Sunday, February 3, 2013
As I’ve said before, I find it very difficult to attribute to a coincidence John’s (W6) first statement to police falsely describing an MMA-style thrashing that exactly matches the defendant’s false statement.
The statistical probability that those two false statements would coincidentally match must be vanishingly small. Therefore, I believe BDLR and the FDLE concluded early on that John repeated what the defendant told him.
I imagine that they wondered if John actually saw and/or heard what happened and knew the defendant was lying, or if he merely repeated what the defendant told him in an innocent but misguided effort to help him.
Let there be no mistake, however. Telling the police that he saw something he did not see is a lie, even if he believed that the detailed description he provided were true.
His conduct is more reprehensible, of course, if he knew the defendant lied about what happened and he repeated that lie to the police.
Let us assume for a moment that he repeated the lie knowing that it was a lie. Why might he have done that?
I offer six possible reasons.
First, the defendant may have been his friend and he lied to protect him.
Second, he may have feared him and agreed to tell the police whatever the defendant told him to say in order to protect himself and his wife from retaliation.
Third, the defendant may have threatened to harm him or his wife if John did not tell the police what the defendant instructed him to say.
Fourth, if he were a home owner, he would have had a financial interest in the outcome of the investigation. Since a conviction might result in HOA liability for wrongful death, he may have lied to protect his financial self-interest.
Fifth, he may have known that the defendant was going to follow, confront and interrogate Trayvon about neighborhood burglaries before the incident happened.
Sixth, and the most ominous reason, he may have known that the defendant was going to follow, confront, interrogate and kill Trayvon before the incident happened.
I have long suspected that the defendant had enlisted the support and cooperation of some neighborhood residents to serve as his eyes and ears. I also suspect that those eyes and ears had reported Trayvon’s presence in the neighborhood to the defendant. In other words, I believe he was specifically hunting for Trayvon when he left his house that night and I believe John was one of his informants.
LLMPapa’s video last night about Trayvon’s hoodie is consistent with this theory. He pointed out that the defendant accurately described the hoodie in the NEN call as dark gray and the defendant as a teenager; yet, the defendant would not have known either fact since it was dark and raining. The wet hoodie appeared to be black or dark blue and Trayvon had it up concealing most of his head and face.
Therefore, either the defendant had seen Trayvon in daylight wearing the hoodie or someone provided him with a description before he went hunting.
I do not doubt that BDLR and the FDLE have known this for a long time and they probably knew it when they interviewed John (W6) and he retracted his statement.
John (W6) needs to come clean and tell the whole truth.
Unfortunately, however, his credibility is no better than the defendant’s. Why would anyone believe anything he says unless it is independently corroborated?
The plot would thicken if independent corroboration in the form of the defendant’s cell phone records show a call from John moments before the defendant grabbed Shellie’s gun and went hunting for Trayvon followed by a call from the defendant to John moments after the shooting.