Discovery dump today in Michael Dunn case

Friday, January 24, 2014

Good evening:

We have a discovery dump (156 pages) to review in the Michael Dunn case. Among the contents are some letters he wrote that you may find interesting to read.

(H/T to Lynn for providing the link)

Happy trails,


60 Responses to Discovery dump today in Michael Dunn case

  1. Nice to see/read everybody. Great update, however I’m fairly cynical about the outcome. Both in the wretched Zimmerman case & then the Terry Thomas case I could not see how a jury could find not guilty, yet…….uhhhhh.

    My banjo tribute to the great Pete Seeger:

  2. dianetrotter says:

    Will we ever know the names of the Zimmerman jurors?

  3. bettykath says:



    The prolonged execution of an Ohio inmate during which he repeatedly gasped and snorted amounted to cruel and unusual punishment which should not be allowed to happen again, the inmate’s family said in a federal lawsuit.

    The lawsuit, filed late Friday, also alleges the drug maker that produced the medications illegally allowed them to be used for an execution and should be prohibited from making them available for capital punishment.

  4. MDH says:

    Sadly “1” and “2” played a big role in setting Zimmerman free.

    If one wades through all the chaff thrown up by Zimmerman defenders who are following “the law”, it becomes quite apparent that Florida did have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is was not self-defense. When faced with an argument that shows how unreasonable George’s story is or that, when compared to real evidence, it is a lie, they fall back to some song and dance about how it was “possible” and that Florida did not prove it “impossible”. Or they even use the “well, if George thought it was possible, then he had a reasonable fear of the possibility” WTF?????

    IOW, a large segment of the white population does harbor the view that all black males are dangerous killing machines and, as such, any encounter raised the possibility of death. That is the stupidity the USA is dealing with.

    In the face of that kind of thinking, the only was Zimmerman could have been found guilty would have been to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.

    And how pathetic is that?

    One would need a film of the event. And as in the case of Kelly Thomas, that might not be enough.

    B37 was able to get on the jury, although she stated to the effect that the media riled up black people to the point that they rioted. I think that shows how “2” is also in play.

    • MDH says:

      In light of what the professor wrote, I should amend my comments with respect to “1”, that Florida must prove any story told by a white person claiming self defense impossible.

      That is a far higher evidence bar than beyond a reasonable doubt.

      IMO, there was no forensic evidence that, when compared to the tale told by George, provided reasonable support to a scenario wherein he was in a life threatening situation. In fact, the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that George was a liar or, at the least, adding false facts to avoid what is crystal clear – he shot Trayvon in an irrational fit of fear, anger or stupidity.

      I work in patent law and the reasonable standard is about 20%:80% in favor of the defendant.

      IOW, you have to present evidence to support your claim so that one can reasonably say it has merit.

      All the Zimmerman defenders harp on the meme of “if it is possible, then it meets the reasonable standard, unless you prove it impossible”.

      For example, when faced with my argument that Trayvon @150lbs could not reasonably be assumed capable of throwing down a much larger man and holding him down MMA style to be subject to 20 to 30 unchecked blows, I was told “well, Bruce Lee was small, and could do that”

      Sure, that is possible.

      But what is the probability?

      To make that absurd claim reasonable, one would have to show evidence that Trayvon had spent years honing his skills as a fighter.

      So I would say, absent any evidence that the probability is 0.0001%

      Far below a reasonable standard of evidence and, in fact, an unsubstantiated claim.

      Note that I left out the lack of evidence for 20 to 30 unchecked blows on either Trayvon or George.

      I am not involved in criminal law.

      So maybe there is another way they look at evidence to support the reasonable standard.

      And maybe I am wrong here.

      IMO, if there is not enough evidence to reasonably support a claim of self defense, then that, by default, proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a self-defense claim is invalid.

      • lady2soothe says:

        I learned about what is called the “Dead Man’s Fall” which is when a person is killed while standing up they fall with their ankles crossed. Please review the link below showing Trayvon’s legs crossed at the ankles. Do you know or have you heard anything about this phenomena?

        Unfortunately I cannot find a link explaining the “Dead Man’s Fall” but a homicide detective/ex-police officer from Colorado Springs where I lived for 20 years was talking about it. If this is a well known fact, just why in the freakin’ hell wasn’t it
        brought up by the prosecutor’s? Wouldn’t this have put still another nail in GZ’s coffin?

        • bettykath says:

          Various witnesses saw Trayvon lying face down, his hands beneath his body. I believe he was turned over by EMTs. His legs would naturally be crossed at the ankles. Besides, anything that would place any blame on fogen didn’t count so wouldn’t have been mentioned.

          • lady2soothe says:

            @ Bettykath…. You’re right, I’d forgotten my head’s been on some serious issues lately. I can’t tell you how many times I posted on HP re: Trayvon’s hands beneath him as he clutched his chest. Either way, have you or anyone else ever heard of the “Dead Man’s Fall”?

        • MDH says:

          I saw it when a man talking to me died of a massive coronary mid-sentence. His arms fell to a crossed position in front of his body palms facing back and he pitched forward to fall on his face.

          The picture of TM’s body bring back that memory.

          That’s why I feel that the pig shot TM while both were back to standing facing each other. My guess is that, during the struggle, pig pulled hard on TM’s hoodie such that he fell back on his lard ass to scrape his head on the concrete. This would be what that witness saw. TM was probably lashing with his arms to break the grip on his hoodie to get away. The act of TM pulling back allowed pig to get back to his feet to draw his gun and shoot “the suspect”. Once shot, fell forward into the grass. My scenario explains how the top of TM’s head could be so far from the edge of the sidewalk. If he had been killed as he bashed George’s head, then the upper part of his body would be over the sidewalk. So George had to invent that lie about TM saying “you got me”, getting up, and stepping a few paces backward. That story is a farce on many levels. TM would have had to have maintained a high level of blood pressure, in order to stand up from a kneeling position. If that was so, then the pressure would have vented a lot of TM’s blood all over George. The forensic evidence I see is that TM instantly lost blood pressure and what was left of his heart just spilled blood into his chest cavity. I apologize for being a bit gory, but the truth is what it is and the people who believe in that pig should rot in hell for all I care.

          • lady2soothe says:

            @ MDH….

            His arms fell to a crossed position in front of his body palms facing back and he pitched forward to fall on his face.

            Then maybe this isn’t such a *fact* as was claimed… I searched everywhere on the internet and couldn’t find any reference to the “Dead Man’s Fall”

            As far as your post being

            a bit gory

            it needs to be said. We should never ever forget the absolute senselessness of the CAC’s viscous and total disregard of Trayvon’s life.

          • Your description is not gory. This was a murder case and blood was spilled. To understand what happened, we have to read the autopsy report and look at the autopsy photographs and crime scene photographs. Then we have to discuss the evidence, however gory it might be, because that is the nature of any murder case.

            Eventually, those of us who continued to handle murder cases as police and defense investigators, as prosecution and defense counsel, as medical examiners and forensic analysts reach a point where the gore and the smell of decomp no longer shock. For example, we can and many of us do casually eat food while examining grisly photographs that would send the average person to pray on their knees at the porcelain throne.

            From time to time we will be covering murder cases. After Trayvon, we took a look at Jodi Arias, Kendrick Johnson and more recently Renisha McBride and Kelly Thomas. Jordan Davis is up next starting a week from Monday. Philip Chism is on the radar and as far as grisly goes, that case may be the worst of the lot. For example, I suspect the new aggravated rape charge probably is based on the presence of Chism’s semen (DNA match) detected in the victim’s mouth or anus. However, the basis for adding a second aggravated rape charge was not explained. That frustrates me because I hate being left hanging when I know there is some new forensic evidence that led to that new charge.

            Not sure where I’m going with this rant except to say we have to review and discuss grisly stuff from time to time and no one should feel like they have to apologize for talking about grisly evidence in a murder case.

            Not everyone is cut out to do this work and I honestly do not know if it’s good or bad to become desensitized to murder. I could not do it anymore.

            In a sense we are fortunate because the grisly photographs that I am used to seeing have not been publicized in the cases that we’ve reviewed. That frustrates me because I am compulsive and always want to review all of the evidence. One cannot engage in evidence based analysis when important relevant evidence is missing.

          • gblock says:

            If I recall correctly, Jon Good, the witness who opened the door and stepped out briefly, testified that Trayvon was on top, that he first saw him lying on or nearly horizontal on top of Zimmerman, and later apparently sitting on top in a straddling position, with his arms flailing. They had moved some distance through the grass during those seconds. Trayvon’s hands were moving up and down as if he was striking repeated blows , but Jon saw them from the back and could not be sure whether he was actually striking Fogen.

            This seems consistent with Trayvon falling or being pulled down on top of Fogen when Fogen fell or was shoved, and Trayvon could have been trying to get up (hence the change from horizontal to sitting), Fogen holding on to Trayvon to prevent him from getting away, and Trayvon trying to break loose.

          • MDH says:


            That’s why I feel that the cuts on Georges head were scrapes from being on his back in some sort of struggle with Trayvon.

            And the lack of any real harm to his face, means that the blows that John Good thought he saw were not hitting home with any real force.

            Zimmerman, unlike the opinion of the liars who defend him, was bigger and stronger that Trayvon. My cousin was a bouncer who easily took a few slaps to the face in order to manhandle a troublemaker.

            IMO, George got mad, lost his temper and shot Trayvon because he tried the resist the only way a smaller person can – by flailing away to break George’s grip.

            Nobody seems to ask the rather obvious question.

            If George’s life was in mortal danger, then why did Good go back in the house?

            Good testified that he told them to cut it out. That indicates a struggle that is disturbing the peace but does not have one at deaths door. Until George decided to do so, of course.

            This trial has enabled a bigger person to bait and kill someone they don’t like.

            All they need do is spit in the victims face to start a fight and then claim that they had to end it for fear of their life. All the while knowing that their strength advantage will allow them to gain access to a concealed trump card.

            And how are witnesses going to know who started the fight?

            Like George and Trayvon, they will just see two guys going at it.

            I was under the impression that self-defense allowed meeting force with equivalent force.

            For example, what if Trayvon had killed George with a blow?

            A blow by a person who is not a trained professional fighter, IMO, is justifiable to use against a person who is being physically aggressive.

            The only way that Trayvon has no right to be physical is that one must accept George’s tale of how the altercation started as true.

            And there is not one witness to that.

            In fact, the only ear witness was Racheal.

            So, IMO, there was a non-lethal fight that we have no way to determine who started that ended by George shooting Trayvon.

            How that can not be at least manslaughter is beyond my comprehension of what a just society would want.

      • One of the problems that many members of the public and the jurors in Trayvon’s case had was a fundamental lack of respect for the power of circumstantial evidence. They wanted direct evidence from eyewitnesses, which is actually one of most error prone and least reliable forms of evidence.

        With the exception of scientific evidence like DNA results, I will generally take circumstantial evidence over direct evidence any day.

        • MDH says:

          That is the foundation of good science. One must compare what a witness or defendant says to what the circumstantial evidence shows. The truth ties it all together whereas outright lies or unreliable testimony create discrepancies.

          Another aspects of witness and defendant testimony that I feel was ignored is vested interest.

          If the person is or has a relationship with the defendant, then how much faith should be given to anything they say not supported by evidence.

          IMO, the media and the jury accepted George Zimmerman’s story as established fact and required Florida to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

          So tall tales about Trayvon leaping out from behind 3 foot high shrubs becomes facts that the state failed to disprove.

        • There was just a case closed in Prescott, AZ in the past few days – a man convicted of bludgeoning his wife to death – no murder weapon found, but thought to be a golf club. The case took five years from start to finish and Dimocker, the defendant was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence. If you don’t know the circumstantial evidence, it’s easy to be alarmed and think that he was railroaded, but if you do your research, the circumstantial evidence is quite compelling. I think the jury did the right thing. I think the defendant was simply a very clever and well-prepared murderer (murder brutal but staged to look like an accident) and Dimocker seems likely to be some sort of charming sociopath or narcissist.

        • racerrodig says:

          To my understanding. in NJ at least, the defendant must testify in a case like this. If he doesn’t the hearsay rules prevent the tale from being considered as self defense. To make it harder to fathom, he waived his SYG rights.

          Every lawyer and person in the business here that I have talked to says the same thing. There was no witness to the start of the altercation, nobody confirmed what Fogen said in his police report about that, his tale is nonsensical in it’s entirety.

          I’m told that in NJ this is what the jury would be told to consider in part….

          Fogen got out of his truck (safety) and pursued a person that was lawfully there and committing no crime.

          The police told him cease and desist.

          Trayvon was unarmed (concrete doesn’t count)

          The autopsy counts big time

          The forensics count big time (bullet hole misalignment)

          Jentel’s testimony counts big time

          MMA training is a major factor

          Trayvon is a minor

          The law clearly states Fogen had to exhaust every avenue of escape which he did not

          His CCW permit is invalid….(that alone in NJ is 25 years or so)

          This was not his pistol

          Fogens injuries are a big ????

          Fogens past run – in’s with the law may have gotten into it if the defense even went close to the road they took ripping Trayvon.

          The prosecution would have done everything to get everyone he’s messed with (ex – gf’s, his cousin, ex – co-workers) on the stand so the jury would see what he is.

          The biggest thing would have been baiting the defense into a spot where Fogen had to take the stand……….

          And this is just the tip of the iceberg. In NJ none of that crap of carrying a slab of sidewalk into court would have been allowed nor the thugifying of the victim.

          The way he claims he pulled his gun is 100% impossible, the trajectory destroys his claim and on and on.

    • Malisha says:

      In Fogen’s case it WAS possible to disprove self-defense because of the police NEN call: “Shit–he’s running…”

      • MDH says:

        That statement should be clear and incontrovertible evidence that Trayvon was in fear.

        Somehow {racism being the somehow} this case became accepting George Zimmerman’s story as established fact and requiring Florida to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

        In fact {pun intended}, accepting anything a white person claims as fact vs. dismissing anything a black person told as lies or unreliable testimony was another hallmark of this trial.

        Hell, a white man in this trail with no real credentials in a specific area could get on the stand, claim to be an expert, and be accepted by the jury.

        I contrast that with non-white persons with years of experience who were ignored.

        Years from now, I feel scholars will use this trail to show how white privilege permeates American society.

        • gblock says:

          One of the things that bothered me about the prosecution during the trial is that they seemed to go out of their way to emphasize reasons to discount Rachel Jeantel as a witness (speech, apparent lack of knowledge of the justice system, she initially lied to avoid having to be connected with the case) instead of talking about what her testimony provided to the case.

          • MDH says:

            An objective person also has to look at what makes sense.

            If I was being followed by a guy in a car who did not roll down the window to ID himself and I ran off to get away, then seeing him approaching me on foot would lead me to say:

            Why the F are you following me?

            If I wanted to beat his ass, then I would follow the advice of some real thugs I knew who would attack him in his car. The idea is that a guy in a car seat can be beat on without being able to move his body in defense. And rushing a car does justify self defense on the part of the driver.

            So this story about T running off to bait G into an ambush from behind wee little shrubs is pure BS.

            If anything, running away, is factual evidence that the stranger is afraid of the driver. Therefore, the driver leaving the car is evidence of engaging a person who has clearly indicated they want to flee.

            One time while jogging at night I came up on a women who, when I got close, turned and assumed a fighting stance. I immediately said sorry and ran on ahead to disengage. That’s common sense and respect. Something the Zimmerman clan has none of.

            What Racheal said makes real sense.

            The 9-11 call establishes that George has mental problems and is an ass.

            Going back to “why are you following me”

            A sane person who has actually been following a stranger would realize that the proper response to that question is to ID one’s self, apologize for scaring the stranger, and state their business.

            An ass would say something like

            “why are you here?”

            However, saying “why are you here?” fits George’s personality to a T.

            In all probability, I would have been shot by George in that same situation.

            I would have got very loud and yelled in his face that he has no right to follow me.

            I am sure a piss stain like Good would have done nothing.

            And that is another coward of many in that community.

            I have witnessed many fights. One of the duties one has is to try to break it up, if one person appears to have a massive upper hand on the other. The idea is to save both parties. The beaten person’s life and the beater from going to far.

            If this gated community represents what fear and loathing of the “other” has produced, then I then I thank my lucky stars that I grew up in what the people who reside in these communities call the “shithole” of Detroit.

  5. Malisha says:

    Two interesting beliefs of Dunn:

    1- In Florida, prosecutors have to PROVE it was not self-defense.
    2- Blacks control the media. (Gee, I thought that was the Jews!)

    Based on his accuracy and general knowledge, I’m not gonna try his rissotto recipe.

    • Poor thing. He is a victim because of the media. It’s Anderson Cooper’s fault he fired all those shots at a fleeing vehicle of unarmed kids, and then left the scene after killing, to go to a hotel and eat pizza.

      Oh wait. Anderson Cooper is white.

    • He’s right about the prosecutors having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t self defense.

      Explanation: The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn committed a homicide.

      Since a homicide, including murder and manslaughter, is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being, and killing another person in self-defense is lawful, the prosecution has to prove that Dunn did not kill in self-defense.

      According to the way our laws are designed, the outcome of any disputed matter must be decided fairly and impartially by determining:

      (1) Who has the burden of proof (prosecution in criminal cases);
      (2) What is the burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases);
      (3) What legal rule should be applied to resolve the disputed matter (the elements of the statute defining the crime in criminal cases); and
      (4) Whether the party carried its burden of proof (determined by the jury in a jury trial or by the judge in a bench trial).

      • Somehow I can’t really see that he was all that scared for his life, seeing as how he left the scene, went to a hotel, and ordered pizza.

        • MDH says:

          B37 would just say that is was possible for a group of riot prone, super strong, lethal black males to have a gun or it was possible for them to get out of their car and stomp him to death, thus making Dunne’s assumptions reasonable.

          So, unless Florida can prove his assumption is not possible, then he is not guilty.

          That is the logic applied and accepted by the whitestream media in the Zimmerman trial.

          IOW, facts mean nothing and “beliefs” are everything.

          I hope to God what I just wrote as a kind of snark is not true. But, sadly, I think it more likely hits a mark.

        • racerrodig says:

          “Somehow I can’t really see that he was all that scared for his life,….”

          Well, to me that getting out of his car when he claims a deadly stick, er….shotgun was pointed at him kind of blows up his entire self defense scenario.

          Good Lord… least Fogen said he was being held / pummeled / attacked by / couldn’t escape from / almost unconscious at the hands of Black Dynamite Slim.

          Dunn, well………he got out and fired at a retreating SUV.

          Scared ?? A – hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah…!!!

          • Yep, and instead of taking cover, he stepped out into the parking lot and fired at the retreating SUV. He wanted to get a clear shot and was not the least bit afraid of exposing himself to being shot by someone in the SUV. He wasn’t afraid of being shot because he damn well knew no one in the SUV had a gun.

          • I have a feeling those jailhouse calls will bury him. Oh. That;s right. We’re dealing with Angela Corey. How do people like that get into law school?

        • Boyd says:

          good point. ho hum, gotta get home to walk the dog, more concerned about the carpet.

  6. fauxmccoy says:

    well, i stayed up way too late reading dunn’s drivel.

    funny, how while in the pokey and surrounded by criminals such as himself, all who happen to be ‘thugs’ except for him, of course, dunn cannot decide whether he is a ‘victim of reverse discrimination’ or a ‘political prisoner’.

    i did not enjoy my foray into that very sick mind of his. i hope i can sleep peacefully after that mess.

  7. racerrodig says:

    Still no sign of that deadly stick yet ?? Funny how he refers to the states case as “alleged evidence”

    Lrt us know when they slam that alleged cell door closed for the1st time behind your ass after the guilty line rings out

  8. Two sides to a story says:

    Some of the logic Dunn reveals in hi letter reminds me of Fogen and his supporters. : /

  9. bettykath says:

    A straight PDF file would be nice. I can’t navigate the form that’s posted.

  10. Gold. But I want to see the written statements by the people in the car.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: