until my head was going to explode.

        • You all have thoughtful comments says:


          A few times I was able to arrive at an NBC article as the first poster and post links or quotes pointing out gz’s lies and forensic evidence, but my posts were collapsed by zimmies who clicked negative response ratings. All that was left of my posts was my name and the words “collapsed by community” even though there had been a large number of “likes” clicked.

          Same for many of my other posts.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

            I was one of the first posters on one NBC article which was published at 9 or 10 PM, and I decided to have a cup of coffee and stay posting as long as I could stay awake. I managed to keep posting until 5:30 AM.

  16. aussie says:

    Happy Fourth of July everyone (even the non-Americans).

    Happy 5th of July coming up. 🙂

  17. Woow! says:

    New Evidence – George Zimmerman Used “N Word” In Text Message And E-Mail when referring who to look out for when on patrol in Sanford

    • bettykath says:

      the date on this is may. the motion to seal was granted.

      • Woow! says:

        I know the date and that the records were sealed. A few post above someone was mentioned CAC phone records (texts) and I remembered reading about what they contained so I tried to locate old articles :);

    • Rachael says:

      Is this going to be unsealed and allowed at the trial? Why is this allowed to remain hidden?

      • Rachael says:

        You know what else would have been good to show his state of mind – after the calls, had Taaffe as a witness with that video where he says that GZ just wasn’t going to take it anymore.

        Between the previous calls, the calls that night, Taaffe, and GZ himself, MMA trained and carrying a gun, Trayvon didn’t stand a chance. It looks like he might have gotten one or two in, but according to the medical examiner, they weren’t even significant.

        It doesn’t get much more obvious than that.

        • PiranhaMom says:

          @Rachael –

          What Zimmerman “wasn’t going to take anymore” was the Stucco Guys getting the credit for calling in a REAL burglar they observed – who was actually arrested.

          It was early February 2012 – less than four weeks before he killed Trayvon… Zimmerman didn’t have a thing to do with nabbing the crook – EXECEPT the HOA Board made him send out an e-mail to all 300 RATL residents, with kudos for the stucco guys! Nada for Fogen! He was steammmmmmed!

          Hero medal for George? ZIP!

          The stucco guys, of course, were not part of “Coordinator Zimmerman’s” Neighborhood Watch (because Fogen never coordinated anyone.)

          Interesting testimony by the HOA President at the trial. I expect they are pretty bitter about Zimmerman.

          I believe the reason that Sybrina’s attorney Crump insisted on a settlement that was MORE than $1,000,000 to not take this to trial, is that the standard insurance policy gives $1,000,000 coverage and Crump, on principle, thought it should bite the guys who took Zimmerman on, and raved about him to all the residents, without finding out his background and enforcing NW rules.

          So Crump wouldn’t want the insurance company to pay it all and the HOA pay nothing. The insurance company, of course, would press to settle out of court because they knew how costly it would be to litigate – and the risk of a multi-million award was so high.

          So I wouldthink the settlement was likely something like $1,100,000 or so, with a $100,000 bite out of the HOA’s reserve (either the owners would have to increase their dues to pay a Special Assessment or some needed upkeep/maintenance got deferred.) That would nick each owner around $300. We’ll never know, but you could see how hostile the HOA President was when he spoke of Zimmerman. He brought up the Stucco Guys performance during his testimony.

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        Don’t worry, the prosecution has this and probably a lot more. All it takes to release this is for someone to take the stand and, under cross or direct by the defense, state that gz is such a “decent American”, then the flood gates open.

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      DeeStunt Amelican isn’t so pristine anymore, eh? Well, we knew the truth would out, it was just a matter of when.

      Will Omar and West show up in court with ice cream cones?
      Enquiring minds want to know!

  18. Katy says:

    Rachael, the comments in that WP article had me in tears.

    One of the things that got me interested in this trial is that I’m the mum of a 16 year old boy, about the same size and height as Trayvon.

    • Rachael says:

      My son is a short little guy, but he is only a couple of years older than Trayvon and that is what got me interested too.

      • Katy says:

        Rachael, I guess it’s every parent’s nightmare … outliving your child … but on one level this case is just so absolutely senseless. If Z had just stayed in his car …

        But, I don’t believe it’s that simple. I think GZ had slowly become more and more irate at “these punks” and I think that he had lain awake at night and he had planned and plotted at how he could get back at “the punks”. I think he had worked out the average response times of the local police on a NEN call. I think he decided how he could kill someone with the evidence being predominantly on his side. I believe he picked T as a random victim. I think he had it set up before and on the day, he put his plans into action.

        I think he’s ultimately not too bright and he got things wrong. I think he was way too sure of himself and he made mistakes. I think he had a lot of knowledge, but not enough.

        • jodiwankanobi says:

          yeah he probably lay awake at night fantasizing about catching one of these punks and what a hero he would be..i’m sure he had already gone through some such scenarios in his own mind many many times. But oops, people loved and cared about this kid and he was one of the good ones….in his hurry to become a hero he only became a murderer.

        • PiranhaMom says:


          I don’t think Fogen premeditated the KILLING. He just wanted to grab a suspect and be a hero for doing so – but he’s stupid and untrained in police procedures – and he simply PROFILED Trayvon.

          When it turned out Trayvon was NOT a suspect and Zimmerman was so stupid about how he grabbed him, it escalated to the killing. Zimmerman set himself up as cop. prosecutor (the guy who wanted to be a prosecutor, right?) judge, jury and executioner.

          He made his decision to kill because he didn’t want to be caught manhandling a kid and he just assumed this was a “throwaway kid” and he could lie his way out of it. If this kid had a criminal record, Zimmerman expected he would be treated as a hero – which he craved.

          See my post below to Rachel re “the Stucco Guys,” for motive.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            That scenario doesn’t work for me… If he had the police and prosecutor on his side to cover up a murder, he certainly could have let the kid live and still covered up the lesser crime of unlawful detention. There would have been grumbling for sure, but without a dead boy and with police and prosecutorial resistance, I doubt the family would have sought an attorney and pursued it very far if at all.

            Quite a few women here, and perhaps a few men, if their child was sent home with a suspension, they’d have requested the records. Of course not many parents would, they’d simply accept it. Sybrina is not a stupid woman, she works in government offices, yet she didn’t think to have a look at the schools case. If she had, the records I’ve seen, the school might very well have reversed the suspension. The entire MDSPD thing sound to me, suspiciously like someone trying to start up a new chapter of “school to prison pipeline” in Dade County.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            In fact, if I can, my next project will be to try and ferret out some information and create some kind of “protecting your child’s rights against summary administrative actions” handbook.

            Operations like the school to prison pipeline and various other administrative actions can and are being used to derail minorities scholastic lives. Parents would provide a better defense against these kinds of unfair practices, if they knew what to do, how to proceed and such.

            My guess is most don’t because all they envision will come of their involvement is, a loud and testy face down with teacher/administrators with nothing being done, save another, more discrete attack on the child being launched.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          I don’t see how he stays awake at night planning a future, when he’s behind in his rent and faces eviction. He was desperate and needed to do something fast. Once he was evicted the opportunity would be passed.

  19. silk says:

    Crazy thought ; I was wondering if zimmerman put trayvon blood on himself. He did frisk him after the shooting. Who would think that it was trayvons blood on zimmermans head. Either that or the police had to help his story out. Zimmerman is a pos!!!

  20. You all have thoughtful comments says:

    article: “Rachel Jeantel proves that this July 4th, Jim Crow lives”

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      from the article:

      Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dismissed Congress’ intent in its 2006 extension of the Voting Rights Act, stating that Congress did so because of “ … a phenomenon … called perpetuation of racial entitlement.” The esteemed justice referred to Section 5 of the act as an “embedded” form of “racial preferment.” And in an apparent criticism of judicial protection of “discrete and insular minorities” whose rights are not protected through the political process, Justice Scalia compared the voting rights of African Americans to child abusers, whom he said represent a minority similarly undeserving of special protection.
      It would appear that in this view of what America should stand for, voting rights and representative government are inalienable rights for whites and an undeserved racial entitlement for African Americans. As a result, we have already seen Southern states enact discriminatory voter suppression measures threatening the right to vote in communities of color, eroding much of the civil rights progress made since passage of the act in 1965.
      If she could, this July 4th, Lady Liberty would shed tears of grief.
      If Justice Scalia’s words are not enough to convince you that a plague of racial injustice is imminent, then I would implore you to look at the George Zimmerman murder trial and defense attorney Don West’s dismissiveness and utter disdain for Rachel Jeantel, a key prosecution witness. In doing so, you will see the worrisome regression on racial attitudes that I speak of not only under the law, but in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.

      ………………….It is the absolute disdain and disrespect with which West, and the public, seemed to treat Jeantel that I find indicative of an alarming problem when it comes to race in America.
      Jeantel is 19 years old. The ebony colored, full-figured teenager met Trayvon Martin in second grade. She was the last person to speak with Martin before George Zimmerman shot and killed him.
      At times, West eyed the high school senior as if she were a creature he saw on an old episode of “The X-Files” or ”Star Trek.” His mannerisms and facial expressions in questioning and “sort of” listening to her responses gave an appearance of mockery and condescension. He reeked of elitism when he asked her, “Are you claiming in any way that you don’t understand English?”
      On day two of his cross-examination of her, Jeantel began referring to West as “Sir.” He showed delight at her supplication, remarking, “You seem a lot different today than you did yesterday. Are you feeling okay?” He seemed to delight in the realization that Jeantel could not read cursive, as if that undermined the credibility of her testimony.
      Social media was just as ruthless and was a sad indicator that racial attitudes today are not much different than they were prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act 50 years ago.

    • Rachael says:

      The last couple of days I’ve been crying so hard I thought maybe there’s something wrong with me, maybe I need more or stronger anti depressants. Then I realized I don’t need any mind numbing drugs , this is some sad s***

      • elle says:

        Try to hold on, Rachel. This will be done soon, and you will be more at peace. We can never bring Trayvon back, but we will never forget. fogen is going to rot in jail where he belongs.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        It’s a hard feeling time. I can’t seem to get up and go.

  21. Malisha says:

    That didn’t come out right. It’s the sixth picture over.

    “Bad spelling, bad grammar: I cannot eat this homework!”

  22. Malisha says:

    With regard to the testimony of Fogen’s professors:…2235.5795.0.8004.…0.0.0..1ac.1.17.img.0aMK4o1w9yc#facrc=_&imgdii=_&

  23. Judy75201 says:

    Haha, had to look up Hobson’s Choice. Take your chance by testifying, fogen, or take no chance at all.

  24. willisnewton says:

    Gilbreth better be reviewing his materials right now and deep into the evening.

  25. parrot says:

    I remember O’Mara’s motion to seal text message(s) from GZ phone.

    He claimed the messages would be very prejudicial to his client.

    I haven’t seen any such text messages offered. Did I miss it?

  26. Tzar says:

    If the bullet pierced Trayvon’s sweater behind the button but above the latch pin of the button
    See here

    then it is impossible to make that shot from the position that Zimmerman claimed he made it,(with his elbow on the ground) without striking the latch pin of the button since he is coming from below the button

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      Yes, especially since gz’s lying demonstration gesture was with his gun-held right hand UNDER his (gz’s) left hand.

      • You all have thoughtful comments says:

        LLMPapa showed the real way gz did it:

        gz pulled the sweatshirt DOWN with his left hand and raised his gun-held right hand OVER his (gz) left hand.

    • Puck says:

      The button will be important, otherwise they wouldn’t have asked Officer Raymondo about it.

    • jodiwankanobi says:

      so does that mean he did grab hold of the fabric and pull it down before shooting and as the fabric bounced back to prior shape the button raised up over the hole?

      • Tzar says:

        it seems to support that they were most likely standing when he shot Trayvon or upright or at least he was above Trayvon

        • TheUsualSuspects says:

          I believe Trayvon was on his knees (e.g., grass stains) begging for his life. GZ, standing, leaned down and whispered in Trayvon’s ear, “You’re gonna die tonight, MF,” and Trayvon screamed, “I’m begging you!” GZ shot him anyway, let go of the hoodie, and Trayvon fell forward with his hands beneath him. GZ concocted the spreading arms apart lie to account for kneeling on Trayvon’s back or manipulating the body in some other way.

          I don’t recall witnesses saying GZ got up from the ground. They say he stood up or rose straight up or something like that.

          When I watch GZ’s fake, doe-eyed innocent act in court, it makes me want to puke. Classic manipulator, sociopath behavior.

          By the way, I don’t think the “joke” between RJ and TM about GZ being a rapist was lost on the jurors. If they only knew….

      • Cercando Luce says:

        I think it means that defendant took made the effort to stick the muzzle of the gun under the button while pulling the shirts, which bounced back with the fabric when he let go.

  27. Thanks for swinging by, Brett! Your rambling screed is in the spam filter.


  28. sadlyyes says:


  29. Cercando Luce says:

    Will the defense will move to dismiss the murder charge and enter a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the State failed to present a prima facie case, in front of the jurors or in their absence?

    I wondered if it would be considered an influence on the jurors, because they would know the judge’s decision to dismiss or not dismiss>

  30. Malisha says:

    or BOTH.

  31. kllypyn says:

    When i saw a close of trayvons face i noticed something. his ear buds are right next to his head. that leads me to believe he yanked Trayvon’s ear buds out of his ears when he grabbed him.
    There is only one reason he would do that.

    He either didn’t want who ever trayvon was talking to to hear what was about to happen,or he thought trayvon was trying to call 911 and wanted to prevent him from doing so.

    • I think the presence of the ear buds next to the body indicates that is where the defendant attacked him

      One other thing is certain, nobody stalks and attacks another person with ear buds in his ear.

      Therefore, the presence of the ear buds next to the body resolves the question of who attacked whom.

      • kllypyn says:

        I believe he yanked them out of his ears to keep whom ever he was talking to from hearing what was about to happen or he did it to keep trayvon from calling 911. It’s possible he may been trying to call but was prevented from doing so.

      • sadlyyes says:

        i concur,powerful evidence,i posted lyesterday,kids are careful with their gadgets

      • kllypyn says:

        He looks like he was still trying to scream when he died.

  32. OMG. I went to a wedding and all hell broke loose: An ice cream photo on Twitter? With an inappropriate caption, and at least one person, in the middle, who looks like she is sucking d__k??

    Absolutely surreal. What is wrong with this lawyer? At first I thought he was maybe just a little off medically, but now…

    Don West


    In some circles they say your bottom can always get lower, but it is really hard to picture anything lower than this.

    • My take, just seeing this tweeted photo for the first time: It was sexually suggestive, inappropriate and over the line.

      • disappointed says:

        Crane the whole family is vile! Who in their right mind would put that photo out in cyber space with the hash tag dadkilledit in the middle of a freaking murder trial for a minor child?

      • tinytruthseeker says:

        All that you say is true….As much as I wanted for it to be… I doubted it could be used to the states advantage when I first saw it…. then of course the Ice cream man helped things along (He really is an idiot) When he started whining about the “lack of time to take depositions and how it was just IMPOSSIBLE for the defense team to be present for the “taking of testimony” on the Tuesday evening before the killers professor left town… turns out this was the same night this turd was out having an ice cream social with his repulsive daughters….

        I can’t be sure of course but my feeling is that the wonderful Judge Nelson is astute enough to connect THOSE dots…. and if past behavior is indicative of future behavior I would suggest the Ice cream man start looking for cover….

    • Beverly says:

      He has been very inappropriate; he argues with the Judge and was insulting to TM’s friend. I hate to be agist (and am not) but I have really pondered if he may be ill. He seems unable to govern himself or to shut up.

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:


      Did you see this petition of support for Rachel?

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      Here is a beautiful letter written to Rachel Jeantel:

      • I had not seen that, thank you for sharing it. I am going to have to go to YouTube and review. She has a cell phone number, that is on a recorded document someplace, that proves she was on the phone, connected to Trayvon’s phone, when he was killed, and people are trying to make it sound as if the whole phone record was invented? In some sort of Giant Black Helicopter Conspiracy Theory? Whoa…Oh. I get it. Barack Obama pulled the trigger, right?


        • Two sides to a story says:

          That was one of the main premises of the Treestump – that Crump made up the story of the girl on the phone. Right up to the day she appeared in court many still stuck by that story. Or they somehow thought there were two girls because of the confusion about her age and her sounding somewhat different in the three (I think) interviews.

      • racerrodig says:

        Thank You !! Signed and passing it on. Remember, the best they could do to celebrate was $5.00 worth of ice cream cones. We’re in the middle of prepping for a massive “Celebratory Conviction BBQ” complete with a sheet cake that says “35 to Life” on it….and I can guarantee a picture will be sent to the defendant and his counsel.

    • Sophia33 says:


      Did you miss the issue of us boycotting FB on July 16 after they refused to ban racist Web sites regarding Trayvon? The Global Grind has the pics that were posted on these sites. Please do not go look. It is by far the most vile thing ever, trust me. But the GG is pushing a boycott of FB.

      • Well, no, I did not see that, but I do trust Michael at GG. I have FB, but hardly ever visit, other than for family and close longtime friends. I do not have many FB ‘friends’ and it will not be difficult at all not to visit on that day. Sorry to hear of this and thanks for the heads up; I’d rather not give vile sites the traffic or time of day.

    • sadlyyes says:

      hey CS,glad you had such a glorious soiree to attend….TRUTH IS BEAUTY !

      • It was jaw-dropping. At some point, I quietly hid my Walmart camera someplace, and we are all waiting on the professional photographers, who livestreamed and took like, 1000 pictures. It has been many years since I have been to the eastern seaboard, and I had forgotten how beautiful it is. I grew up with my nephew, Ivo; he was a brother to me, just 3 years younger, so seeing his oldest son getting married, I bawled through the wedding part!

      • It was jaw-dropping. At some point, I quietly hid my Walmart camera someplace, and we are all waiting on the professional photographers, who livestreamed and took like, 1000 pictures. It has been many years since I have been to the eastern seaboard, and I had forgotten how beautiful it is. I grew up with my nephew, Ivo; he was a brother to me, just 3 years younger, so seeing his oldest son getting married, I bawled through the wedding part!

      • It was jaw-dropping. At some point, I quietly hid my Walmart camera someplace, and we are all waiting on the professional photographers, who livestreamed and took like, 1000 pictures. It has been many years since I have been to the eastern seaboard, and I had forgotten how beautiful it is. I grew up with my nephew, Ivo; he was a brother to me, just 3 years younger, so seeing his oldest son getting married, I bawled through the wedding part!

  33. TheUsualSuspects says:

    Is is too late for the state to introduce evidence of GZ’s bad character during it’s rebuttal case? I believe the door was opened by the defense during cross-examinations of Dorval, Lauer and
    Singleton when those witnesses were asked about GZ’s demeanor and/or reputation. Thoughts?

    • Malisha says:

      If the defense case opens the door for character evidence, it can go in both pro and con, but it still can’t go in about Trayvon, only about Fogen. State can put on whatever it has with respect to character if the defense opens that door. It’s the door to some very big stables. And no Hercules to clean OUT those stables, p. u. !

      • My Forehead Tho says:

        I agree. If the all female jury, with 83% being mothers, were to hear about Fogen’s assault on his ex girlfriend and the molestation of his cousin, there view of him would change drastically, if it hasn’t already.

        “I believe the door was opened by the defense during cross-examinations of Dorval, Lauer and
        Singleton when those witnesses were asked about GZ’s demeanor and/or reputation.”

        I thought so too…

    • I think the State already walked through that door with another witness after West opened the door.

  34. ada4750 says:

    Very rarely can we see a media reportage that makes clear that the level of fear or injuries to justify self-defense depends on who is the initial aggressor. Laurence O’Donnell for instance never makes this distinction.

    • Malisha says:

      The “altercation” did not start when shooter met up with victim. The “altercation” started when shooter began to follow victim. Only ONE person started the “altercation”: Fogen. Before that, “Sh!t, [Trayvon] ran.”

      • ada4750 says:

        I agree with you, initial aggression is not synonym of initial physical confrontation. On another hand, GZ didn’t the initial aggressor just by getting out of his truck. He was if reached Trayvon even if this one first ran away from him.

        • SearchingMind says:

          @ Ada4750

          It is well settled that GZ was the aggressor. That is the reason West and O’Mara go insane on Dee Dee in a desperate attempt to impeach her.

          Dee Dee has testified that GZ “bumped” Trayvon. Trayvon was brought dowm in that process, while yelling “get off, get off”. This witness described hearing grass and what that sound sounds like. That makes GZ the aggressor – no matter from what point of view you look at it, i.e. (a) getting out of his truck in pursuit of Trayvon or (b) the attempt to detain Trayvon that started with the “bump”.

          • ada4750 says:

            @SearchingMind. I certainly believe that GZ was the initial aggressor. My point is in the medias this aspect is almost never brought for the self-defense consideration.

            They are just asking: Was GZ enough in danger to shoot? They never point out that with the same situation he might if Trayvon attacked him but definitively no if he stacked Trayvon.

          • SearchingMind says:

            I get your point, Ada. Thanks.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            It started when he assaulted Trayvon. That means it started when Trayvon observed he was being followed, since at that point gz’s failure to identify himself and explain his actions, he allowed a hostile situation to persist, intentionally. Trayvon perceived that he was the subject of some hostility, the only explanation for which was that he was in danger.

            gz willfully and maliciously refused to allay those hostile perceptions and allowed them to continue until Trayvon felt a need to take flight!

            Trayvon did not run because he was happy. He did not run because he was late getting home, or that he wanted to get home faster. He ran because he believed he needed to do so, for the purpose of evading a hostile stalker. He ran in response to what he believed was a dangerous effrontery committed by gz’s actions and refusal to communicate any calming intentions.

            When gz got out of his truck and followed Trayvon, he escalated the danger that Trayvon would feel. When he finally caught Trayvon, Trayvon issued a challenge “why are you following me for?”, He should have answered that challenge with his identity and an explanation of what he was doing. Instead he again assaulted Trayvon by giving him even more cause to fear, by refusing to explain himself and state that he had harmless intentions.

            The fact is he did not do so because he had harmful and deadly intentions. He attempted to capture and did capture Trayvon and proceeded to interrogate him without any authority to do so. Escalating from assault by stalking. to assault and battery. He then refused to allow Trayvon to escape his illegal detention and instead drew his firearm and killed the child! There is no evidence to prove otherwise.

  35. Katy says:

    Happy 4th July to you all.

    I believe it was Trayvon screaming for help.

    GZ claims it was him. He also claims that he didn’t know that he had killed Trayvon – or even hit him with the bullet … but if this were true … (and it was him screaming), then why did the screaming stop at the time of the shot? He says that he didn’t know T was dead until an hour later. Maybe he should be asked when and WHY “he” stopped screaming if he does give evidence (and, oh God, I hope he does).

    With Z’s “injuries”, we all saw the scratches … are there any photos taken in the next few days that show bruising? I know I haven’t seen any.

    Was it about then that he started growing his hair?

    I posted the other day that people had said it was possible that Z pulled Trayvon down on top of him … and I questioned whether it could be possible that in doing so, Z might have sustained his “injuries”.

    With the fund for Rachel, would it be an idea to ask Professor Leatherman to hold the money from posters here until it’s been decided how to use it?

    He’s already set up to receive money. Everyone trusts him. And, I do think it would be best to collect donations asap.

    • ladystclaire says:

      @Katy, what fund for Rachel? I had made a suggestion about starting one only for it to be shot down. it seems that it is now in the works even though it wasn’t such a good idea, when I mentioned it.

      Where are these donations being taken because, I would like to make a donation for her.

      • sadlyyes says:

        i am the katie who wanted to do a college fund for,her at Dade Community College,that has been shot down by a few,but i will still try to set it up.A semester for a local resident is about1100$ a pittance these days

        • cielo62 says:

          Sadly- and what if Rachel doesn’t WANT to go to college? What if she would rather attend a vocational training program? Why force her the way you want? That’s my issue with your specific idea.


          • sadlyyes says:

            dade has vocational training also,the curriculum is imense! anyway i rescue dogs and cats,and if this becomes too unpopular,i will just forget about it.i have furry kids to worry about!

          • cielo62 says:

            Sadly- I rescue, too. Don’t get in a huff. Insisting on the local cc seems…. Limiting. Maybe she wants to go to a real university? Or travel? I’m just saying connecting strings to a good deed diminishes it. I’d Rachel to be successful on her own terms.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Rachael says:

            I agree cielo. that is why her attorney should be in charge of setting it up and handling it. that is what attorneys do. let her decide where she wants to go and what she wants to do. no one shot down your idea katie.

      • cielo62 says:

        Ladystclaire- it seems that it’s still in the debating stage. Somebody wanted to start a fund to send her to the community college near where she lives. Others (like me) would rather see an educational fund for Rachel to use for the college or vocational school of her choice. In all cases, in order to not feed the insanity of the outhouse and the duhfense I think the thing will be organized after the trial is over.


  36. fauxmccoy says:

    excellent article professor! this mirrors many of the numerous comments i made yesterday to attempt to allay poster’s concerns about what the state has left unsaid. i stated i thought there would be three more witnesses to be called and why

    — the ME to enter autopsy who would be qualified as an expert to render opinion as to cause of death and state of the body.

    — an FDLE investigator to go over some items entered into evidence by various records custodians but not examined (phone records and clubhouse videos), as well as piecing together the pieces of the puzzle. gilbreath is an excellent choice. crime scene drawing would be brought up and gilbreath would be asked based on his experience what they indicate.

    — Sybrina Fulton for the last word.

    my hope is that this takes the entire day and the last words the jury hears before weekend recess is Sybrina stating that it was her son’s cries for help. this would be best case scenario, but i’m sure west will do his thing and try to mess it up.

    • disappointed says:

      From your mouth to God’s ears on Sabrina giving the Jury something to ponder on all weekend!

    • crazy1946 says:

      I just spent about two hours reading the posts from the sludge over on the tree sewer (killed a lot more brain cells in the process) and they are already discussing that The Ice Cream Man drag his feet to prevent Sybrina from testifying tomorrow! If they pull that off, I hope Judge Nelson calls for court at 8:30 am Saturday for just her testimony…. What a team for the defense, Mom/ The Ice Cream Man/the Fogdoit/ and last but not least the Tree Sewer Sludge!

      • Rachael says:

        One thing I’m reasonably certain of, is that if West questions Sybrina, he will be his usual offensive self and that will offend the jury for certain. MO’M would probably have a little more tact but I think their best bet would just be to leave her alone and let the jury know she is a grieving mother because anything they ask could come off hostile and that would not be good for the jury to carry over the weekend.

        wait a minute…well I guess i just cant bearvto see Sybrina hurt anymore even if it makes them look bad.

  37. disappointed says:

    Fred- I have a question about sentencing. Let’s say he is convicted of manslaughter (hope murder 2 but) will the Judge add extra time because Trayvon is a minor? I think that is part of the reason for murder2. And is extra time added because he committed this crime with a firearm on a minor? Or is that just adding and stacking shit on? I think they should add child abuse, child neglect, endangering the public (although the idiots should be endangered. not helping a screaming child) and under the influence of stupidity?

    • cielo62 says:

      Florida has mandatory sentencing. 20 years for a crime involving a gun. 10 extra years for killing a minor. Murder 2 or Manslaughter, GZ is looking at a minimum of 35 years.


      • disappointed says:

        Thank you! Let’s hope they find him guilty of something so he loses his gun for good! He can not be trusted to carry a water gun let alone a gun with hollow points. jmo

        • cielo62 says:

          Disappointed- I hope he’s convicted on murder 2, because the range then jumps to 35 years to life. Judge Nelson is known for handing out heavy sentences when appropriate.


          • disappointed says:

            I want him convicted of murder 2, but even manslaughter will get him a good amount of time PLUS no gun. Fogen needs to be convicted of Murder 2 because of HIS actions, it is just comforting that Manslaughter is no 2 to 5 years like some states.

  38. bettykath says:

    There are some interesting motions.

    * from the state a motion for order of protection to keep Don West from Rachel Jeantel. Argument is daughter’s pic.

    * response from West explains the circumstances, blah blah blah and then requests and investigation into the state’s filing of the motion for order of protection

    * motion in limine to keep a prospective defense witness from opining on the legality of the defendant using force, etc. A retired police officer is intending to offer his opinion. Motion contains several instances of case law.

  39. Puck says:

    I think tomorrow’s going to be really awesome and compelling, and we’ll have a lot to talk about.

  40. bellesouth says:

    Just watching the re-enactment. George knew the name of the street explaining that Trayvon had turned right down Twin Trees Lane or something like that. A few minutes later he’s explaining that he didn’t know the name of the street.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      he mentions it easily enough on prior NEN calls as well.

      • bellesouth says:

        Wow! Then this IS pre-meditated murder!

        • fauxmccoy says:

          not sure about that, but it does indicate quite clearly that the defendant is a big fat liar and that his ‘looking for an address’ story is completely bogus.

          • Malisha says:

            The very FIRST time I heard the “looking for an address” story (from FogenFather), I laughed myself into a spasm. Who would even SAY something so stupid and not expect to be laughed out of the house?

          • Rachael says:

            Exactly. It is not reasonable. So why would I think his fear of imminent harm or death is reasonable either? He is not reasonable and is not capable of reasonable thought

          • fauxmccoy says:

            nope, nothing remotely reasonable about him — his actions, words, demeanor, whether during the killing of trayvon or any point before or after.

          • tinytruthseeker says:

            Nitpicking I know….. but when I hear people talk about how he only had THREE streets to remember….. I find myself shouting at the TV….. he had TWO streets to “remember” there are three streets in RATL…. but the killer LIVED ON ONE OF THEM…. that means he only needed to REMEMBER the other two….when I am finished shouting that portion it is usually followed by a whisper…. “and he patrolled those every night with a Rottweiler and a loaded gun…”

          • fauxmccoy says:


            excellent point! also the fact that twin trees lane is the road for both entrances, if the defendant ever gave directions to his home, twin trees would most likely be mentioned. the story is simply unbelievable.

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      Good to see that I’m not the only one who caught that. Twin Trees Lane is the street that runs from the front gate all the way to the rear gate that holds gz’s interest so well. How could he not know the name of it? Obviously he is merely playing another game, to cover up that he is intending to follow Trayvon. He knows that he should not be doing that, because it would be a crime, so he comes up with the threadbare excuse “I couldn’t remember the street name”.

      Well, no street name was needed, he should have driven his truck back to the clubhouse and waited there PERIOD! There is no excuse for him not doing so, most especially because he was armed!

  41. Jun says:

    What I dont get is, why Fogen would even get a self defense instruction

    He presented zero evidence in support of his claim of self defense

    • crazy1946 says:

      In all fairness (ouch, that’s hard to do in this case) the defense has yet to put out his actual defense position, it allegedly is going to be self defense against a child. Too bad he did not accept responsibility for his actions right after the murder, he would have had a year of his sentence completed by now….. The charge of manslaughter should have been plead guilt to, of course hindsight is normally 20/20 for most normal people, as for the Fogdoit, I actually think (after seeing his grin from seeing himself on the video the other day), he is some what enjoying being the star of his own reality show…

    • fauxmccoy says:

      the state did jun — by entering gz’s interview tapes with SPD.

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        Well, since the need for an address to meet the police at, when they arrived was bogus, the prosecution should motion for a stalking instruction to the jury as well. Let the jurors consider whether or not gz was stalking the child, that would simplify their assessment of his self defense claim.

  42. You all have thoughtful comments says:

    Up until now, gz has gotten away with his lies (had a felony reduced to misdeanor, etc)

    It had always “He said…..LE officer said” or “He said…..She said”(ex-financee)………..

    That game is over now because it is “gz said……Solid evidence SAYS!”

  43. Tzar says:

    At the end of his Cross of Dr. Rao
    Mr. O’mara, outwitted and frustrated that he could not lead the self-assured and assertive surgeon to agree with his testimony, finally asked her, “what about the next one?”. Inquiring for her speculation upon his client’s assumed lethality of the next potential blow or smash into the cement that Trayvon Martin could have delivered to his client’s head in the imaginary fight that he was testifying to.

    Since he wants Rao to read the mind of his client, and since his client has never claimed to have uttered the words, “i mean you no harm, i am from neighborhood watch”, I think it is fair and would like to ask Mr. Omara, if, upon listening to the first few screams on that horrifying 911 call, Did Trayvon Martin think he was about to be killed, abducted, or abducted to be raped, to be tortured? did he fear that he would never see his family again? Can Mr. O’mara tell us, to what degree were these things on Mr. Martin’s mind?

    • vickie s. votaw says:

      Very powerful, Tzar, could he say that? That would be good

    • Deborah Moore says:

      Very right on, Tzar.
      This is not a mortality lesson, but a morality one, as well.
      My mind is asking questions all the time, and thanks to this site and all of you commenters, I can try to find answers.
      Lots of philosophical ?’s as well.

    • You are so right, Tzar. Every time I hear the 911 call, I hear Trayvon being tortured.

  44. rayvenwolf says:

    So just had a thought and since I haven’t read today’s thread if I repeat what someone else has said my bad. Let’s say that the scheme team call the rest of clan Z to identify the screams as belonging to fogen. The proper response by the Pros would be to ask WHEN they have heard fogen scream like that. If they are stupid enough to follow dad’s previous lead and say when Fogen was a teen or younger again they will have almost handed his head on a platter to the jury.

    Now again let’s say that they have in fact heard him scream like that. There is only one other situation like that in which to come close to the scream heard on the 911 calls, someone getting the ever loving shyte beat out of them. Gladys and RZSr are old enough to be of the no sparing the rod crowd. Rather than getting Fogen the real help he needed as a youth their way of dealing with things may have been to “punish” him until he straightened up and flew right. I bring this up because I thought back to osterman’s statement to the police about how Gladys supposed treated Fogen and his half sister.

    I think it would be a good trap to set though. Sybrina’s statement that the screams were of her own child, followed by fogen’s family saying they’ve only heard him scream like that as a teen. Grown mean don’t sound like teens when they scream.

    • cielo62 says:

      Rayvenwolf- unless they’re being castrated. Maybe that’s why GZ needed a penis substitute?


  45. Woow! says:

    I just look at the witness list filed by the defense smokygirl linked about.

    Did anyone notice MOM listed Bill Lee and Norm Wolfinger as defense witnesses. I hope he is stupid enough to call them to the stand and I would love for BDLR to cross examine them although I don’t believe BDLR would implicate them in a cover-up since the state has not already done so for political reasons.

    • Xena says:

      IIRC, the defense released that witness list before Judge Nelson ruled on the State’s motion in limini, preventing the defense from having witnesses testify as to whether or not GZ should have been arrested. With that off the table, there is really no reason for Lee nor Wolfinger to be called as witnesses.

    • Tzar says:

      I hope he calls them too
      he realizes that the state would like to-as much as possible- insulate spd from a lawsuit and it seems to me that he can hold them hostage because of this

      so either the state will have to expose SPD or let Lee and Wolfinger sabotage justice

      • aussie says:

        Except, if they thought at the time there’s not enough evidence to charge him, that means NOTHING. More evidence came out later and was enough. Gee there was a time when even WE thought there isn’t enough evidence. Mind you that was probably around Feb 27, but…..

        Actually I was in two minds about it until late4 March as I didn’t really hear much about it here, until the protests did start.

  46. crazy1946 says:

    The young lady who I’ve loaned my laptop to is here visiting. Since I pointed this case out to her, she has been reading about it constantly, I think she is hooked. I can’t get her to post anything yet, but think eventually she will.. She is bringing a little bit of the female perspective (ok, I admit it, I don’t understand women!) she read an article that said the attorney for the defense (MOM/West) have suggested that if Zimmerman (her name for him, not mine) is not convicted there will be riots all over the country. The interesting part in her comments about that is she thinks this could possibly cause a woman that was on the fence(considering aquital) to actually vote to convict him to avoid riots from occurring. Hmmmm, that has never entered into my mind. Could it be that once again the defense propaganda team has shot their own feet? To be honest, the thought that riots would actually happen has never seemed credible, and was just noise that originated with the tree sewer…

    • Rachael says:

      As a white woman, I don’t think there will be any riots. That is just scare talk, racist talk.

    • cielo62 says:

      crazy~ the riots would be the white supremacists! Pitchforks, torches, burning crosses, just like the “good days” of the Klan!


    • Malisha says:

      It’s not credible.
      There were no riots in the struggle to get an investigation, there will be none at the end of the trial no matter what.

      BUT I think if Fogen is acquitted, a lot of teen-agers (both Black and white) will be MUCH MORE UNSAFE ALL THE TIME.

      • Rachael says:

        Exactly – my fear is not what will happen if GZ is convicted. I have HUGE for what will happen if he’s not.

      • Judy75201 says:

        Malisha, as a middle-aged woman, I will definitely protest if pig is acquitted. Not riot, but make my voice heard. I hope others will join me. I won’t let it go.

    • Judy75201 says:

      Oddly enough, my theory of the OJ acquittal was based on the unlikely-hood of him re-offending coupled with the fear of riots causing death to innocent people. Things were different then.

      • Malisha says:

        OJ did not admit to the killing itself; different kind of case.
        Fogen admits the killing and essentially says that it was HIS TO CHOOSE to kill Trayvon and it was a “good shoot.”

        • Judy75201 says:

          I agree that the cases are different, but I believe the social dynamic of the jury is comparable.

  47. Rachael says:

    And crown thy good with brotherhood
    From sea to shining sea!

  48. I just disabled the ratings feature to completely invisibleize the trolls who are never welcome here, ever.

    Besides, the ratings meter is kind of a juvenile popularity thing.

    The quality of our writing and comments speak for themselves.

    We’re averaging more than 20,000 views per day and that’s all we need to know.

    Thanks and congratulations to all of you for making this site what it is today.

    • Judy75201 says:


    • vickie s. votaw says:

      Yippee, thank you ,sir

    • Deborah Moore says:

      Happy Freedom and Justice Hugs coming at you and CS.
      And, darkness can never overcome the Light.

    • Xena says:

      Whew and WOW!

      Thank you, professor, for giving us a blog where we can learn, laugh, and cry together.

    • Tzar says:

      Batman approves

    • elle says:

      Professor, I will always be grateful that your blog has given everyone a safe place to express their thoughts and theories. Without this blog, I would have lost my damn mind this last year. I did not join the discussion, because I did not really have anything to add. However, I had to post about ice cream man’s offspring and their friends using racial slurs on Twitter. Thank you for giving me a safe place to do so. If you are ever in the Northern Midwest and want to go fishing, let me know. I would love for you and Crane to have a sunny day catching walleyes to say thank you for what you have given me.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      excellent choice, sir!

    • Sophia33 says:

      Thank you sir, they should have no voice.

    • Malisha says:

      I could never vote on that thing anyway, tried and tried. It requires some kind of internet presence I guess I don’t have.

    • BillT says:

      TY for that, this place is a search for the TRUTH, not popular opinion, the quality of the posts indeed do speak loud and clear.

    • The thanks goes to you Professor.

    • diary73 says:

      No Professor, thank you!

    • racerrodig says:

      20 K…..wowzer !!! I’ve not been able to stay up with this and during the trial no less……I knew it…..It’s nice being this busy in the shop like it was before the economy fizzled, but during this trial.

      My luck…….

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Thank you! I discovered you early on at firedoglake and read both there and here – you were the only blogger making any real sense about the Fogen case.

  49. Lonnie Starr says:

    I don’t think the defense can risk putting any family member on the stand, since they are likely to be provoked into giving gz a character reference or two.

    It would be, indeed, very odd to have a family member take the stand, to attempt to identify the shriek as gz’s and yet avoid answering any cross examination that suggests that gz was not motivated by the best of intentions. They would have to become so obviously evasive there would be red flags flying all over the courtroom. Because if they broke down and decided to bolster gz by any cheer leading attempt, the door to impeachment materials would spring wide open.

    Try as MOM might, the bail hearing fiasco cannot be either confused or undone.

    • racerrodig says:

      Oh come on Lonnie, the defense has to put Robbie the Racist on…..he’ll straighten this all out, and he’s just dying to do so !!!!

      • Rachael says:


      • Lonnie Starr says:

        Hahahaha… That’s stand up, watch it… You could replace Jay Leno! Hahaha. Robbie the Racist is all the defense needs, just one “Decent American” and poof, the entire defense goes down the drain.

        I’m pretty sure that both teams realize that the defense can’t risk putting anyone on the stand, because they’re all too likely to start singing the praises of gz, once provoked under cross. Robbie would single handedly sink the defense for all time.

        Do you think gz would be smart enough to fear Robbie taking the stand? His eyes should open wide as saucers, hahahaha…

  50. Michael Stewart says:

    Saw Jimi perform in 1968 @ the Anaheim Convention Center. Yeah, I be ancient.

    Happy 4th !

    • Sophia33 says:


    • racerrodig says:

      I love this !! I do a version of this, not as long however but with the same effects… fact I play it when my son and his band mates get a little to big for their britches. Wish I’d have been able to see him live…..he died when I was in 10th grade….

  51. Puck says:

    The button! We cannot forget the button! They wouldn’t have asked Sgt. Raymondo that question if it weren’t going to come back when they put it all together.

  52. My Forehead Tho says:

    As long as the jurors use common sense when deliberating, a guilty verdict is guaranteed.

    1. Would a teenager who ran from a man he described as creepy run back, hide in bushes, confront, and attempt to murder the creepy man- not likely

    2. Would a man who followed and chased a teenager be the one who initiated the confrontation- very likely

    3. Would a man who was almost beat to death walk away with injuries that didn’t need a bandaid, refuse to go to the hospital, and have normal vital signs- not likely

    4. Would a teenager who punched, grabbed and slammed a man’s bloodied face into concrete not get a single drop of his victims DNA on his hands, under his fingernails or on his hoodie cuffs- not likely

    5. Would a teenager who punched his victims over 20 times with his bare hands not have bruised knuckles or any sign of a fight- not likely

    6. Would a man who did MMA training for 1 1/2 years, 3 days a week just sit there and do nothing while teenager tried to beat him to death- not likely

    7. Would screams that were coming from a man who’s mouth and nose was covered not sound muffled- not likely

    8. Would a teenager who was screaming for help stop screaming immediately after he was shot in the heart- very likely

    • Malisha says:

      Chasing was already starting the altercation.
      When you follow somebody, you commit an act of aggression.
      Nobody has to figure out who did what to whom after Fogen ADMITTED that he spied Trayvon, identified him as someone who should not be permitted to “get away,” and then followed him. That altercation had started by the time Fogen got out of his shruck.

    • cielo62 says:

      My forehead tho~ EXACTLY. I don’t think it’s too much to expect from 6 random folks sitting on a jury to see and understand. A kid walking home. No weapons. Just candy. Stalked by a creepy guy in a car, then on foot, all the way down a dark street. I get scared just typing this, putting myself there. The grab, the screaming, the fear and the shot. The storyline is basic, and all of it supported by evidence. Just like you said.


    • Romaine says:

      not to be critical #’s 4 and 5 should be more likely, if you beat someone repeatedly with your fists there should be some evidence of bruising or swelling to the knuckle area, the slamming, suffocating, grabbing, should have produced some form of DN; saliva, blood…the defense is fighting the swallowing of the blood because gz was on his back, then he should have been chocking while trying to swallow and scream..also with the continuous beating of the facial his nose should have been mashed up more with blood gushing with each strike..the back of his head should look like a boiled potato when the skin splits from over boiling,,,that to me is a ground and pound

    • Tzar says:

      3. Would a man who was almost beat to death walk away with injuries that didn’t need a bandaid, refuse to go to the hospital, and have normal vital signs- not likely

      this is what makes this whole thing so laughable

  53. Dear Trolls:

    Racist comments will get you banned outright. Is there anything about those seven words that is difficult to comprehend?

  54. ay2z says:

    Happy 4th everyone!

    Interjecting a musical interlude, a one man ‘choir’??


  55. riisey007 says:

    I can’t wait for the medical examiner to let the wind out of the defenses sail. I know Sybrina and Tracy are gonna have a hard time listening and may not be able to stay on the courtroom but this well let the jury know jut how horrible this murder was. Zimmerman shot this kid in the heart of all places and let his chest fill up with blood and free air and all the while supposedly laying on top of him spreading his arms out while hi life was passing way. We know that never happened but he painted that picture. Also I hope they take thought in the fact that Zimmerman never even tried to help the kid.

    • ay2z says:

      Don WEst, Mark O’Mara and client George Zimmerman, did not strip Trayvon’s parents nor Trayvon’s Estate, from representation if they need to step out, especially if West plays his tactical games to add insult and injury to Sybrina and Tracy and their family’s pain.

      West has nasty tactics as we have seen, and could design his cross to further do harm to an upcoming witness for advantage.

      • Vickis Smith says:

        You don’t cross-examine grieving parents unless you want to guarantee yourself a loss.

        • crazy1946 says:

          But the sludge over at the tree sewer are demanding that MOM allow The Ice Cream man cross her about why Trayvon was not with her… I don’t think that it would be wise for them to open that door! Do you think the jury would look badly toward a child that had a few problems or an adult who had a verified history of violent acts against other’s, then bring in the sexual abuse of his cousin and animal abuse, and on and on… Like I said, that would not be a wise move!

          • jodiwankanobi says:

            yes and children that come from a broken home usually reside more with one parent than the other but they certainly spend time with both parent’s, nothing wrong with that…..oooooh he was visiting his father….what a terrible mother she must be….smh

          • Two sides to a story says:

            I’m sure the State would raise an objection to any personal attacks.

    • We know he sat on Trayvon’s back.

      • diary73 says:

        Both Sabrina and Tracy were out of the courtroom after the last break. I think they were expecting the gruesome testimony on Wednesday.

    • Sophia33 says:

      The talking heads on HLN who are former defense lawyers are now trying to explain the distance that Trayvon got after being shot. They are saying that he stumbled the 30 to 40 feet and then passed away. And Natalie Jackson for the Martin family keeps pointing out that even Zimmerman never said that Trayvon stumbled anywhere.

      • PiranhaMom says:

        @Sophia –

        The dying Trayvon stumbled 30-40 feet AFTER having his heart and lung exploded and AFTER he picked up the crime scene evidence – flashlight, cellphone, cartridge shot out from the Kel-Tek; and AFTER arranging all this collateral in a meaningful array 30-40 feet away, THEN he clasped his hands to his shot-out chest, THEN put his feet together pointed in one direction, THEN turned his head in the opposite direction, THEN pitched himself forward to the earth … do I have this right?

        Did the Zidiots say who the choreographer was?

        • my dear departed father one of the smartest men to live(well Oxford U hired him also),was Dade County medical examiner for a time,before entering private practice….he explained at the OJ s trial,when the poor guy was sliced by OJ midsection,the Aorta was severed ,he wentRIGHT down,same with poor Tray,an exploding bullet to heart and coronary arteries,he went right down

        • Sophia33 says:

          Yep you got that right! And here, I had a hard time all along with Trayvon merely speaking after shooting. The whole, “You got me!”

          Now, Trayvon walking 30 to 40 feet away is really hard to believe.

          The defense attorney talking heads have come up with this. Something that Zimmerman himself NEVER said happened.

          • That idea won’t work because of the shell casing found in the grass right next to the body.

            Remember what Detective Gilbreath said,

            We’ve got the location of the body, the shell casing, and Mr. Zimmerman’s statements.

          • PiranhaMom says:


            Ooops – forgot to add that after doing all that hiking and landscape décor, Trayvon went down to earth cursing, just like Fogen said he did.

            Hell, I’d be cursing all that extra wok, too.

            Dying is tough enough as it is.

        • Malisha says:

          Choreographer? It was George Lyinscream. But of course!

        • Doh, you forgot he ran into someone’s house, washed the blood and DNA off his hands then ran back out. I’m sure a kid who can run 167yards then do a U-turn then run back and around GZ’s car faster than he can report it on the NEN and then run back into the darkness could probably do all that you said while saying “ugghhhh, you got me” which sounds like it’s straight out of b-movie with bad actors.

      • newmediacounsel says:

        The problem in this case for the defense from my perspective is how my times on a single piece of evidence they must rely on an improbable event to explain it away.

        When you start to add up the number of improbable events since this was in fact one event, and somehow blood didn’t appear where it was supposed according to the defendant’s story, there are no bushes according to the defendant’s story the body is not located when it should be according to he victim’s story, and on and on and on.

        And you are being asked to believe in some cases false statements, and in others, highly improbable ones (the best they could claim before was the victim may have made a sound, and more problematically their description is not the defendant’s claims, and is just stories they are making up completely)- under these circumstances we have moved from reasonable doubt to people rationalizing pre-determined positions.

        Think about it again – this story is not even one the defense is claiming in the case. yet to explain away physical- they are making stuff up. Its really sick. A kid is dead, and another man’s life is on the line as far as prison time, and they are just making things up like its entertainment.

        • Malisha says:

          AND do not seem embarrassed about how far-fetched their stories are becoming. They started off far-fetched and traveled from there away from center-story at a great rate, off on tangents of remarkable reach!

        • jodiwankanobi says:

          and don’t forget the witness said they were right outside his doorstep fighting so since when was trayvon shot up near the T….who pays those idiots.

        • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

          “A kid is dead, and another man’s life is on the line as far as prison time, and they are just making things up like its entertainment.”

          That’s the main problem I have with HLN, they’re treating Trayvon’s death as if it is a joke. They’ve made it out of a game show and added Frank Taafe’s Zimmerman’s friend who gets to disrespect the other guest and say whatever he pleases when he pleases, while the other guest are rudely muted by cutting them off to let Frank speak. They’ve even go so far as to switch to a commercial when they claim that they want to let the guest finish their comments. The prize is ratings.

          It puts me in the mind of how lynch mobs took pictures next to the lynched victims, desecrated the body by cutting pieces off for souvenirs, and pass around whiskey to celebrate it, which is definitely no joke to me. I had two uncles and one cousin lynched. Two of them were preachers. One of my uncles land had oil on it, and they wanted his land, so they killed him.
          Sorry, but I’m from the old school and some things are deeply embedded in my memory. I forgive quickly, and move on, but certain actions of people like those over at HLN trigger those memories.

          • Rachael says:

            Dang. I’m so sorry granny – and I’m really glad I don’t get HLN.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:


            I cannot imagine what it is like for you with those horrific memories of those lynchings of your family members.

            I hope you will write a memoir for your family that includes specific details so that the events will not be lost to history.
            (even to the name of the relative with oil on his land, his address and the name of person who took possession his land.) This also needs to be preserved in some history institution’s archives.)

      • racerrodig says:

        Sounds like Frank Taaffe is now a script writer for them.

        • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

          I agree! Not only that, he is the director and host. He is mainly disrespectful to females.

    • They are doing their best to save Zimmerman.

      • ay2z says:

        fightng for his life? He didn’t even fight for his life with Trayvon, two reasons fro that, he wanted to get a reason to use his gun, and there was no threat to his life.

        Still isn’t. His defense team will point out the poor guy is fighting for his life, wearing his vest each and every day to court.

  56. Sophia33 says:

    And so it starts…all day when I have checked this blog, it has been at 5 stars. Now it is gradually decreasing. Faux pointed it out a few days ago and Crane-Station pointed it out earlier today.

    • crazy1946 says:

      Bigots must sleep in and not get up early? If you don’t like the message kill the messenger is their motto, right?

    • Nef05 says:

      They’re all over the place. Also hitting the HLN polls. The After
      dark poll from Tues. was in favor of Trayvon when they aired it, but yesterday when I looked for Weds. poll, I noticed that Tues poll had skewed the other way, after the fact.

      Then when yesterday’s poll was released (was Zimmerman playing cop?), the poll skewed from Yes – in the afternoon when I saw it, to 70% NO – by air time.

      • crazy1946 says:

        Considering that Sundunce Cracker Head the purported owner of the tree sewer is a high ranking member of the Tea Party and a follower of the briebart garbage contingency are you even remotely surprised? Is that not pretty normal tactics from them?

      • Sophia33 says:

        I knew that there were a few trolls on HP. But I never expected this to be so rampant. It explains a lot.

        • lady2soothe says:

          @ Sophia… I have a list with over 350 names of trolls from HP. Hothead Paisan’s list is much longer than mine. Trolls on HP, that’s an understatement.

          • hotheadpaisen says:

            And I added more today. One of our more repugnant repeat offenders created a profile today called ‘fathead Paisen ‘. Made me happy. They only sink that low when your comments really slice and dice them.

          • lady2soothe says:


            As they say, you go girl! Got your own hate club! Congratulations!!!

            Lately I’ve just been observing without much input. You’ve given me inspiration, maybe with a little work I too can get my own hostile fan followers.

          • Sophia33 says:

            Well, HP is really the only place I post frequently. LetJusticePrevail and Me Mango (sp?) are nuts. I suspect that those two make up a good portion of the socks.

          • lady2soothe says:

            @ Sophia33:

            Racerrodig is totally convinced LJP is Papa Z, but in all honesty I think the whole family takes turns posting lies and vile comments under the same socks. Me Mango has admitted he’s Darkskiesrbest and I believe he is also part of the family. They all have multiple socks and spend 24 hr’s on line trading off fanning and faving their disgusting comments.

      • Malisha says:

        Normal people don’t spend hours each day voting in polls with sock puppets to change the numbers on stuff that makes no difference. They can’t change the jurors’ votes that way.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I’ve noticed that too.

  57. Valerie says:

    Here is what I would like to see tomorrow before the state rests:

    1) the clubhouse videos
    2) the crime scene explained to the jury
    3) bullet trajectory
    4) Fogen’s phone calls and text messages
    5) Trayvon’s family testimony

    • ay2z says:

      Happy 4th, Valerie!


    • Xena says:

      There’s no witness to testify about GZ’s phone calls and texts. If anyone he contacted or contacted him takes the stand for the defense, then the State can question about their communications during cross.

      Early on, the State added an expert to their witness list regarding bullet trajectory. Gilbreath, who testified at the first bond hearing about GZ’s statements, the bullet casing, and Trayvon’s body, will probably testify about the crime scene.

      More than likely, only Sybrina will present limited testimony that the screams captured on the 911 call is Trayvon’s voice.

  58. Xena says:

    @Professor. O’Mara has bluffed that he might not put on a defense. Last night before recessing, Judge Nelson said that the defense had taken depositions the previous evening at 5:30 and had depositions scheduled at 5:30 last night.

    Since the defense is taking depositions, it cannot be of their own witnesses. Could these be possible rebuttal witnesses for the prosecution and if so, does that give reasonable belief that the defense is going to put on their case?

  59. ZCBest says:

    Lest not forget, Fogen said in one of his interviews that he forgot that he his gun with him. You know, the gun that goes everywhere with him except for work. The one he always has. Well on 2/26/12, he didn’t remember that he always had it. He only remembered that when he saw/felt Trayvon going for it.

    • crazy1946 says:

      He also said he too careful aim so as not to hit his own hand, yet did not know if he had actually hit TM!

      • crazy1946 says:

        “TOOK” careful aim! I either need an eye/hand/brain transplant or a new keyboard, or all of them, wonder if I could just get a body transplant?

        • racerrodig says:

          The “….grabbed my firearm….aimed and fired one shot” then that pathetic shoulder shrug, which is saying in effect “…hey, what’s a decent American gonna do” is very telling.

          “Grabbed” which means Trayvon was NOT going for it. In Ostermans book, he said Trayvon had grabbed it between the rear sight and trigger guard. That word “grabbed” again.

          “…aimed…” In a desperate struggle, aiming does not enter into it…..pointing would…..aiming……eh, not so much. Of course, he had to avoid blowing his left hand apart…..

          I’d personally love an explanation as to how he pulled it out of the holster without getting any grass or dirt on it. We’ve done this experiment quite a few times and it can’t be done. If we do it in a way that is not part of Fogen lore, the pistol is full of grass & dirt.

          Of course the dirt issue can be lined up with the “I was on my back, shimmying my fat ass off but managed to keep my jacket and pants free from grass stains, so needless to say, my gun would remain clean as well”

          It’s that or he figured SheLie would whoop on him for creating more laundry, and I doubt that’s the case.

          • tonydphotog says:

            Since Fogen had a live round in the chamber of “the gun”, wouldn’t it be dangerous to put the gun in the holster?

  60. crazy1946 says:

    Hmmm, West sure seems to drink a lot of liquid, wonder if this is what he is drinking, sure looks like him in the film clip….

  61. crazy1946 says:

    I’m still wondering if the Fogdoit will take the stand? My opinion is that his ego will force him to. He still thinks he can just give that “cute little boy grin” and win anyone over to his side. Anyone who thinks that he has not pretty much controlled his defense needs to go back and watch as he hands question’s for MOM/Ice Cream Man to ask each witness, Mom/Ice Cream Man always come back to the defense table and check with him before ending their line of questioning with each witness, that is why he chose them to be his attorneys, I don’t think many other attorney’s would have sold their souls for the opportunity to represent him…. Then again perhaps he was right, “It is God’s Plan”, and he is too blind to see it…..

    • Sophia33 says:

      See, I think that his ego will get the best of him too. When he chuckled after seeing that Hannity video, I got a feeling that he would take the stand.

      After all, it was his ego that got him into this mess in the first place.

      • Vickis Smith says:

        Did GZ laugh more than once? The only time I saw him do this is after his former instructor (I think it was he) had said that you don’t have to wait until you’re half- dead to utilize self-defense (or words to that effect).

        • Xena says:

          @Vickis Smith

          The only time I saw him do this is after his former instructor (I think it was he) had said that you don’t have to wait until you’re half- dead to utilize self-defense (or words to that effect).

          Before that laugh, there was this ….

    • ay2z says:

      If his story is as he tells it, he should take the stand and convince ‘his’ women jurors.

    • I think he will take the stand also. I can’t imagine him ‘allowing’ 6 women to decide his fate without having had the opportunity to schmooze. Who knows, after hearing the evidence at trial, he may even make up an entirely different story altogether.

    • bettykath says:

      I agree that his ego might have him testifying. I hope he does. I’d like to hear his new account. 🙂

      • Malisha says:

        New Account:

        I have a really bad memory, from ADD. The reason I have ADD is that some really bad people kept distracting me when I was a kid. Did I ever show you a picture of me as a kid? See? I was really adorable, but I’m sure your kids are too. [smile] I love my children, even though they haven’t been born yet. I know you feel the same way. So you can really relate to this case.

        The guy I had to shoot was trying to kill me. The very next punch he would throw was gonna be the fatal one. That’s why I had to save myself. About all the rest of that stuff I said — I can’t remember it now. Because I have a really bad memory. But you can all relate to that because you’ve forgotten all those lies the prosecutors told about me.

        I really hope you have a great day. I’ll protect you. 😀

    • Puck says:

      The reason I can see him deciding to testify (and perhaps insisting even if his counsel strongly advises against it) is not only based on his willingness to talk to Serino and Singleton (he thought he was recounting an incident as a real cop would) and his going on Hannity, but also that he personally tried to contact Angela Corey, as if to convince her to withdraw the charges.

      • Not Angela Lansbury says:

        That, and he thinks he’ll catch the prosecutor unprepared. He could calculate that their decision to introduce his statements meant there was no need for him to testify, and so they wouldn’t have prepared to cross examination him because they’d calculated he would never take the risk. But he sees himself as a prototypical risk taker. I think you’re right. He will take the stand. And I think Mantei is waiting for him there.

    • Heck no. There is no way GZ will take the stand. That would be like 1st down and 4inches to the inzone with a bunch of girlscouts playing defense at the Superbowl.

      • crazy1946 says:

        Leroy Eugene Hudson, if we were talking about a some what normal person, I would agree with you. However we are talking about an individual (I can’t bring myself to call him a man!) who has an ego the size of Alaska, in his mind he can leap over small black people, climb over Mount Racist and still be seen as God’s Gift to Human Kind…… He knows all women are attracted to him, but needed a penis extension that he carried where ever he went, and knows all he has to do to win over the female jury is to give them his famous (in his mind) little boy grin and they will swoon and he will have his way with them….. Too bad for him that this is the real world and he is not a God…..

        • Sophia33 says:

          Alaska?! You jest! He has an ego the size of the entire country. That smugness. I feel sorry fro Trayvon’s parents and commend them at the same time. I can’t imagine having to look at someone be so smug after they killed their son.

          • Rachael says:

            I don’t know how they can sit in the same courtroom with him, I really don’t. I mean I’d like to say if it were my child, I’d be in that courtroom every day for him too, but honesttogod, I don’t know if I could really do it.

        • Malisha says:

          Crazy, you crack me UP! This is for you:

          “I don’t know karate, but I know Ka-ray-zee!”

          • crazy1946 says:

            🙂 There are two things in life that I have been quite successful at, the first is getting old (have not messed that up yet) and forgetful, and I can’t remember what the other thing is……

          • Rachael says:

            When I was born, God gave me two choices…I could either have a great memory OR be great in bed.


            Now I forgot what I was gonna tell you!

          • cielo62 says:

            Rachael~ LOL!! I’ll remember that one!


          • Malisha says:

            Rachel, oh no, I am using that one without retribution! 😆

          • Rachael says:

            Ah cielo, so you chose the good memory 😉

          • cielo62 says:

            Rachael- alas! Snoring is what I do best in bed. :/

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

    • cielo62 says:

      crazy~ Thank you. That’s been my argument for weeks! gz’s ego is the only thing bigger than his butt right now. I’m expecting him to take the stand. After all, it’s just 6 women, right? WOMEN that are NOT respected by gz, MOM or West. Yeah, I can see his ridiculous “charm” being turned on and every last one of them wanting to punch that smirk down his throat.


  62. breelee says:

    I’m driving myself crazy looking for a link someone had posted. I have a hard time clicking links as I read, because its hard to get back here, so I missed it.

    IIRC, it had to do with that treehouse lawyer wannabe that was going to blow this case wide open. Can anyone share it again if it exists? TIA

    And I agree with poster Fred on the last thread, the state needs to stop calling Trayvon “MR.”. He didn’t get the chance to become an adult, and I’ve never in my life called a child Mr. unless they were in trouble.

    • Malisha says:

      The Nuthouse guy who was gonna bust things open was Sundance Cracker or Sundown Cracker or Sundown Crackpot or something. Some creepy-ass cracker or other. He was in a florid manic state going down personally to Miami to get all the dirt on Trayvon Martin and his vast criminal enterprise. It probably included a jewelry-stealing ring that heisted the pink panther and stole the hope diamond and put them in a backpack, and maybe some pre-arranged future crackamurders or the like. He’s probably either down there playing pull-your-taaffe or back up in wherever he’s from writing trash about Trent or something. Completely out of his already misshapen gourd.



      • Puck says:

        Kind of like Donald Trump’s feet on the ground in Hawaii who had turned up something “huge” on Obama’s true place of bith.

      • Judy75201 says:

        His brood is STILL falling for his “bombshell” BS. It intrigues me that anyone can be so willingly lied to on a regular basis.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        i can guarandamntee you this is about as scintillating as geraldo rivera’s big reveal of al capone’s vault.

        • Rachael says:

          He sounded so paranoid and manic that last time, said he’d had no sleep, telling his followers to get a hold of the defense, that he was on his way down there, all this “explosive” information, I’m surprised he wasn’t called in as a bomb threat.

        • Two sides to a story says:

          I think one of the big revelations is supposed to be the piece of awning – whatever- that could have been used as a slimjim. Ages ago a rabid Fogen supporter told me he had inside info that Trayvon would be proven to be part of the burglary ring troubling RTL, which makes no sense whatsoever since Trayvon was from Miami.

          I would suppose that it’s most likely that the piece of whatever just blew into the shrubs at some point during a storm, but I also wouldn’t put it past Fogen or Osterman to plant it there or to have Jon or John or someone else – Jeremy? plant it, thinking this would lend a little physical authenticity to the story of Trayvon’s being up to no good.

    • Rachael says:

      It was the outhouse owner, Sundance aka Sundance Cracker who dropped the cracker when he found out sundance-cracker meant this:

      Actually, I don’t know that is really why, but he was sundance cracker for ever and then all of a sudden he wasn’t so who knows.

      But well, too hard to explain him or his site or his followers – but he owns the outhouse and is head refuse over there.

      • Not Angela Lansbury says:

        OMG that is the funniest thing I’ve seen all year!

        I’d be willing to bet this is a new entry at SoSlang, and that the “Cracker” disappeared from Sundance’s name shortly thereafter. Somebody did a “santorum” on Sundance Cracker!


      • PiranhaMom says:


        I don’t have the time to visit the CTreehouse but did so today, to see just how The Cracker maligns Sybrina. Boy, there are some poor excuses for breathing over there.

        Here’s an example of a post, quoting a comment in a previous post.

        “A day without sunshine is like, night.”
        That is soooooo profound.

        That was it, IN ITS ENTIRETY.

        Well, they don’t need more’n 45 brain cells because most of the cells are on permanent standby, anyway.

    • Nef05 says:

      Is this the one you were looking for? Did the original poster mention something about him going “national”? If so, this is the link.

      Try right clicking the link, instead of left clicking it. That way you can open the article in a different tab or open it in a new window, and keep your place here.

      Agree with referring to Trayvon as Trayvon, and keeping his status as a kid up front at all times.

    • crazy1946 says:

      Here is a little tidbit on the Sundance Cracker (head), do a google search on him for more. Actually the Professor touched base about this individual quite a while ago, might dig a little to find his information.

    • Vickis Smith says:

      The defense does this of course because they don’t want Trayvon thought of as a kid. I have seen this quite often in newspaper stories quoting the police who will call even a 16-year-old “Mr”.

      Wonder if it’s some sort of requirement for the state to do this?

  63. Puck says:

    It seems GZ supporters and some TV talking heads (even lawyers who know better) believe, or at least imply, that any inkling of doubt suggested by the defense — which have so far been almost entirely based on often ridiculous hypotheticals — constitutes ‘reasonable.’ The prosecution needs to overcome reasonable doubt, not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I believe they’ve done that (and will bring it all together in closing) through an overwhelming preponderance of actual evidence interwoven with implicit appeals to the jurors’ common sense. Our common sense is based on reason, not hypotheticals.

    • Judy75201 says:

      You have no idea how much this crap makes my blood boil. It is so easy to create “reasonable doubt”, and is a filthy dirty trick utilized by defense attys who don’t have a defense. BDLR needs to counter with, “is it reasonable to think fogen is innocent after all the evidence reasonably says he is guilty?”

      I believe (or hope) people have gained some sophistication about “reasonable doubt” due to the OJ and Casey.

      • Puck says:

        Is it reasonable to believe that the storage of the damp hoodie and sweatshirt in a plastic bag degraded GZ’s DNA but not Trayvon’s?

    • Xena says:

      The only thing that the prosecution has to prove is that GZ killed Trayvon. It is GZ who has an affirmative defense of self-defense. The prosecution has attacked that and proven that GZ was not in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm by his actions subsequent to killing Trayvon and his refusal to go to the hospital.

      GZ is the only person who can convince the jury that he had “reasonable” fear. O’Mara and Ice-Cream West can hawk all they want about “reasonable” fear in cross-examination, but unless GZ testifies, the jury will have nothing from GZ to test against the facts and evidence.

      • Puck says:

        Apparently, according to the pro-Zim lawyers (who claim to be neutral), in Florida the burden of disproving self-defense is on the state. I think they’ve done that, and will knock it out of the park in closing.

        • Xena says:

          @Puck. I agree. The State has proved beyond a doubt that GZ did not kill Trayvon in self-defense. What I asked the professor to address was the shifting burden when there is an affirmative defense. Non of the pro-Zim television or blog lawyers have addressed the shifting burden.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          @puck — i have even heard the state say that it is also their burden to disprove self defense. this conflicts with my understanding of the conventional ‘affirmative defense’, but perhaps there is some bizarre nuance of florida law that we have overlooked. if this is so (and i have no reason not to believe prosecution when they say so) it makes much more sense that they would tackle this head on and introduce the defendant’s self serving lies, even if it does give the judge reason to insert the ‘justifiable homicide’ instructions before the jury.

          • Puck says:

            Also putting to rest self-defense is Dr. Rao’s testimony. The doubt she conceded to that there could possibly have been internal trauma is not reasonable, especially when weighed with common sense and that GZ showed no signs of any brain trauma.

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            There’s a very good reason why the defense hit so hard at DD (Rachel), because she establishes that gz was on “patrol” which for him was illegal. Since there is no formal “on / off” duty for NW, he’s on whenever “duty” calls. He knows the rules, do not follow and don’t carry a firearm. Thus, he never should have gotten out of his truck! If he needed an address to meet the police, he should have drove back to the clubhouse and waited there PERIOD!

            The NSA who created the 14 hour course gz was required to take, also state that if you follow a suspicious person, you are not doing NW, you are a vigilante and you are on your own at that point. So, before gz got out of his truck, even just to look for an address, he should have secured his firearm in the glove compartment and left it there!

            If you follow someone and give them cause to fear for their own safety, the law does not require you to know the law, for it to be determined that you are breaking the law. Because gz did not identify himself and state his mission when he had the chance, Trayvon had every right to suspect that something illegal and awful was gz’s actual intent. Since you expect that people, who mean you no harm, and have no ill intent, to freely identify themselves if they have caused you concern.

            Thus gz maintained an aggressive and hostile stance towards Trayvon and that was a crime! While committing this crime gz cannot ask the law to convey cover for his enterprise. Which is why he should have stayed away from the person who he had frightened.

            I’m pretty sure that the prosecution is going to ask for an instruction on the stalking laws as well. gz’s self defense claims will go out the window with that.

          • The State has the burden of proof because the SYG statute places the burden on the State.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            kind of what i was figuring – it’s a florida thing.

            this would not be in effect in states which do not have such asinine legislation though, correct?

          • I believe all of the western states have always exempted the duty to retreat from their self-defense laws, including California.

            Because a homicide is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was unlawful.

            Since self-defense is the lawful killing of a human being and the prosecution has to prove that the killing was unlawful, the prosecution has to prove that the killing was not committed in self-defense.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            got it — thanks.

        • kllypyn says:

          those lawyers should also know that there is no justification for killing someone just because you get beat up. there are thousands of people in prison who can PROVE THAT.They seem to be completely ignoring the fact that trayvon tried to avoid this man. And trayvon had no weapons.

      • Puck says:

        I’m talking about the pro-Zim lawyers on DailyKos.

      • Rachael says:

        Wouldn’t “reasonable” fear have to come from a “reasonable” person?

        If you called police because you saw someone you thought was suspicious, looking around, looking at houses, then looking at you, like they were on drugs or something, had their hand in their waistband and were looking at you – as a “reasonable” person, would you get out of your car?

        If you seriously felt a black male youth was suspicious because he “fit the profile” of previous robbery suspects, is it reasonable that after you call the police you go after them?

        Does a “reasonable” person who shoots someone after being taken into custody not consult a lawyer? I’m not talking guilt or innocence here, I’m talking reasonable. Wouldn’t a “reasonable” person (regardless of guilt or innocence) consult an attorney?

        Would a “reasonable” person who is being charged with 2nd degree murder go on Hannity and blather?

        Nothing GZ did that night, a lot before and much after was reasonable.

        I think GZ would have said he was “reasonably” in fear of his life if he had walked into the 7-11 at the same time Trayvon was there and Trayvon would have said hi. Because that is how unreasonable GZ was.

        And there are a lot of unreasonable people out there. Look at Dimwattman at the outhouse who shows the video of Trayvon at the 7-11 and labels it where he believes the clerk is scared and profiling Trayvon and how Trayvon is swaying (Don’t fuckin Lie, MO’M – that came STRAGHT from Dimwattman and the outhouse). After he put that video on the site, there were lots of people who agreed that if they had seen Trayvon they’d have been scared of him.


        Is there ANYTHING reasonable about that?

        The clerk didn’t even remember Trayvon. He didn’t even know he had waited on Trayvon that day and when he was shown that by the officers, saw NOTHING “scary” or out of place or even remotely suspicious. Do you know how many people must come in and out of that store every day? Do you know how many “suspicious” people he probably really does see, yet he remembered nothing and didn’t even recognize Trayvon.

        But these “reasonable” refuse at the outhouse, and GZ, would have you believe that Trayvon looked suspicious…because…

        Because he was tall and wearing a hoodie – AND BLACK?

        So if a tall black kid in a hoodie says hi to you and this scares you, instead of staying put or going home and locking your doors and patting yourself on the back for what a racist – I mean reasonable person you are, you get out of the car, follow him, shoot him and say you were in fear for your life?

        What was reasonable for Trayvon? When did he get to be reasonable?

        If it was dark outside and someone was following you by car, then by foot, then confronted you, don’t you get to be “reasonable” too?

        Or is “reasonable” only reserved for white people?

        • Excellent comment. This morning we were discussing not so much race but gender. Personally, as a woman, if some unknown guy was following me, I would be afraid of him. Yup, I would run, hide and try to call someone.

          There is simply no reasonable angle I can come up with either, especially that weirdness where he sat on top of Trayvon and felt him up, after shooting him. Who does that? What reasonable person is calm, cool, and collected after killing someone? Who the hell feels around on someone they just shot?

          • Rachael says:

            Someone who wants to find a weapon so they can say they had to shoot him in self-defense – and barring that, blames it on the sidewalk.

            Maybe Mr. West should go West some time taking a depo from the sidewalk. The two of them would get along fine.

          • Boy is that guy ever Piled High and Deep. Makes me question my membership in the human race, breathing the same air as the likes of Don West and His Ice Cream Ilk.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            crane station says

            Personally, as a woman, if some unknown guy was following me, I would be afraid of him. Yup, I would run, hide and try to call someone.

            i fully expect the state to play this up in closing arguments, perhaps at the end. to ask each woman on that jury to consider what they would do should they find themselves confronted in a dark alley by a potential rapist who has followed them by car and on foot and is now face to face with. would they be scared for their lives? you bet they would! would they attempt to defend themselves? again, yes. prosecution needs to drive this home and make it personal.

          • A man followed me one time, 30 years ago. In a grocery store. I left the cart with groceries in the aisle, and ran home, to my apartment. I slammed the door and locked it. At that time, I was a gun owner, and I had a license to carry. In my home behind that door, I got that thing out (a Colt Python, ie a great big handgun)….He did not come through my door but if he had…

            I can no longer legally, nor would I choose to carry, but what I guess I am saying here is, this fear can be personalized, even for the woman/women on that jury who choose to own or carry a firearm.

          • fauxmccoy says:


            yupperz and i’m a big, strong gun owning woman myself.

          • So you see what I mean then. Because the mainstream media was spinning it the other way: gun owner=supporter of Zimmerman’s actions. This may not be the case at all.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            absolutely not — in fact, every responsible gun owner i know believes that this case is one that should be determined by a jury, whether or not they support the martin family specifically. all express concerns that an armed adult shot an unarmed minor.

            it is my belief that the gun owners who blindly accept all of the defendant’s statements as true have personal agendas which have nothing to do with this case what so ever.

        • Excellent points, Rachael! The jury should have no difficulty in determining that Sean’s voice set the bar of what a reasonable person would do in this case when he said, “Are you following him? . . . We don’t need you to do that.”

        • Xena says:

          @Rachael. (applause)

  64. Nef05 says:

    Happy 4th everyone! 😀

    Thank you, Prof. The proverbial penny has dropped. That clears up a lot of the concerns I had about tying all the pieces together, and clarifying to the jury a wealth of information that may be confusing to someone hearing it for the first time. The “summary” witness pulling it all together, then having that reinforced it with the closing argument, sounds a lot stronger to me, than pulling it together in closing argument alone. Especially since you’ve said before that opening/closing statements are not evidence. The picture is much clearer now, thanks!

    • Malisha says:

      When jurors get to explain to each other what things mean, they do very well because (a) the explainer feels like a genius and feels like she is teaching a class in “how to figure stuff out”; and (b) the others bond with her. Of course, there can be rejection and negative bonding and even TRAUMATIC bonding going on but in general, the process is a good one.

      I wish all juries would start with highlighters in various colors and each juror, before speaking with the others, would highlight what s/he thought was important in the transcripts. But who am I to say? There’s a lot of material here but it boils down pretty well.

      1. Fogen tacitly told NEN that he was gonna chase Trayvon down and not let him get away (also told NEN that he had really really good reasons to do that);

      2. Then he did;

      3. When Trayvon tried really really hard to get away, Fogen killed him.

      It ain’t rocket science.

      • Nef05 says:

        From your keyboard to the jury’s ears, Malisha. I hope that basic bottom line is exactly where the jury goes.

      • Yes, I agree

        The argument that it isn’t against the law to follow someone and following does not give someone the right to assault the person following them ignores the evidence here where the defendant aggressively followed TM in a vehicle, then on foot, and finally hunted him down with the intent to confront and prevent “this asshole from getting away.” All without ever identifying himself.

        That form of following is pure aggression and makes the defendant the aggressor, especially since TM attempted to get away, albeit unsuccessfully.

        Aggressors cannot claim self-defense and TM was legally justified to use reasonably necessary force to prevent the defendant from restraining him.

        Given GZ’s minor and insignificant injuries, TM did not use excessive force to defend himself.

        GZ’s use of deadly force was unreasonable and unnecessary, especially with a uniformed cop en route and due to arrive at any moment.

        Yes, I agree.

        “It ain’t rocket science.”

      • pat deadder says:

        Does the jury have to remember all the evidence,Surely they won’t have boxes and boxes of testimony in the deliberation room.Or can they ask for certain material.In which case if it is let known what they want to see that could give a hint as to the verdict.That could be the most excusiating time for everyone involved.

        • Rachael says:

          They will have the evidence with them to look at and listen to as much as they need.

        • Beverly says:

          And wasn’t the whole discussion/issue b/c West et al wanted the 4 day weekend? Hysterical, really, or ridiculous with a jury camping out in the hotel away from family/work etc. West is certainly a piece of work, as they say….

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

            Yes, West IS a piece of work Beverly.

            And, his questioning technique is so tiresome……He filibusters to try to tire out witnesses in an attempt to make them slip up. He tries to insert an “untruth” (maybe just one word) into his question to get an exhausted witness to say “yes”.

            Rachel would have none of this. West became exasperated.
            I loved it when West pitched his pen on the podium.

            By the way, I think it would be great if someone captured that moment in the video and put it on an endless loop in the same manner that someone did with Rush Limbaugh’s jumping:

    • cielo62 says:

      Nef05~ From reading as many posts I have done here, I can assure you are NOT the only one sweating the details! I, too, expected something like this but I’m glad the Professor laid it out on the table.


  65. SearchingMind says:

    Defense’s Troubles

    Excellent summary, Professor. I just put myself in the shoes of the defense and felt very cold. The Prosecution’s case is solid while the defense is in big trouble right now – ostensibly created by the prosecution.

    To prevail, the defense MUST:

    a. Show an alternative reading of the same evidence provided by the prosecution and/or

    b. Demonstrate that the evidence provided by the prosecution is not reliable (enough) to convict.

    Thus far the defense has seen a prosecution that threw several segments and pieces of ONE body of evidence out there WITHOUT commenting on them or saying how one connects to the other. Just like many of us here the defense (I AM CERTAIN) is also wondering and guessing what the prosecution strategy exactly is (O’Mara e.g. did not even figure out the relevance of GZ’s professors and decided not depose them or even attend their pre-recorded trial testimony until it was too late!). If the prosecution had commented on the evidence provided thus far or shown how one segment of that evidence connects to the other (“connecting the dots”), it would have handed the whole trial strategy over to- and laid prosecutors’ thought-process bare for the defense. That would not be the best thing to happen in any contentious case. The defense must now decide whether or not to present a case and what kind of case to present in order to do decisive damage to the prosecution case. But how do you do that if you don’t understand the prosecution’s strategy and thought-process? How do you defeat an opponent you cannot read and predict (to a reasonable extent)? This is a deadly Achilles’ heel for the defense. The defense has only ONE shot (in presenting its case) and will not get a re-do. Once the defense case is out there, retreat is NO LONGER possible. The defense is then dangerously exposed to a devastating shark-attack. Expect the prosecution to do that in their rebuttal case (i.e. presentation of evidence “to CONTRADICT, IMPEACH or DEFUSE THE IMPACT of the evidence offered by an adverse party.”). The trap is set, while BDLR, Guy and Mantei lie in ambush -waiting. Will O’Mara and West dare take the bait and walk into that trap? We will see …..

    Connecting the dots

    Mantei (I expect) will do the closing argument for the prosecution (everybody gets 1$ each if I am wrong). He will use power point to again sum-up and present the evidence and “re-connect the dots” for the jurors – in de most elementary way. Expect a very solid, calm, dry, chilly, masterful, professorial presentation (without the passions and emotions of BDLR and Guy).

    • crazy1946 says:

      SearchingMind, good points and well presented. One small point, if Mantei does not present the closing argument, then you can donate my portion to the “RJ College Fund” that has been suggested on this blog by several people, and if he does, I will donate to that fund. I’m not sure at this point who is handling this fund, but I suspect that someone will furnish that information for us….. Have a wonderful 4th….

      • SearchingMind says:

        I most definitely will. I do not engage in online transactions but will figure out a way to donate that 1$ and also make my own personal donation.

      • vickie s. votaw says:

        Crazy1946, someone suggested Rachel’s lawyer , I went to his fb page & many people want to help her, he said that he would check & see if he could do these things. One lady offered counseling. I left him a private message asking to be notified when they do get the fund set up.

        • crazy1946 says:

          vickie s votaw, Thanks, if y’all will keep us advised as to what is going on with that, I am sure that there are many of us on here that will participate to the best of their financial ability.

        • PiranhaMom says:


          Joining you also in the Rachel College Fund; looking forward to Vickie keeping us posted. A career counselor will be excellent for Rachel – she has so many strengths I hope she gets educated for a career that best serves her – because I know that will best serve the community at large.

          I hope to see those beautiful soulful eyes on the national stage in future. This young woman SPEAKS TRUTH TO POWER!

          • cielo62 says:

            P-Mom~ Actually I was hoping more like an emotional counselor. She is still grieving and no doubt harboring great guilt as well. This would traumatize anyone. I wonder if she’s spoken to anyone about it?


          • g2-63e57774c065abc26e22a9c7b2ea012a says:

            agreed,throwing cash at a mourning 19 yr old,wont give her inspiration imho,schooling or a career will give her CONFIDENCE

          • vickie s. votaw says:

            Cielo62, this may end up in the wrong place, I hope not. The lady who offered her counseling was a “real” counselor, not a life coach. I believe she has the qualifications to help Rachel. I haven’t heard back from her lawyer, but when I do I will repost all information he gives. It would be so exciting to help her the way the lady that got bullied on the bus was helped.

          • cielo62 says:

            Vickie- thank you! Money is great and all, but I worry about her emotional state. Unmerited guilt is terrible.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

        • mallisha offered that we must wait till after the trial is over,because,they could raise speculation of $$$ for testimony…i have called the college and am waiting for a reply.Next week seems like the proper timing

          • cielo62 says:

            Katie~ I would MUCH MUCH rather that the fund be run by Rachel’s LAWYER and for HER to pick where she wants to spend that fund. I do not approve of forcing a “fund” on OUR terms. Sounds like bullying to me.


          • fauxmccoy says:

            cielo says

            Katie~ I would MUCH MUCH rather that the fund be run by Rachel’s LAWYER and for HER to pick where she wants to spend that fund. I do not approve of forcing a “fund” on OUR terms. Sounds like bullying to me.

            agreed, this sounds more like katie fulfilling her dreams than rachael defining her own.

          • sadlyyes says:

            it was not my idea to throw cash at this young woman or her atty. i was thinking of education,be it at the wonderful community colledge there(near her home) or cosmetology school,that was MY idea,if you know a better idea than do it.

        • sadlyyes says:

          keep me posted
          katie o grady at shaggy dog farms at g mail

          • sadlyyes says:


            fauxmccoy says:

            July 4, 2013 at 8:43 pm

            I have 8 yrs at University,thats enuf

    • bellesouth says:

      Yes, the defense is going to have a hard time disputing the facts in evidence which include Zimmerman changing his story every which way. He should no longer be considered credible.

    • gbrbsb says:


      A lot of what you say makes sense because otherwise there appears to be no rhyme or reason to the defence’s case which has yet to give even an inkling of where they are going or what they intend to show or argue.

      I do have a question about your point a) i.e. something the State MUST do to prevail.

      I have always thought that to counter any “reasonable doubts” which could arise the State would need to give an alternative narrative that fitted with at least much of the evidence, but some resident posters here have pulled me up on this, explaining that the state doesn’t have to provide any alternative for anything, merely demonstrate that what GZ claims happened was not possible. So are both valid and possible legal strategies and merely dependent on the strategist behind them?

      • SearchingMind says:

        @ Gbrbsb

        A reasonable “alternative” presupposes the existence/presence of other alternative(s). If in this scenario the State presents ‘one’ reasonable alternative interpretation of a set of facts, the defense could- and will present another reasonable interpretation of that same set of facts. That would mean reasonable doubt and acquittal.

        The State must present evidence that – taken together – allows only ONE reasonable interpretation. The word “reasonable” is key.

        • gbrbsb says:

          SM, sorry to trouble but my for some unknown reason my ip address is apparently being flagged up as spam by the spam guard so for the past two days any comments I make unless replying to a blogger’s reply to me on the notifications page they do not register on the page.

          According to WP the owner of the blog has to approve (accept) at least one of my comments in the spam box and I will be free. It worked on Xena’s so she knows what to do. Xena, Faux, Cielo I think they’ve all emailed the professor to no avail.

          You may not get this and it may not work either but I am posting to as many as bloggers I can because if you all reply to any of the professor’s or Cranes’s posts with my plight I could be vocal again.

    • cielo62 says:

      Searching Mind~ MASTERFUL summation!


    • PiranhaMom says:

      @Searcher –

      Wow! I had not considered this:

      “Mantei (I expect) will do the closing argument for the prosecution (everybody gets 1$ each if I am wrong). He will use power point to again sum-up and present the evidence and “re-connect the dots” for the jurors – in the most elementary way. Expect a very solid, calm, dry, chilly, masterful, professorial presentation (without the passions and emotions of BDLR and Guy).”

      Searcher, this would be brilliant! Mantei is smooth with PowerPoint so there will be no fumbles by the prosecution in its presentation. Nobody wants the distraction of technical glitches in its final argument.

      Would a hard copy (paper copy) of the power point be available to the jurors if they request it? Dynamite checklist!

      Another great plus in choosing Mantai – the guy is so very likeable! It’s hugely important that jurors like the attorney. He’s not only likeable, he’s cuddly (to the older women) and a contemporary of the younger. They will all relate to him in some way, and they will TRUST him.

      Mantai’s also a smiley guy – naturally. He was bubbling with exuberance and literally bouncing on the balls of his feet as he was arguing the motion to present the college instructors/school registration official/LE execs re Fogen’s cop wannabe aims. A joy to watch an attorney loving his job!

      And I’m personally indebted to Mantai for putting what I consider “the straw that broke Fogen’s crumbling esteem” — the fact that the Stucco Guys, of all people, got HOA cred for apprehending the burglary suspect just a couple of weeks before Fogen hunted down Trayvon for the kill.

      Not only did Fogen feel that his “right to applause” was denied him, the HOA board told him to put out a congratulatory e-mail to all the residents, with kudos for the Stucco guys’ crime-fighting prowess! (Note: I’m capitalizing the S in stucco because that’s how Mantai wrote it in his power-point. I loved it!)

      Thanks for your help and wisdom this past year. Searcher. You did a ton of research in support of Professor Fred’s efforts and wrote your presentations with clarity and verve. You have my boundless admiration. Affection, too. I expect you’ll have a long and illustrious career. You’re definitely someone who will make this world better. THANK YOU.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      veddy eenterestink — i like it and can see it unfolding before my eyes 🙂

      thanks, as always, searching

  66. Frederick,
    Do you have any idea of what is going on with Rachel?

    West crossed her for hours until she stumbled on one question he asked about a question she asked BDLR by claiming she never asked it.
    Followed a brief discussions about impeachment.
    She was sent back home pending JN decision.
    I thought there was discussions about bring her back later from Miami.
    Then there is nothing anymore. Was she impeached?

    • Malisha says:

      A witness does not get “impeached” like a president gets “impeached” or a judge gets “impeached.” The word simply means that the witness’s testimony was considered not credible — but the question is “by whom”? Surely people who started off with a prejudice to not believe Rachel Jeantel would claim that her testimony was “impeached” and just as surely, those who were able to carefully watch, listen to and assess what she said would consider her testimony very credible. I believe if this were a trial by judge rather than by jury, Judge Nelson would find Rachel J’s testimony credible. But that’s not the main issue; the main issue is the jury’s take on it.

      She was told she was still considered a witness and might be recalled to the stand because the defense might want another go at her. It was, in my opinion, just a way to punish and demoralize her for not caving in to West’s pressure. Thugs.

      • crazy1946 says:

        Malisha, I think it was also used as a means to prevent her from going to the media and telling them what she thought about her treatment by the Ice Cream Man! Everyone seems to forget that it is the defense that has put this case so much in the media and they were/are fearful of losing even a tiny bit of the media to the other side. The way the defense has treated this case is similar to the way that the Fogdoit treated Trayvon, however their bullets are words and attitude. Fogdoit murdered Trayvon, and the team of Mom/Ice Cream Man/Fogdoit have tried to murder justice!

    • I don’t believe she is coming back.

      Whether she was effectively impeached depends on whether the jury believes her.

      Impeachment happens anytime a witness is confronted wit a prior inconsistent statement or their credibility is challenged during cross or by the testimony of another witness.

      Impeachment is effective only if the jury decides that the witness isn’t credible.

      • So, if I understand well, JN will no give the jury instructions concerning Rachel.
        That said, she’s been crossed by West but no re-direct happened. Shouldn’t it be one?

        • SearchingMind says:

          Jury instruction will among other be given re the believability of ALL the witnesses. This is standard.

          Redirect did happen. Re-cross also took place. Bernie rightly saw no need for re-re-direct.

    • SearchingMind says:

      Dee Dee completed her testimony with success, was excused but may be recalled if the defense wants her to testify again. The defense may NOT recall Dee Dee for the purpose of impeachment. There is also a Motion for protective order filed by the State against West re Dee Dee. The situation is a messy and I can’t predict what will happen in the future without reading the Motion. In any case, the defense must show good cause before any recall of Dee Dee to the stand.

      • bettykath says:

        I thought the defense objected to her being excused. Are motions for protective order available for us to read?

        • Puck says:

          I believe she’s still under subpoena and subject to recall. To do that would be beyond the pale after what Westingtime did to her.

          • Vickis Smith says:

            West went to those extremes in ridiculing her because she was, indeed, credible.

            What is sad, however, is that most likely the jurors will be more focused on the language she described Trayvon’s using, and that the difference in culture will win out over sincerity. This is a jury of all-white women. I heard that at least 2 jurors seemed to agree with West’s comments about Tray’s description of GZ.

            God forbid that poor young lady will be called back to the stand.

        • Xena says:

          What Ice Cream West wanted to do was question Jeantel as a defense witness during the State’s case in chief. Judge Nelson wasn’t going for it. The defense’s requests for the judge to be “lenient” with Rules is an insult to the judicial system and outright disrespect of law.

    • Rachael says:

      that doesn’t mean they will all be called

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I’m intrigued and it’ll be interesting to see what the defense will do. Do they think they’ve disarmed the State’s arguments well enough to simply call one of Fogen’s family to claim the screams and then rest? Or will they also call other witnesses in an attempt to embroider Fogen’s claims further?

        They may be damned if they do and damned if they don’t. I’m loving it.

        I find it very curious that most Fogen supporters and the MSM are predicting a victory and I think this is akin to the claims that Romney would win the presidential election.

        • Puck says:

          re: the Romney thing — I wrote a bit about that in another thread. What I’m seeing with the Zidiots and talking heads and whoever else suggests that GZ will be acquitted fits squarely into the theoretical model and concepts I developed for that huge sociology paper I wrote on the Tea Party/Obama-era right-wing following four years of intensive research. The similarities — especially the dismissal of actual facts in favor of their own ‘facts’, such as the unscientifically ‘unskewed polls’ that predicted an imminent Romney victory — further supports my conclusion that this is a psychosocial phenomenon of collective delusion that is found among Tea Partiers and the like.

          • Two sides to a story says:

            Wthis is a psychosocial phenomenon of collective delusion that is found among Tea Partiers and the like”

            Yes, I agree. I’ve visited the Fogen support sites off and on throughout the trial and no matter what happens, they seem to spin everything that happens in court to fit “their facts.” We all do this to some degree, but it’s extreme in their case. It’s hard to wrap my head around the fact that they’re watching the same case unfold. West is still the secret weapon and magically casts doubt fairydust on the prosecution’s arguments . . . Fogen was assaulted by a thug and defended himself, ad nauseum.

          • MedicineBear says:

            Oh, BRAVA!

        • Vickis Smith says:

          This is one Mormon who didn’t vote for Romney NOR for Prop 8!

    • bettykath says:

      The one I want them to call is Frank Taffe. Maybe John and Jenna.

    • Woow! says:

      It appears MOM listed all of the states witnesses and SPD. I see Bill Lee and Norm Wolfinger are listed. I hope he is stupid enough to call them as witnesses.

  67. diary73 says:

    Not Angela,

    I was concerned at first about the prosecution’s decision to play GZ’s statements, but they really had to. The fact that Judge Nelson allowed GZ’s statements to cameraman Jon and to Officer Smith somewhat opened to the jury that GZ claimed self-defense. It was out there, so the state had to address it aggressively.


    • Not Angela Lansbury says:

      Thank you, Diary. I agree Fogen’s statements to Jon Manilo and Ofc Smith might have been enough to prompt a self defense instruction so the jury could consider it, but I don’t believe it would’ve given the jury a justification of Trayvon’s killing the way Fogen’s police statements did. IOW, Malino’s and Smith’s testimony might have offered a *claim* of self defense, but not the *story* of self defense any reasonable jury would demand. Without those statements, Fogen would’ve been required to tell his story directly to the jury, and his credibility would be destroyed on cross exam. It’s possibly still standing in the minds of some jurors right now. If Fogen is acquitted, it will be in no small measure due to this pointless error.

      • PYorck says:

        But he is not technically required to provide a complete story. I agree with Diary. As soon as he got a bare-bones self defense claim in there was a risk that he wouldn’t take the stand. GZ’s cross examination would have been the ideal moment to get his statements in, but if that might not happen, they had to do it during their case. GZ’s lies are simply among the most powerful evidence in this case.

        I would have loved to see them discredited more strongly and obviously, but this is much better than nothing. This going to the jury without any evidence of of his lies would have been a disaster.

        • Good point.

          With the burden to prove murder 2 and disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, they could not risk resting without putting in his lies.

        • Not Angela Lansbury says:

          I agree with the Professor. That is a very good point, and I thank you for it.

          Perhaps I am crediting more of Rachel Jeantel’s testimony than anyone on the jury will, but I felt her account would have forced Fogen to take the stand to rebut her in the absence of his police statements. Even with all the difficulties of her testimony, she clearly painted Fogen as the aggressor throughout. That easily trumped the bare claim of self defense as recounted by Manilo and Smith. Fogen is the only one who claims Trayvon attacked him, and he would’ve had to take the stand to make that assertion in the absence of his statements to police.

          But you are right. I myself would rather pray for jury nullification than take the stand in Fogen’s shoes, regardless of the evidence against me. And as the Professor notes below, the state couldn’t risk losing the use of Fogen’s prior statements. Still, I think they shorted Rachel in that calculation.

          • Vickis Smith says:

            Rachel’s testimony was heartbreaking for me- she is so misunderstood. Now of course she couldn’t have known who pushed whom, even though she believes she did, but the rest is quite credible. I hope the poor girl gets some help after the trauma of knowing someone she cared about was killed virtually immediately after she talked to him. And if they had had an argument during their several conversations (I never saw the texts) can you imagine her grief?

          • Cercando Luce says:

            Rachel Jeantel has had 16.5 months to think about what happened to her friend while she was speaking to him. I am glad Rachel outlasted Don West’s humiliation marathon. If Zimmerman was innocently defending his own life, why does his defense attorney need to harass Rachel for hours? West knows Rachel is in the right, as does Rachel. That’s why West, the experienced attorney, lost his temper twice while cross examining her.

            Maybe, even if they’re all bigots, the jurors in the course of Rachel’s hours on the stand came to understand her friendship with Trayvon. They heard about Trayvon visiting her neighborhood to play basketball and ride bikes, and they heard over and over, that he was afraid of the man watching and following him. Following him. Following him.

        • PiranhaMom says:

          I hope the prosecution tells the jury that they should believe that Zimmerman fired in self defense ONLY if he testified to that (because his attorneys’ words are not evidence) and ONLY if they ALSO believe that he was NOT following Trayvon, that he was looking for an address because SEAN/311 told him to, even though it is not on the recording that is EVIDENCE; and ONLY if they believe Zimmerman saying that his head was smacked on the concrete multiple times WITHOUT any transfer of Zimmerman blood to Trayvon’s hands or clothing — or the sidewalk itself, and ONLY if they believe Zimmerman’s claims that his head/nose/mouth could be repeatedly smashed by Trayvon WITHOUT getting blood on Trayvon’s hands and clothing, and ONLY if they believe that Zimmerman’s eyes were filled with his own blood during that “beating” despite the fact that SPD Officer Wagner’s photo shows no blood on Zimmerman’s face above the nostrils; and ONLY if they believe that Zimmerman never heard of “Stand Your Ground” — ya’ know. if they believe ALL THAT STUFF, they can believe Zimmerman’s claim that he was “in fear for his life” — but he’s gotta get up and say that to the jury.

          Yes, jurors, if you want to believe THE BIGGEST LIE OF ALL, you have to believe ALL THE BIG LIES.

  68. Not Angela Lansbury says:

    All of us here have been in the weeds of the evidence for a year and know Fogen is guilty without question. But at this point, I won’t be surprised if a Sanford jury finds enough doubt to acquit him.

    I can’t for the life of me understand why the state would introduce Fogen’s statements and let him skate from taking the stand. With the exception of John Guy’s masterful opening statement, it just seems the prosecution has phoned it in. They could have done more with just about every witness. They’ve put on a preponderance of evidence case so far, and we haven’t even seen the defense’s case yet.

    If they had ANY thought of resting yesterday, with all the remaining evidence of Fogen’s guilt left on the cutting room floor, they’re either grossly incompetent or throwing the case. I’ve watched every hearing and have witnessed the skill of this team. I’m a Florida resident well acquainted with the ferocity and talent of Angela Corey’s office. So I don’t know what to think at this point. But something in the milk ain’t clean.

    I hope my perception is off, but that’s what I see. I’d appreciate an alternate perspective from those who think the case has gone well.

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      I really think prosecution is doing a good job, NAL.

      Those videos and audio’s full of gz’s lies and absurdities will be grasped easily by the jury. Don’t forget the jury will have access to them during deliberation.

      You can’t have better evidence than gz’s dna/blood NOT being on Trayvon’s hands and lower sleeves = no punching, head bashing, nor smothering = gz intentionally killed Trayvon.

    • Nef05 says:

      The Professor’s article cleared up a lot of concerns I had that are similar to yours. The “summary witness” was the piece of the puzzle I had been looking for. I was concerned because I believed the “connecting the dots” part was going to be done through closing argument, yet the professor has previously stated that openings/closings are not evidence.

      A summary witness’ testimony is evidence and will be considered by the jury. It will tie in the other witness’ testimony to what we know and the jury doesn’t. From what I gather all (well, maybe not all, but certainly the most pertinent) evidence not yet explained will be given to the jury through this witness. The pieces of evidence entered and not explained, an explanation of what the DNA reveals, the conflicts in fogen’s statements, the demonstrably false statements, etc, should all be pulled together into one narrative – first by questioning the summary witness then by reinforcing it to the jury in closing argument.

      Don’t forget, in between the summary witness and the closing argument, the prosecution will be destroying any defense witnesses on cross examination as well. BDLR is really good at cross examination. I, personally, think it’s his greatest strength. And, they get a rebuttal case, before closing arguments, assuming the defense mounts a case.

      • Vickis Smith says:

        To the moderator: I put forth a lot of thought and effort into this; I hope you will do me the courtesy of allowing it to post.
        “Reasonable doubt” is still very much in the picture, even with the lies that GZ has stated. This is if the Prosecution doesn’t change its focus. I will address this after the first part of the post.

        The jury will probably be instructed that fear of extreme bodily injury or death is enough- that in actuality, the defendant didn’t have to have sustained a single injury, All that is necessary for a not guilty verdict is for the jury to believe that fear, alone, of the above was reasonable. Both of these young men would have had cause to believe this because of the circumstances leading up to the struggle and the gun’s being exposed.

        A thinking juror will probably come to the conclusion that GZ lied about the severity of the beating because he was afraid that he might be arrested otherwise; seems his studies didn’t cover that law. The evidence is solid that all blows thrown in this fracas were by Trayvon and those injuries were no fun, even if not terribly serious. Maybe men would consider GZ’s injuries minor but a jury of six women are not likely to. I certainly wouldn’t consider them nothing.

        Because of the nature of the issue there is, of course, bias. You are bound to have different beliefs re the jurors, but as this is an all-white jury, there might very well be a bias towards GZ. Like it or not, damaging negative information is out there on Trayvon and maybe all of the jurors have seen it. The texting about wanting a gun doesn’t help either.

        What should have been brought out is that even though it is legal to follow someone, following here must be taken in context of the situation; yes, in-and-of-itself it is permissible, but there is certainly enough evidence that Trayvon felt pursued- not merely followed- and that when GZ reached into his pocket Tray had every right to stand his ground and punch him as he well could have thought GZ were reaching for a weapon.

        Tray’s background growing up in the neighborhoods he did has to be taken into account: what else could he have thought other than this was a racial issue, since he had no conviction of guilt? He had been doing nothing wrong, even if in GZ’s mind he was acting suspiciously.

        GZ was at fault for not recognizing that Trayvon had good reason to run from him because of his (GZ’s) actions, and not because he had intent of engaging in wrongdoing.

        GZ went into a darkened area, not knowing whether or not his “suspect” might be lurking in wait; GZ could have had his gun taken from him, been shot, with his “suspect” even shooting any witnesses he might have spotted. Taking a gun into that scenario was criminally irresponsible,

        There is little doubt that Trayvon asked him why he was following him and that GZ replied with his own question “What are you doing around here”; he certainly had enough time to have stated he was part of neighborhood watch at that time. Now maybe Trayvon did ask him “What’s your problem, Homes?” but it would have been after the other questions. GZ conveniently left out this interchange. I believe what backs this up is the witness who claimed she heard voices arguing as they went up a path,

        Lack of common sense and criminal irresponsibility- negligence- is what led to GZ’s using that gun, even if at that time Trayvon had made a futile effort to get it. If Trayvon’s blows were out of fury of being profiled (certainly in his mind) it is quite understandable.

        As far as who might have uttered that horrible scream (I am sure that that the other cries were GZ’s) there are good reasons for it to have been either one (although I lean to GZ): yes, it’s true that the scream purportedly ended immediately after the shot which would be considered evidence that it was Trayvon, but if GZ were, indeed, in terror as Tray were reaching for the gun, that scream could well have come from him– it does match with Trayvon’s alleged comment”You’ve got a piece, you’re gonna die tonight”; the pulling of the trigger could have been the shock to stop the yelling, even if a second or so later GZ wondered if he had actually missed, since Tray was still upright and had said “You got it (or me)”.

        The bottom line here, is that GZ irresponsibly set in motion a scenario that ended in the death of Trayvon Martin; that Trayvon could have been in as much fear for his life as GZ claims he, himself was as we cannot know exactly when Trayvon saw the gun.

        No, I don’t think GZ had any intent of killing Trayvon- GZ’s shock in finding out at the police station Tray was dead was a perfect example of a mental block. I do not believe that GZ laid hands on Tray first, either; physical confrontation he has had with women, and he merely shoved that police officer years ago when he was drunk. But as I stated earlier, Tray had every reason to punch him in self-defense when GZ (as he stated) went reaching into his pockets.

        I really do believe the Prosecution has gone about this case all wrong.

        • cielo62 says:

          The problem with your scenario is that includes AS FACT a ton of stuff ALREADY DISPROVEN! Trayvon did NOT land any blows as their were no defensive wounds nor bruises on him or GZ. The bullshit about one photo on Trayvons phone (that wasn’t admitted as evidence BTW) is totally false. Trayvon died fairly quickly and NO WORDS COULD HAVE BEEN SAID with his heart blown up and his lungs collapsed. Trayvon did NOT reach for the gun since his DNA is nowhere to be found. Sorry but your scenario is terribly and incredibly flawed because it does NOT take the stated evidence into account. Good thing Bernie is the prosecutor. With you GZ would surely escape to murder once again.


          • Cercando Luce says:

            Think of how many times the charming Ted Bundy was let go (sometimes talking his way out of situations), because really, who can believe a person would ever kill anyone– thus enabling him to kill another innocent person. It was the same for the less charming John Wayne Gacy (a successful businessman, pillar of the community, etc.).

            Defendant killed, lied about his actions, has a history of violence, AND HAS NO REGRETS! He told the world. He laughs in court upon seeing his Hannity appearance, and upon hearing his former professor’s little jest about deadly force. I hope he creeps out each and every juror so that they conclude that he would kill again, given the chance.

          • Vickis Smith says:

            Cielo, your reply to me doesn’t make sense re blows landed: are you suggesting that Trayvon never hit GZ?

            Also, re the collapsed lung: many months ago I read a comment by someone with medical training (at least he claimed such). He was responding to someone’s claims that Trayvon couldn’t have said anything after the shot; he gave a technical explanation as to how he could have done so immediately afterward. GZ stated also he heard Tray groaning after GZ had jumped on top of him.

            RE DNA: I saw an expert on one of the talk shows state that DNA is not always transferred- far from it; he said it’s a common myth. And remember that the witness who testified on this stated that there was mixed DNA on the holster.

            But the skirmish never would have happened if GZ hadn’t gone into his pockets for his cell phone; Trayvon almost certainly had to think he was going for a weapon. Trayvon had every right to hit him- it would have been crazy not to.

            GZ might have been merely following in his own mind, but there is no way that Trayvon wouldn’t have felt pursued. GZ’s instincts and judgment were extremely flawed: going into a dark area when your “suspect” might have seen you get out of your vehicle and been waiting to surprise you. GZ realized that he could have been around because he didn’t want to give his address to the police dispatcher as he stated he was worried that the “suspect” might be within earshot.

            Even so, GZ didn’t allow himself reasonable worry- he just charged ahead. But we have to remember that this wasn’t a deserted alley where this happened- there could have been many witnesses at that hour and the struggle took place near many of the condos. GZ would not have gone out to “get” someone right after having spoken with the police and in an area likely to have multiple witnesses.

            Reckless and irresponsible behavior by GZ resulted ultimately in the death of Trayvon Martin; if the jury can be convinced of this, then even IF GZ had had to use the gun to save his own life, he still could be held criminally responsible for Trayvon’s death. To me it seems it would be far easier to convince this particular jury of this beyond a reasonable doubt than it would be to convince them that it was unreasonable for George Zimmerman to think that he was in danger of death or imminent severe injury. Again, it is pretty difficult to convince a jury that it is unreasonable that George Zimmerman could have believed this.

          • Xena says:

            @Vickis Smith.

            But the skirmish never would have happened if GZ hadn’t gone into his pockets for his cell phone;

            If not but for the fact that GZ got out of his truck to follow, and did follow Trayvon, the two would not have come into physical contact.

            In like manner, in the Trevor Dooley case, State of Florida prosecutors argued that if not but for the fact that Dooley left his driveway and crossed the street to where David James sat because James mouthed off at him, the two would not have come into physical contact. James physically attacked Dooley first, but the jury found that James saw Dooley as a threat.

            The jury in the Dooley case decided that Dooley was the initial aggressor according to law, and convicted him.

          • cielo62 says:

            Vicki’s- no I am saying, based on the autopsy report that NO ! Trayvon didn’t land any blows. The crap you quote was NOT presented to the jury, unless MOM is planning on putting on an actual defense and mention your none sense about the non transferability of DNA. The moron with the “medical training” stated the Trayvon could have been CONSCIOUS for up to 2 minutes but NOT that he could talk or move. The groaning was air escaping and certainly no “you got me” BS. you cannot argue using points NOT in evidence. Most of the stuff you mentioned came from other sources and not from admitted evidence. Again, either not paying attention or a troll.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Well said cielo62, just a little clarification if I may. When Dr. Bao said he had 1 to 10 minutes of life left, he wasn’t talking about useable life, he was only talking about clinical life. Obviously if Trayvon could have moved at all, he certainly would have had, getting his face out of the wet grass, high on his list of priorities.

            “Clinical life” only holds meaning for a heart surgeon in the midst of a well equipped and fully staffed operating room, with a heart lung machine ready to go. 3.5 to 4.5 minutes without oxygen and the brain tissues undergo irreversible damage. But with a damaged heart and lungs, it’s doubtful that even if he had been shot in that operating room [envisioned above] that he could have been saved. It would have been a real horse race with the surgeon cutting corners enmasse.

          • cielo62 says:

            Lonnie- thank you. I posted this last night Dr Bao testified. The only movement possibly seen were involuntary muscle spasms or death throes. Certainly no talking, moving it walking.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            In case you need a more “folksy” ending for: “It would have been a real horse race with the surgeon cutting corners enmasse.” simply substitute: “It would have been a real horse race with the surgeon cutting corners like a mother!” That way you needn’t sound so scholarly. Hee hee hee.

        • Xena says:

          @Vickis Smith. You do realize that much of what you think the prosecution should do or introduce is speculation? When GZ said that he was “on him” when taking the shot, how could he not know Trayvon was dead? Additionally, if he believed Trayvon was not dead, why didn’t he call 911 for an ambulance? GZ had a functioning phone because he used it after killing Trayvon, so why not call for an ambulance?

          Those residents who said they were calling 911 said so before GZ fired his gun. The least he could have done is yelled out “someone call for an ambulance.” Not GZ. He told Hannity he would do nothing differently; that he would still get out of his truck.

          • Two sides to a story says:

            Fogen just denies knowing Trayvon was dead because he thinks it adds some sparkle to his story.

          • Xena says:

            @Two sides.

            Fogen just denies knowing Trayvon was dead because he thinks it adds some sparkle to his story.

            It was a CYA attempt to avoid arrest for murder. That is why Jonathan’s testimony was important, because it helps establish that GZ admitted shooting Trayvon including what type of gun he used.

            Two, when Smith arrived and asked “Who shot him?” GZ did not say, “I fired my gun but don’t know if I hit him.” Rather, he said “I did.”

          • Vickis Smith says:

            I wish some folks would read what I’ve said more carefully- I NEVER suggested that DNA doesn’t transfer- what I did say is that it doesn’t transfer as often as so many people think- which comes from watching crime shows that don’t always portray reality.

            Is anyone suggesting that Trayvon didn’t break GZ’s nose with a punch? Where do we think the injuries that GZ sustained came from?

            I am looking at the “danger” of reasonable doubt here: it is a lot easier to convince jurors in this case that GZ was way out of line-whatever his motivation- when he followed someone as he had, to the degree he had- who had done nothing criminal- (GZ hadn’t called 911 initially because of this)- a lot easier I would think, then to try to convince 6 white female jurors from that area that GZ is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

            How could anyone with any training not recognize that Trayvon might have been running NOT out of fear of being caught as a criminal, but, rather, out of fear of GZ? His taking a gun into that darkened area created very possible danger to him, to any innocent bystanders, as well of course to Trayvon. He was aware that the “suspect” might be within earshot so he didn’t give out his address to the dispatcher, yet he leaves the vehicle with the gun holstered. He could have been jumped by his “suspect”.

            If this had happened in a deserted area where there were not likely to be witnesses I could well-understand how people might think that GZ might have entered the scenario with gun drawn. The fact is that GZ knew that the police were on their way and that there could be several people outside in that area- or even inside, looking out, This is where reasonable doubt comes in- that he would have committed murder (rather than something such as negligent homicide or whatever charge would fit).

            I have tried to make the point that even if he shot Trayvon defending himself, it did not rise to the legal theory of self-defense because of his actions leading up to the final moments.

            Look, I’m a relatively-intelligent 74-year-old lady who has, indeed, been paying attention- however I have missed some things. My precious little Yorkie died of a brain tumor and I have been going through a lot. I have been trying to catch up but as I said, might have missed some things.

            If I see the word “troll” suggested about me again, I will withdraw from the dialogue. I am going through enough without being attacked because my opinion is different from someone else’s.

            We are letting ourselves in for a bitter disappointment I’m afraid, when we let our emotions about the case overrule the ability to look at how others might view something as controversial as this case is.

          • Xena says:

            @Vickis Smith. You didn’t answer my questions. It also seems that you have not watched trial. You do know that the PA who treated GZ said she could not confirm a broken nose, right?

            When you begin on a false foundation, you lose what is built on it. Also, you present that a hurt nose (broken or not), justifies killing a person. It definitely does not apply to GZ’s case because his reason for unholstering his gun was not because his nose was hurt.

          • Vickis Smith says:

            Xena, are you suggesting that I believe that an injured or broken nose by itself justifies killing someone?

            I am also confused by someone’s comment that nothing was mentioned so far in trial as to how GZ sustained his injuries?

            It is critical for the Prosecution to emphasize that GZ’s actions after the initial non-911 phone call to the police were criminally irresponsible. And since it’s virtually impossible for Trayvon to have thought this was anything else but racially-motivated, it would be very understandable that Tray would be angry and then some. GZ brought this upon himself.

            The jurors have seen that GZ indeed, has injuries and they are going to be thinking about gang-bangers- it doesn’t matter that this wasn’t brought into the trial. We would also be kidding ourselves if we believed that the jurors aren’t aware of the negatives out there on Trayvon- the “gangsta” poses. I only pray that they will look at this case from quality evidence rather than what they’ve been presented with outside of the courtroom. And remember, today the prosecution’s ME witness stated that Trayvon’s behavior might have been affected by MJ ingested earlier that day. The fact is that GZ’s zeal to achieve his goal- the police’s questioning Trayvon- resulted in actions that are totally unacceptable.

            Look- we all I think are convinced that Tray acted in self-defense when he hit GZ after GZ went into his pockets for his cell phone- that, at the least. But the problem remains that if the jury believes this but that GZ also was acting in self-defense (if nothing else, fear of serious injury or death) then they will go for acquittal, unless the Prosecution can negate his right to claim such,

          • Xena says:

            @Vickis Smith.

            Xena, are you suggesting that I believe that an injured or broken nose by itself justifies killing someone?

            You’re the one who said GZ’s nose was broken.

            I am also confused by someone’s comment that nothing was mentioned so far in trial as to how GZ sustained his injuries?

            Try to remember who and then you can respond to them.

            As far as the rest of your comment, it comes from a speculated or false foundation.

            And you still didn’t answer my questions.

          • cielo62 says:

            Xena- didn’t Vicki’s promise to leave if we called her a troll again? TROLL!!

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Xena says:

            @cielo62. Now, now. Be nice. 🙂

          • blushedbrown says:

            Now you know Xena, out of all us sisters, Cielo can be a hand full right? LOL

          • Xena says:


            Now you know Xena, out of all us sisters, Cielo can be a hand full right?

            A little catnip and a bouncing toy — uh — let me change that. I have to research how to calm a lion. LOL!

          • blushedbrown says:

            Ummm fresh red meat? LOL

          • cielo62 says:

            Blushed Brown Xena- I love you both! >^..^<. I'll behave. I think a break from this trial is in order. Good night, dear sisters!

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • blushedbrown says:


            Good Night my sweet little crazed lioness of a sister. I love you too.

          • Xena says:

            @cielo62. Meow. purrrrrr. I hear ya! Think I’ll turn in early too. Today was a great day for war in court! Prosecutors kicked booty. All that shouting and cheering and agreeing has tired me out.

          • Xena says:

            @blushedbrown. Ahhh. The she-lion was just trying to get up a hair-ball. LOL!!! But, I do think you’re on to something about fresh, red-meat. What about a nice fish? 🙂

          • blushedbrown says:


            Ah yes a niece piece of fish might do. LOL

          • cielo62 says:

            Xena- once again I get territorial. >^..^<

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Xena says:


            Xena- once again I get territorial. >^..^<

            What works better after a territorial challenge – bleach or vinegar? 🙂

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            @Xena: I get the impression from reading this reply, that someone is neither making sense and/or twisting? Surely I must be mistaken?

          • cielo62 says:

            Lonnie~ Vickis has been frustrating. ‘sigh’ Can’t tell if it’s a woefully uninformed poster or a slick troll. I’m not as delicate as Xena.


          • Vickis Smith says:

            @cielo I am neither.

            I am trying to figure you out: I come here, making it crystal-clear that I am worried there won’t be a conviction; I lay out a logical argument that would stand a good chance of conviction, and you suggest I’m a troll?

            I have seen a number of mistakes on this blog, but were I to enumerate them, I would be attacked. I have corrected a few. One example was taking seriously Rachel Jeantel’s remark about GZ’s possibly being a rapist when she had just been joking. Another was that the nose wasn’t broken when what was stated was that GZ hadn’t suffered a deviated septum.

            George Zimmerman went into a darkened area following after his “suspect”- he took a gun with him. In talking with a police dispatcher he didn’t want to give his address out as he stated that the “suspect” might be within earshot.

            Trayvon had to have thought he was being pursued, and when he confronted GZ with the question “What are you following me for”, GZ answered “What are you doing around here”. Neither answered the other’s question- GZ had the perfect opportunity to identify himself but he didn’t. What he did do, was go into his pockets to find his cell phone (he admitted to the reach and it is reasonable to think he was reaching for his phone). That reach into his pocket gave Trayvon the right to punch him- and as I said previously, he would have been crazy not to- GZ could very well have pulled out a weapon .

            Everything that happened after that – and before- from the time he started to follow Tray on foot (or even the earlier following)- everything that led to Tray’s shooting -was caused by George Zimmerman’s irresponsible actions. Even if GZ had had to shoot Trayvon before Trayvon could get the gun- even if GZ weren’t lying- was GZ’s fault. It was criminal disregarding what must have crossed his mind- that just maybe Tray was running from him out of fear of him- not out of consciousness of guilt aw Tray had done nothing wrong.

            Had GZ been right about Trayvon, this could have led to the death of not only GZ, but of innocent bystanders, had his “suspect” indeed jumped out of the bushes and hit him over the head, found his gun, shot him and any potential witnesses.

            We cannot know when the gun was spotted by Trayvon, but if he attempted to get it before GZ could, in a situation like this, he would have been justified. Following might not be illegal, nor questioning the person you’re following, but the circumstances must be considered: GZ might have been defending himself at the end, but this does not meet the legal definition of self-defense.

            I just hope the jury will understand this and will base their verdict on the the facts and not on personal bias because of the area in which they live.

          • cielo62 says:

            Vicki’s- what is there to understand? The biggest amounts of misinformation came from YOU. At this stage we know what the evidence is, where the evidence is, and what the jury will be allowed to see. Again, you spout off pure BS of “what ifs” that have ZERO basis in what has been presented to the jury. I think the rapist theory is legitimate. Why else call him crazy assed cracker? Jeantel explained that means pervert. There was no broken nose, there were no bushes, no way for Trayvon to even see the gun to try to reach it, I mean, you are full of Shyte!

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Vickis Smith says:

            Cielo, I don’t engage in hurling insults.

          • cielo62 says:

            Vicki’s- maybe not insults but pure unsubstantiated bullshit. Read up or shut up.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Vickis Smith says:

            If you expect any dialogue between us, you will refrain from insults and scatological language. You seem quite capable of expressing yourself without either.

          • cielo62 says:

            Vicki’s- and yet you seem INCAPABLE of using the current evidence, reality or physics. I’d say you have the greater handicap.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Vickis Smith says:

            Tell me, Cielo- of what handicap did I accuse you?

            Re “physics”: can you elucidate?

          • Xena says:

            @Vickis Smith. What you are worried about, concerned about, and speculate on, has been discussed here many times over. We’re talking about trial now, and Leatherman has opened several new pages to continue discussion but you’re camped out on this one regurgitating.

          • cielo62 says:

            Xena- ewwww! Still, if the shoe fits …..

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Xena says:

            @cielo62. Right now, I’m tired of trying to be helpful to her. There’s a pattern developing of claiming ignorance when she’s faced with substantial comments that she cannot address. If she doesn’t know how a blog is laid out to follow it, and if we ignore her, maybe she’ll go away.

          • cielo62 says:

            Xena- now THAT’S a plan! Sink or swim. See you tomorrow! >^..£. Bed ear instead of bed head 🙂

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Vickis Smith says:

            Xena, I do not retreat from “substantial comments (I) cannot address: if I attempt to address them I am attacked. I have had to hold back at times because were I to answer, it would look as if I were in Zimmerman’s corner.

            I came to the site with idea that ideas could be discussed- I did not come to a pro-Trayvon Martin site as a pro-Zimmerite trying to make trouble.

            Obviously you don’t want to hear my reasons- you probably think you know what I would say (re GZ’s not physically initiating this- well, I can pretty-much guarantee you you would be wrong- dead wrong.

            Obviously those of you who have responded think I have nothing of value to contribute. I had a number of questions I had hoped to have answered. I had missed some material and my online searches hadn’t produced any answers.

            And re the blog layout, Xena- this is different from others- I had to do a ton of scrolling at times to find a “reply” button. This is nothing like the Susan Boyle blog, the Michael Jackson blog, or several others- not to mention the political or religious ones I have visited.

            Good night.

          • cielo62 says:

            Vickis- wow. The deeply intellectual Michael Jackson blog. This blog has a home page. On the right side is a list of both topics and threads written by the professor. You could try to educate yourself by st least reading the relevant threads. People on here have been reading, arguing, developing theories for over a year. Your “questions” are easily answered by you doing some homework and keeping to the topic at hand. Trial has started. The focus is in what has been presented. No more room for “what ifs” and yet you insist. Sure. What if a typhoon starts during trial; will GZ get a mistrial? Interesting but not probable. Don’t get into what ifs about the jurors. All if that is irrelevant to what we can see the prosecution and the defense doing during court. The duhfense is bringing some hot shot forensic specialist to try and salvage GZs claims. His track record though includes losing some very high profile cases, most lately the Scott Peterson trial. Focus today on what he could possibly say to convince a jury that GZ acted reasonably, or that somehow magically Trayvon WAS able to lay down a lethal beating without gathering a speck of DNA in his hands or clothes.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Vickis Smith says:

            “Vickis- wow. The deeply intellectual Michael Jackson blog. …”

            Re your comment: This was during the time of MJ’s death: my husband had been approached by MJ’s father and one of his sisters- each wanted him to ghost-write a book.

            You had the same kind of emotionalism there: some came to bash MJ, some were not sure the doctor should be blamed for everything, but most felt about MJ as most here feel about TM. They felt MJ had been murdered, and they couldn’t stop singing his praises. To most of these people he was a demigod. I got sick of watching people’s tearing each other apart.

            Susan Boyle? Same kind of thing- those who loved her and praised her good and kind nature, those who bashed her for losing her temper and/or her talent, those who thought she was a mental case. Got very nasty there as well.

            And in all these blogs- and others- as well as chat rooms- you have the cliques, the bullies, the peacemakers, the trolls…

          • cielo62 says:

            Susan Boyle? Lost her talent? She has a beautiful voice. I have all her CDs but do not follow her career. There is a new thread for today’s afternoon hearing. Trial should be wrapping up in a little over an hour, if they stop at 5pm EST. you can skim what’s happened today. Lots of pro z buddies who swear its him screaming on the 911 call. Pathetic.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Vickis Smith says:

            Not lost her talent, but said she had very little to begin with. She is fantastic! Not only that but very kind and charitable- a wonderful person.

            I haven’t got the last one yet, but I got to see her in person! I actually got to within 3 feet of her- this was right after her performance. They tape the stars separately from the live competition (she was a guest on American Idol at that time).

            I talked to Piers Morgan for a few seconds, but didn’t approach her as much as I wanted to- the experience was obviously overwhelming to her and I didn’t think it would be right. She is in some ways quite fragile.

            I read her book, too. She’s been through so much…

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            As I’ve posted elsewhere, gz’s claim that Trayvon should not have been frightened by him following, he does not take into account that Trayvon has to worry that gz may be a terrible pervert and sadistic child molester. The kind we see on television so often, who follow and capture young boys to molest, torture and eventually even kill.

            gz has done nothing to cause Trayvon to abandon such fears. So, why should gz’s one sided view be accepted without any cause for doing so having been given? Trayvon was being followed for reasons unknown by a stranger, in the dark and in the rain, by car and then on foot. How is he supposed to know that this is being done for the neighborhoods safety?

            Of course, he can’t know what the reason for this is, so he can only imagine the worst! His own safety demands it. He has to expect that a pedophile or other pervert has come prepared to overcome and capture himself and he is unarmed. So, quite logically he should be freaked out of his mind!

            When gz catches him, he has to expect the worst, and sure enough gz has no peaceful explanation of what he is doing, thus Trayvon is rightly terrorized.

            Nor is what gz is doing anything innocent! By the time he reaches RVC, if that is where he really went, it is beginning to rain harder and harder, yet gz does not hurry back to the shelter of his truck, instead he goes south in the pouring rain, seeking his victim!

            If that was him screaming as though he was being terrorized, it was not because of anything Trayvon was doing with his hands. Therefore it could only have been a pre planned cover, to make it appear to witnesses, that gz had a reason to shoot his unarmed victim.

            Without a reason for gz to be screaming like that, the jurors can only conclude that it was part of a ruse to cover up his intent to kill the child.

          • Vickis Smith says:

            Xena, are you saying that there are other threads for discussion? I came to this one because of a F Leatherman post that initially went to my spam file, and asked to be able to post my feelings; Prof Leatherman didn’t email me back suggesting that my comments were off-topic.

            I would like to find the place where I can explain why I believe it’s unlikely that GZ initiated physical contact (not impossible, of course). As you know I believe Tray was attempting only to defend himself.

          • cielo62 says:

            Xena- leave her in the dark!

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Xena says:

            @cielo62. Right now leaving her in the dark is all I can do. I have work to do. Several times now I’ve tried helping her understand how to get notifications of comments and how to reply so they are nested in the right place. She’s still putting her comments wherever she pleases, and now says she didn’t know that Leatherman has posted new pages. (sigh)

          • cielo62 says:

            Xena- LOL! She’s a lost cause. BTW I’ve been enjoying your videos! The sweating one was good! Mantei was good also. I loved how he called GZ a liar to his face! Keep up the great work! Hoodies up!

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Xena says:

            @cielo62. I loved it when Mantei went through GZ’s story that Trayvon jumped out of the bushes, then he didn’t jump out of the bushes but was standing about where you are, then he wasn’t standing about where you are but as I was going back to my truck, he came towards me.

            Then the part; meet me at the clubhouse; no, meet me at my truck; no I’m not going to meet you, you find me when you get here.

          • fauxmccoy says:


            i particularly loved the following

            “if in fact, he was going to Target” and
            “i would submit that NONE of them are true”

            🙂 i have watched him put forth this argument as many times as i’ve watched guy’s opening statement. as stated previously ‘i need an intervention’.

          • Xena says:

            @fauxmccoy. I’m working on putting segments of Guy’s opening statement with Mantei’s argument against the JOA. Then you’ll only have one video to watch. 🙂

          • fauxmccoy says:

            sweeeeet, baby!!!! 😀

          • Vickis Smith says:

            @Xena- when a post arrives at my email, I post back to it, I remembered you stated I should use the @ symbol which I did when I saw a post to which I wanted to respond while I was on the site. This time to you I put the “@”, even though it says to leave a reply to you.

            I told you that I have a severe case of Tourette’s Syndrome. I explained there is :”blanking”- this comes with confusion as well. I have been to many blogs- Michael Jackson’s, Susan Boyle’s, and several others. None are laid out like this one. I have had to go through dozens of posts at times to find a “reply” button.

            It suddenly occurred to me what you must mean by “pages”; every time F Leatherman writes on a topic (example, Hobson s Choice) this must be a “page”. Again, all I have done is click “reply” when some comment is sent to my email that concerns a previous post of mine. What else was I supposed to do?

          • Xena says:

            @Lonnie Starr. Suspicious — yes. Diverting? Yes.

          • Vickis Smith says:

            I wish I could remember what questions were asked.

            I see Zimmerman as a man devoid of common sense, a self-deluded screw-up cop wannabe. I do not think he would commit murder- if he thought of the killing as murder.

            Yes, he lies to others- but he also seems to do the same to himself.

          • cielo62 says:

            Vickis- you did not LISTEN to Rachel. He was equally afraid that GZ was going to rape him, as in a pedophile attack. Why would Trayvon automatically think that his attacker was stalking him racially? You still insist on talking like a troll. Those “gang banger” pictures you mentioned are NOT evidence nor have they been mentioned. WHY you give them any weight at all shows your bias NOT what the jury has to consider. NO the marihuana usage was NOT ALLOWED in court. In the trace amounts present, it seems he had last been exposed to weed was some 2 weeks prior. AND FINAL POINT weed makes someone MELLOW As in not wanting to attack anyone. I’ve given you my benefit of a doubt. Begone troll.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Vickis Smith says:

            Cielo, I am talking about TODAY s statement by the ME that Tray s behavior could have been influenced by the MJ use. The ME said he had changed his mind about this, along with his revelation that it was quite possible someone who had had similar bullet penetration could have lived and suffered up to 10 minutes.

            ALSO, you apparently aren t aware that MJ can act quite differently with juveniles.

            Are you always this judgmental and unkind, Cielo? You know nothing about me but are very quick to jump to conclusions.

          • Xena says:

            @Vickis Smith. Don’t take it personal. It’s just that you’re choosing to discuss things that Judge Nelson has ruled won’t be admitted into evidence — and there’s a trial going on. That’s where most of us are now — involved in the trial; not rumors, unsubstantiated claims, or even opinions about evidence that by order of the court, shall not be admitted at trial.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            @vickis smith who says

            Cielo, I am talking about TODAY s statement by the ME that Tray s behavior could have been influenced by the MJ use. The ME said he had changed his mind about this, along with his revelation that it was quite possible someone who had had similar bullet penetration could have lived and suffered up to 10 minutes.

            that info from the ME re: the MJ occurred during a special hearing for which the jury was not present. i’m not understanding your issue unless you did not understand the absence of the jury for that discussion.

          • Vickis Smith says:

            Dang, I don’t remember what I posted! Does this site ever show the question and then any responses?

            I’m trying to think back- was explaining that now the ME believed that Tray’s behavior could have been affected by the MJ. I tuned in as the hearing was in progress- thought it was part of the regular trial. Why would the commentators suggest that the ME had blown it for the Prosecution if the jury never heard it? In addition to stating he was a terrible witness, the comments were that Sybrina Fulton should have been the last witness- the one the jury would remember over the weekend. Did he testify or not? Or was it just that that part of his testimony was left out when he did testify?

            We have certainly had some memorable witnesses.

            I also missed the 2nd day of Rachel Jeantel’s testifying- I read that the twitter conversations were much kinder towards her- and that West asked her if she were OK because she was much quieter. I loved her response- it was because she had gotten some sleep. Perfect answer!

            I read that there was some sort of fund being set up for her education to help her find a good job: I would appreciate any info on this as I am interested in contributing something. I wonder if the school or anyone ever offered her grief counseling?

          • Xena says:

            @Vickis Smith. If you do not subscribe to receive follow-up comments via email, you can come to this blog, do a Ctrl F, and a search box comes up where you can search by your name and see if there are any responses underneath your comment.

            I read that there was some sort of fund being set up for her education to help her find a good job:

            First, I think there is an assumption that she wants to go to college and cannot afford to do so. Second, Jeantel is entering her senior year of high school in the fall. Third, there’s an assumption that she is unemployed. That assumption also concludes that Jeantel is poor. She gets her hair and nails done. That doesn’t sound like poor to me.

            Wanting to help others is a gift, but some things should be verified before assumptions are made based on stereotyping.

          • Vickis Smith says:

            I do subscribe but info will prove helpful; thank you.

            Re Rachel: I was addressing a future position: I was under the impression some other people were familiar with her situation and wanted to help.

            I seriously doubt that she is getting any assistance for the traumatic experience of Tray’s death. If there is no public assistance offered her, this can cost a good deal of money, as you know.

            Re getting hair and nails done– haven’t had hair done professionally since I lived with my parents and have no idea of the cost. As far as nails are concerned I have never had mine done either, so have no idea of the cost, either. I don’t know how anybody can stand the fumes in those salons- I tried waiting for a friend once or twice but 5 minutes was too much, Very toxic.

            Good grief- it’s 2:45 am-
            Good night.

          • Vickis Smith says:

            By MATT GUTMAN (@mattgutmanABC) and SENI TIENABESO (@seniABC)
            May 15, 2012

            A medical report compiled by the family physician of Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a “closed fracture” of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.

          • Xena says:

            @Vickis Smith. Seems like rather than going after ABC for a small portion of Jeantel’s interview, O’Mara should have been going after GZ’s purported medical report “exclusively” obtained by ABC. The one he provided to the State says “likely broken” about GZ’s nose.

            So, is O’Mara and West throwing GZ under the bus, or maybe that purported medical report “exclusively” obtained by Gutman is a lie?

          • Vickis Smith says:

            Cielo, Rachel said that when she joked about GZ s possibly being a rapist Tray told her not to play with him. He was hardly afraid of that. Tray was a 5 ft 11 teen, not a little kid.

            There is nothing funny about child molesters. When I was 4 I was kidnapped. The man tied my jacket around my head and his belt around my neck. Had it not been for a man looking for lost golf balls in the ravine where he d taken me, I wouldn t be here today. Although it is 69 years later I still remember it clearly except for blanking what he looked like.

          • cielo62 says:

            Vicki’s- for the millionth time NO. THERE WAS NO BROKEN NOSE. NEVER WAS. NO EVIDENCE OF IT. NONE. The issue if his nose boo boos have been covered extensively but the prosecution didn’t offer one other than to say that it was IMPOSSIBLE that Trayvon caused it. Everything points to GZ carrying an overloaded gun in a residential area and that he did it with great frequency. Yes he was quite capable of murder in his neighborhood. I don’t think the jury is going to have a hard time seeing that all.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Why do we have to answer for where gz’s injuries come from? First of all they are minor. Second of all they are not caused by Trayvon, unless you can explain how he caused these injuries without using his hands? Just having injuries means nothing at all unless it can be shown who caused them. gz has failed to even prove that he had a broken nose. He refused to have it medically assessed and documented. So, as far as the rules of evidence are concerned, all he has is an unsubstantiated claim. Meaning he could just as easily claim to have a broken leg besides.

            If you know how dna works you’d know that even if Trayvon just touched gz’s hand, he’d have gotten gz’s dna under his nails. This is because dead skin cells are sloughing off the body all the time in great numbers. If you grab someone’s wrists then make a fist you going to put their dna under your nails, it’s that simple. If their wrist slips out of your hand, then your nails are going to collect dna.

            gz’s wounds had to come from some where other than Trayvon. And you can’t go into a court of law and expect undocumented claims of injuries, like a broken nose, to be entertained if there’s no supportive corroboration. So the best the defense can say is “gz thought that he might have a broken nose”. However, even today he could go get an xray and, if his nose had been broken, it could still be diagnosed even today a year later. Yet he has still made no attempt to do so. See the point?

        • elle says:

          I would recommend you look up the symptoms of shock, cuz fogen did not have them. He had no stress reaction whatsoever.

          • elle says:

            This was for Vickis.

          • Vickis Smith says:


            Of course I came into this not being aware of where the discussion was at the moment.

            What I was trying to do was to explain my worries that the jury wouldn’t necessarily base its verdict solely on evidence presented in court. I was also worried that at least some might feel that some of the physical evidence had been compromised either accidentally or intentionally. Putting damp clothing in plastic is just one example.

            From what I understand, I believe the judge hasn’t ruled out the possibility of allowing in the ME’s newest “revelation” that Trayvon’s behavior may (or may not) have influenced his behavior. I would certainly hope not since it is irrelevant: Zimmerman caused whatever happened.

            I do want to bring up one thing here re why I believe Trayvon might well have thought he was being racially profiled: in the area where he lived, as well as in Sanford, there is bad blood between Latinos and blacks, as well as between black and white: I am talking about gangs especially, as well as the neighborhoods they frequent, It’s often rivalry for territory, of course. You can always look up racial tensions in Sanford as well as surrounding areas.

        • hotheadpaisen says:

          Amazing that people looking from windows knew Martin was dead, but the guy who shot him point blank in the heart did not? Seriously GZ said he didn’t think the kid was even injured after he shot him in the heart. Do you believe that absurdity as well?

          • Nellie Nell says:

            Yet, Trayvon laid in the same spot with no movement while GZ walked to the T, made a phone call, Jonathan walked to where Trayvon laid and snapped a couple pictures, the police show up and order him to show is hands, but GZ did not know he was dead after the shot that blasted through his heart.

            Sadly, I know a woman that stabbed her boyfriend in the heart during a fight. She said that he grabbed his chest and said her name in the form of a question of surprise and then he died. He was not able to speak an entire sentence or raise his hands. Clutching ones chest seems to be an involuntary response to such trauma. Anyone that believes that Trayvon sat up, raised his hands and uttered a full sentence is in denial. IMO

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            Dr Bao is a mess as a witness, I guess he never testified in court before? He was asked for Trayvon’s height, he gave the weight and then launched into a lengthy narrative. He did make a mention that Trayvon couldn’t speak when he was shot, but you had to listen real closely and carefully to hear it. He goes on at length about how Trayvon probably lived for anywhere from 1 minute to 10 minutes after he was shot. Bernie had to come back and clear up that the Dr was talking about his brain being alive, not that he was awake and able to perform.

            The Dr doesn’t seem to be able to translate his knowledge and findings into language that a lay person can understand. So Omar discovers that Dr. Bao has written notes so he gets to stall things while the clerk makes copies and distributes them to read over the lunch hour.

            Bernie is going to have to be on his toes to extract the required information from him. Meanwhile Omar and crew are going to make a mess of his testimony and he won’t be able to stop them. He wants to give rambling technical narratives, instead of just answering questions. Oy Vey!!!

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            He was holding onto Trayvon’s sweat shirts when he fired the shot. Obviously he had to feel Trayvon go limp and fall away. So he’s lying! A person who has not been hit does not go limp, fall to the ground and lay face down in wet grass. gz needs to create confusion because he’s not seen tossing the body aside as he would if he had been on the bottom. So having Trayvon still alive and kicking after the shot, helps him explain why the body wasn’t face up. As if Trayvon could have turned himself over so gz could get on his back.

            Trayvon’s lungs would not immediately deflate, it would take perhaps 20 seconds for that as the air seeps out of the lungs. But with a hole in his chest, his diaphragm could not move air forcefully in or out, so he could not speak at all. If he could try to inhale or exhale all that would happen is, air would go in and out thru the hole in his chest as his lungs continued to deflate.

            My guess is that the shock of having his heart torn apart would probably have resulted in immediate loss of consciousness. The shrapnel that tore through his lungs would be so terribly painful, if alive he would be unable to speak through the pain. Not that he could with a hole in his chest anyway.

            But, as I said, with gz holding onto Trayvon by the clothes he was the first to know that he had killed Trayvon.

          • Vickis Smith says:

            GZ couldn’t handle what he’d done- so, as the human brain often does, it protected itself by denying reality. GZ had nothing to gain by pretending he didn’t know Trayvon was dead (which he had claimed during questioning)- it would make no sense to anybody. Again, I am not talking about immediately after the shot, but his comment to the investigator at the police station-reality block.

            GZ says it was “God’s will”- another defense mechanism- this way he doesn’t have to face the guilt he cannot handle. I don’t think anybody realizes that he wasn’t relegating this comment to Trayvon’s death, per se, but everything that had transpired- which includes this trial.

            He knows he had the time to identify himself- he knows that he did, indeed, seem to have the time to ask (or accuse with) the question “What are you doing around here?” . He knows that he purposely left this part out of his interchange with Tray. He is dealing with having killed someone which is bad enough, but the fact that it was someone barely 17 certainly causes more pain and guilt, since he probably realizes how badly he handled everything. He has to realize that Trayvon’s punching him when he (GZ) reached into his pockets was certainly in self-defense- Tray did not jump out of nowhere and “sucker-punch” him- he asked why he was being followed.

            I only pray the jurors can see the sincerity of Rachel and recognize the truthful testimony of that very important interchange that GZ has never owned up to: “What are you following me for” and “What are you doing around here”.

          • Xena says:

            @Vickis Smith.

            GZ says it was “God’s will”- another defense mechanism- this way he doesn’t have to face the guilt he cannot handle.

            GZ said “It was all God’s plan.” That makes him and Trayvon puppets and places blame on God.

          • Vickis Smith says:

            Xena, people who ascribe everything to “God’s will” tend not to think things through. They tend to equate God’s allowing things to happen as being His will. When I have such a conversation with someone, I ask that person if he/she has children. If yes, then I ask, have you ever allowed your child to do something that you actually didn’t want him to do, knowing that the result would be an unhappy one, yet knowing it would be a learning experience? Children (including God’s) have to learn the consequences of their actions, often causing their parents as much or more grief than they, themselves experience.

            And for George Zimmerman to believe this, he has to believe that what has happened to him is God’s will as well.

            I agree with you re our being puppets were this really the case- and if puppets, then we cannot be held responsible for our actions.

            BTW, I have trouble at times finding the appropriate post to which I need to respond. Frustrating.

            Xena, I have a severe case of Tourette’s Syndrome, which, in my case, includes off-the-wall OCD, fear and terror attacks, and “blanking”; I’ve never been able to be employed because of this- very frustrating, Going to a blog where people are “intense” about their beliefs can be very unnerving for me. Sometimes people can be quite hurtful.

            When I attempt to reply to a post, especially if accused of something, it’s as if 100 thoughts simultaneously appear, wanting expression: I feel as if I need 100 brains (and keyboards lol) to answer. It can be a bit overwhelming, to say in the least. I cannot stand to be misunderstood- the OCD goes wild. Add to this chronic insomnia…

            I have to think whether or not I’m up to this at this time (or any time for that matter (sigh).

            Perhaps I ll just audit for awhile dunno…

            BTW, Xena was one of my favorite shows =)

          • Xena says:

            @Vickis Smith. I don’t want to discourage you from posting here. However, since this blog gets hundreds and sometimes thousands of comments on one page, unless you address a comment to someone (such as @Xena) there’s a good chance that it will not be read by who you intend to read it.

            The easiest way to navigate any blog without doing so through email notifications, is to go up in the “nest” of comments until you see “reply.” Even if that “reply” is under a comment of someone you are not replying to, it’s the only way to get your comment in the “nest.” Then the “@” let’s readers know who you are responding to.

          • Vickis Smith says:

            BTW, re the Facebook photo… it s of my husband when we married 36 years ago. : )

          • Xena says:

            @Vickis Smith. UH??? When did we talk about Facebook? I don’t have a Facebook account.

          • Vickis Smith says:

            Xena, it seems I log in through Facebook. Someone referred to me (vickis) as more than 1 individual. To clarify things I alluded to the photo as I sign in to explain who that was.

            A bit of trivia re my family- my uncle was the one who decided Judy Garland would play Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz and who also produced all those MGM musicals a zillion years ago. My dad s song came in second for an Academy Award – beaten by White Christmas.

          • Xena says:

            @Vickis Smith. As I told you previously, I don’t have a Facebook account. I didn’t say nor accuse you of being anyone else, and I really could care less about your relatives. I’m here for Justice for Trayvon Martin. Those who have that in common are those I’m interested in knowing if they want to share their personal info with me. Your mileage might vary.

        • MedicineBear says:

          I don’t think the word “purportedly” means what you think. The only time you use it is in referencing undisputed evidence, and where it should be used (on self-serving statements by the defendant which have been exposed by hard evidence as lies), you let stand at face value.

          You insult those who have spent time to explore the evidence. That’s retarded. We won’t be having any of that willful ignorance here.

      • Not Angela Lansbury says:

        I guess my issue is that at this point in the trial, with the state about to rest, we should be way past these kinds of discussions. This is not a borderline case; the evidence of Fogen’s guilt is humongous. Arguments like those of Vickis Smith should be laughable at this point (no disrespect intended, truly). The fact that an obviously intelligent person would spend so much time and thought developing an argument like that, and the fact that some here feel compelled to refute it, means the prosecution has not done its job.

        • cielo62 says:

          Not Angela- I don’t know… You came on board with some fairly ridiculous questions of your own on material covered ad nauseum. Before I consider someone a troll I will answer if I can. My 1st thought was not to blame the prosecution but to look at the person questioning to understand WHY such an infantile argument was being made. Why mention the picture of the gun? It is not evidence. Why mention blows? The DNA was clear on that. The only 2 things left are 1. Someone not following attentively or 2. A troll. Several have been here.


          • Not Angela Lansbury says:

            “some fairly ridiculous questions…” Remind me? It’s been a while, but I seem to recall lurking for some time before joining the conversation. Did I make any sense?

            I can understand someone not being as attentive to the evidence as many of those who comment here, but I think anyone commenting at this stage is commenting on the prosecution’s case, not on the available evidence. Again, no disrespect to Vickis Smith, but virtually every point in that argument should have been soundly destroyed by the prosecution’s case by now such that no intelligent person could regurgitate them, or find it necessary to refute them. (And you are *not* a troll.) But that is not the state of play.

          • Vickis Smith says:

            If you are referring to me, Cielo, I NEVER mentioned the picture of a gun! What I DID say was that Tray had purportedly asked a female friend if she had a gun and she said that her mother had custody of it. I didn t go into as much detail in the earlier post, however. I brought this up only to show how something like this could very well influence jurors who had heard about this.

            And Cielo, I used to think that DNA showed up about any time something was touched but it just isn t the case. Please read up on it. I hardly am an expert on the subject, but the info is out there.

            Also, I am a firm believer in Occam s Razor.. the simplest explanation is usually the correct one… and to me the simplest is that Tray caused GZ s injuries, whether major or minor. Nevertheless, justifiable.

            And I doubt very much whether any of these jurors will rely solely on what is being presented in court if anything they heard before sequestration seemed believable to them. This is why I feel it s so important for the jurors to understand that GZ s actions cannot be justified.

          • Xena says:

            @Vickis Smith.

            This is why I feel it s so important for the jurors to understand that GZ s actions cannot be justified.

            While you say this, you continue thugifying Trayvon and blaming him for GZ’s actions. The jury cannot go beyond evidence and testimony presented in court, so why do you take a position that they may have heard about, for example, Trayvon’s text messages.

            You’re placing all speculated jury prejudices to be non-beneficial to Trayvon. Has it occurred to you that maybe there is a juror who heard about GZ molesting his cousin? His criminal background that was reduced so he wouldn’t be a convicted felon? His misleading of donors and paying his debts rather than using the money for legal defense and current living expenses? His hiding a valid passport? Maybe a juror also heard how he sat like a potted palm while ShelLIE lied to the court.

        • vickie s. votaw says:

          Vickis argues from his/her imagination. There are no proven facts in their reasoning

          • Vickis Smith says:

            My name is Vicki the s was a typo I m stuck with. The pic is of my husband when we got married 36 years ago.

            People s bias often trumps evidence in emotionally- charged cases.

    • Judy75201 says:

      How much “doubt” are you seeing, and where/why? What makes you think “doubt” is even on the table?

      • Not Angela Lansbury says:

        I don’t personally have any doubt, Judy, but when I put myself in the shoes of a Sanford white woman, I’m just not yet convinced the state has met its burden. IOW, even if I think Fogen’s guilty, I don’t think the state has proven it beyond reasonable doubt (a la OJ Simpson’s jury).

        Yes (in my ‘Sanford white woman’ framework), Fogen shot the kid dead, and perhaps the kid didn’t deserve to die. But that’s not necessarily murder. One issue is whether he can adequately be considered an aggressor without evidence he laid a hand on the kid. Another is whether a-black-guy-in-a-hoodie-on-top-of-you-beating-you-up-MMA-style-while-you’re-carrying-a-deadly-weapon-that-he-might-get-his-hands-on-and-shoot-you-because-you’ve-been-following-him-and-he’s-mad-about-it is enough to give you a reasonable fear for your life.

        The way bias works is that you look for and emphasize the evidence that supports your bias. The doubt here comes not from an objective review of the evidence, but rather from seeing that evidence in the light most favorable to Fogen. Was he trying to protect his neighborhood from all the young black men who were terrorizing it, or was he a wannabe cop out to bully a black teen for his own aggrandizement? Was he trying to keep an eye on Trayvon, or was he trying to detain him? Did he mistake the number of times he was hit and the injuries he was sustaining in the moment, or did he intentionally embellish the fight to justify a homicide? I don’t believe the state has proven its answers to these questions beyond a reasonable doubt for **this** jury.

        I want to see a lot clearer demonstration that Fogen’s whole story is completely fabricated, which would show the jury his guilty mind. At this point, I can only hope that comes across clearly in closing argument, but they’ve put on enough witnesses and evidence to do that in their case-in-chief and have failed. They could’ve done it much more effectively with Fogen on the stand, and Rachel Jeantel’s testimony would’ve forced him to take the stand until the prosecutors rebutted her with Fogen’s police statements.

        I don’t know how we get past that kind of error. The whole strategy of putting on witnesses unnecessary to the case who are friendly to the defense without thoroughly impeaching them makes no sense to me. But I’m not a prosecutor, I don’t know nearly as much as these prosecutors know about their case, and I just hope I’m wrong.

        • Malisha says:

          Without evidence he laid a hand on the kid?
          He laid a bullet into the kid.
          Without any doubt whatsoever HE STARTED IT.
          Therefore, in view of the fact that he was not seriously injured, he had no excuse whatsoever for “firing one shot.”
          Killings don’t just happen. He was armed, he was chasing down a kid he didn’t know, he shot him dead. In between the chase-down and the shoot-dead, if the kid defended himself that was normal and legal. In the course of that self-defense the kid did not seriously injure the shooter. I can’t see where the doubt is hiding.

          • Rachael says:

            For me, it isn’t the “fact that he was not seriously injured” that says anything, because you don’t have to be seriously injured – or even injured at all. However, he gave a story of the “brutal” beating and his injuries do NOT match his story. We could hear him get out of his car and he said in his own words that he was following the kid – but later says he was not following, he said, again in his own words on tape, that Trayvon was running, but on TV said he was not running, and he did shoot Trayvon point blank in the heart. He lied about everything else, why should I believe he was in fear? Injured or not, he had the gun, he had the MMA training, he outweighed the guy, he chased him, he shot him, but I’m supposed to believe he was in fear?

          • Not Angela Lansbury says:

            Malisha, the case is very simple to us, but folks with a different bent to their bias may not see it.

            Sanford is filled with people who would rather commute to work 40 miles each way in rush-hour traffic than live in an “urban” area. These are folks who believe racial profiling is common sense, and that *everyone* should carry a gun with a bullet in the chamber. Despite the evidence, they are likely to have a question about who started the fight because a little white man protecting his neighborhood said a big black teen in a hoodie jumped him. I’d be willing to bet there are people on that jury who know what a criminal looks like because they’ve seen them in rap videos.

            My doubt comes from seeing no evidence the prosecutors understand this. They are talking to a Jacksonville jury.

          • Rachael says:

            I guess I’m the one who doesn’t understand that. It is totally foreign to where I was raised and live. I guess “common sense” is regional. Sigh

          • racerrodig says:

            He not only started it, he had to exhaust every avenue of escape before using deadly force. He must have skipped that day’s class.

            Sometime between his wrist control and “I was on him” he really blew it.

        • Judy75201 says:

          Thank you for this. Nicely written, and I understand your fears. I simply don’t share them, partly due to OJ & Casey.

          I believe that “reasonable doubt” has been revealed as nothing more than extreme manipulation by defense attorneys. They took it to a level that is unconscionable, laughing all the way. I see this trait in both O’Mara and West.

          And remember, the trial is not over yet! We shall see.

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Not Angela

            Why are you sliming all “the white women” of Sanford?

            (Actually, the white women and the Hispanic woman and the white man are from Seminole County – addresses not released – not just the City of Sanford.)

            In addition, you are saying they are stupid.

            Every woman in America knows what a pain it is to wash blood out of fabric. Women relate to blood. Women pay attention to blood. Mothers are especially attuned to blood on or from their kids. And the fact that Trayvon was not drenched by Zimmerman’s blood is all the proof these women need to know that the story of “the black thug” beating up poor, pitiful Zimmerman is just so much bullshit.

            And it makes Zimmerman a liar.

            Note that the issue is not WHO killed Trayvon. That’s settled.

            The trial established that Zimmerman was not only the killer, Zimmerman was also the instigator.

            Zimmerman chased Trayvon down; Trayvon tried to elude Zimmerman.

            Evidence shows Trayvon LITERALLY never laid a finger on Zimmerman. Zimmrman grabbed Trayvon – the alignment of the shirts to the entry wound prove this.

            Zimmerman had the MOTIVE (“Damn stucco guys steal my glory. I’ll get it back with this fuckin’ coon!”).

            Zimmerman had the MEANS: MMA training 9 hours a week for the previous six months, a fully loaded ready-to-shoot Kel-Tek in his holster. Specific police training to invent his alibi. Buddies on the police force to buy his story.

            Zimmerman had the MALICE: “assholes” and “fuckin’ punks” to suit his purpose.

            Never once thought “this is a human life.”

            My bet is that you think the prosecution is sitting around reading its reviews, and that they’ll come to the Leatherman Blog to get their jollies, and be devastated and unsure of themselves when they read your posts – and the newbies that have shown up.

            You want to shake their confidence.

            Forget it. Your whining is ignored.

            THESE GUYS ARE PROS. They are too busy preparing to wrap up this trial, and win a Murder 2 conviction.

            Verdict: next week.

          • Not Angela Lansbury says:

            PiranhaMom, I just saw your comment, and I’m past this issue now. But I did want to reply since you wrote to me directly.

            Bernie is not the most tech savvy guy in the courthouse, and he’s a little busy right now, so as much as WE might rely on the Professor’s blog, I don’t expect Bernie is lurking here. Your argument that we should censor ourselves because the prosecutor might come to doubt his case from our comments is frankly ridiculous. I can assure you this consummate professional does not judge any of his cases based on someone’s blog, much less a comment on a blog post. You want us to censor ourselves because you don’t want to read these doubts. That’s fine. Just admit it, but don’t tarnish Bernie with that kind of silliness.

            And no one is “sliming” anyone, much less “all” the white women in Sanford. Sanford happens to be the county seat and the most progressive place in the county, so the fact that these jurors are from Seminole County in no way detracts from my concerns about them. And yes, I’m sorry, but the typical white Sanford/Seminole County resident is “stupid” when it comes to matters of race. Were you on the planet last year when over 2 million people signed a petition demanding the arrest of a man in Sanford who’d stalked and shot dead an unarmed teen on a candy run? Did you see 10s of thousands of people march around the country demanding the same thing? Did you notice when the city council refused to accept the police chief’s resignation? Are you aware that the initial SA was removed from the case and a SA from Jacksonville brought in to prosecute it? Do you honestly believe these officials acted against the will of their constituents? The idea that these people would be **willfully** stupid on a race-impacted case can surprise no one at this point.

            We agree on the evidence and on Fogen’s guilt. I’ve expressed doubts about the USE of that evidence in the way the state has presented its case. I’m happy to know you have no doubts in that regard, but how about saying something constructive to assuage mine rather than attacking me for raising them? I fail to see how your attack helps anyone. If anything, this kind of reaction can only confirm any remaining doubts I might have. You wouldn’t be attacking me if you really had confidence in the state’s case.

          • Not Angela Lansbury says:

            PiranhaMom, I could’ve responded better to your comment. Sorry if that was a bit harsh. I know we’re all on eggshells right now. No harm, no foul, and peace.

    • Xena says:

      I can’t for the life of me understand why the state would introduce Fogen’s statements and let him skate from taking the stand.

      How else is the jury to become familiar enough with GZ’s voice and verbal expressions to decide who was screaming?

      • Not Angela Lansbury says:

        Interesting, Xena, thanks. It’s something I hadn’t considered.

        • Xena says:

          It’s something I hadn’t considered.

          I hadn’t picked up GZ’s voice using profanity in that recording until after listening/watching his Hannity interview.

          • Not Angela Lansbury says:

            My elderly ears are truly horrible, so I’ve never heard anything beyond Trayvon screaming. And I can barely listen to that tape at all. But I’ve heard enough of others’ testimony on this score to know there’s more than just screaming. I hope the jury can hear it as well as you all can.

      • SearchingMind says:

        To add to what Xena said, the State introuduced GZ’s statments because the State is convinced that those statements form “web of lies” and that the State can untangle that web for jurors.

      • vickie s. votaw says:

        Beautiful, Xena!

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        This isn’t going to help his case any and I’m sure there’s more yet to come.

        See Bernie’s strategy? When you have a tsunami of evidence behind you, you can afford to let the case drag it’s way to “nail biter” status, that only draws comment and eyeballs.


    • Not Angela Lansbury says:

      I have to say I feel a lot better this morning about the state’s decision to put on an impeachment type of case. It’s weird, but I think I see the strategy. Thanks to all those who responded to my concerns, and all with such good logic and sincerity. Hoodies up!

  69. diary73 says:

    Off topic. A couple of you thought you saw me yesterday at the trial. Below is a birthday video a group of friends posted on YouTube for me a couple years ago. I look the same.

    I must say that my experience in the courtroom yesterday is one that I will never forget.


    • KittySP says:

      Diary…I didn’t see your beautiful face in the crowd. That was lovely bday tribute!

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      You are one wonderful person surrounded by great friends and a loving family. Love you!

    • Sophia33 says:

      Pretty lady.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Hey diary, I think I caught a glimpse of you in the court proceedings yesterday.

      And I recall you commanding respect from Fogen supporters on the old GZLC FB. Best wishes to you and your son and family. I’m glad you got a chance to see history come to life in that courtroom.

    • Rachael says:

      I hope you’ll tell us more about it when you can and thanks so much for telling Sybrina we are here and love her.

    • cielo62 says:

      diary~ THANKS! It is ALWAYS nice to add a face to a name! (looking good there!)


    • Nef05 says:

      Thanks you so much for sharing our love and respect with Sybrina. Looking forward to reading about your thoughts, after you’ve had a minute to absorb it all.

    • Xena says:

      @diary73. I looked for you! If you sat on the prosecution’s side, the cameras didn’t show much of that side. At one point, I saw a woman in yellow and thought it might be you.

      Please if you can, tell us what you observed of the jury.

      • Rachael says:

        I know at one point she texted us and said she couldn’t really see the jury because the exhibits were in the way 😦

        • diary73 says:

          Exactly, Rachel. The exhibits blocked not only public observers but Trayvon’s family as well from seeing the jurors. After lunch, they did angle the displays a bit, so we could see the top row.

          A blond juror with a pony tail took a lot of notes, a gasping sound came from that area when GZ’s blood and a mixture of his and Trayvon’s blood was on Trayvon’s under shirt.

          Another point that seemed to cause the man on the jury to lean in further was when the lady gun specialist indicated that a ready bullet was in the chamber. Not sure what he was thinking, but he found that particularly interesting.

          One of the jurors, possibly early 50’s and largely built seemed to have a cold. Her nose was red. I am not sure if that is her natural appearance or not. She seemed aloof when West exercised his time-wasting exercise at the end. In fact, a couple of them rolled their eyes when he obviously asked some of the same questions that the prosecutor did.

          When West disrespected the court by giving jury instructions on the sly, I heard a couple heavy puffs of breath from that area.

          In my opinion, I don’t think that group of people care very much for West.


          • Dave says:

            While the jurors are forbidden from discussing the case itself, they can and will be talking about the attorneys. I’d love to hear their comments.

          • Thanks for the update.

            Hope you enjoyed your experience and learned something from it.

            So, now that you want to go to law school . . .

          • Rachael says:

            Thank you! sounds good though I can’t imagine anyone NOT rolling their eyes when they see West coming to west some time.

          • Xena says:

            Thanks for the info, Diary73.

            Seems that Judge Nelson is fighting a cold. It was reported that the courtroom is cold.

  70. lady2soothe says:

    Are there specific guidelines a judge uses to decide

    the motion that all of the evidence introduced during the State’s case-in-chief and all reasonable assumptions that can be drawn from that evidence are true


  71. Great analysis! Thanks, Professor.

  72. chi1224 says:

    Hey you guys, I don’t know how many of you have a facebook account, although you probably don’t need one to view this page– put this is an excellent page:
    Check out how many people “like” that page! 247 THOUSAND! Search Zimmerman… it’s pitiful compared to Trayvon! There is also this page: which was the first one I started following a long time ago….. So keep the faith! Justice coming soon!

  73. Malisha says:

    Professor, when you say ” I believe sufficient evidence of self-defense has come in through the defendant’s statements to support instructing the jury on self-defense.”

    Does that mean that they will have the videos they have seen of Fogen’s telling his own story as “the self-defense claim”? HAHAHA that is SO COOOOOL! He lied the MOST unconvincingly when he was not being challenged — it was so easy to see through his story the jurors are going to feel like GENIUSES!

    And when we feel like geniuses we feel confident and when we feel confident, we are able to take action. I’m lovin’ it!

  74. Forgive me, I was out of town, and missed this. So, West going to take Crump’s deposition, but somehow he missed it. Then, he asked for more time and the judge told him to go piss up a rope. Is that what happened?

    • Was there, or was there not, any effort from the defense, to schedule this deposition? That is my question.

      • Sophia33 says:

        Not really. They want things to complain about. Perhaps if they stayed off of CNN, they would be able to do their work for their client.

      • aussie says:

        That was Debra’s question, too., You never even asked for the court to finish an hour early one night so you can do it. And now you want a 4-day weekend? forget about it.

        BBbbbb ut…. sez West, well that other time we couldn’t because of the Frye hearing…. and and ..

        She said don’t want to hear all your scheduling problems. Jury is sequestered, prosecution may be resting today, my plan was (as usual in all my cases) after the State the defence goes on right away. NO NO NO NO NO.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        It’s my understanding that the defense did try to schedule the depo, but Crump and his attorney weren’t available at the same time, and said they’d be available to do the deposition this coming Sunday. It wouldn’t surprise me if the defense also drug their feet because OM is so busy appearing here and there. West wanted the court to recess on Friday so he could depo Crump then, but JN didn’t want the sequestered jury to languish for four days in a row.

        • KA says:

          Or…they had a month….there is nothing there but they have supporters to keep happy…

          They are not getting anything from that deposition. They know it. It is a sidetrack item to delay trial and keep the supporters happy

    • Sophia33 says:

      Yep. You succinctly and eloquently summed it up. The defense keeps asking for more and more time.

      • jodiwankanobi says:

        i thought they were told they could not depose crump….are they still trying and have they been given the ok to do so?

        • The Court of Appeal reversed Judge Nelson and ordered the deposition.

          Don’t know what, if any efforts the defense has taken to schedule that deposition.

          • elcymoo says:

            According to the excuses offered by Don West, the defense team appears to have made no effort at all to depose Crump in the month since the Appeals Court handed down its ruling. I think that’s because the ruling put such narrow restrictions on the deposition, but West insists the depo is ‘crucial’ or ‘critical’ – I forget which word he used – to the defense case. Does this mean that it intends to argue, at this late date, that the defendant should never have been arrested at all?

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Professor Fred,

            How soon after Judge Nelson gives her instructions to the jury can the jury begin its deliberations?

            Can they deliberate on weekends/holidays? How many hours per day?

            Are they also given the judge’s instructions in writing as they begin to deliberate?

            When are the alternates released?

            Thanks for your wise counsel and instructions throughout this marathon!

          • Deliberations will begin immediately after closing arguments.

            Judge Nelson will read the instructions to the jury before closing arguments and the jury will have a copy of the instructions when they retire to the jury room to begin deliberations.

            Normally, the jury will deliberate during the hours that the courthouse is open, but since they are sequestered, they may deliberate into the evening. Judge has control over that.

            Alternates are released after closing arguments.

            Right about now is when the pressure begins to build.

            Hell, I’m just startin’ to wake up.

            Welcome to the fun part.

          • Two sides to a story says:

            “Welcome to the fun part.”

            It’s got my blood pumping. I can imagine the pressure that the state and defense are under. And Fogen may be living his last few days of freedom.

            If the jury convicts, do you think they’ll take him directly from the courtroom, or will they gave him time to get his affairs in order and have him turn himself in later?

          • That would be Judge Nelson’s call to make.

            I’m virtually certain she will order him taken into custody pending the sentencing, since it’s a murder charge with a probable life sentence.

          • cielo62 says:

            Two Sides~ Straight from the courtroom!

            In handcuffs (not shackles, unfortunately)


          • vickie s. votaw says:

            Can they appeal if there isn’t a deposition ?

          • Waste of time since West neglected to pursue the matter in timely fashion.

          • Probably not instantly.

    • ladystclaire says:

      @CS, go piss up a rope, LOL and that just suits ole timer Pest. the man is a disgusting cancer on all defense attorneys. I have never seen any attorney act in such a despicable manner as this guy did.

      Also, there is no way I’m buying the lies about him not being involved, in his daughter’s ignorance.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      warning — strong language, inappropriate language and basically everything else that could be offensive

      sorry crane, you reminded me of a favorite tune, hope you don’t mind 🙂

      ween — piss up a arope

      • I think I just broke some ribs, laughing, OMG, toes tappin.’!

        I did not know this existed, but it is funny. We were actually discussing…the expression ‘piss up a rope’ is quite old, I believe. I remember it from my growing up years. (Well okay, I am still a giant 8-year-old!)

        • fauxmccoy says:

          oh i am so glad you approve – as i figure, there are about three years age difference between us.

          when jerry garcia died and all those deadheads had to find other folks to follow around everywhere, some picked dave matthews, others picked phish and then there was me and my crowd digging on ween. check them out, another favorite is their ‘buenos tardes amigo’. 🙂

          • fauxmccoy says:

            no, but have hiked mt tamalpais many times. will now check this out. hope you liked ‘piss up a rope’ as much as your partner 🙂 i know how we both feel about slide guitar.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            oooooh, excellent resource, sir. thank you!!!

            now that i’m an old fart and raising my daughters in the old home town, i do not get out to the music shows that i used to. my expendable cash and energy have been depleted, but desire has never waned.

            also a fabulous event for anyone in the bay area is the ‘hardly strictly bluegrass’ festival in golden gate park every year in early october.

          • Strange that I never heard of them, because I am married to a deadhead, and my longtime college boyfriend who I am still friends with today was also a deadhead. Likely because these two fans still follow the old Grateful Dead videos. That’s my guess anyway.

            LOL, I have been in my share of ‘music wars.’ I love music, from all walks and areas, you name it. But, if it’s rock and there is a Santana equivalent to a deadhead, that would be me:)

            It’s been that way since 1969, but Smooth? How is it possible to get such great music with such really hot looking young folks? I may be old but I still love to look!

          • fauxmccoy says:

            same here my friend.

            although i went to more dead shows while spending my misguided (albeit hysterically fun) youth in san francisco, my heart was more into johnny cash.

            i went to so many cash shows that my friends called me a ‘black head’. they came around too when cash started working with rick ruben and american recordings. cash may be gone now, but i’m still a ‘black head’ 🙂

          • Well, Johnny Cash sings like a bird, and now that you mention it, I like his intros:

            Wait for it. Hello, I’m Johnny Cash:

          • fauxmccoy says:

            cash gives a history lesson and i’ll add my trivia lesson — the bassis there, dave roe went on to tour and record with dwight yoakam for many years. in cash’s last interview with larry king he was asked who he thought were his favorite living artists — he cited yoakam and emmylou harris. good choices, both.

          • Yes, excellent choices.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            more ween — really, i think you’ll like these guys. talented, funny, solid musicians and an amazing range of genres

          • Judy75201 says:

            Touch of Grey Band in Bones<<<<<<BEST music vid ever!!!!

      • Rachael says:

        All of this was great. Thanks!

    • racerrodig says:

      In a word ………

  75. KittySP says:

    Happy 4th greetings from the surrounding area near the “City of Brotherly Love!”🎆🎇

    • racerrodig says:

      Watching the Live Jam at the art center as I type. Root’s version of “Jungle Boogie” was awesome…..gotta love a tuba player jumping like that…….Jill Scot on now…..what talent !!

      • KittySP says:

        Racer- I’d been out for most of the evening and just remembered to tune in and catching rest of John Mayer’s amazing performance…wish I’d gotten to see Jill Scott. The Roots are awesome every year.

  76. ay2z says:

    Love Osterman’s testimony about that not quite a nose ‘pinch’ but hand demo of how the attempt of murder by Trayvon happened– impossible not to get some DNA from skin cells under nails, nevermind blood, on Trayvon’s fingers, under finger nails, from what Osterman demonstrated in such good detail from the stand.

    Best friend he ever had doesn’t even realize what he’s done.

  77. Sophia33 says:

    For Katie:

  78. Question: This article is not listed in the “recent posts” section of my screen. Is anyone else having this problem?

  79. ay2z says:

    What about Ben Crump? That goes to the big empty z conspiracy against fogen to arrest him to let the jury system do it’s job. Will the dfefense go there in an attempt to re-claim immunity and get an acquittal all at the same time?

  80. Newmediacounsel says:

    Playing devil’s advocate, I have some questions and concerns:

    1. Why would the defense not call their own experts about the severity of the wounds since they already tried to prove that the wounds mean more than what Dr. Rao stated?

    2. What of the speculative injuries claim that the supporters of Zimmerman seem to be resting their hats on as argument? That is the claim that the defendant nevertheless feared because he was in the thick of a fight, and during the fight he didn’t know how far the victim was going to go in the violence.

    3. Could the jury ignore the physical evidence and consider Good’s testimony alone?

    4. There are people who keep saying that the prosecution is not doing enough hand holding- so the jury may be confused. Do you agree?

    5. Another position is that because we don’t know the exact story of what happened during the fight, this can produce reasonable doubt despite the physical evidence. This argument relies on arguments about reasonable doubt and the prosecution’s burden.

    • concernedczen says:

      Yes, they are going to call their own experts. I am sure the defense is going to put on much more of a case than the article supposes.

      • newmediacounsel says:

        Well, outside of the expert testimony to address the big problem of physical evidence that the defense has, I do agree with the professor. Who would they call exactly who would help their case for reasonable doubt?

        • And I do not believe any legitimate trauma expert would testify that the defendant’s injuries were significant, much less life threatening.

          • concernedczen says:

            I would hope not, but I seem to recall O’Mara saying something about a doctor who would be testifying about the bumps on Zimmerman’s head being due to trauma.

          • Dave says:

            Significant or not, the injuries were incurred before the struggle moved into the grass. At that point in time, the defendant was no longer under threat from Trayvon’s “deadly concrete sidewalk”. The other deadly weapon on the scene, the killer’s pistol, was fully under Zimmerman’s control, hence, at the time he pulled the trigger, he was not in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:


            bumps, scrapes, cuts……bao said they were MINOR injuries.

          • Trained Observer says:

            A “doctor” testifying on behalf of the defense? Quack, Quack, Quack?

          • fauxmccoy says:

            @trained observer

            we call those ‘duckters’ in our house 😉

          • newmediacounsel says:

            First, I do think its interesting that I have not read any technical rebuttals of the expert opinion. That suggests you are right.

            However, second, that being said, I think people are emotionally invested in this case, and their judgment may lapse because its more than about a kid being killed. Its about white people’s fears over “other”

            I really wish people were rational, but after situations like this, and Gates of Harvard, my feeling on this is I will wait and see. I’ve been amazed at what people who should be rational have said about this case.

    • vickie s. votaw says:

      How could he be afraid when he had an overloaded gun on him, he knew Trayvon wasn’t armed, he had MMA training, he know he could physically overpower that skinny kid. He WAS NOT afraid, not even of his own God.

      • newmediacounsel says:

        Well, the argument is that a reasonable person in the middle of a fight would be afraid for his life because he’s in the middle of a fight, and would only be reacting. My personal problem with the argument is that it negates provocation by the defendant, and the right of the victim to self defense, if one buys that argument. The other problem with it is that its circular reasoning. When would a fight never be fear of death?

        • Tzar says:

          A reasonable and prudent man would not find themselves in the middle of a fight that Zimmerman found himself in

          • Nellie Nell says:

            Right, there would have been no fight if GZ had not chased the kid down hunting for him like prey. Trayvon committed no crime and only wanted to get back with the snack for his stepbrother and watch the basketball game. Chatting away on his phone as if he did not have a care in the world, even in the rain.

            It is so clear that the defense has nothing. When MOM tried the “tool in the bushes” bit, that was pure desperation to try to make the jury of women fear a dead kid and all the kids that look like him. So sad.

          • Tzar says:

            the most depraved part of Zimmerman’s actions are his clear lack of understanding that he has done something grave and serious

            this guy is still chuckling in court

      • SearchingMind says:

        @ Newmediacounsel

        The state has provided Evidence (among others) that a REASONABLE PERSON in GZ’s position could not have had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, because:

        a. GZ was decisively heavier than-/decisively outweighed Trayvon. Trayvon was no match for GZ in a physical fight;

        b. Unlike Trayvon, GZ was armed with a fully loaded gun;

        c. GZ is a trained MMA kick boxer;

        d. Trayvon was not raining down/did not rain down deadly blows on GZ’s face and head; that Trayvon did not slam GZ’s head against the concrete and that Trayvon did not put his hands on GZ’s bloodied mouth and nose (for whatever reason) thus causing GZ to fear for whatever;

        e. GZ and Trayvon were scuffling on the grass several feet away from the concrete;
        f. if Trayvon had GZ in a “ground pound” with his knees right up to GZ’s armpits, Trayvon could not have seen the gun holstered in GZ’s pant and both GZ and Trayvon would not have access to that gun;
        g. GZ knew that the cops were seconds/minutes away;
        Where GZ’s own hands were and what GZ did with them during the scuffle is unaccounted for;

        h. Etc.

        Now, if what GZ claims is demonstratively false, why in the world would you or anyone believe that GZ ever feared for his life? Do you make such a determination in a vacuum?

        BTW, GZ was the aggressor. At the time of the crime he was engaged in a criminal attempt to detain Trayvon. GZ can’t begin to claim self-defense under these circumstance.

        • Puck says:

          As I said above, the goal of chasing after someone is to catch up to them, and this taken with “these assholes, they always get away” and “he’s running” immediately followed by GZ’s getting out of his car and running after Trayvon, is strong evidence that his goal was to detain him illegally. If the jury understands this, after JN’s instructions and going over the actual self-defense laws, they should conclude that the pursuit was the first part of a crime, therefore self-defense goes out the window.

        • Nellie Nell says:

          GZ tried so hard to make everyone believe that he was in fear of his life that he had to come up with not one, but four fears.

          The beating.

          The smothering.

          The “You’re going to die tonight”.

          The reaching for the gun.

          He really overdid the “fears” which is what made the lies stand out. His back-up fears are just way over the top. In reality, his only fear was going to jail for harassing and assaulting a kid while carrying a loaded pistol.

          • MedicineBear says:

            ” In reality, his only fear was going to jail for harassing and assaulting a kid while carrying a loaded pistol.”

            EXACTLY! And with his foreknowledge of SYG, he knew killing the black kid would probably have no negative consequences (for him) whatsoever. Notice the complete disregard for human life (other than his own)? That’s Murder 2. (It’s also a narcissistic sociopath).

    • 1. Why would the defense not call their own experts about the severity of the wounds since they already tried to prove that the wounds mean more than what Dr. Rao stated?

      Answer: If they do, it will happen during the presentation of their case after the State rests. I don’t believe they will find a credible trauma expert who will testify that those injuries were significant, much less serious.

      2. What of the speculative injuries claim that the supporters of Zimmerman seem to be resting their hats on as argument? That is the claim that the defendant nevertheless feared because he was in the thick of a fight, and during the fight he didn’t know how far the victim was going to go in the violence.

      Answer: As you mentioned in a subsequent comment, that reasoning applies to any fight. Therefore, it’s not worthy of serious consideration. Besides, the evidence shows that the defendant was the aggressor. He provoked the fight and did not attempt to withdraw.

      3. Could the jury ignore the physical evidence and consider Good’s testimony alone?

      Answer: Yes, the jury can cherry-pick and ignore, but juries generally do not do that and I can think of no reason why they would do that in this case.

      4. There are people who keep saying that the prosecution is not doing enough hand holding- so the jury may be confused. Do you agree?

      Answer: No, that’s not their job and it would undermine their credibility if they did so. They would appear partisan rather than independent.

      5. Another position is that because we don’t know the exact story of what happened during the fight, this can produce reasonable doubt despite the physical evidence. This argument relies on arguments about reasonable doubt and the prosecution’s burden.

      Answer: If that were the case, hardly anyone would ever be convicted. Argument also ignores the power of circumstantial evidence.

      • newmediacounsel says:

        Thank you for the response.

        I am a lawyer, but criminal law is not my area of practice.

        I have read case law to understand the subject as best that I can, and my on read of case law, plus background as lawyer,s said to me the things you have written.

        However, I wanted to differ to someone with a criminal law background.

        Of the 5 arguments, only 4 seemed salient to me. Certainly, many o the arguments being advanced,including by some legal analysts, were we to take them seriously would mean no one could be convicted of murder.

        Their arguments seem to ignore circumstantial evidence.

      • newmediacounsel says:

        By the way, what do you make of all the legal pundits who keep arguing that, essentially, the prosecution has lost the case?

        i know you disagree, but why do you think they are making such claims?

        • SearchingMind says:

          So, what kind of law did you study that denied you basis knowlege of criminal law? What kind of law do you practice?

          Re: “I know you disagree, but why do you think they are making such claims?”. Now, sir, if you are indeed a lawyer, you should (a) know why “they” are wrong from the point of view of the law, case law and legal science, and (b) “why they are making such claims”.

  81. operacarla says:

    Was the statement floating around that there was some evidence that both sides agreed to keep sealed until trial because it would be too damningl towards fogen just a rumor?

    • concernedczen says:

      The contents of GZ’s phone including some disparaging text messages he sent about Tracey Martin

    • Malisha says:

      BOTH prosecution and defense were resisting releasing information and Judge Lester only allowed that for a tiny portion of the evidence. But the fact that they both wanted it to remain hidden makes me even more sure that it was about FDLE protecting SPD.

      • concernedczen says:

        Wow. If that’s the case, we will never get know what those text messages said and it actually might explain why the SPD acted the way they did.

  82. silk says:

    Please forgive me for my observation. The state seems to be a little to conservative. Their is more then enough to convict porky on murder 2. Its how u argue the eviDence. Its not normal for some1 to follow a child. And bernie didn’t cover that with serino. If some 1 was following u how it would make u feel serino , that’s the question. Non to less omara spined it to make it seem normal. I’m I wrong???

    • concernedczen says:

      You are not wrong.

      I think they should have had a child abduction expert testify about how a child would feel in that scenario and how a child would and SHOULD react to being watched, followed and chased by an adult stranger.

      • That’s inadmissible speculation.

        • concernedczen says:

          So how can the state (if the can) get in information about how Trayvon was scared for his life and it was him that SYG should apply to?

          • Circumstantial evidence, common experience and good ol’ common sense.

            The State certainly has sufficient evidence to argue that conclusion and they will have an instruction upon which to base their argument.

            Besides, there is a reason why the defendant lied and that reason is that he knew the law and he knew that he had violated it.

          • Malisha says:

            Fogen admitted Trayvon RAN. Rachel testified Trayvon was SCARED. Who’s gonna testify that he did NOT run and/or that he was NOT scared? The ghost of the murder past?

        • Tzar says:

          and common sense

      • bettykath says:

        There are 5 mothers on the jury. And 6 women who also have to be concerned about a$$crackers following with intent to do harm.

        • MedicineBear says:

          That’s right — and do you think they’ll have any trouble seeing the facts from a victim’s point of view? The whole duhfense case is based on trying to obfuscate what happened to Trayvon.

          These jurors have seen and experienced women, children, and the “less powerful” be marginalized and disbelieved before — they probably see it or experience every day of their lives. They see it in their own life and in the lives of their children. These six jurors see with righteous eyes and righteous hearts. They have that “mother bear” spirit that God gave females.

          They know in their hearts that they represent more than Justice for Trayvon — they six stand to mete out Justice for us all and to restore balance to our world which is so infested with corruption.

          What heart did not ache in resonance with Jayne’s recorded 911 call when she said (paraphrasing), “There was a boy crying for help . . . Why didn’t somebody help him? . . . I WISH I COULD HAVE HELPED HIM”? Those hearts and souls on the jury will do what is true and just, and although they cannot restore the precious life that was wrongfully taken, they will stand up to bullying, lies, and intimidation to bring Justice to a tragically wronged young life.

          Through these six righteous jurors bringing Justice to Trayvon, we all can finally answer Trayvon’s (and Justice’s) heartrending cries for help.

    • newmediacounsel says:

      I disagree.

      Once you start down that path way of competing experts about a 16 year old kid’s psychology, that opens up the door for the defense to demonize this kind of particular as they tried to do in the press before the case went to trial.

      Its quite clear to me that if the prosecution had done what you said it would not be following the professor’s KISS rule above. It would have went off script.

      The jury knows the kids age. I also imagine they aware that teenagers aren’t adults. Sometimes its better to rely on the common sense of the jury rather than introduce evidence that opens you up the victim to character attacks.

    • KittySP says:

      Silk- state didn’t need to make that point…Det. Sing/Ser did it for them during the ‘challenge’ interview.

    • Dave says:

      It’s not normal behavior to follow a grown man either, especially in the dark. Whether child, man or somewhere in between, Trayvon had every reason to believe that the creepy asscrack following him was intent on committing a crime upon him. Anyone in his position would be in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury and would be legally and morally justified in doing whatever was necessary to prevent it.

      • concernedczen says:

        Yes, that’s the point, I wish the state made more clear. It seems to me that it really doesn’t matter how beat up or not beat up Zimmerman was.

        Because it seems to me that Trayvon was in fear of his life and that anything Trayvon did to defend himself would be lawful.

        Like you said, anyone would be in fear of their life if they were first watched by a stranger in a car, then followed by said stranger, then the stranger got out of his car and started chasing you on foot. That is this the stuff of horror movies.

        • crazy1946 says:

          concernedczen, Actually those points were well made by the testimony of RJ! Her words will have more impact on those members of the jury than all the outside witnesses you could request…. IMO

      • Puck says:

        Exactly. Ask youselves: what is the reason one person chases after another? To catch up to them. In this case, “these assholes, they always get away” and GZ running after him can really only mean (unless we believe his address story) that we wanted to catch up to Trayvon and detain him so he wouldn’t get away. That’s not hard to grasp.

        • riisey007 says:

          I would love for them to ask Zimmerman how in the world he could claim that Martin was waiting in bushes for him and jumped out to hit him when in his on words he ran away from him and at that time he was in his truck. That does not make any sense, we all know Zimmerman got out and told NEN that he ran toward the back so how if Martin ran was he able to know that Zimmerman was on foot at all?

          I believe since he was in his truck when Martin last seen him Martin probably thought well he is creepy but perhaps he was just being creepy but not really gonna follow or anything like that. So he slowed down and just casually started walking and talking to Rachel. Kids do not think like adults do if they did we wouldn’t have all these child abduction and there have been plenty of teenagers that have been kidnapped. I also think since he was closer to his home that too made him more relaxed. When Zimmerman who knows the neighborhood better than Martin popped up it made Martin say ” what are you following me for”? So many people want to believe this kid waited in bushes just in case Zimmerman happen to come strolling his butt down that path. Really??

          • cielo62 says:

            riisey~ The only problem with that story is that there are NO bushes there to hide behind! OOPS! Just a little mis-spoken detail by gz.


      • Gina Herbert says:

        Trayvon didn’t have time to call from his phone Gz caught him from behind remember Gz was trained with MMA skills.

      • KA says:

        …and Trayvon’s fear of imminent death would have been right on the money and his need to defend himself a very right and prudent move…I wish it could have saved him.

    • Nellie Nell says:

      I think that anyone being followed by a CAC in the dark, by car and then on foot would be scared. Even the women on the jury would be creeped out and would probably do what Trayvon did, run until they thought they were safe and had lost the CAC.

  83. ay2z says:

    cruel to the jurors, last thing this defendant concerns himself about, is concern for anyone else but ‘him self and ‘his’ wife.

    “yep, sumpthin’s wrong with him”

    (even Mark Osterman can’t tell how he has just been made a fool of, but then, that’s not the first time he’s been duped by a manipulator that went towards his losing his law enforcement officer position)

  84. Unabogie says:

    I posted this on the other thread, but there are two questions I had going into this trial that still aren’t answered.

    The first is regarding the missing four minutes from the time Zimmerman claims to have started walking back to the first 911 call.

    I wrote:

    But none of this matches the missing time. Remember, from the time Zimmerman says he’s walking back to the truck (7:12:17) to the time Trayvon disconnects from Rachel for the last time (7:16:00) to the time of the first 911 call (7:16:11), Zimmerman can’t account for his whereabouts. But this is also true for Trayvon. Where did he go during this four minutes? This part of the case has never made sense and it still doesn’t. The only thing that would explain it is that Zimmerman lied about where he first started following, because without that, the time-space continuum seems broken over there at RATL.

    The second question is who the hell did he call after the murder? Part of me just assumes it was NEN again and he didn’t get through, but that hasn’t been confirmed. And he never mentioned that phone call in any of his statements. It was always “I holstered my gun, flashlight guy showed up, then cops, then handcuffs”.

    My fantasy is that that the next witness will answer the question and that the recipient of the call, whether it went through or not, will fill out the story.

    If neither of those things are answered in the trial I’ll be seriously shocked. I feel like we’re not getting the whole story.

    • concernedczen says:

      It seems like Trayvon stopped running thinking he had lost the guy, answered the 2nd call from Rachel and began talking to her when Zimmerman snuck up on him.

      • I believe you are correct.

      • KA says:

        It was drizzle then and he was obviously wanting to finish his discussion with her in private. He told Chad he was on his way already, he was covered there.

        I suspect Trayvon thought this was no big deal after he lost him. He had not seen him get out of his car, he did not realize there was a search and chase on foot.

        If Trayvon was “waiting for GZ”, he would not be talking on the phone asking Rachel to look up the score…hard to hide quietly and talk on the phone at the same time.

    • Puck says:

      GZ’s phone records indicate he seemingly called NEN again 7:18, though this is also a general number for the SPD where you can get through to someone via their extension number.

      • concernedczen says:

        Could he have called Officer Tim Smith? I certainly question the truth of some of Smith’s testimony.

    • I believe the simple answer is GZ was hunting for TM and no one, except him, knows where he was.

      And he ain’t tellin’

      Yes, I’d like to know who he called. I thought it was John Goode, but I guess I was wrong.

      • crazy1946 says:

        I still suspect that he called Tim Smith, that is the only reasonable explanation why Smith violated department policy and came on the scene of a “shots fired” call with his weapon holstered. Smith had to have known something before he arrived. You might also not that there was a minor untruth told by Smith in is testimony, he said he had been with the SPD since 2008 but later he said he had been a patrol officer for the SPD for eight years. Not a big deal, just strange numbers….

        • hotheadpaisen says:

          And it was Ofc. Smith who told Singleton it was a probable self-defense when he handed Zimmerman off to her, and she clearly did that first interrogation believing it . Ofc. Smith also told Serino that Zimmerman have been battered, And clearly Serino performed his ridiculous six minute initial interview believing that as well. I have never understood why Serino would tell witnesses it was Zimmerman screaming when he hadn’t heard the screams nor the recording at that point.. I’ve always suspected it was Ofc. Smith who told that to Serino.

    • vickie s. votaw says:

      I’m thinking he called his buddy MO

      • Puck says:

        Again, he called the police number, which shows up as the NEN call he made, but is also a general SPD number to reach people who work there.

        • bellesouth says:

          You know the witness that said he was walking with his hand up to his head and the other on his hip? He was probably on the phone then. But would not the call be recorded when it got picked up?

          • Puck says:

            It was only 1 minute long, which means anywhere from 1 to 60 seconds. Did anyone actually see him speaking? I forget. If the call had been to NEN and recorded, we would have heard about that by now.

          • mrsdoubtfire says:

            Didn’t it register as 1 minute duration which per the phone records witness would simply indicate a connection was established that could have lasted 1 second or 58 seconds. Phone companies charge by the minute and round up.

        • mrsdoubtfire says:

          Sorry puck . Great minds……didnt see your reply . Should have refreshed the page

        • PiranhaMom says:

          @Puck –

          Did FDLE have Fogen’s cell phone or did they just get his records? Was Chief Bill Lee on Fogen’s speed dial? Was Foge trying to get Lee’s extension/vice mail from the answering system? Not that Lee would be in his office Sunday vening waiting for Fogen’s call.

          Was it fact or rumor that Chief Bill Lee came to the scene of the crime that evening?

          Or was Tim Smith’s extension on Fogen’s speed dial?

          • looneydoone says:

            Chief Lee was signed onto the Crime Scene Contamination Area log at 8:40pm
            Highly unusual for the Chief of Police to be present at the scene of a civilian fatality that doesn’t involve one of the dept’s officers.

            me thinks Timothy Smith is fogen’s buddy

    • KittySP says:

      Unabogie…theory here as well over at bcc:list, is that GZ was already heading toward back entrance via RVC…Trayvon had already reached home where he was staying or close to it (Rachel seems certain of this) when GZ ‘creeps’ up on him. Verbal exchange and scuffle (attempt to detain Trayvon) moves north toward the ‘T’. What we do know is it definitely didn’t take him 2-3 mins to travel that short distance from where he left truck and walked to get an address.

      • Deborah says:

        I think what Rachel said about him being by his Daddy fiance’s house is being misinterpreted. She/he could have meant he was down by the north end of the T moving south slowly while talking to her. Being “by” his Daddy fiance house could have meant that he was closer to there than he was, when he was at the 7-11.

        • Dave says:

          It could be true. Brandy Green stated in a TV interview that he was on her back porch at one point. (I don’tknow how she would know this.)

          Recall also that the state’s first witness, Ms. Green’s son, Chad, testified that he was playing video games wearing full-isolation headphones so he wouldn’t have heard Trayvon knock. Trayvon did not have any keys with him.

          • Mary Lou says:

            I wish I hadn’t read this comment. It puts a thought into my mind that Trayvon may have made it back to Brandy’s, tried to get in to get away from GZ stalking him, but couldn’t. But I don’t know whether the timeline supports this. Either way, it’s a senseless tragedy.

          • PYorck says:

            I got the impression that the story about the porch was simply a recent memory of Trayvon, possibly even her last.

        • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

          That’s just the way kids talk. I have heard my granddaughter tell her friends several times that she is around the corner, which usually means that she is a half a mile away. Or I’ll be there in a minute, which usually means a couple of hours. Sometimes she’ll call me on the phone and tell me to unlock the front door for her because she is outside in front of the house, which usually means she’ll be outside in front of the house in 10 or 15 min. Kids have a strange way of communicating distance. Trust me understanding children jargon these days is like trying to decipher secret codes at times. That’s why it’s good to learn your child’s generational slang because you’d be surprise what you can learn from and about kids when you do. Another reason, why I ask them what does such and such mean to keep up with whatever their doing. That way they can’t get one over one you either.

          • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

            Speaking for myself, I always like to stay one step ahead of kids. It might have been many many moons since I was a kid myself, but I still remember what being a kid was like. The world hasn’t changed that much, it just seems like it at time. 🙂

    • aussie says:

      Puck is right.. He said twice. The 7.18 call was to the police general number. This is FACT, established by looking at the records put into evidence just a few days ago.

      Had he gotten through, they’d have had to produce that tape along with all the others. Either he didn’t get through, or he was waiting to get through to someone else. (Apparently it’s one of the push button 1, button 2 etc type of deals; if you know the right one for NEN you can just push it, otherwise wait for instructions or talk to operator).

      • Unabogie says:

        Ok, but here’s what’s weird. You shoot someone after being in fear for your life. So the first thing you dial is the…NON emergency number? And of course, calling the police first thing is actually a good thing, right? And yet he left this out of his story. And for that matter, no one from SPD ever even asked him about it. This phone call just makes no sense.

        • bellesouth says:

          I am really impressed with the prosecution. Just the facts. And they are all introduced as evidence. The evidence shows that Trayvon was murdered by the cop wanna-be.

          • PiranhaMom says:


            Fogen shoulda wanna be a stucco man.

            The stucco guy made a better burglar catch than Fogen did.

            That’s why Fogen tracked down Tray – he wanted to capture the glory that the stucco guy got, by catching his “own” burglar.

            Simple, deadly, jealousy.

        • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

          It made no sense for him to get out the car and follow Trayvon since he claims that he was so fearful of his life. A fearful person would have stayed in the car. GZ is full of dung and anyone with common sense recognizes that.

          A person who is trained to use a gun, trained in MMA, and walking with a fully loaded gun, bullet already in the chamber has nothing to fear against an unarmed kid who by the way is 40 or 50 pounds lighter in weight than them. That’s some straight up BS.

          He made that call to cover his tracks and connect with one of his buddies on the force. Because think about it, he told that neighbor not to call the police, he already called them. He called them before he shot Trayvon. So, after he shoots him, he tells the neighbor not to, but then turns around and calls them again to make his self look good. I bet he has been planning for a long time how he would catch one of those “assholes that always get away” kill them, and cover his ass.

          Not only did he steal Trayvon’s life, he stole his scream, and then planted his own words in a dead child’s mouth. He is one sick SOB.

        • tinytruthseeker says:

          But he DID talk about this in one of his MANY statements…. During the reenactment he tells the investigators “He asked me if I had a problem…and I said No I don’t have a problem…and I was trying to get my phone out to call 911 this time instead of the NEN number…and I must have put it in a different pocket cuz when I looked up The kid says “well you got a problem NOW homie” and then he punched me in the face”….

          So my question is…. if you KNEW you needed to call 911 when you met up with the “Suspect” then why did you ONLY feel the need to call NEN after you SHOT the “suspect?” Was that last call to NEN really a shout out for your buddy on the SPD but you couldn’t get connected quickly enough? Did things start falling apart at that point?

          Unless of course…. everything you SAID happened when you met up with the “suspect” never actually happened, and what REALLY happened is Trayvon asked….”What are you following me for?” and then you reached for your GUN (NOT YOUR PHONE) and that scared the crap out of the boy you had already been stalking in the dark and in the rain and he tried to run away again and YOU assaulted HIM…. yea… that sounds more like what happened if you ask me…. jus sayin

        • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

          Normally, when you call the emergency number when a shooting is involved, every police in the area comes with sirens blasting, and guns drawn. If you call the NEN , they take their time coming out because NEN is considered none emergency.

          • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

            What I’m thinking is that GZ may have wanted to be selective in who would show up. If one showed up that let’s say is an honest cop, it would not have been good for him.

      • Hi Aussie.
        The NEN call GZ placed shows one thing: He did not want the kid to speak anymore.

        GZ claims that he thought he missed TM, that TM just surrendered and went down face on the grass, and that he went on top of TM to restrain him until a bystander came.

        The issue is that nobody saw that.
        Selma was out 5sec after the gunshot per the reenactment she did in court on MoM’s request. She saw GZ on top of TM lying on the ground face down. Jeannie Manalo & Jayne Surdyka both say that the person on top is the one who got up. So, it is well established that GZ was indeed on top of TM right after the gunshot.
        It could establish GZ’s story except that Selma & Jayne saw GZ his standing up hand putting his right hand to his hear while pacing by the body (Selma only saw that). Jonathan Manalo Saw GZ on the phone as he walked to the T. So, it is well established that GZ DID NOT restrain TM.
        GZ stood up and saw what everybody else saw: The inert body lying face down in the grass. John Good’s recorded 911 call clearly show that he knew the TM was dead. It is the same story for Jayne Surdyka’s call except that you can hear her melting down.
        What did GZ do? He calls NEN i.s.o. 911. He let the kid die on the grass with no.

        • BillT says:

          5 SECONDS simply is NOT enough time for Martin to have fallen away and zman to have gotten up and mounted him…….they both were standing and 5 seconds IS enough time for martin to fall and zman to mount him.

          • Nellie Nell says:

            I agree. I do think they were standing and that GZ was trying to walk Trayvon to his truck and that is when Trayvon tried to break away from GZ grip, hence the “Get off! Get off!”. In a panic because of Trayvon’s screams and fear, GZ knew he’d be in trouble for pulling a gun on a kid playing cop so he had to silence him to save his own ass.

            Wrong kid, wrong family!!!! If not for the need to force answers, GZ would still be on patrol in the neighborhood harassing young Black men and boys as if nothing ever happened. He was not going to be outdone by the stucco guys who actually helped to catch a criminal. How dare them come into my community where I skip on my rent and take my thunder!

            Once he his handed his sentence, I am going to have to beg for help forgiving him for killing that child to save his own behind from going to jail, where he will end up anyway.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I’m also shocked that the State hasn’t used the timeline against Fogen. Perhaps it’ll come up in the closing arguments.

    • Malisha says:

      I’m pretty sure we are not getting all the answers. Some of the answers will not be made public because they would actually indict the SPD; other answers will not be made public because they are per se incendiary. Also, there ARE “third parties” involved and nobody has the intestinal fortitude to go into that kettle of smelly fish.

    • elle says:

      Didn’t the Manalo guy say he was actually speaking on the phone? I thought he said when he went outside fogen was speaking. We know he is psycho, so maybe he was talking to the voices in his head? But, he had his phone out, so…

      • Lynn says:

        Manalo says he heard GZ on the phone and GZ tells him he just got OFF the phone with them. They talk about bleeding and GZ squats and Manalo sees head with flashlight and then sees dead body. He then says the cops show up and GZ asks him to call wife.

        Funny that Manalo skips the photoshoot and doesn’t remember to tells cops about it til later when he hands over the pics.

        If GZ just got off the phone with the police and then squats for the pic…Why is there a phone at this ear?

        If he comes around corner and sees GZ by the T he would have had to walk down to TM to take the pics of him and flashlight on ground. Nothing in this guy’s story sounds legit. He’s hiding something.

        Bernie needs to break this guy’s story.

        • PiranhaMom says:


          Jon Manalo testified that he scooted out his garage door (he’s the end unit at the north), walked (not ran) along the “cut through” to the T and found Fogen coming up there. Fogen was a little unsteady on his feet. There was another report from another witness that Fogen walked up to the T/dog waste station, then back to the crime scene, then north again. Jon Manolo said he shot his photos of the body and the tactical flashlight from the cut-through. *The “cut through” is the walkway between Twin Trees Lane (where Fogen parked) and Retreat View Circle.

          My guess is that by this point Zimmerman realized he had a problem on his hands because his “story” is that he walked from Twin Trees Lane to Retreat View Circle to “get a number” on Retreat View, then, having got it, was walking back by the same route (the cut through) to his truck, and was ambushed at the T by Trayvon before reaching his truck..

          He couldn’t figure out any legitimate story for why he was way down into the dog walk area – with a dead body for which he was responsible. He was described as first walking from the body to the T with his hand slapped to his forehead in the universal “how he hell do I get out if THIS problem???” stance.

      • hotheadpaisen says:

        Manalo. Told FDL E that when he came around the corner and shined his flashlight on Zimmerman, ” I think he was on the phone, because it sounded like he was on the phone.” and then he took a picture of the back of Zimmerman’s head with the phone at his right ear. Zimmerman stated many times that he twice begged Manalo for help in “restraining this guy” but Manalo never reported any such thing. I was disappointed that the prosecution did not point that out.

  85. concernedczen says:

    It seems like the defense was planning on recalling a bunch of people like Singleton, Serino, John Good, Jenna Lauer, etc.

    • cielo62 says:

      Yes, the ones who have already spoken for the prosecution, and then got hammered by the defense.

      • cielo62 says:

        IE I don’t see anything new coming from witnesses who ahve already been pummeled and revealed nothing of value for Fogen.

        • Nothing but fool’s gold to mine in them thar hills.

          • concernedczen says:

            The defense keeps repeating that the boy who was arrested for burglary was a black 17 year old. That wouldn’t seem to help the defense at all since it clearly indicates that GZ wrongly profiled TM.

            Yet, they keep saying it.

            I think the defense case is entirely about playing the “race card” and stoking the fears of the white jury against a black boy….like mentioning the “burglary tool” that turned out to be part of Manolo’s house.

            Those witnesses were pro-GZ and they can get them to do more of the same even if it substantively doesn’t help GZ’s case, it seems to fit the defenses strategy so far.

    • tashatexas77048 says:

      The state is lying in wait for Lauer and Good. If the defense has one ounce of sense they’ll leave those two off the recall list

      • concernedczen says:

        I sure hope you are right Tasha. The state certainly had enough time to investigate Good and get information to impeach him.

        • bettykath says:

          I think Bernie wanted go after them but he pulled his punches. Let’s hope the defense does bring them back so their testimony can be impeached. Bernie needs to go after John’s “rational thinking” that goes into fiction.

          Is there a rule that says you can’t impeach your own witness?

          • Malisha says:

            He shouldn’t have been allowed to give vent to his “rational thinking” crap; he’s a fact witness, not an expert witness. That “rational thinking” was for the jury to do, not for him.

        • hotheadpaisen says:

          Good seemed much different when he spoke to FDLE several weeks after the shooting and explained why he used the ‘mma’ phrase. During the trial he seemed almost hostile to