home

O'Mara to get George Zimmerman Discovery Monday

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Sun May 13, 2012 at 08:38:25 PM EST
Tags: George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Mark O'Mara will begin getting discovery tomorrow in the George Zimmerman case. The media and public are unlikely to get it right away. O'Mara has said he will file for a motion to seal some of it, particularly the information with witness names, and the State's Attorney agrees with him and has said her office won't make it publicly available on Monday.

It will include crime scene photos, Trayvon's autopsy, Zimmerman's five statements to authorities, witness statements, and crime lab work — if it's been completed — on clothing and Zimmerman's handgun.

I'm not sure what is sealable about the autopsy report or lab tests, but I don't blame O'Mara for wanting time to review it before it's publicly released.

Our older Zimmerman threads are full, so here's a place to discuss the anticipated discovery and legal issues. (Note: You may not use this site to link to petitions and argue for restrictions on stand your ground laws. I oppose such restrictions and do not support more gun control laws. Keep your comments to the law's application to the Zimmerman case or other past or pending cases.) [More..]

Also keep in mind that despite what certain newspapers report, race is not an element of the charges and the state has not accused Zimmerman of racially profiling Trayvon Martin. It has alleged he profiled Trayvon as a criminal. The affidavit for probable does not even contain the word race. It also disavows that he spoke a racial slur.

Thus, please refrain using this thread to post your personal view of whether Zimmerman engaged in racial profiling or stated a racial slur. Since as of now, the state has not made race an issue, it's not going to be an issue here. If you aren't sure if your comment is on topic or violates our rules, save a copy on your computer in case it gets deleted.

Also, remember to state your views as your opinion, not fact, and don't misrepresent disputed facts as undisputed. And do not proclaim Zimmerman (or any defendant who has not been convicted) guilty. Your views on what the evidence shows or needs to show for a conviction or acquittal is allowed, your conclusion that he is guilty is not.

Lastly, our customary rules apply as to no profanity and no name-calling, insults or personal attacks on other commenters, the host of this site, or either Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin, their lawyers or people connected to them. We aim for a higher level of discourse.

< John Edwards: Why He Does Not Need to Testify | Sunday Night TV and Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • O'Mara to get George Zimmerman Discovery Monday | 196 comments (196 topical)
    Dismissal Request Based on Released Evidence (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by RickyJ on Mon May 14, 2012 at 06:12:21 AM EST
    After looking over the released evidence, I think that O'Mara may have enough ammo to file a motion to dismiss the second degree murder charge against Zimmerman based on Florida statutes 923.03 and/or 776.032

    1. Here, Bernardo de la Rionda, assistant prosecutor, swore he had sworn to facts that, if true, would establish each element of the murder 2 charge http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/04/11/zimmerman.charges.pdf  If examination of the discovered evidence indicates de la Rionda was not correct about this, O'Mara can move to dismiss under 923.03.  Could Ms. Fulton's swearing the screams were from Trayvon be considered as something proving the charge, when it has so little probative value?  If she had sworn Trayvon came to her in a vision and told her of Zimmerman's guilt, with St. Peter vouching for his being right, could the prosecution use that?

    2. If it turns out that there is insufficient evidence to counter Zimmerman's claim of self defense, then O'Mara can move to dismiss under 776.032.  It seems that an immunity hearing is not necessary to ask for dismissal since the state had previously claimed it couldn't prosecute Zimmerman, presumably using this statute, http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-17/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-911-call-20120316_1_d
    eadly-shooting-shot-man-reports

    Thanks in advance for your comments on this, Jeralyn.

    Prosecutors file list of (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by rjarnold on Mon May 14, 2012 at 06:13:47 PM EST
    witnesses, evidence.

    Apparently they have a new video from the clubhouse that night. Also it lists a New Jersey forensics expert as a witness, who I presume would be Tom Owen (who is from NJ).

    The clubhouse video should be very interesting (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:03:12 PM EST


    Parent
    clubhouse video likely not interesting. (2.00 / 0) (#65)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 14, 2012 at 11:34:52 PM EST
    At most it may show the two persons in the case and their proximity to one another, with a time stamp.  One in a car and the other on foot. But none of this seems to be disputed by either side of the case.  

    In a perfect world, we would see if GZ's window is up, if Trayvon does anything overtly suspicious like tampering with the mailboxes, or making obscene gestures, I suppose.  Perhaps TM is smoking a joint in the video, that would be quite a revelation, but it's just not going to happen.  He was drug tested anyway as part of his autopsy.   None of this would have any place in the courtroom anyway.  

    A real miracle would be if you could read his lips as TM spoke with "DeeDee" and we saw when their call ended.  I'm certainly not holding my breath here.

    A super-miracle would be if you could see where GZ stopped his
    car to watch and call the non-emergency police line from, or if he flashed a weapon at the youth, which I highly doubt he did.  It could be that he made motions to retrieve his gun from the glove box but this is fantasy-land to think you could ever see that on a video.    

    If GZ ever claimed TM spoke to him while he was in the car and that activity was shown on the video, that would corroborate Zimmerman's account, but the police call seems to eliminate that event having happened.  I think Trayvon's father said he was told that exchange happened, but he seems to be wrong about it from all we know now.  The parents are learning everything second-hand, and repeating it in confusing ways back thru the media.  I haven't put much stock in their accounts, myself.  

    Some of what we know about the clubhouse comes from DeeDee - maybe her statements could be corroborated or impugned, but that's a stretch to imagine from such a video.  

    I'm guessing it's not much to look at, except in a macabre "if it bleeds, it leads" tv news kind of way.  And you can bet we will have to watch it a zillion times anyway.  Cable news loves this junk.  

    Parent

    Another Expert (none / 0) (#33)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 06:54:47 PM EST
    Tom Owen is named. The unnamed New Jersey expert must be someone else.

    Ed Primeau is also named, btw.

    Parent

    audio is a surprise to me (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 14, 2012 at 09:22:13 PM EST
    I was beginning to think the audio was GZ's voice calling for help.  Should the fact that these experts are named here cause me to doubt that?  Or is it just a prosecution gambit to dump a lot of paper work into discovery to hide their trial strategy?  

    It would seem like if they could prove it was Trayvon yelling, that's kind of "game over" for George's self defense story.  

    How much can one read the tea leaves here?  

    Parent

    no it means little (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 14, 2012 at 09:44:52 PM EST
    The FBI experts didn't conclude it was Trayvon's voice according to the investigator at the bond hearing. The state's attorney may be using the opinions of Owen and Primeau, who did an analysis for the Orlando Sentinel, to counter that. I wouldn't even assume that the state had either Owen or Primeau do testing. It may be relying on what was reported in the Sentinel.

    There are 67 cd's of discovery. The state must turn over all it has, including information that exculpates him as well as any that inculpates him.

    This isn't its final trial or exhibit list. It's discovery provided to the defense,  along with some kind of list of witnesses they may call and exhibits.

    Since no one has seen the state's 8 page document, everyone is just quoting reporters from the Orlando Sentinel. We don't even know if the 8 page document represents anything other than a table of contents or catalogue of what's been provided. Primary witnesses may be witnesses with direct information rather than background information, not witnesses they intend to call -- how about waiting till we see it before characterizing it evidence that supports it is Trayvon's voice rather than Zimmerman's. If the FBI experts don't confirm Owen/Primeau, it's a wash.

    Parent

    Probably No Audio Evidence in Court (2.00 / 0) (#181)
    by RickyJ on Tue May 15, 2012 at 09:10:30 PM EST
    Being somewhat knowledgeable in the area, I can confidently hazard a guess that there is no chance that Owen's and Primeau's testimony would be ruled admissible and the FBI people said that the audio sample on the 911 call was of such a poor quality that it couldn't be used in tests.  I did remember reading, but can't remember where, that the police supplied the FBI with a sample of Zimmerman screaming, made a day after the killing. I am wondering if the relatives would be allowed to testify that they could identify the screams since that doesn't have to pass the Fry test.  Of course that would be pointless since it would obviously be a wash.

    Parent
    Who likely started the physical fight matters big (4.50 / 2) (#125)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:03:24 PM EST
    time after all.

    One thing I just realized after rereading the Florida self defense immunity statute is that civil immunity doesn't apply if O'Mara can't persuade a judge that it's more likely than not that Zimmerman didn't throw the first punch. That's because the statute that still lets Zimmerman prevail on justified deadly force if he reasonably believed he ran a serious risk of great bodily harm or death if he didn't, provided that he fled if he could (Florida Criminal Law section 776.041 "Use of Force by Aggressor"), isn't listed among the three subsections for which civil immunity is granted.

    So it then becomes a real big deal to Zimmerman/O'Mara to convince the judge at the immunity hearing that it was more likely that Trayvon threw the first punch than that Zimmerman did.

    I think the circumstantial evidence weighs on the side that Trayvon threw the first one for these reasons:

    1. Zimmerman didn't sound mad at Trayvon, just suspicious of him on the call he made to police, nor did he have a reason to be mad at him. He wasn't sure Trayvon was casing the neighborhood for burglary, he just suspected it. In contrast Trayvon did have a reason to be mad at Zimmerman. He had reason to feel "dissed" at being he probably thought racially profiled, suspected, and followed.

    2. What Zimmerman said his aim was on the call he made to police was to keep Trayvon in sight so he could point him out to police when they shortly arrived. He expressed frustration on the call when he lost sight of Trayvon. He didn't say he wanted to question Trayvon or detain him, that's what he'd called the police to do and he knew they were coming. Nor had Zimmerman ever questioned or detained any other of the persons he'd called into police as being suspicious. Instead according to the long Reuters article he'd sometimes followed suspicious to him persons at a distance while awaiting the arrival of police.

    3. He knew the police were coming shortly, while Trayvon did not. It would be pretty dumb to start a fight that someone might have seen you start, with the police arriving, and neighbors knowing who you are.

    4. He had taken a gun training course before getting his concealed carry permit. He would have learned in it that it's really dumb to start a physical fight when armed, since what did happen could happen with at the very least all sorts of complications for him, or worse the opponent could discover the weapon in the struggle, take it from him, and shoot him. Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman was armed, whereas Zimmerman wasn't sure if Trayvon was armed or not.

    5. Trayvon was much taller than Zimmerman, 6'2" @160+ to Zimmerman's 5'8 @ 170. That makes it a lot less likely that Zimmerman would start a physical fight as well.
    Not Angry? (none / 0) (#192)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 16, 2012 at 08:15:24 AM EST
    Zimmerman didn't sound mad at Trayvon . . .

    I think 'a*holes' and 'f*ing p*nks', or 'f*ing' whatever, sounds like anger.

    He wasn't sure Trayvon was casing the neighborhood for burglary . . .

    'These a*holes. They always get away.' It sounds like Zimmerman had formed a conclusion. Maybe he didn't mean it literally, but it's the evidence we have.

    He didn't say he wanted to question Trayvon or detain him, that's what he'd called the police to do and he knew they were coming.

    I think Zimmerman wanting to detain Martin is far-fetched. As I've mentioned, false imprisonment, Fla. Stat. § 787.02, is a third degree felony, with a maximum penalty of five years and $5,000.

    Questioning is another matter. Zimmerman didn't know how long it would take the police to arrive, and he had expressed concern that Martin not 'get away'. It's true that Zimmerman hadn't questioned a suspect before, but he hadn't followed one on foot before either.

    On the other side, all the evidence we have is that Martin spoke first.

    Parent

    Given that one of the state's two lead (4.25 / 4) (#9)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 14, 2012 at 12:55:44 PM EST
    investigators admitted on the witness stand at the bail bond hearing to O'Mara that they have no good evidence as to who started the fight, I think it highly unlikely that there is any eyewitness or who started it, or good ear witness with respect to that question either.

    I think it probable that Trayvon started the physical fight based on a number of factors.  1) The long Reuters article on Zimmerman's background, the views about him of his neighborhood, and his history as the watch captain (the best reporting in the media concerning this case in my view) said that Zimmerman had never gotten into any physical altercations with those he'd called into police, had avoided directly talking to any of them, or getting to close to them.  Instead he tried to keep them in sight which is also what he implied in his call to the police dispatcher on the night of the shooting.  Further he knew the police would be there soon while Trayvon did not.  2) He knew he was armed but Trayvon didn't and in his pistol training class which he took to get a concealed carry permit he would have been told that getting into a physical fight when armed is a very risky thing to do, since what did happen could with all sorts of complications at the least, or the guy he's fighting could discover the weapon and use it on him.  3) Trayvon was six inches taller than him and of similar weight and would have looked fit and in shape.  4)  Zimmerman didn't sound mad at Trayvon, just suspicious of him.  On the other hand Trayvon might very well have felt "dissed" and thus mad that Zimmerman had racially profiled him (he might have thought), suspected him, and was following him.  5)  Why would Zimmerman want to question or detain Trayvon when he'd called the police to do that instead?  

    However this case doesn't really turn on who started the physical fight.  The stand your ground defense would be out if GZ started it, but by the time GZ used potentially deadly force he couldn't flee, he was pinned to the ground by Trayvon who was on top of him, repeatedly bashing his head against the concrete sidewalk and repeatedly punching him in the face having broken his nose while GZ repeated screamed help to John, according to not only GZ, but also eyewitness John who no witnesses have credibly offered contradictory evidence.  Further crime scene evidence corroborates that story, such as GZ's broken nose, the photo of the back of GZ's head taken the after the fact witness says only seconds after he/she got there which shows bright red blood over most of the back of GZ's head and two long gashes about 3 inches long, and as well Zimmerman's wet back covered with grass cuttings.  (It was raining.)  

    So long as Zimmerman reasonably believed he was in danger of serious bodily injury or death, and it couldn't flee when he was in such danger,  then he could rightfully shoot Trayvon with potentially deadly effect.  Having your head bashed against cement can cause a serious concussion, coma or even death.  

    Some inconsistencies in GZ's five sessions of questioning by police might cause them to not believe GZ's story about Trayvon having seen his pistol in the course of the struggle, and going for it, before GZ beat him to it, which would be an open and shut case of self defense, but that's not necessary for GZ to have had reasonable fear that he faced great bodily injury if he didn't shoot Trayvon.  

    So too even if in some of statements he says he managed to get his head off the concrete and onto grass, that wouldn't keep him from fearing that Trayvon, who was on top of him and not stopping his beating (according to eyewitness John), would manage to get his head back on to concrete and resume bashing it.

    I think this is a very strong case of self defense despite all the media and in many quarters public emotion over it, and easily see why the Sanford police didn't charge Zimmerman.  It looks to me so far that GZ was only charged due to the political pressure of the black community through rallies, a sympathetic media and so on, spun by Crump and the PR firm he engaged, Ryan Julison Communications.


    Again, (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 14, 2012 at 05:31:28 PM EST
     Just one question:

    "....repeatedly bashing his head against the concrete sidewalk and repeatedly punching him in the face having broken his nose...."

    How many bashing of head against concrete and repeated punches to the face for GZ to not look like he's ready for Prom Night 5 minutes later?

    Parent

    Blows to the skull that cause (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:30:56 PM EST
    concussions often don't show ANY external injury,or only lumps that well up hours later.

    The danger of blunt force blows to the head are overwhelming internal brain injury.

    O'Mara will be able to call medical experts who credibly say such things on the stand.  Most people know that anyway.  

    Parent

    Bashing someone's head (none / 0) (#96)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:44:25 AM EST
    against concrete is no minor thing.

    A rioter in London's riots last summer killed a bystander with a single bash of his head against concrete.  

    Parent

    Oy vey! (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:43:00 AM EST
    Do you not understand?

    I know what bashing is, I'm intimately familiar with head bashing. And, I'm telling you that if GZ's head was "bashed" with one tenth the ferocity you claim we'd be talking about the late George Zimmerman.


    Parent

    I haven't claimed any particular (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:26:43 PM EST
    degree of ferocity.  Zimmerman was no doubt trying to resist the bashing including with his neck muscles att least after the first time, and Tryavon didn't have a long distance to gain momentum.  I've claimed that both  Zimmerman's story and the physical evidence of the bloody back of his head and at least two long gashes support Zimmerman's story that his head was repeatedly bashed by Trayvon against the concrete.

    Besides your comment bolsters the reasonableness of Zimmerman's fearing great bodily harm or death as a result of such bashing continuing or resuming.

    Parent

    Bwwwhahahahaha..... (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Angel on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:35:02 PM EST
    You do not know if there was any "bashing" going on.  And what is that about his 'neck muscles?"    Quit already.

    Parent
    Thank you (4.00 / 2) (#134)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:42:04 PM EST
    for so nicely exemplifying the problems Zimmerman is likely to face with a jury.

    Quit already? Meaning you don't think Zimmerman couldn't possibly have minimized concussive impact by resisting another man's attempt to smash his head into the cement? Or do you just think there's no way Trayvon could or would have ever bashed someone's head? It's amazing the amount of hostility that gets exhibited here when someone contradicts other commenters' meta-narrative about this incident. People are remarkedly invested in and defensive of their opinions about this incident.

    Let's hope the jurors are a little more open to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."


    Parent

    No, you missed the point (1.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:57:39 PM EST
    Putting your huffyness aaside, the poster was rightfully, imo, mocking the certainty of the claim.  The other poster is stating speculation  as fact.  He has no evidence regarding his claim about Zimmerman's use of his "neck muscles" or his repeated use of "bashing" or various other emotional invocations.

    Parent
    Well, maybe this comes down to (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 04:37:50 PM EST
    what ANY of us would have done. Or more to the point, what someone on the jury thinks they would have done.

    If someone was on top of me smashing my head against cement, I would be fighting like crazy to escape before they knocked me out. I would have resisted more head bashing with my neck muscles, arm muscles and leg muscles as I tried to squirm out from under him. If I had a weapon and thought he could kill me with continued smashing or bashing, would I have shot him? I don't really know, having never found myself in that position. Maybe none of us really knows what we'd do in a moment of panic.

    What I do know is that if I'm on the jury for the Zimmerman case, I might be persuaded that Zimmerman was a jerk who caused this entire tragedy with his actions. I might think he unfairly profiled Trayvon Martin. I might feel for the parents who lost their child. But if the defense convinces me that Martin had a chance to escape, if he had time to leave the area but, instead, willfully chose to come back and assault his "profiler" or "watcher," and if, during that altercation, he had the upper hand and didn't stop attacking, I'd find Zimmerman innocent of murder.


    Parent

    "Chance to escape"? (none / 0) (#143)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:08:14 PM EST
    I doubt the defense is going to touch that part of it with a ten foot pole.  How would they show that Martin knew he had a chance to escape or leave the area?  How would Martin have known that Zimmerman supposedly lost sight of him or stopped following him at some point and therefore he had a chance to escape and/or leave the area?  

    "Come back" where? Also, it seems that there was a verbal confrontation between the two before it turned physical.

    Parent

    It's not clear yet (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:45:00 PM EST
    who started the altercation. Early in Zimmerman's call to the police, Martin took off running. He was out of Zimmerman's sight during that call. If the original call took place far from the shooting, the prosecution can establish that Zimmerman followed Martin and eventually caught up to him. They can try to prove Zimmerman grabbed Martin to prevent him from leaving before the police came to question him. If that happened, Zimmerman is the aggressor.

    Given the amount of time involved between when Martin took off running and the altercation recorded on witnesses' 911 calls, if the shooting location is nearby the location of the original call, the defense can claim that Martin was well out of sight, but chose to come back toward Zimmerman. This lends credence to Zimmerman's story, and makes his self defense more plausible. Why wouldn't anyone who was fearful of Zimmerman not keep going once they had lost him? Some commenters here propose that Martin wouldn't want to lead a potentially dangerous man back to his father's girlfriend's home where his younger brother was. That's reasonable. But the possibility that Martin may have acted aggressively, even if he was afraid of Zimmerman (the stranger watching him) could convince the jury that Martin actually did slam Zimmerman's head into the cement. That's why the picture and the "sweet little boy coming home with candy meme" is so disingenuous. The question is whether or not Martin, as a strong, young man, was potentially dangerous in a physical altercation, and if he would choose to confront a man even if he had the chance to avoid a confrontation. Let's face it, there are some people who would never even try to beat someone up. Other people have more "attitude" and are simply more confrontative. What kind of person was Martin?

    If Martin slammed Zimmerman's head into cement, regardless of the reasons for the altercation, Zimmerman can reasonably claim he feared for his life. The jury decision may hinge on whether or not Martin had the opportunity to leave, but instead came back to confront Zimmerman.

    Parent

    Striking Cement (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:12:11 PM EST
    his repeated use of "bashing" or various other emotional invocations.

    Gilbreath conceded the injuries are 'consistent with' Zimmerman's head 'striking' a hard surface, such as 'cement'.

    I'm content with the word 'striking'.

    Parent

    It's not speculation it's Zimmerman's story to (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Doug1111 on Wed May 16, 2012 at 12:29:10 PM EST
    Sanford police that Trayvon repeatedly bashed his head against the cement sidewalk, and the injuries to the back of his head are consistent with that, as one of the prosecutions two chief investigators admitted to O'Mara when O'Mara called him to the stand during the bail bond hearing.

    That is very far from mere speculation.  

    Parent

    Oh, puh-lease. (5.00 / 0) (#197)
    by Angel on Wed May 16, 2012 at 12:45:24 PM EST
    You cannot interchange the words strike and bash and have a reasonable person think they mean the same thing.  No need to reply....I already know that you think you know exactly what happened that night, but you don't.  None of us do.

    Parent
    Not just concrete (5.00 / 0) (#200)
    by Yman on Wed May 16, 2012 at 03:30:20 PM EST
    The investigator testified that it was consistent with his head striking something harder than his head.

    BTW - Is "repeatedly" supposed to sound better than twice, given that there were only two, small lacerations?  Similarly, does "bash" sound better than "strike", with its connotation of violence and force, rather than a head wound which doesn't even require a bandaid?

    Parent

    There was nothing emotional (none / 0) (#166)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:21:54 PM EST
    about it.

    It's common sense that after having your head frightening bashed against concrete once, in a surprise move perhaps, that at least the second time the bashee (Zimmerman) would try to resist that occurring at full force just instictively as well as logically.  I know I would, and I don't think that's a function of high IQ.

    Parent

    Doug's comments are no more than rank (1.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Angel on Tue May 15, 2012 at 04:03:29 PM EST
    speculation.  I'm saying he has zero proof that Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete.  Yet Doug insists (through multiple comments on multiple threads) that Zimmerman was getting his head smashed to smithereens by Martin.  We don't know the facts yet, and we may never.  But his continued insinuation that Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head and beating the crap out of him is speculation only.  Any injuries sustained by Zimmerman could be explained by slipping on the wet grass and falling to the concrete.

    Parent
    Speculation (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:22:18 PM EST
    But his continued insinuation that Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head and beating the crap out of him is speculation only.

    John:

    And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.

    There is also Zimmerman's testimony, which is admissible evidence. The trier of fact will assess its credibility.

    Angel:

    Any injuries sustained by Zimmerman could be explained by slipping on the wet grass and falling to the concrete.

    This is speculation. There is no evidence it happened.

    Parent

    Well, the medical report from Zimmerman's (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by Angel on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:10:51 PM EST
    personal doctor is out according to ABC News, and it says there were two lacerations on Zimmerman's head, one about 1/4 inch long and the other about 1 inch long.  I would speculate that if Martin had been bashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete there would be more severe injuries.  And yes, Zimmerman could have slipped on the wet grass.  No proof that that did or did not happen.


    Parent
    Standards (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:58:42 PM EST
    I would speculate that if Martin had been bashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete there would be more severe injuries.

    One more time, Gilbreath conceded that the injuries were 'conistent with' Zimmerman's head 'striking' a 'cement' surface.

    And yes, Zimmerman could have slipped on the wet grass.

    'Could have' only helps if you're on the better side of the reasonable doubt standard. To beat preponderance of evidence, let alone reasonable doubt, you need some evidence that Zimmerman slipped on grass.

    Parent
    *Bashing* and *striking* are two entirely (none / 0) (#190)
    by Angel on Wed May 16, 2012 at 07:01:06 AM EST
    different things.  Doug has repeatedly said Zimmerman's head was bashed against the concrete, and I'm saying if his head had been bashed the injuries would probably be more severe.  You are missing the point...  

    Parent
    Entirely? (none / 0) (#191)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 16, 2012 at 07:08:52 AM EST
    bash vt : to strike violently

    Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged

    Merriam-Webster, 2002

    Parent

    You want it both ways. (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by Anne on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:46:33 AM EST
    You want to use "bash" in all its iterations in order to provide George Zimmerman with the requisite fear for his life, but when the medical evidence is inconsistent with what most people would expect "bashing" to result in, you want to get out your dictionary and explain that "strike" means the same thing.

    If, in the general lexicon, and as people have been using it, it meant the same thing as "bash," don't you think more people would be using the words interchangeably?  If I fall down and hit my head, I'd say I "struck" my head, or "hit" my head, not that I "bashed" it.  

    We could do this all day with words, but what is going on now with "bashing" v. "striking" seems to be about trying to fit the square peg of the medical evidence into the round hole that is the "bashing" scenario; it seems like quite a reach, to me, and your hauling out the dictionary didn't do much to close that gap.

    Parent

    The Zimmerman hadn't suffered a concussion (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Doug1111 on Wed May 16, 2012 at 12:26:31 PM EST
    yes doesn't mean he didn't reasonably fear he'd soon suffer one or a coma or even death if he didn't shoot Trayvon, since he couldn't escape.

    As well Zimmerman reportedly (according to press interviews given by his father and brother) realized just before he shot Trayvon that in the course of the struggle his gun had become visible, and that Trayvon was going for it.  He reportedly says that's when he reached for it an shot Trayvon.  

    Parent

    Why are you replying to my comment? (none / 0) (#198)
    by Anne on Wed May 16, 2012 at 01:29:58 PM EST
    What you've written has no relevance to what I wrote.

    Parent
    Fun With Words (none / 0) (#201)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 16, 2012 at 03:56:29 PM EST
    I'm content with 'strike'. Angel objected to Doug1111 using 'bash', and I pointed out that the basis for his objection is not correct.

    Parent
    the basis for his objection ... (none / 0) (#202)
    by Yman on Wed May 16, 2012 at 04:05:42 PM EST
    ... was entirely correct.  "Bash" means to strike with strong force or violence, as opposed to merely "striking".

    Parent
    Bash vs. Strike (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Mary2012 on Wed May 16, 2012 at 02:03:58 PM EST
    "Bash"

    to strike with a crushing or smashing blow.

    Emphasis above is mine.

    -----------

    "Strike"

    1. to deal a blow or stroke to (a person or thing), as with the fist, a weapon, or a hammer; hit.

    2. to inflict, deliver, or deal (a blow, stroke, attack, etc.).

    3. to drive so as to cause impact: to strike the hands together.

    4. to thrust forcibly: Brutus struck a dagger into the dying Caesar.

    5. to produce (fire, sparks, light, etc.) by percussion, friction, etc.

    -------------

    Both from:

    Dictionary.com Unabridged
    Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2012

    Parent

    More On Words (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 16, 2012 at 04:10:47 PM EST
    So the word 'bash', like many words, has multiple meanings. Any supported usage is correct.

    In my experience of usage, a blow does not have to literally 'crush' or 'smash' its target to be called a 'bash'.

    I didn't have to hunt around for the definition I used. It's the first one I found in the first dictionary I checked, my regular reference dictionary. It's on a bookcase in the corner of the room, behind me to the left, as I sit here typing.

    Your Random House definition still includes the word 'strike'.


    Parent

    As has has been stated by others than me (2.00 / 0) (#167)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:24:45 PM EST
    the local ABC news station has been ground zero for disseminating Team Trayvon disinformation and propaganda.  They seem to have a play for first access relationship with local reporter Guzman there.

    And link please.  

    Parent

    The medical report is part of the evidence (none / 0) (#173)
    by Angel on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:56:45 PM EST
    that was released today.  It is from Zimmerman's own personal physician.  Go look it up yourself.  I have neither the time nor the inclination to provide you with a link of readily available information.  

    Parent
    Angel-- Not so. (1.00 / 0) (#169)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:33:12 PM EST
    YOu have no ideal what you're talking about.

    Blunt force bashing of a skull more severe than seems to have happened, yet, before the shot, often evinces less external flesh injury than Zimmerman sustained.  The issue is internal brain injury, not bleeding to death.

    For example so called renamed NBA asshole "World Peace's" obviously intentional very sharp elbow jab of an opposing team member's head sent him inot a concussion and a weeks long no play status, without any reported external injuries.

    The emotional lynch white Hispanic Zimmerman crowd around here (even though he's a black Hispanic by American rules of race categorization which are by far most insisted on by blacks so far as black hypodescent goes) just wants to ignore how serious bashing someone's skull against concrete is.

    Parent

    You have no idea what I know or don't know, (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by Angel on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:54:45 PM EST
    I don't need to have a medical degree to know that bashing someone's head against concrete will cause more than a couple of minor lacerations.  And Zimmerman did not have a concussion or any brain damage.  Get real.

    Parent
    "Emotional lynch white Hispanic..."?!? (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by Yman on Tue May 15, 2012 at 08:02:32 PM EST
    "The emotional lynch white Hispanic Zimmerman crowd"?!?

    From a guy who repeatedly plays to negative stereotypes of angry black males by speculating that Martin felt "dissed",  who defends racial profiling, who repeats DOJ statistics in an attempt to justify racial profiling, and who questions whether a single black juror could be objective, ...

    ... that's seriously funny.

    Parent

    Another bad example (none / 0) (#186)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:13:54 PM EST
    "For example so called renamed NBA asshole "World Peace's" obviously intentional very sharp elbow jab of an opposing team member's head sent him inot a concussion and a weeks long no play status, without any reported external injuries."

    You don't know what you're talking about.  The player you are talking about, James Harden, missed the last couple of regular season games but has played in all of OKC's playoff games including one YESTERDAY.  There was no "weeks long no play status" and it makes perfect sense to compare the skinny Martin to a physical brute like Metta World Peace.      

    Parent

    Although Jeralyn says race will not (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:08:22 PM EST
    be "a crucial issue" in the state's case, I think the possibility of Zimmerman using racial profiling will be a huge factor for the jury. In spite of a judge's directions, jurors are human, and as such, will often make decisions based on much more than just the facts presented in a court case. If the prosecution doesn't bring it up, the jurors will, both in their minds and during deliberation.

    Point in case: In spite of not knowing exactly what happened, people feel so strongly about this case that they're arguing online or with friends or neighbors. Here at TL, commenters are low rating any comments that don't validate their preconceived opinions. Look at how often people comment about Zimmerman's decision to carry a gun and his history, decisions and actions that, in their minds, led to this tragedy.

    This dynamic plays out in courts when jurors get "gut feelings" without realizing what's behind their supposedly intuitive feelings. Jurors make decisions based on the defendants looks, his or her age, ethnicity, even the way they speak or sit. When a jury feels strongly about political or social issues, the bias is even worse. A strong gun control advocate on the jury may want Zimmerman punished for being the "kind of guy" she or he hates. A Caucasian who feels for the plight of African-Americans may not realize (or care) that it's not illegal for Zimmerman to have profiled Martin. They might not understand the distinction between racial profiling and other profiling (clothing, gender, age). If they think Zimmerman wrongly suspected Martin, and if that mistake led to his death, then they may want him punished, even if it means convicting him of a lesser crime.

    If I were Zimmerman's attorney, I'd tell him to 1) Grow his hair longer to rid himself of the military thug look, 2) Lose a bunch of weight, and 3) Start acting like a victim, and be ready with a good story he can tell without bluster about why it's necessary to be prepared to protect yourself in his neighborhood.


    Parent

    he doesn't need (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 14, 2012 at 09:33:23 PM EST
    to come up with a reason for having a gun, he had a concealed weapons permit, as do 1,903 people in his zip code. In Florida, 920,000 people have active concealed weapons permits -- 1 of every 17 adults.

    Under Florida's concealed-weapons-permit law, residents don't have to explain why they want to carry a gun or demonstrate they can hit a target to receive a permit.  Applicants must first pass a criminal-background check and a class lasting up to four hours on self-defense law, safe gun handling and marksmanship.

    Zimmerman and his wife both took a firearms class. He has a good reason for wanting the permit, even though he didn't need one.

    He doesn't look like a military thug, and at his recent court appearances, he was trim, not overweight. He doesn't need a story if he's telling the truth, and there is no proof as of now to believe he has not told the truth. Charges are not evidence.

    Parent

    Need (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue May 15, 2012 at 12:55:17 AM EST
    .

    Just like seatbelts, life jackets, fire extiguishers, and first aid kits no one needs a gun until you need it.  Like all emergency equipment, planning ahead to be ready in the moment of need is a necessity.

    .

    Parent

    Jury impressions (none / 0) (#146)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:13:43 PM EST
    I don't mean to insult him by saying "military thug," nor do I mean to cast dispersions on anyone in the military. I'm a veteran. It's just an expression that describes a particular look. I just think that he'd be better served looking less like a cop-wannabe and more like a nice, friendly neighborhood guy who would maybe help you carry your groceries. Slightly longer hair, a less rigid stance and a bit less powerful look might help his defense. He's been described all over the internet as a racist, so the less he looks like an aggressive, hostile skinhead, the better.

    As far as carrying a weapon, it's great that he did so legally, but jury preconceptions are important. Needing if for defense is very different than carrying it to show you're a tough guy.


    Parent

    I the prosecutor isn't going to claim (none / 0) (#98)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:50:06 AM EST
    or try to elicit testimony that Zimmerman was performing illegal or improper racial profiling, who is?  Certainly not O'Mara.

    Parent
    O'Mara's hopes for cooling off period dashed? (1.00 / 0) (#8)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 14, 2012 at 10:09:38 AM EST
    O'Mara's hopes for a cooling-off period of public interest in this case are not going to be helped if only part or none of this discovery material is released.  It seems like his defense strategy includes an element of admission that the public can have an influence on the case, hence his use of social media and careful releases to the press, etc.  Any excuse for news on this case will get good billing in the MSM.  

    The autopsy may be sealed due to Trayvon being a minor.  The names of witnesses can be redacted, I'm guessing but what grounds might he have in asking their contents to be sealed?  I think the best he can do is stall their release for a short time with spurious requests that will be dismissed by the judge.  

    GZ's statements to the police are part and parcel of their defense.  He's likely to not object to them, but as we have heard at the bond hearing they may contain inconsistencies and episodes of "I don't remember" when asked about the inconsistencies.  Perhaps they are minor, in which case we might see Corey extend her tendency to favor censoring the public release of documents, as she has in the past.  She's had asked for everything to be sealed and was granted this request by the first judge.  

    A sidelight is that one blogger/journalist had requested the release of the police video of GZ LEAVING the police station, and was denied seemingly because of the gag order from the first judge.  I wonder if anyone has asked for it since?  We might get a better look at George's head...

    I'm guessing we won't see anything today, and that when we do see what was censored, withheld, redacted and what was ASKED to be kept from public and by whom we will learn some things anyway an]bout trial strategy.

    Personally I'm interested in knowing where exactly the body was found, and where the alleged "foot chase" witness was standing.  

    I doubt we have an undisclosed eyewitness to the start of the fight, and so people will think that the state cannot disprove GZ's account, but I think the prosecution is going to try to impugn GZ's credibility in general as a big part of their strategy.  If the sole survivor of a fatal argument claims self-defense, he needs to appear honest to convince a jury.  

    It's been easy to argue innocence or guilt in this matter given ho little we've really known.  People tend to see what they want to see in this case.  It's possible that trend will continue to the bitter end.  I'm not getting my hopes up that these documents will settle everyone's curiosity.  

    You've got it backwards. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 14, 2012 at 01:02:34 PM EST
     If the sole survivor of a fatal argument claims self-defense, he needs to appear honest to convince a jury.  

    You've got the burden of proof backwards.  Furthermore they have be believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had no reasonable fear of great bodily harm, in order for his shooting in purported self defense to be an illegal homicide of some sort.

    There is a lot of corroborating evidence about the crucial parts of what happened, which revolve around could GZ flee at the time of the shooting, and did he reasonably fear great bodily injury, given the nature of the fight.  

    The jury might have to find Zimmerman especially honest to believe a claim by him that in the course of the struggle Trayvon saw his gun and was going for it when Zimmerman grabbed it and shot Trayvon.  But they don't have to believe that to believe that he did reasonably fear great bodily injury.


    Parent

    At a SYG hearing burden is on defense (1.00 / 0) (#13)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 14, 2012 at 02:25:17 PM EST
    But that's not what I'm really saying, anyway.  What I mean is that the world and the jury will have to make up their minds if GZ is credible or not.  All the "corroborating evidence" in the world won't help him if he can't appear truthful about his version of events, and I mean every part of his version because the two go hand in hand.  Corroborating an obvious lie doesn't prove self-defense.  The prosecution seems to be advancing this idea as their strategy.  

    We'll see, we'll see.  

    Parent

    No reason to believe Zimmerman won't be credible. (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by RickyJ on Mon May 14, 2012 at 03:04:50 PM EST
    From the link I gave in my previous post:

    "Investigator Chris Serino of Sanford police said Friday the agency has worked closely with prosecutors, and have not arrested Zimmerman because prosecutors have consistently told them they do not have enough evidence to win a manslaughter conviction.

    That's because Zimmerman says he was defending himself, something he's allowed to do under Florida law.

    The best account of what happened came from Zimmerman, Serino said. Other witnesses who saw or heard parts of what happened corroborate his version of events, the investigator said".

    So we know his account was credible to the police.  The most incredible people in this case, so far, are the current prosecution team and Martin's parents.

    Parent

    Zimmerman has already been on the stand. (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:01:37 PM EST
    If the issue is George's credibility,  we need to note that Zimmerman has already been on the stand.  He said that he "thought he (Trayvon) was a little bit younger than I am."  Yet on his police call, he says "late teens," and uses the word "kid" to describe him, when he is not using expletives.    Zimmerman is 28 and a half.  Trayvon was seventeen.  

    That's not the most credible thing to say, in my opinion.  It's somewhere on a sliding scale from "inconsistent" to "a big fat lie" in my non-expert opinion.

    He also claimed to the judge he was indigent, when was not. $50k of $204k is unaccounted for in any true sense of the word at present.  $5K was applied to his bond, proving someone had access to it before he was released. It's his dough to do with as he pleases, but the incident was another stain on his credibility in my opinion.  

    I think it is reasonable to wonder if he will be seen as credible to a jury given these and other behaviors, plus the overall situation - man shoots an unarmed teenager and claims self defense.  He's got every reason to not tell the truth.  So his credibility is a major issue.  

    It's been made painfully clear that the Sanford PD "believed his story," or at the least didn't find any fast way to refute what he said.  Their investigation was short and they missed big clues like Trayvon's phone call that was live when the altercation seems to have begun.  They also didn't reveal the contents of the disturbing police call from Zimmerman, where he seems agitated and is heard to exit his car and pursue the teen and admit as much to the operator.  (I've been told by lawyer friends that this act alone in some states is enough to prove him the aggressor in an assault case.  IANAL, however.  YMMV, especially in Florida.)    

    But yes, the Sanford police gave him a pass.  That's the reason for all the attention the case has received.  So you are kinda beating a dead horse, there.  

    But if you want to go over old ground, I think it is curious what is said in this story from the Orlando Sentinel:

    link to orlando sentinel article:
    http://tinyurl.com/cwct2zh


    Some news agencies have reported that Sanford's lead investigator, Chris Serino, wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter that night but Wolfinger's office put a stop to it. The city of Sanford issued a statement saying that is not true.

    While this seems to put an end to the squabble about what Serino thought, if you parse the sentence closer you realize that "the city of Sanford" is supposed to have issued a statement.  Where is the statement?  It's not on their website.  And the reporters don't quote the words of the supposed statement, either.  Who has the authority to speak for the city of Sanford, and does so without putting the statement out on paper or a .pdf?   I seached the city of sanford site for any press releases around April 2nd, when this flap over Wolfinger began and found nothing.  I've written to the Orlando Sentinel but have not gotten a reply yet.

    The confusion here is dual - what Wolfinger is said to have done and what Serino is said to have sworn to.  The denial seems to address one more than the other.  

    And if you read that whole article, you realize the source for most of the denials is Wolfinger, and that he's mad about the idea he was said to have met with Bill Lee the night of the shooting, and "put a stop to it" meaning the supposed push by Serino to file for manslaughter.  

    In the end, we seem to have learned that ABC was overzealously reporting a box Serino filled out on a form where he wrote "manslaughter" as the crime he was currently investigating.  Wolfinger took offense to the Martin family's letter to the DoJ asking for an investigation into Wolfinger's actions in the case.  The letter cited the notions put forward in the ABC story and other frustrations the family felt deserved investigation by an outside body.  They never got an answer to their letter, which was dated AFTER the DoJ claimed it would investigate the civil rights angle of George Zimmerman's actions.   The DoJ has never specifically claimed it is investigating Norm Wolfinger or the Sanford PD's actions in this case.  Don't be fooled there.

    But this doesn't answer what Serino thought or felt about the case personally.  

    I charge that the article is poorly written and that until this statement from the "city of Sanford" is produced, is worthless information just more stories filed on short deadlines that are suitable for  wrapping fish the next day.  We won't know the clear picture by relying on old stories alone.  

    Case in point: Your own quote from Serino is Serino's opinion of why Wolfinger wouldn't act, not what Serino felt, and is dated March 17th, before Corey's team examined the records and started their own investigation.  

    Yet, Serino, or someone using his title, is said by a 911 caller to have told her the following:


    Brown alleged that the lead investigator "told me this was not self-defense," saying she should "read between the lines" because "this was racial stereotyping."
    Martin was black; Zimmerman is Hispanic.
    She said the investigator said he had children of his own "and seemed angered by it," saying, "I need to prove this was not self-defense."

    link to this MSNBC story here:
    http://tinyurl.com/7o7fb5h

    You can watch the video there, too.  The important part starts around 9:05 in, so watch for it.  Her actual words are slightly different than the text in the story, but the meaning is the same:  the lead investigator told her he didn't think this was self-defense.

    But most of this is a moot point anyway since the Sanford PD and Norm Wolfinger are off the case and Angela Corey is on it.  

    The special prosecutor doesn't buy his story, either it seems and so here we are, reasonable people who disagree.  Good thing he's going to have a trial to prove his veracity, or lack thereof.    

    The whole point I am making is that despite what you may think you heard at the bond hearing when a defense lawyer examined an investigator, that the prosecution still thinks it has a case for Murder 2, and it's MY OPINION that the way they are going to go about proving murder is to attack Zimmerman's credibility, not try to explain exactly how the fight started or who threw the first punch so much as to "poke holes" in his tale by bringing up inconsistencies between the five (according to them) or three (according to GZ's recollection) times he told the story, starting on the night of the shooting and ending the next day, after he walked the scene with investigators and his dad.  

    (The mere fact that GZ recalls three times and the state claims five could be used to question his credibility, but I'll leave that off for now. )  

    I apologize for the length, and I'm sorry if it seems like I am repeating myself here.. I'm trying not to. At issue is what I think the prosecutions strategy may be, and why I came to this conclusion.  

    Parent

    Revised Age Estimate (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:14:27 PM EST
    He said that he "thought he (Trayvon) was a little bit younger than I am."  Yet on his police call, he says "late teens," and uses the word "kid" to describe him, when he is not using expletives.

    Cross-examination on why Zimmerman revised his age estimate upward will allow him to make assertions supporting his justification claim. Martin turned out to be taller, stronger, a better and more ferocious fighter, than Zimmerman expected a teenager to be.

    Parent
    sounds reasonable to me (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 14, 2012 at 11:12:26 PM EST
    except that O'Mara already made several qualifying remarks to try to explain George's statements, and he never included this one.  He hasn't seemed shy about adding qualifiers before, so what is he waiting for?  

    That's why I enjoy this forum.  People say some very insightful things that I don't always think of myself.  George may have thought he was keeping an eye on a "kid," like hea said, but he seems to have thought he ended up in an altercation with a man. I wonder when he learned Trayvon's true age, and what his reaction was then?

    And again, my comment is about whether or not GZ will appear credible to a jury.  This episode did not do him any favors in that department, did it?  It sounded self-serving and false to me.  

    It's a frustrating situation for GZ.  I truly believe he thinks he acted in self defense.  I just don't know if he is right or not, or if he is telling the whole truth and nothing but.  

    And I think he "got whooped" in the fight.  I just don't know how badly.  

    Hopefully much of this will be determined as fact or fiction by a good jury.  

    Parent

    Age and Jurors (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:05:25 AM EST
    O'Mara already made several qualifying remarks to try to explain George's statements, and he never included this one.

    It will be more credible coming from Zimmerman himself, on the stand.

    And again, my comment is about whether or not GZ will appear credible to a jury.  This episode did not do him any favors in that department, did it?

    The idea that he knowingly shot a teenager doesn't help either, so there's a trade-off there.

    I don't think it's that hard to believe that he changed his assessment, even if he was actually right the first time. Some jurors may not agree.

    Parent

    Bogus Charge (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:16:44 PM EST
    He also claimed to the judge he was indigent, when was not.

    We've been over this.

    Zimmerman had no way of monitoring his on-line accounts from his cell.

    Parent

    Cheryl Brown (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:41:14 PM EST
    Yet, Serino, or someone using his title, is said by a 911 caller . . .

    That's the mother of Austin Brown. She wasn't one of the 911 callers. She was out for the evening.

    I know that doesn't matter for the point in question. I'm just correcting the fact.

    That is Serino she is referring to. She has identified him by name on other occasions.

    Cheryl Brown is in the Martins' camp and wants everyone to know it. See, for example, how eager she is to 'explain', after admitting to Nancy Grace that Austin told the investigators he saw a man wearing red.

    See also my recent comment on the history of Austin Brown as a witness.

    Parent

    Cheryl Brown seems obviously biased, yes. (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 14, 2012 at 11:59:47 PM EST
    But is she lying when she says Chris Serino told her he wasn't buying the self-defense claim?  That seems to be the important part.

    It's quite a statement to make, if all it takes for it to be refuted is one call from Serino.  One call he has yet to make.  Her MSNBC appearance was on March 28th.  

    Serino spoke to the Sentinel on or about March 16th when he told them his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account.  This was a joint interview with Bill Lee present.  After that, he seemed to stop making statements to the press.  

    I think Serino may have a semi-private opinion about the credibility of George Zimmerman and I think he as a public face to put forward in his workplace.  

    Or, he changed his position in the time between when he spoke to Cheryl Brown and the time when he spoke with his boss to the press, having failed in his investigation to confirm his earlier suspicions.  We just can't know given the limited data we have so far.

    This is why I wish there was an outside investigation into the Sanford PD and Norm Wolfinger's actions in this case, because one hand says GZ is innocent and the other, Corey's hand, says he's a murderer.  A trial will hopefully settle the guilt or innocence to most people's satisfaction but it won't clear up how these two seemingly reasonable bodies of investigators came up with opposing conclusions.   I find that disturbing.  

    Parent

    It would be easy to misconstrue (none / 0) (#132)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:28:37 PM EST
    questions from police. Reporters, for example, may look and sound sympathetic, saying they have a son, too, and then saying it's important that the source's story get told. Police also can be manipulative in asking questions, and people sometimes hear what they want to hear.

    Parent
    Austin Brown Said Man on Bottom Wore Red (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by RickyJ on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:23:59 AM EST
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZVMZs4X90Q

    Parent
    Weak excuse (none / 0) (#48)
    by ks on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:57:22 PM EST
    By the time they got to the bail hearing, there should have been some idea how much was in those accounts.  It's not a question of Zimmerman "monitoring" them for his jail cell.  All he had to do was tell his lawyer they existed and give him the access information so O'Mara could present an accurate picture of his financial status at the bail hearing instead of the indigent nonsense.  

    Parent
    Zimmerman is 28 and a half. Trayvon was seventeen (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:21:36 PM EST
    "28 and a half."

    It is clear what your preconceived notions are.

    Parent

    Lord you seem to be incredibly biased!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:21:45 PM EST
     
    He also claimed to the judge he was indigent, when was not. $50k of $204k is unaccounted for in any true sense of the word at present.  $5K was applied to his bond, proving someone had access to it before he was released. It's his dough to do with as he pleases, but the incident was another stain on his credibility in my opinion.  

    What evidence do you have that Zimmerman knew that while in jail and presumably not able to access the internet (yeah can sometimes do so in federal low security prison or some state long term analogs as a kind of reward for good behavior, but as a short term held for bail hearing jail prisoner, HIGHLY unlikely.  

    So in all likelyhood he didn't know there was any big money in that account at the bail bond hearing.  Most of it probably came in after he was actually arrested and charged, which meant when he was in jail and off the internet.  

    Such prejudice.  

    Parent

    At a minimum, George knew he had (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Anne on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:46:52 PM EST
    set up this website for the specific purpose of raising money to defray his living expenses; while he could not have known whether or if or how much had been collected, didn't he have some duty to disclose what he did know so someone else could check it out?

    That's not a question that comes from bias or prejudice, but from common sense, something that seems to be lacking in many of the conclusions you are working very hard to reach.

    Parent

    Good Grief (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 08:00:12 PM EST
    didn't he have some duty to disclose what he did know

    I don't know that he didn't do this.

    I'm not taking the time to go over every detail of the financial aspects of the bond hearing. If the judge thought Zimmerman was guilty of intentional deception, I think he would be back in jail.

    Parent

    We don't know what the judge ... (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Yman on Mon May 14, 2012 at 08:43:03 PM EST
    ... thinks, since he postphoned his ruling on the issue until he has received more information about the accounts and what/when people knew about the monies.

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by ks on Mon May 14, 2012 at 08:05:19 PM EST
    That's a perfectly reasonable position.  The "monitoring" things is just bad spin.

    Parent
    In reply to Willisnewton (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon May 14, 2012 at 08:05:00 PM EST
    willisnewton:

    It might have helped if in your long post you had quoted Serino or at least what Serino is purported to have said:

    "Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account - that he had acted in self-defense.

    "The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says." "

    Now unless the Sentinel is lying about Serino (which I doubt because crappy as US libel law is, it will let you be sued if you put words in someone's mouth), I think this puts paid the notion that he believed Zimmerman should have been arrested and was stopped for no apparent reason by the mean old Wolfinger.

    Which means the Martin family lawyer either deliberately lied or was mistaken. Given some of the other crap that's come out of his mouth over the last 8 weeks I can't say I was surprised when I learned about that.

    Parent

    i've written too much about this elsewhere. (1.00 / 0) (#70)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:01:26 AM EST
    Serino gave this statement at a joint interview on 16 MAR 12 with his boss Bill Lee present.  He states his reasons charges were not filed but not his personal opinion on the matter.  

    On March  28th, Cheryl Brown told MSNBC Serino felt GZ's self defense story was not credible.  This was in reference to comments he made in her living room, and he's yet to refute what she said to my knowledge.

    link to msnbc print and video story here

    http://tinyurl.com/7o7fb5h

     Cheryl seems clearly biased herself, and frequent commenter "nomatter"has written a lot about her and her 13 year old son who witnesses something in the dark.  Read his posts for more on her.  

    note she does not name Serino by name here, only by title but "nomatter" has said in this forum that she does name him elsewhere.

    As for "crap coming out of"  someone's mouth, that's a biased statement too. I think if you are referring to Crump, then Crump was reacting to the ABC story of April 2nd which was the genesis of all the flap about Serino, but had not been refuted yet, possibly. The charge of  "manslaughter" was a box on a form that needed to be filled out, it seems, but this still doesn't answer whether Serino's poor opinion of GZ's credibility was professional or personal.  Keep in mind he being paid to be a skeptic of sorts.

    As for Crump, you may not like him but you have to understand that he is being paid neither to defend or prosecute anyone.  His task is to bring attention to the case in hopes of ensuring that his client, the parents of the slain teenager find the justice they seek.  Your complaints need to be lodged against anyone who gives him a platform but doesn't perform due diligence to ensure he's held accountable for his statements.  Around this time, George Zimmerman was a free man not facing any charges, and whose whereabouts were unknown.  

    here is the wikipedia passage regarding this whole flap about Serino and his manslaughter contention:


    When special prosecutor Angela Corey was asked by the Miami Herald to confirm that the Sanford Police recommended a manslaughter charge, she stated, "I don't know about that, but as far as the process, I can tell you that the police went to the state attorney with a capias request, meaning; We're through with our investigation and here it is for you." A capias is a request for charges to be filed. A source in the Seminole County State Attorney's office told the Miami Herald, "We get capias warrants all the time. That doesn't mean we file charges right away. We investigate to see if it's appropriate. That's the responsible thing to do.

    This to me is the dark heart of this enigma.  One group of people (led by Wolfinger and seemingly backed by Bill Lee) thinks there can't be a charge filed, and another (Corey and her team) claims they can prove it's murder.  GZ's fate will be sealed by a judge and jury, but "we the people" (probably) aren't going to ever know why these bodies differ in opinion so radically because there is no outside investigation focusing on the actions of Norm Wolfinger and the Sanford PD's initial investigation.  

    Wolfinger quietly announced he is not running for re-lection to his post after 27 years.  He says the usual, that he wants to spend more time with his family.  Bill Lee is collecting his pay while on indefinite leave - the Sanford city council voted 3-2 to not accept his resignation letter, some citing a wait to see if the DoJ would clear him of wrongdoing.  The swing vote from the 3- no confidence vote was the mayor.  This no-confidence vote was not rescinded when the resignation was denied.   Non-voting city manager Bonaparte pointed out that if and when the DoJ ever files a report it will be after the trial is finished, many months from now.  Chris Serino seems to have stopped speaking to the press.  It's no longer his case to investigate, so I suppose it's not really proper for him to do so.  Again, he never publicly refuted Cheryl Brown, either.  

    I'm waiting for the better class of journalists, the long-lead feature writers and investigative reporters who get book advances to ferret out some of this, and spend months doing research and interviews with primary sources, etc, but at present we just don't and can't, and may never know what's really been going on behind the scenes.  Too bad the print business has gone to hell, and no one pays these kinds of writers much anymore.

    I'm sorry if i am repeating myself.  I'm in a lightning storm here and I think one of my posts just got eaten by a glitch.

    Parent

    I Was Wrong (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:53:59 AM EST
    she does not name Serino by name here, only by title but "nomatter" has said in this forum that she does name him elsewhere.

    I think I was mistaken on that, after reviewing the sources I linked at my comment on the history of Austin Brown as a witness.

    At the moment, all I can say is that no one seems to dispute that it was Chris Serino, with a female partner, who interviewed Austin Brown on March 5, but I can't find any satisfactory sourcing for the point.

    Parent

    In reply to I've written about this elsewhere (1.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:49:13 AM EST
    willisnewton:
    Your own quoted passage in Wikipedia would seem to put this to rest. Angela Corey, to paraphrase, "doesn't know about that", and misleadingly cites the fact that a capias request was made by someone, she says not who.

    It's ridiculous to even think that if a request had been made for an arrest prior to her arrival there wouldn't be a record of it that Corey couldn't easily look up.

    More to the point, I find your argument that we have to wait for an "investigative reporter" to get to the bottom of this a bit naive. There are few of those anymore and so far most of the legwork involved in poking holes in this case has been done by bloggers, the same way that it happened with the Duke Lacrosse false rape accusation, and arguably, some of the greatest offenders against the defendants right to a fair trial (if it gets that far)have been the mainstream press , same as with Duke Lacrosse.

    Lastly, it doesn't seem you are very familiar with the Sanford City council or you'd mention that at least one of the 3 that has voted to keep Lee believes this whole thing is being driven by outside agitation and that he did nothing whatsoever wrong. My point is that you have not pointed out how polarized on this issue the council is.

    So far , after two plus months, we've gotten grudging admission that maybe the local police weren't horrid racists -perhaps they are merely a bunch of loveable Barney Fifes who can't conduct an investigation properly. There must surely be tons of evidence contradicting Zimmerman's story, why just look at the "brilliant" testimony (under oath mind you) the state put on at the bail hearing.

    Forgive me if I think I've seen this before. Here's something I wrote about it:
    hxxp:/goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/duke-lacrosse-metanarratives-the-telephone-effect-and-the-fa lsely-accused

    Change the X's to T's, if you want to see the link.

    Parent

    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:20:09 AM EST
    This case is not even remotely comparable to the Duke Lacrosse case and why certain people keep bringing it up when talking about this case is...interesting.

    Parent
    ks (none / 0) (#110)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue May 15, 2012 at 12:40:39 PM EST
    The media shenanigans in this case totally parallel the Duke Lacrosse case , as well as the fact that the prosecution seems driven by some consideration other than justice.

    We'll see if I'm right, and if so, if you bother to stick around after this case. During the Duke case ( I participated on a few threads on this site during that time period) there were quite a few who always gave the benefit of the doubt to the prosecution even months after it became evident that Nifong didn't have - or couldn't legally have (due to rules of discovery) a case. Most of those people were gone shortly before or after that case totally disintegrated. To their credit a few of them had changed their minds. You have very strong opinions, but the more important question is: Is it possible to change your mind?

    Regardless, a kid is dead -whether accidentally or deservedly or not - and man's freedom and reputation are under attack. This isn't some game and people should be willing to look at all the evidence on both sides.

    Parent

    Utter nonsense (none / 0) (#114)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:18:37 PM EST
    The "media shenanigans" are typical for any high profile case.  The last being Casey Anthony (see Nancy Grace for the worst example).  Funny how you didn't mention that example.  If you want a closer "paralell" to the Duke Lacrosse case try the Central Park Jogger case which you probably know nothing about and was a far worse miscarriage of justice.  

    It's a "fact" that the prosecution seems driven by some other concern than justice?  You know this how?  I any event, I'm not interested in what threads you were in during the Duke case and what you claimed happen there.  

    THIS case is not even remotely similar.  Period.

    Parent

    Utter nonsense would seem to be your response (none / 0) (#144)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:10:31 PM EST
    I'm fully aware of both the Central Park Jogger case and Casey Anthony, indeed, I defended the jurors verdict on several websites , and I lost all respect for Ann Coulter when I found out that she was still insisting on their guilt after the exoneration via DNA and confession.

    Your ideological blinders show loud and clear.

    I fully expect you to exit this site, or at least all threads involving this case after the case is dismissed under SYG or after the trial is concluded and Zimmerman is acquitted.

    Parent

    Of course you did (none / 0) (#152)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:39:13 PM EST
    And of course you "defended the jurors verdict...etc...".  Sure.  Yes, and this is just like the Duke case and there's a clear comparison between Corey and Nifong.  

    What you "fully expect" is neither here nor there and irrelevant.  

    Parent

    Good points. But I don't think (none / 0) (#119)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:40:56 PM EST
    there are many people who think Trayvon deserved to die exactly.  Many think that on the basis of the available evidence that he did deserve to be shot to stop him from so badly beating Zimmerman, but I think most including Zimmerman himself would have much rather seen Trayvon be stopped by a gun shot, but survive it.

    Certainly that's how I feel, on the basis of the evidence I've seen.

    Parent

    "...to stop him from so badly beating (none / 0) (#121)
    by Angel on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:44:44 PM EST
    Zimmerman..."

    You DO NOT KNOW the specifics of the confrontation but you keep repeating that Martin was BASHING Zimmerman.  You have zero evidence of any BASHING.

    Parent

    Disagree (none / 0) (#151)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:29:40 PM EST
    This case is not even remotely comparable to the Duke Lacrosse case . . .

    One conclusory statement deserves another. You're wrong.

    I was struck by the parallels from the beginning.

    Parent

    Disagree all you want (none / 0) (#158)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:54:24 PM EST
    But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.  Any "parallel" seen says more about the seer than the facts would reasonably allow.  The cases are so different that any attempted "parallel" is just racial politics.  Why is this case a parallel to the Duke case?  Because the defendant is White or being considered White?  I could list several "paralell" cases or situations where the defendants were minority.  But for some reason, I don't hear that "this is just like the Central Park Jogger case"?  I wonder why.

    Parent
    let's not do this (4.00 / 1) (#102)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:14:55 AM EST
    My point in citing Corey's nuanced statement about the capias request was to show that she credits "the Sanford PD" with more or less ending it's investigation with a request that it may or may not have already been told wasn't going to be followed up on by Wolfinger.  She's providing cover for the Sanford PD, whom she needs the cooperation of, and laying the blame gently on the door of Wolfinger, whose conclusions she opposed.  She thanked Wolfinger and the Sanford PD in her press conference but had no one from their camps on the platform with her.  She's attempting to be fair.  (We should all try it sometime.  It feels good.)

    What this means is that the ball is in her court as far as ever releasing documents that would shed serious light on the actions inside the Sanford PD and Norm Wolfinger's office, since they are likely both relieved to be off the stage now, or at least out of the spotlight, and that Corey isn't disposed to kiss and tell.  In a political sense, she's signaling that she won't cast blame and that the press should stop asking her to.  

    She wants to try her case and not throw mud on a fellow republican (Wolfinger, who is retiring after 27 years now.) She was appointed by a republican governor under pressure from 2 million petitioners who think his state is backwards, rightly or not.  The guv also seemed to have the Obama DoJ breathing down his neck for a while, but I think that is mostly over.  

    And I don't think Wolfinger or the Sanford PD, or Chris Sernino is going to run to the press anytime soon with the inside story.  

    I do agree bloggers can parse through data they are given quite effectively - in cases like wikileaks especially where there are mountains of documents to sift through, bloggers have proven great.  And they seem to be keeping sloppy reporters on tier toes, too.  But my beef is that we as bloggers just aren't likely to get the "data" that tells us what went on with the first investigation in regards to bias or power struggles, hunches and office politics.  But some or all of this had an influence on the case, you can bet.   That door has closed until later, and that is where a book writer might best be of use to us someday.  

    I also agree the MSM has neither the time nor the money to do serious investigative work like it once did, and often files stories the best they can and leaves mistakes uncorrected, spreading misinformation that then gets amplified in a blog-echo chamber, sometimes leaning one way on the political spectrum and sometimes another.  I have a friend who worked for VANITY FAIR and it took him six months to get a check fro them, and they actually pled poverty to him as an excuse.  Magazines are folding right and left these days.  

     Bringing politics into this case seems foolish to me.  The shooter either acted in self-defense or he didn't.  I'm interested in the facts that can be established to shed light on this. Personally,  I doubt he cared at the moment that he was a registered democrat or not, a hispanic or a caucasian, etc.  Trayvon was too young to vote.  And now he is dead, so he can't do any caring about anything.  Everyone else is just someone with a political preference that may or may not have influenced their decision-making process but the more one can sweep that aside, the closer we are going to get to the truth here.  

    Again, leaving that at the door seems sensible to me.   Race and politics are the distractions here too often.  Unless there is a compelling reason for discussing how these issues have a direct bearing on the case I'm not sure I'm interested to hear about it.  

    (Do you like guns?  Good for you.  Please don't shoot me.  Do you think I want to take away your gun?  Not right now I don't, I'm too busy looking at this case. )  

    My main frustration is that there isn't an investigation into this decision by the Sanford PD and Norm Wolfinger.  Politically, it's been dropped and the public is supposed to be satisfied that GZ is on trial, when it's possible that there was institutional bias, corruption or incompetence at the heart of the first investigation.  

    And yes, I realize the Sanford City council is in turmoil and that Bill Lee has at least one strong defender who is willing to say that "outside agitators" are responsible for tearing down his good name, etc.  What's your point, exactly?  Some 2.2 million people peaceably petitioned for a better investigation, and they seemed to have gotten their way when the governor appointed a republican, evangelical christian hard-nosed prosecutor whose sympathy for minors extends to charging 14 year olds as adults in capital cases onto this case.  You don't hear them (the 2.2 million) complaining about the politics behind the this, do you?  I think the furor has died down now that he's facing a trial.  

    I've not followed the Duke Lacross scandal/ fiasco.  I'm aware that a situation can get out of hand easily in a racially charged atmosphere but from what I can tell there has been little real danger of that happening here.  

    There is a good defense lawyer and a judge with a fair reputation waiting for George Zimmerman, and the state will put on it's case predisposed to a gag order, it seems, intent on shielding some of the evidence we the public should be seeing in a sunshine state.  

    I think this entire case could be tried fairly leaving the issue of race at the doorstep.  Corey seemed to think so as well in the affidavit she filed.  I'm sorry that some think the lets-play-the race-card mob is descending on Florida to do something or other that isn't really happening.  But let's face it - if it took 2 million people just to get George Zimmerman into a courtroom, it's probably going to take more than that to drag him out and lynch him either literally or figuratively and I don't see that happening anytime soon.  Reasonable people seem to greatly outnumber any extremists here, especially the nine, count them, nine members of the supposed New Black Panther party, or the Terry Jones supporters who like to burn the Koran and hold rallies in support of Zimmerman.  

    Personally, I find the rhetoric on cable tv to be the usual mess it can be but actually quite moderated and generally fair.  Yes it can resemble a circus at times.  If it offends your sensibilities to hear talking heads who bloviate, turn it off.  Again, it was more the online campaign for an outside investigation that has moved the ball here, and I think it will also be the online discussions of bloggers that will parse the state's evidence better than the MSM as well, if that adds up to any clear conclusions, which I somewhat doubt.  I'm encouraged at how the online response to this tragedy can actually lift up the rhetoric and bring people together on well-moderated forums such as these.  Other sites run by the MSM are pretty much a Tower of Babbel and to be avoided like the plague in my opinion.  And that puts power back in the hands of citizens and takes it away from a corporate owned media, which is good for the nation no matter what your personal politics are.  We need "the fourth estate" but we don't need it to be owned and controlled by the 1%, or data mined by the NSA and Pepsi, either.   I believe in a free exchange of ideas and a self-policed internet free of a nanny-state or corporate control at vital squeeze points.  Love is stronger than hate and the good guys outnumber the bad guys.  

    If, in your own opinion this is a "witch hunt" then the alleged witch at least seems to have a good lawyer in a place where open records are supposedly the law of the land, and is headed for a trial with a judge who has a good reputation and plenty of defenders, especially on this website.  

    If you are among those who feel GZ should not be charged with a crime, then you have reached this opinion before you have seen the evidence against him presented by the state.  And you are talking out of your, um, hat.

    A bond hearing is not a trail, and the state had reason not to present it's full case at that time.    We watched a defense lawyer jump all over an investigator, who is not the prosecutor, or a trial lawyer, and then we heard George take the stand and face essentially one question - did you say you were sorry when you talked to investigators?  George ended that cross examination with  (paraphrased) "I don't recall to whom, but yes, I did."  Both sides felt it went well for them in different ways.  In a pissing contest way, I think O'Mara came in first, and the prosecution second, and GZ came in last, especially after when the flap about his 204K was revealed.  

    Now it's time to move the case towards the next juncture, whether that will be an SYG hearing or the full trial.  If, as some believe the state " simply doesn't have a case" on legal grounds then the judge seems to disagree, and no one has filed a motion to throw it out of court yet, either.  

    Me, I'm here to learn about the legalities involved in assuring this is a fair and impartial trial that works to come to a decision by establishing the facts of the case in the time honored manner - a good clean pie fight.  Oops, I mean by presenting it all in court.  

    Sometimes it is best to agree to disagree, and to contemplate what the other fellow has to say.  Walk a mile in his moccasins, as it were.  

    And I enjoy a robust debate, as do most others here.  Thanks for reading this.  

    Parent

    willisnewton (none / 0) (#131)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:09:54 PM EST
    You shouldn't pretend that a states testimony at a bail hearing means nothing. As it is taken under oath, it can indeed contrain the types of evidence that the state has , simply because otherwise State witnesses present at a bond hearing could be impeached for false statements at a trial.

    Other than that, I have minor disagreements and will give you credit for a respectful and well-argued post.

    Parent

    Feature writers and investigative journalists (none / 0) (#133)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:39:55 PM EST
    in newspapers have never been paid a lot, unless they worked at one of the very top newspapers, such as the NYT or WaPo.

    Parent
    low pay is better than no job at all (none / 0) (#185)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:23:32 PM EST
    The jobs themselves are going away.  And, as cool and hard-working as bloggers are, they usually don't do what investigative J's do.  But yes, it's not a high pay position.  But ten, fifteen years ago i'd expect that some paper like the Boston Globe, or the San Jose Mercury News, maybe would have already had a major scoop here on some aspect of all these cases we are following.  

    Of course there are trade-offs.  We'd not be chatting here, either and sharing tips and theories and insights on all the angles.  Go figure.  I just wish there was room for both, which there sort of was ten years ago, when the trend began.  

    Parent

    The fact that public figures have claimed (1.00 / 0) (#40)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:19:49 PM EST
    the Florida police are racist won't help, nor will the call for a separate investigation by the federal government, and the fact the Zimmerman wasn't arrested until the investigation was transferred, presumably because the original investigators may have been biased. Then there's the possibility of Zimmerman being charged with a hate crime.

    All told, the jury could easily read racism into Zimmerman's actions.

    (Even now, some people reading this comment are saying, "Good.")

    Parent

    straight up: can GZ get a fair trial yes or no n/t (none / 0) (#104)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:23:29 AM EST


    Parent
    One reason (1.00 / 0) (#16)
    by Yman on Mon May 14, 2012 at 03:40:02 PM EST
    The investigator testified to inconsistencies in Zimmerman's version(s) of events at his bail hearing without going into detail.

    So we know his account was credible to the police.  The most incredible people in this case, so far, are the current prosecution team and Martin's parents.

    Actually, we don't know that.  The article you're citing was one in which the Sanford PD was defending their investigation and lack of an arrest - they were circling the wagons.  See, for example, multiple sources verifying Serino wanted to arrest Zimmerman for manslaughter.

    Not sure why you're attacking the credibility of the current prosecutions team and Martin's parents.  They've said nothing that sounds "incredible".

    Parent

    Worse Than Incredible (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 05:18:45 PM EST
    Not sure why you're attacking the credibility of the current prosecutions team and Martin's parents.  They've said nothing that sounds "incredible".

    Probable cause affidavit:

    The police dispatcher informed[sic] Zimmerman . . . to wait for the officer.

    This isn't just 'incredible'. It's false. There is nothing on the call tape that can be remotely interpreted as 'wait for the officer', and in fact the dispatcher asked Zimmmerman 'Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?'


    Parent

    Seriously? (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Yman on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:48:46 PM EST
    You want to impugn the entire credibility of the state's attorney because you think they inaccurately paraphrased the conversation?  Not sure why you felt the need to edit the brief sentence, but here is the full sentence:

    Zimmerman spoke to the dispatcher and asked for an officer to respond because Zimmerman perceived that Martine was acting suspicious. The police dispatcher informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer.

    The "wait for an officer" was not a direct quote, but a paraphrasing/summary of their much longer conversation.  The dispatcher not only informed Zimmerman that police were responding but that he "didn't need" to follow Martin.  The rest of their conversation was about how the police should find/contact Zimmerman when they arrived, the clear implication (along with the "request" not to follow Martin) being that he should wait for police to arrive.  But if you want to try to attack the credibility of the prosecution based on splitting those tiny, literal hairs, ...

    ... good luck with that.

    Parent

    Very Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:43:50 AM EST
    Phony claims about what the dispatcher said to Zimmerman have been part of the propaganda deluge from the beginning. For the prosecution to ratify those deceptions is a quite serious matter.

    Not sure why you felt the need to edit the brief sentence . . .

    Maybe you would benefit from a course in effective writing.

    More brevity is generally desirable, other things equal. But the main reason was that deleting irrelevant material made it clearer what I was criticizing.

    The "wait for an officer" was not a direct quote . . .

    I know. It purported to be a paraphrase. That's why I wrote:

    There is nothing on the call tape that can be remotely interpreted as 'wait for the officer'

    Yman again:

    The "wait for an officer" was . . . a paraphrasing/summary of their much longer conversation.

    That's obviously false. It purported to be a paraphrase of something said at a specific point in the narrative.

    The false paraphrase was inserted into the narrative before Zimmerman got out of his car, reviving the discredited meme that when Zimmerman began to follow Martin he had already been told not to.

    The dispatcher not only informed Zimmerman that police were responding but that he "didn't need" to follow Martin.

    The 'don't need' line got its own paraphrase, later on at its proper place in the narrative.

    '[W]ait for the officer' entails a lot more than 'don't follow the suspect'. It would mean that the dispatcher was directing Zimmerman not to go anywhere else, such as his home, or to Target to complete his errand, or to go about any other lawful business. I doubt the dispatcher had the authority to issue such a directive, and certainly he did not.

    These are the pertinent passages from the tape:

    Dispathcer: Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
    Zimmerman: Yeah.
    Dispatcher: Alright, where are you gonna meet with them at?

      * * *
    Dispatcher: OK, do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes, then?

      * * *
    Zimmerman: Actually, could you have them call me, and I'll tell them where I'm at?
    Dispatcher: OK. Yeah, that's no problem.

    Three times the dispatcher asked Zimmerman what he wanted to do, then Zimmerman made a suggestion that the dispatcher accepted.

    Regarding the dispatcher's authority, I think most jurisdictions have statutes requiring citizens to comply with the commands of law enforcement officers under certain circumstances. Is a police dispatcher an LEO for this purpose? Is a citizen voluntarily calling to report something such a circumstance? I would like to see statute or case law, from Florida or any other jurisdiction.

    Parent

    Yeah, I got your point (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Yman on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:44:52 AM EST
    The dispatcher did not literally say the words "wait for the police", and did not have the legal authority to tell Zimmerman to wait for the police or to stop following Martin, even though that was the clear implication of their entire conversation.

    Good luck with that.

    BTW - I think I found another one!  In the affidavit, the officer says: "Zimmerman felt Martin did not belong in the gated community and called the police."  Zimmerman never literally says that Martin "does not belong" in the community, ...

    ... so that's two "false" statements.

    Parent

    Comprehension Fail (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:20:38 AM EST
    The dispatcher did not literally say the words "wait for the police" . . .

    That wasn't the point, and I said so twice.

    In the affidavit, the officer says: "Zimmerman felt Martin did not belong in the gated community and called the police." . . . so that's two "false" statements.

    That one isn't demonstrably false, and may be supported by Dee Dee's statement. It isn't supported by the police call tape. Zimmerman seems to jump to the conclusion that Martin is a burglar, but there is nothing to show that Zimmmerman assumes that all the burglars are from outside the community.

    In the bond hearing, Gilbreath cited the police call on this point. That may be because he didn't interview Dee Dee.

    Parent

    Comprehension's just fine (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Tue May 15, 2012 at 08:01:55 AM EST
    I just think it's a silly point - impugning the credibility of the state's attorney because they were paraphrasing when they said "The police dispatcher informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer."

    But you should let O'Mara know about this "false' statement that makes the SA's office "incredible" - he glossed right over it at the bond hearing.

    Parent

    Still Not Getting It (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 08:12:02 AM EST
    they were paraphrasing when they said "The police dispatcher informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer."

    My point is precisely that they were not paraphrasing. They were, deliberately or not, fabricating.

    The sentence in question is not plausibly a paraphrase of anything in the recording of the police call. Nor is it a paraphrase of the call as a whole. I have shown that to be false, and your response was to repeat the claim ex cathedra.

    Parent

    Sources (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:27:41 AM EST
    See, for example, multiple sources verifying Serino wanted to arrest Zimmerman for manslaughter.

    Multiple anonymous sources quoted by ABC News, the number one originator of misinformation unfavorable to Zimmerman.

    Parent
    Yes, they're obviously making up ... (1.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Yman on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:31:19 AM EST
    .... the fact that multiple anonymous sources verified that Serino wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter.

    Parent
    How Many? (none / 0) (#154)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:45:35 PM EST
    'Multiple' can mean 'two'.

    I don't doubt they have the sources. ABC News doesn't seem to care how credible their sources are, if they offer ammo against Zimmerman.

    Parent

    Sure Martin's haven't been very credible. (3.25 / 4) (#22)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 14, 2012 at 04:36:56 PM EST
    Trayvon's father said the screaming for help wasn't he voice of his son when police investigators played the 911 tapes to him a day or two after the shooting.  Then after Crump no doubt counseled him of the possible importance of that admission he changed his story and started telling the media it was the voice of his son as his ex wife was doing.  How credible is that.

    Neither parent objected when the media ran pictures of Trayvon when hie as about 12 no doubt supplied by one or the other of them, as representative of Trayvon on the night he was shot.  They also went along with the PR firm  Crump had engaged, Ryan Julius Communications painted Trayvon as an honor student and athlete with a spotless record when neither the first nor last were true.  He'd been suspended most recently for 10 days three times in the last year.  

    So yeah his parents have some serious credibility issues.

    Parent

    No they don't (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Yman on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:29:54 PM EST
    Trayvon's father said the screaming for help wasn't he voice of his son when police investigators played the 911 tapes to him a day or two after the shooting.  Then after Crump no doubt counseled him of the possible importance of that admission he changed his story and started telling the media it was the voice of his son as his ex wife was doing.  How credible is that.

    First of all, it had to be incredibly shocking to listen to those tapes the very first time, so I don't know whether he would be able to identify the screams - particularly the first time he listened to the tapes - or not.  Secondly, you provided no link.  Who says Tracy Martin told the police that the screams were not Trayvon's?  What do you mean he "changed his story ... after Crump no doubt counseled him"?  You're accusing Tracy Martin of lying and his attorney of unethical and criminal acts.  Do you have the slightest bit of evidence of this?

    Nope.


    Neither parent objected when the media ran pictures of Trayvon when hie as about 12 no doubt supplied by one or the other of them, as representative of Trayvon on the night he was shot.  They also went along with the PR firm  Crump had engaged, Ryan Julius Communications painted Trayvon as an honor student and athlete with a spotless record when neither the first nor last were true.  He'd been suspended most recently for 10 days three times in the last year.

    His parents aren't obligated to provide up-to-date photos of Trayvon to the media or photos that meet your approval.  More importantly, since you provide no link to back up your claims about the PR firm (BTW - Julison Communications, not "Julius"), I don't believe them.  Not that it matters, since the PR firm is not the Martin's, and whether Trayvon is an honor student/athlete with a "spotless record" isn't the Martin's words - and frankly, I seriously doubt - the PR firm's words.  Most importantly, it's completely immaterial to this case.

    Unless, of course, you want to apply the same standard to Zimmerman's "squeaky clean" record ...

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:56:20 PM EST
    His parents aren't obligated to provide up-to-date photos of Trayvon to the media or photos that meet your approval.

    Are you saying that the publishing of pictures of Trayvon as a little boy along with the claims by media pundits and public entities that this incident was the hunting down and killing of a child just carrying candy home from the store doesn't affect public opinion? That it doesn't present an event that is likely much more complicated than that?

    Not that it matters, since the PR firm is not the Martin's, and whether Trayvon is an honor student/athlete with a "spotless record" isn't the Martin's words - and frankly, I seriously doubt - the PR firm's words.  Most importantly, it's completely immaterial to this case.

    Are you kidding? This case is being tried in the court of public opinion. There's no way a jury won't be affected by all this publicity.


    Parent

    No (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Yman on Mon May 14, 2012 at 08:39:24 PM EST
    Are you saying that the publishing of pictures of Trayvon as a little boy along with the claims by media pundits and public entities that this incident was the hunting down and killing of a child just carrying candy home from the store doesn't affect public opinion? That it doesn't present an event that is likely much more complicated than that?

    I'm saying that it's silly to attack the Martin's as "not credible" simply because the family released some photos showing Martin as a happy child/young teenager.


    Are you kidding? This case is being tried in the court of public opinion. There's no way a jury won't be affected by all this publicity.

    Also not what I was saying.  To restate:  1)  I have no idea what the PR firm said about Trayvon Martin (and I'm doubtful about the way they were characterized), but the PR firm's words are not the Martin's.  2)  More importantly, Trayvon's status as an honor student (or not), athlete (or not) or "spotless record" (or not) are irrelevant to this case, regardless of their affect 9or lack thereof) on public opinion.

    Parent

    I don't know what pictures you (and others) are (1.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 14, 2012 at 09:29:50 PM EST
    finding to complain about so regularly and I can only speak for myself but I didn't see anything wrong with any of Trayvon's pictures: as a child or as a teenager.

    I felt I could detect just a bit of shyness in his picture with gold teeth and about 2 wks later in an article I happened to be reading, it said in effect, TM had a shy-streak.

    It just seems you'd all be complaining no matter which pictures were presented first.  Maybe they should've shown he and his girlfriend (Dee Dee?) all dressed up for a dance?  His dad giving him a kiss?  Trayvon with his mom? how about with his little cousin?  Would these really have been any "better" in your mind?  

    What picture(s) in particular would you have preferred they show?  

    Parent

    Pictures (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 08:16:31 AM EST
    I would like to have seen a picture in which the seventeen-year-old was seventeen years old.

    Parent
    I don't know how many of you who are (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Anne on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:17:04 AM EST
    posting fairly negative comments about the picture of the "young" Trayvon Martin, and attributing various degrees of ulterior motive to its selection, actually have children, but as a mother of two, my guess is the picture is one the family wanted to remember him by.

    If my heart had just been ripped out of my chest by the shooting death of my teenager, I would want the world to see that child as I saw him or her, which is not to say that I would be hiding something bad about my kid, just that the trappings and fashions of teenagers aren't always representative of who that child really is - and I'd want people to know and see that real child, my baby, who had been lost to me forever.

    Likewise, I'm sure it ripped at George Zimmerman's family to see that mug shot everywhere they looked, because I'm sure that's not the George they know and love.

    Do photos color our perceptions?  Of course they do, and the media take full advantage of that and engage in that kind of manipulation all the time, to tell the story they want to tell.

    If there can be said to be "sides" in this awful case, it seems both sides are engaging in a bit of that story-telling themselves; we're probably programmed to do it, so I try to take it for what it's worth, reject the stuff that simply defies common sense, and tell myself that regardless of how entertaining the constant speculation is, this case will be decided by a jury - if it gets that far -  and not by any of us.


    Parent

    You're very kind (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:35:22 AM EST
    But, imo, the constant carping from some about the pictures of Trayvon has a much darker motive especially since at this point it makes little sense to complain about any pictures but yet on and on they go.

     

    Parent

    So for those (none / 0) (#120)
    by jbindc on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:41:13 PM EST
    who think the picture doesn't mean anything (but of course, it's the very thing what set the whole ball rolling turning this into a racial case, before any facts were known, but I digress) - if your child were missing, would you give the police and the media a 5 year old picture - especially when if the person changed a great deal between ages 12 and 17? No - you would give out a picture that was accurate.

    I have no doubt that the picture of a young Trayvon in a red shirt, looking like a little boy was deliberately chosen, because it certainly tells a different story than if the media showed a 6'3" young man who had could appear to have the physique to potentially start a fight.

    I just don't understand what is so difficult to see how that initial picture that was out for weeks helped launch the narrative that more and more looks to be a mistaken one.  Even some commenters here are still clinging to the "much larger Zimmerman" meme, when that just isn't true.

    Parent

    Terrible comparison (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:10:07 PM EST
    Between potential missing person and a dead person laying on the ground.  Um, people are actively looking for a missing person.  Not so much when he's laying on a slab.  Also, the "red shirt" picture didn't get the ball rolling turning this into a racial case (whatever that means).  Did people think Trayvon was White before the picture came out?  Also, the "red shirt" picture was not the only picture.  There was the football picture, the family ski trips, with his relatives, etc.

    Btw, it's now official that Trayvon was 6'3"?  The police report said 6ft and, I think, his parents, put him at 6'2" at the most.  "Physique to potentially "start" a fight"?  Short people don't start fights?  Ok.....

    Parent

    I never said it didn't mean anything; (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Anne on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:32:27 PM EST
    I'm suggesting it doesn't mean what you and others are so sure it does.  That it doesn't have to have been chosen because it makes Trayvon into someone he wasn't, but because it shows him as someone he was: a much-loved son, not far-removed from childhood - which, as a mom, I can tell you is how we see our kids no matter how old they are.  Don't believe me - ask your own mom.

    Go take a run through the obits sometime and see what photos people select for their loved ones; I can't tell you how many times I see portraits of people in their prime, in happier, healthier times, who turn out to have died at the ripe and decrepit age of 89.  Why don't people put up current photos of their loved ones, as if they were missing?  Because that's not how they want, or how they want others, to remember them.

    And whatever narrative you think has been created - and there have been narratives on both sides of this case - George Zimmerman didn't need a picture to see what size person Trayvon was, did he?  If he was so big and intimidating and almost-just-like an NFL football player, why in the name of all that is good and holy did the allegedly much smaller Zimmerman ever get out of his mother-f-ing vehicle?

    Jesus.


    Parent

    Applause (none / 0) (#129)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:41:50 PM EST


    Parent
    The answer is quite simple: (none / 0) (#130)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:04:11 PM EST
    "...why in the name of all that is good and holy did the allegedly much smaller Zimmerman ever get out of his mother-f-ing vehicle?

    Jesus."

    While I could think of many answers the most probable is that Trayvon looked like he was running away, and Zimmerman wanted to get a fix on his direction to point out for the cops. He never expected to encounter Martin again. Little did he know that Trayvon had stopped to hide or was circling back around...

    Parent

    Little do you know beyond rank (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Anne on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:46:01 PM EST
    speculation.

    What Zimmerman wanted was irrelevant, not to mention unnecessary: it wasn't his job to pinpoint Trayvon's location for the cops.  Which the dispatcher, by saying, "okay, we don't need you to do that," reinforced.  

    Parent

    And little do YOU know beyond rank speculation (none / 0) (#147)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:21:51 PM EST
    But you just can't put your bias aside and even consider for a mere MOMENT the very POSSIBLITY that there was a legitimate reason for George Zimmerman to get out of his truck. I'm not the one practically frothing at the mouth at George Zimmerman because, unlike you, I can imagine many legitimate reasons for him to do so. Perhaps it being dark and rainy he didn't know that TM was as large as he was. Perhaps he thought that TM had skeedadled and posed no threat to him any more. And don't gab at me about "what was not his job" or any crap like that. George Zimmerman had pinpointed the location of potential perps before without problem, why should he think there'd be a problem this time? All indications are that this whole encounter was an accident, and, barring some near miraculous evidence from the prosecution, it's looking more and more like Zimmerman will walk.

    You and approximately two other people here appear to have brought into the prosecutions case, hook, line and sinker, and it is very obvious from your posts, where all  you have is harsh things to say about Zimmerman, harsh judgements on his character or intelligence, and not a single impulse to try to look at things from his point of view EVEN THOUGH you know you don't have all the evidence. I haven't said a single bad thing about Martin, all I did was speculate where he might have been or what he might have been doing without speculating as to WHY, you, on the other hand, know it was I guess self-obvious to Zimmerman that he should have stayed in his truck.

    Amazing.

    Parent

    Okay...putting your long attack aside (none / 0) (#160)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:04:32 PM EST
    "While I could think of many answers the most probable is that Trayvon looked like he was running away, and Zimmerman wanted to get a fix on his direction to point out for the cops.

    He never expected to encounter Martin again. Little did he know that Trayvon had stopped to hide or was circling back around...

    Part A is passable but part B is not.  "Looked like" he was running away?  Didn't Zimmerman say he ran away?  

    So you know that he never expected to encounter Martin again?  Little did he know.....?  That's questionable speculation.

    Parent

    Je-bus is right (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:55:16 PM EST
    This was not an obit picture. This was a picture put out to portray an image - pure and simple.

    And I did ask my mom, thanks.  She also doesn't understand why a more recent picture was put out.  

    They had no nice pictures of him at age 16?  How about his driver's license picture if he had one.

    This had nothing to do with how his family wanted to remember him - they would have those pictures up in their house.  This was purely a PR move.

    A blind person could see that.

    Parent

    Of course not (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 04:19:50 PM EST
    Because keeping those pictures in their house and supplying them to the media in a high profile case is mutually exclusive.  It must be one or the other.  They couldn't possibly have wanted the general public to see him how they saw him. Nah, it was JUST PR.

    Yeah they should have given folks a picture of the just turned 17 Trayvon so they could exmaine his pyhsique to determine if he could "start" a fight though I'm not sure how you could do that with a regular generic picture.  But, since some people are already comparing him to NFL players there's no lack imagination.  

    Parent

    jbindc (none / 0) (#157)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:52:35 PM EST
    I think you are right.
    If I want to spare the time I should probably go and look at the 4 major news websites and some of the major blogs over the period of time that this case first burst on the scene and see how long it took before each one of them decided to run a different picture of Martin or Zimmerman or both. I think it's quite obvious there was spin put on this by the family lawyers and PR firm as well as laziness by a bunch of news organizations.

    It seems some people don't even want to admit the possibility that this bias in pictures and reporting had any affect at all despite the smearing the Sanford Police Department with racism and George Zimmerman with assaulting what looked like a pre-teen or young teen "child", presumably for racist reasons. Look at some of the earlier threads on this on this site: if Zimmerman isn't exactly called a neo-nazi or a member of the KKK , some are very much convinced he was a frustrated cowboy wannabe who "hunted down" Martin in cold blood.


    Parent

    As opposed to the commenters ... (none / 0) (#124)
    by Yman on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    ... clinging to the "football player" meme?

    Heh.

    BTW - A current picture would make sense if Trayvon's parents were trying to help find their missing child.

    Not so much when you're mourning a dead child.

    Parent

    Multiple Pictures (none / 0) (#155)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:48:03 PM EST
    the picture of the "young" Trayvon Martin . . . my guess is the picture is one the family wanted to remember him by.

    It wasn't just one picture.

    Parent

    TM just turned 17 maybe 2-3 weeks before he died (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by Mary2012 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:11:15 AM EST



    Parent
    Correct (1.00 / 0) (#106)
    by Yman on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    He turned 17 three weeks before he was killed.

    No idea why that deserves a troll rating.

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:33:32 PM EST
    The obsession with the pictures is that some folks are frustrated because they can't create a "scary Trayvon" narrative.  No criminal record, no mugshots, no known gang affiliations, apparently not even any fake "thug life" mugging/posing pictures are available for them to work with though there are rumors of possible trash talking on social media (shocking!).  

    Look at how much time they've spent trying to turn a kid that even if he played HS football he was, at best, causual about it into an NFL Pro Bowler.

    Parent

    Just returning to this thread and see that (none / 0) (#111)
    by Anne on Tue May 15, 2012 at 12:44:57 PM EST
    Doug has unilaterally troll-rated everyone who dares to ask questions about or offer alternatives to or request accountability for his position.

    Am surprised he hasn't figured out that it will take more than that to make people shut up and leave him in sole possession of the issue.

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    No Birthday Picture? (none / 0) (#156)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:50:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Which Birthday? (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:13:48 PM EST
    I'll assume you mean 17th.  What would a typical B-day picture tell you?  Thay are usually big smiles..hugs..group shots...showing off gifts...etc.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#196)
    by Mary2012 on Wed May 16, 2012 at 12:34:19 PM EST
    the photo of Tracy Martin giving TM a kiss was from his birthday...

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#88)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 09:47:57 AM EST
    The coroner probably took some pictures.  

    Parent
    I agree that a mother would want to (none / 0) (#141)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 04:24:09 PM EST
    remember her son with a younger picture of him, but the media portrayal of the meta-narrative around this incident is worse than misleading; it's potentially tragic if Zimmerman is innocent of murder.

    When I first heard of this story, I completely fell for the "sweet little boy coming home from the store with candy is hunted down and killed by big bad racist" meme. I felt for the mother's pain over the loss of her son. Then I heard that Martin was 17, and I felt a jolt. That information didn't jibe with the picture I'd seen on the news. I felt a similar jolt listening to Zimmerman's police call, and his description of the suspect coming toward him after he noticed Zimmerman watching him. That didn't jibe with the much repeated meme that Trayvon was hunted down and killed. Nor did the police call jibe with all the exhortations that the police ordered Zimmerman not to follow him, or that, in the words of a prominent African-American politician, the police told Zimmerman to "Stand down, leave him alone!"  Nor did Zimmerman's voice on the call, or his responses to the non-emergency police fit with the (potential) scenario that so many people are furious about - that he may have assumed Martin was up to no good simply because he was African-American.

    While I still feel for the family, and respect their right to use whatever photos they want to remember their son, if Zimmerman can't get a fair trial because so many potential jurors are brainwashed into thinking that sweet little boy couldn't possibly have come back to beat up the guy who was watching him, then this will be a gross miscarriage of justice.

    The anger and almost obsessive derision of those with differing perspectives on this incident lead me to believe that many people are more interested in justifying their preconceptions than in finding out the truth about what occurred. If I were on Zimmerman's defense team, I'd think about trying to lead the jury through the process I personally went through regarding this case. Because they're going to have to do something to combat the massive media disinformation campaign designed to stir up divisive emotions and create ingrained, biased opinions about whatever happened that night.


    Parent

    Don't worry... (none / 0) (#150)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:27:25 PM EST
    You felt "jolts", huh?  Ok... Zimmerman will get a fair trial.  He's out on bail and looks like he has a good attorney.  Also, this event has already been more than "potentially" tragic.  Certainly for Martin and his family and even for Zimmerman who, whether he's convicted or not, will have to live with the fact that he killed somebody in a situation, that frankly, he could have avoided with a little better judgement.  

    Parent
    The "jolts" were because of (none / 0) (#163)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:12:07 PM EST
    media dishonesty and the manipulation of public opinion. I doubt Zimmerman will get a fair trial after months of notoriety.

    You don't know that Zimmerman could have avoided the situation. If you assume Martin was just a nice kid who was accosted by Zimmerman and had to fight back, then sure, Zimmerman's misjudgments were terrible. But is it so very hard to imagine that Martin may have been casing the neighborhood, had perhaps even burglarized homes in the past, and was p!ssed off that he'd been called on his activities. Or maybe he'd never done anything bad, and never would have, but simply got mad that someone profiled him for being black. Even it that's the case, aren't we better knowing that's what happened so that other young men can learn how to avoid this kind of conflict? Would you tell your son to break out his inner gangster and kick the butt of someone watching him, or to avoid screwballs at all cost? If Zimmerman is a racist thug, or a cop wannabe, or any of the other personifications of him out there on blogs and in the media, isn't it better that young black men realize it's in their best interests to not attract the attentions of someone who assumes they're criminals? Is it really wise for public leaders to present this in terms of the right to wear a hoodie, instead of giving better advise that acknowledges people who commit crimes often hide their identities, so if you don't want to seem like a criminal, don't look and act and talk and pretend to be a criminal. And please don't say young men don't glorify the gangsta look and talk. If my son found himself in a situation like this, I can only hope he has the presence of mind to maturely deescalate the situation, or avoid a physical conflict. But given the number of burglaries in that neighborhood, no wonder Zimmerman was calling the cops.

    Did this incident really have to be portrayed as little boy hunted down by big bad racist? How does that help race relations in this country, unless that's actually what happened? But we don't know what really happened, do we? At this point, people are so polarized they'll likely ignore any real evidence the court case reveals. What we do know is that the media is pushing a meme that allows them to capitalize on everyone's fears and anger. Meanwhile, Zimmerman just might be innocent, and young men may be better served by the truth.


    Parent

    Now you've gone overboard... (none / 0) (#168)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:27:03 PM EST
    Of course Zimmerman will get a fair trial and of course he could have avoided the situation by simply staying in his car among other things.  You don't think Zimmeran has second thoughts or regrets?  I think he does.  He'd be a fool not to considering what it has cost him and Martin.  

    Your emotional rank speculation about Martin and casing homes, inner gangster and not "looking and acting and talking" like a criminal...I guess by wearing a hoodie as opposed to actually committing crimes...and larger sociological points are, imo, kind of ridiculous but beside the point here.

    Parent

    Of course he must regret that night. (none / 0) (#174)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:59:28 PM EST
    My point is simply that we don't know what happened, and the media is raking in the bucks after misleading us. They thrive on conflict and dissent, even when they create it.

    Those who believe the current media portrayal, which might even be true BTW, are unlikely to change their opinions if contradictory information is revealed. People tend to seek out new information that bolsters their previously held beliefs. If it turns out that Martin was a criminal, and Zimmerman's suspicions were actually quite reasonable, it won't matter to those who have already decided otherwise. Even you scoff at the idea, not knowing anything other than what the family and associates have presented, and suggest that if I'm open to the possibility he did something to cause Zimmerman to be suspicious then I must be confusing hoodie wearing with criminal acts. Belittle all you want, but you don't know any more than I do about what Martin was doing while Zimmerman was watching him.

    I really doubt he'll get a fair trial. And I truly believe the way to overcome stereotypes is to disprove them. There's nothing wrong with wearing a hoodie; don't put words into my mouth. But my sons are now more aware of their actions while talking on the phone in public, and they're acutely aware that people will always judge them by the way they look and act. Knowing that, and responding appropriately, may someday save their lives.


    Parent

    Hoodies, Hoodies, Again With The Hoodies (none / 0) (#179)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 08:41:06 PM EST
    Is it really wise for public leaders to present this in terms of the right to wear a hoodie, instead of giving better advise that acknowledges people who commit crimes often hide their identities . . .


    Even Geraldo Rivera     thinks it's OK to wear a hooded garment in the rain.

    There is no evidence that Zimmerman thought the hoodie was suspicious, unless you count an ABC News claim about a public statement no one else seems to have heard.

    Parent

    Nor did I claim it wasn't alright. (none / 0) (#182)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 09:16:10 PM EST
    Jeez, my point is that a bunch of people are making this into something it probably isn't, which is why there are so many hoodie protests and marches. A teacher just got fired for encouraging kids to break a school dress policy and wear hoodies up. Meanwhile, the blogs are again full of commenters screaming racism instead of acknowledging that school dress policies are actually pretty sensible, given the amount of crime schools face. The same thing goes for those who keep trying to make this about skittles, as if Zimmerman knew Martin had skittles on him. There's no lesson to be learned if the meme continues to be big bad guy hunts down kid armed with only candy. Maybe the take away lesson has more to do with what you do when someone perceives you differently than you expect.

    Parent
    Whatever (none / 0) (#183)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 09:46:49 PM EST
    It wasn't clear to me what your point was, but you seemed to be suggesting some things I disagree with and wanted to address.

    If you don't want to be misunderstood, try being clearer.

    Parent

    As Usual (none / 0) (#159)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:59:35 PM EST
    The anger and almost obsessive derision of those with differing perspectives on this incident lead me to believe . . .

    Some anger and derision for people who disagree is standard for most any debate.

    This forum is well-moderated, with smart people on both sides mostly sticking to the substance of the arguments.

    Parent

    YMan-- (2.00 / 0) (#89)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:03:52 AM EST
    You asked for a link backing up my assertion that Trayvon Martin's father said after listening to a 911 tape said to the police that the voice screaming for help was not his son's.  Here you go.  This is a youtube recording of a number Orlando TV news reports.  For what you asked about go to 3:20.  You'll hear it shortly after that.  The whole thing is worth listening to though. Earlier there's interview of eyewitness John though he didn't want to show his face or give his last name.  (No wonder why.)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK3ZdDEfjzg&feature=player_embedded

    As for Martin's family not being "obligated" to provide the press with recent photos of their son.  It's obviously intentionally misleading that they didn't and about totally demolishes their credibility.  As does Trayvon's father changing his story about the screaming for help voice not being that of his son.

    You are evincing no impartiality and a lot of prejudice, in my opinion.

    Parent

    That's not what I asked for (1.00 / 0) (#99)
    by Yman on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:55:08 AM EST
    I asked you who said it, and I asked you for any evidence that Martin's father "changed his story" in response to Crump's counseling, which is what you claimed.  You're accusing Tracy Martin of lying, and Crump of advising him to lie - extremely serious accusations - without the slightest bit of evidence.

    BTW - Martin's father has stated that he couldn't identify the voice the first time he heard the audio - it was too distorted.  He identified the screams as Trayvon's in the audio that had been cleaned up.

    As for Martin's family not being "obligated" to provide the press with recent photos of their son.  It's obviously intentionally misleading that they didn't and about totally demolishes their credibility.

    No, it's not "obvious" in the least.  

    As does Trayvon's father changing his story about the screaming for help voice not being that of his son.

    Good to hear that any allegations of inconsistencies "totally demolish" someone's credibility.  Can we assume you'll be applying the same standard to Zimmerman and his family?

    You are evincing no impartiality and a lot of prejudice, in my opinion.

    Coming from you, that's pretty funny ... IMO.

    Parent

    Yman-- (none / 0) (#122)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:46:39 PM EST
     
    I asked you who said it, and I asked you for any evidence that Martin's father "changed his story" in response to Crump's counseling, which is what you claimed.  

    Nevermind's quote from the Orlando Sentinel took care of the later.  I inferred Crump's counseling, yes, based on the sleazy massively misleading way he and PR firm Julison Communications engaged by him have spun the media,particularly but not only the local ABC station, and his conduct in general in this case.  

    Parent

    Ahhhhhh ... you "inferred" it (none / 0) (#127)
    by Yman on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:22:04 PM EST
    Amazing what people can "infer" when they want to ...

    Parent
    Doug 1111 (none / 0) (#165)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:15:49 PM EST
    Your comment ratings have been erased. You may not rate someone a "1" because you disagree with them.

    "1" ratings are reserved for trolls and spammers.

    I realize you didn't know this, but now you do, so please keep this in mind for future ratings.

    Ratings are more about the quality of the comment. Do not give people low ratings just because you disagree with the point of view they have expressed. Thank you.

    Parent

    I didn't know it. (none / 0) (#189)
    by Doug1111 on Wed May 16, 2012 at 06:11:12 AM EST
    But will now comply.

    I didn't down rate people just because I disagreed with them but because I thought they were making emotional rather than fact and law based arguments, or were arguing for things which this case is not at all likely to turn upon under Florida law.

    I agree that those I down rated weren't trolls or spammers but I did think they were making poor or largely irrelevant arguments.

    I'd submit as well Jeralyn that I have posted a single bit of trolling or spamming on here yet I have received a lot of 1 down ratings which stood.  

    Parent

    Tracy Martin on Screams (none / 0) (#74)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 04:32:23 AM EST
    Who says Tracy Martin told the police that the screams were not Trayvon's?  What do you mean he "changed his story ... after Crump no doubt counseled him"?

    Orlando Sentinel, March 17:

    Serino said Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, listened to all of the 911 calls in the case before the entire family convened at City Hall to listen Friday night. When asked if the voice on one, a male calling for help was his son, told Serino no.

    Police lied Friday, Crump said, when they said Tracy Martin said the voice crying for help was not his son. What Tracy Martin told police, Crump said, was that "he couldn't tell, that it was too distorted."

    The audio has since been cleaned up, and now Tracy Martin has no doubt but that the voice is his son, Crump said.



    Parent
    Good. Now where's the part ... (1.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:29:21 AM EST
    ... about him "changing his story" in response to Crump counseling him?

    Parent
    That sure looks to me, and will look to the judge (2.00 / 0) (#90)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:07:04 AM EST
    and a jury in the unlikely event this case goes that far, like Tracy Martin was later lying, and Crump was lying about the police lying as well -- in my opinion.

    Parent
    "Looks to you" (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by Yman on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:48:44 AM EST
    It doesn't look like that to me, and those are very serious charges to make without the slightest shred of evidence.

    That was easy.

    Parent

    incredible what slim reeds some people (none / 0) (#162)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:11:09 PM EST
    instantly accept as proof positive, conclusive, undeniable, and irrefutable evidence. If your heart permits, just think of what a young, still in his teens, kid's voice sounds like as he's dying, or about to be. Was it a scream, a shout, a plaintiff wail, a loud guttural sound? What would anyone's voice sound like seconds before being cut so brutally  from the tethers of life?

    I only can pray for the infallible insight some of our resident geniuses here posses.


    Parent

    parents are not on trial. GZ is. n/t (1.00 / 0) (#64)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 14, 2012 at 11:19:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Willisnewton-- Irrelevant. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:10:56 AM EST
     
    parents are not on trial. GZ is.

    Their credibility will most certainly be on trial if the prosecution calls them to testify as to whose voice it was that could be heard screaming for help on 011 tapes.

    I submit they have about none and that O'Mara will be able to show that.  

    Parent

    None? Zero credibility?? (3.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Angel on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:20:05 AM EST
    About the same amount as you, I suppose, based on your comments.  You apparently think you know exactly what happened that night, but trust me - you don't.  You have the same information as everyone else, no more or no less.  

    Parent
    Serino did not want to arrest Zimmerman (1.00 / 0) (#18)
    by Slayersrezo on Mon May 14, 2012 at 04:07:50 PM EST
    It's easy to fall for the tons of misinformation in this case because there has been lots of it.

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-02/news/os-trayvon-martin-federal-review-justice-letter- 20120402_1_chief-bill-lee-federal-review-federal-agency

    It would be nice to finally put this to rest.

    Parent

    I think Serino initially wanted (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by rjarnold on Mon May 14, 2012 at 05:43:13 PM EST
    to arrest Zimmerman, but after doing his investigation felt there wasn't enough probably cause.

    Parent
    No Jury (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 04:35:36 PM EST
    Doug1111 was responding to your assertion that Zimmerman 'needs to appear honest to convince a jury.'

    Parent
    It's not a SYG hearing, it's an immunity hearing. (2.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 09:46:59 AM EST
    Yes the defense does have the burden of proof there, but it's a light burden, preponderance of the evidence or 50.1%.

    On the basis of the currently available evidence impartially weighed, it's my opinion the O'Mara can clearly meet that burden.

    On the basis of eyewitness John's testimony, and GZ's wet and cut grass covered back, I think it's well over 51% clear that Zimmerman couldn't escape and flee just before shooting Trayvon.  Therefore it doesn't matter who started the fight.

    On the basis of John's testimony, Zimmerman's story, where the fight occurred (partially over the cement sidewalk and partially over the wet grass) according to John and Zimmerman, GZ's broken nose and especially the bloodied back of his head, I think there's well over a 51% likelihood that Zimmerman reasonably feared great bodily harm from a concussion, coma or even death.

    QED.

    Most of the rest that people have argued about in this case just isn't relevant.

    Parent

    You're simply wrong about that. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 14, 2012 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    Corroborating evidence manages huge.  His injuries and John's eye and ear witness testimony corroborate Zimmerman's story where in matters, that is in the essentials.  As does his wet and grass cuttings littered back.

    I submit that you aren't remotely the evidence we have in a non prejudiced and even minded way.  

    Parent

    this is silly (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 14, 2012 at 08:07:38 PM EST
    I think Trayvon gained the upper hand in the altercation.  I'll give you that, no problem.  But is it not just as "essential" to say that Zimmerman got out of his car with a loaded weapon, followed the teen as he admits, and then shot a unarmed kid...ergo, his guilt?  No, that's not logical.  

    The totality of the facts are what the jury will decide upon.  That's what they do.  Judges then instruct them on how to rule - if x then he is guilty of y, if c, then you must find him innocent of d, etc.  

    GZ claims he didn't start the fight.  The injuries corroborate there WAS a struggle.  Not who started it.  Or how severe it was.

    If A follows B, that's hardly proof that A CAUSED B.  

    I do understand that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to  show the jury that the fact support the charge of murder and that the facts disavow the claim of self defense.  

    I just think that the prosecution is setting out to first prove it WAS murder, not  (first) disprove that it wasn't self defense.  In so doing they hope to show beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ's story of self defense is not possible the way he claims it happened, because the facts which PROVE the way they claim the murder happened prevent his version from being true.  Does that makes sense?

    How about if I put it this way:

    "Colonel Mustard tried to kill me just now in the kitchen with the candlestick! Look at my nose! "

    "Oh, he did, huh?  Why is his body in the library, and where is this candle stick of which you speak?  I contend your smoking revolver and his head slumped into that book he was reading says different!"  

    "Look at my nose!"

    IANAL however so I will defer to someone who can explain it better.  And for the record, I don't feel that I am overly prejudiced against GZ, and I plan on holding my own opinion as to his guilt or innocence until later.  

    We are all playing poker here with a deck of about twenty cards, and the "table stakes" are just what a sloppy media, small police department and a lawyer who lacks discovery can toss out.  We got a long ways to go, baby.  

    He's innocent until proven guilty, if we live in a nation of laws.  My understanding of the events is evolving as more information and time and thinking goes into it.  There has been a lot of wild speculation and not enough quiet reflection, I'd say.  I do think the case belongs in a courtroom and was not up to the Sanford PD to decide.  There is so much we don't yet know here.  

    Thanks to all who are participating in this discussion.  I'm learning a lot.  


    Parent

    No. It is not. (2.00 / 0) (#94)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:27:00 AM EST
    Willisnewton--

    Willisnewton--

     

    But is it not just as "essential" to say that Zimmerman got out of his car with a loaded weapon, followed the teen as he admits, and then shot a unarmed kid...ergo, his guilt?

    No.  It is NOT.  That's just emotionalism.

    Trayvon was armed with his large height advantage, his hands and the cement sidewalk under Zimmerman's head which Trayvon repeatedly pounded GZ's head against, his fists, and the fact that Zimmerman did not pull his gun until just before he shot Trayvon - John stopped looking at the fight only seconds before the gunshot in order to call 911, and didn't see Zimmerman pointing a gun at Trayvon, and he was very close to the fight.

     

    I just think that the prosecution is setting out to first prove it WAS murder, not  (first) disprove that it wasn't self defense.  In so doing they hope to show beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ's story of self defense is not possible the way he claims it happened, because the facts which PROVE the way they claim the murder happened prevent his version from being true.  Does that makes sense?

    No it doesn't make any sense at all.  Further your subsequent analogy to a Clue murder mystery doesn't work either.  The body was found were Zimmerman AND John claimed the fight occurred.

    So far I've seen NO credible evidence that contradicts the essentials of Zimmerman's story.  Exactly how the fight occurred are irrelevant IF the evidence indicates that Zimmerman couldn't flee just before he shot Trayvon because reasonably feared he might suffer great bodily harm (a severe concussion, coma) or death if he didn't.

    Zimmerman doesn't have to have been 100% consistent or 100% remembering of every detail in his five different interrogations by police for the essentials of his story, which are well corroborated by an eyewitness, Zimmerman's injuries, his wet and crass cuttings covered back, powder burn on Trayvon's hoodie sleeve which one after the fact at the crime scene witness saw, and so on.  


    Parent

    "Armed with his height advantage".... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:14:55 AM EST
    "Armed" with the cement sidewalk...hahaha...talk about emotionalism.  That you are continually trying to present yourself as an impartial examiner of events is the funniest part though.

    Parent
    let him have the last word. (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:45:27 AM EST
    I've got a trial to follow.  

    We don't know where the body was found.  We just don't.  I think it was in the grass, between the townhouses.  I also think it was on Trayvon's path home and off of GZ's path to his truck, in a place where there are no street signs, thus indicating that GZ closed the final gap and proving him a liar when he claimed he was jumped walking back to his truck.  This however is only one man's opinion.  And I've written much about it elsewhere, but I don't pretend to KNOW it's an established fact when it is not.

    We don't know who started the fight.  We just don't.  

    We don't know if George hit his head on a sidewalk, or someone did that for him.  We don't know.  

    Emotions are high and talk is cheap.  Please summarize if you feel the need, and let's move on here.  Everyone has made their point, I bet.  I will consider your opinion and leave hoping that you consider mine.  

    All these and other "facts" will be deliberated and established at trial so that an impartial jury can render a just verdict.  It's sort of a squishy process, like cheese-making.  It seems to work okay though.  

    Parent

    The Sanford police (none / 0) (#109)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 12:08:09 PM EST
    most certainly do know where the body was found.

    Eye and ear witness John saw where Trayvon's body was face down on the ground seconds after he heard the gunshot.

    So yes we do know where the body was found. Maybe you don't but the Sanford police and as a result of reviewing their evidence the special prosecution team does know.  

    Parent

    Just a wild guess, ... (1.00 / 0) (#113)
    by Yman on Tue May 15, 2012 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    ... but when willisnewton said "We don't know where the body was found.", he was probably talking about those people commenting here.

    No one is claiming the police/prosecution don't know, but "we" do not yet have access to that information.

    Parent

    Eye witness John has said (none / 0) (#123)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:56:02 PM EST
    that the fight occurred right in front of his window his window.

    Zimmerman's head was bashed against something hard and the sidewalk was right there.  The grass was closely mowed lawn that would be unlikely to have any large rocks on it - bad for mowers.  

    The Wagist site has pieced together a map of the neighboorhood using google earth I believe and where John's house was/is and to a close approximation where the fight occurred and the body was found, based upon the 911 tapes, the time course of those recordings where Trayvon was staying, what John said, etc.  

    Parent

    So is the "we" that knows ... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Yman on Tue May 15, 2012 at 04:00:08 PM EST
    ... where the body was found the police/prosecutors, or does it also include The Wagist now?

    Sadly, The Wagist doesn't appear to realize they're a spoof site.

    Parent

    Armed (none / 0) (#171)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:36:06 PM EST
    The concrete sidewalk is potentially a deadly weapon.

    Parent
    Now, I gotta ask you straight up (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:36:01 PM EST
    Where were you hiding when you witnessed first hand the: "....cement sidewalk under Zimmerman's head which Trayvon repeatedly pounded GZ's head against?"

    Now, you said "Trayson repeatedly pounded GZ's head" against the "cement sidewalk." How many is "repeatedly?" Two, three,......two hundred? And what's with your very suspicious changing of your story. Before you were positive you saw GZ's head being Bashed into the sidewalk; and now you changed it to "Pounded." Sorry, repeatedly pounded.C'mon Doug, which one was it, Bash or Pound?;

    I hope you shared your unquestionably correct version of events with the authorities. You'll make a great, credible witness.

    Parent

    O'Mara's starting to get discovery (none / 0) (#12)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 14, 2012 at 01:03:43 PM EST
    from the prosecution doesn't mean a trail date or even an immunity hearing is near.

    They almost certainly are not.

    Parent

    the father is listed as a witness... hmmmm. (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 14, 2012 at 08:45:13 PM EST
    I wonder what he will be asked.  It's known that he visited his son the day after, and was present at the walk-thru with investigators.  He's said he saw the fresh injuries as well.  

    If the prosecution is calling him as a witness, they must think his second hand account has some relevance or else that his direct involvement is somehow an issue.  

    my speculation would be this:

    The obvious question would be if he coached his son on how to couch his story in a better light regarding a self-defense claim.  GZ's story hits a lot of specific points regarding no longer looking for the teen, fearing for his life and receiving verbal death threats, etc.  I've had some suspicions about the idea that GZ's story started "evolving" after the first night due to such coaching.  His father seems the best qualified to give advice on this matter - perhaps innocently, perhaps not.  

    Or, it could be that the letter to the NAACP is somehow going to be dragged into this.  I hope not, but there was the hint in the bond hearing that George made some comments in a text message about a "reverend" and that seemed to be a reference to Jesse Jackson.  I hope Corey can leave race out of it.  It's such a can of worms...  sigh.

    they also listed (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 14, 2012 at 09:19:52 PM EST
    Trayvon's mother, father and brother, as well as Frank Taaffe and Joe Oliver. There's no basis at this time for your speculation that he coached his son. Please don't post rank speculation prejudicial to Zimmerman and couch it as a question.There is not one iota of evidence his father "coached him." Anyone whose involvement in a possible crime is being investigated can have a lawyer with them during questioning. Zimmerman was not under arrest the next day. He was cooperating, doing a walk-through. Only a very foolish person wouldn't bring a lawyer (assuming they could afford one.)

    I don't see your similar claims that the Martins' have been coached by their lawyers.

    I've told you before, do not post every theory of guilt here you can come up with, or you will be limited in your comments. All you do is write comment after comment from the prosecution viewpoint. This is your second warning.

    Parent

    Seemed It So? (none / 0) (#66)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 11:51:34 PM EST
    I hope not, but there was the hint in the bond hearing that George made some comments in a text message about a "reverend" and that seemed to be a reference to Jesse Jackson.

    Evidence that it was Jackson?

    Parent
    none, point taken. (none / 0) (#71)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:32:35 AM EST
    But I doubt it was hinting to a reference to Billy Graham.  

    You and I may differ on some points, nomatter, but I respect your writing and would like to believe that we both could agree that this case could be settled fairly by leaving race out of the equation unless something quite compelling were to be found as evidence.  

    We may never know what was in GZ's mind on the topic of race, and personally I'm not sure I care to know.  Try the case on the merits of the shooting and leave the larger discussion about race elsewhere.  

    Parent

    Al Sharpton is also a reverend (none / 0) (#149)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:25:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Very funny (1.00 / 0) (#86)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 09:39:14 AM EST
    It doesn't even rise to the level of nitpicking but yet he's going on and and on as if it were an important distinction.

    In My Opinion (1.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue May 15, 2012 at 12:55:55 PM EST
    The Prosecutions entire case rests on emotionalism and in fact, there are only two reasons or possibly three reasons this prosecution was brought in the first place:

    A. To prevent riots due to lots of race baiting early in the case as well as the downright incompetence or mendacity of parts of the mainstream media the first 4 weeks. Does anyone here still encounter - as I do - people who believe that Trayvon's father didn't see his son after he was shot for days or weeks? If so, blame the initial reporting. Go on many websites both popular and Progressive and you will still see lots of people who buy the same misinformation or misunderstandings placed out there by the initial reporting and who hold up contested evidence as absolute proof, apparently being unaware it was contested. Heck, look at some of the mainstream press comments sections. People here know what Zimmerman's lawyer wants suppressed and why, they also know that the Prosecution wants some things suppressed. I see people crying "coverup"! and calling bad on the defense. Meanwhile according to what I read today it's not just Zimmerman who is in hiding but other members of his family such as his father. This is disgusting.
    B. Certain lawyers for the purported victims family want a civil payday. If this doesn't go to trial that is precluded.
    C. As is sadly usual, politics. As Jeralyn predicted, for example, "Stand Your Ground" has come under sustained attack even before everyone knew any details of the defense case. As I say on my post at The Good Men Project, cases like these tend to be used by people to fit their political/social metanarratives.

    I'm looking forward.. (none / 0) (#1)
    by CuriousInAz on Sun May 13, 2012 at 10:04:19 PM EST
    ..to seeing the evidence

    Infact I'm a little excited.

    Me too (none / 0) (#2)
    by bmaz on Sun May 13, 2012 at 10:39:43 PM EST
    In the items listed in Jeralyn's excerpt, the only thing that should really pose any serious potential redaction issues are the witness statements. Will be interesting to see the other items, even if the witness statements are delayed. Unfortunately, it all may still be delayed more than we would like.

    Parent
    I'm Definitely Excited. (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 01:56:14 AM EST
    Many of our current controversies will become moot, but as many, if not twice as many, will be opened up.

    I'm looking forward to witness statements. From the 911 calls we know of eleven potential witnesses. Only five have talked to the media.

    Parent

    Miscount (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 04:23:53 PM EST
    Sorry, that's ten potential witnesses known from the 911 calls. Five have spoken to the media. One is the sister of Austin Brown, who told the dispatcher she didn't see anything, and implied she couldn't identify the sound she heard. 'I heard something.'

    The second caller, one of two known to have called before the gunshot, saw someone in 'a white tee shirt' on top of someone she couldn't see.

    Parent

    In CA, as far as I can tell (no Lexus/Nexus) (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun May 13, 2012 at 10:52:53 PM EST
    the autopsy report of a minor cannot be obtained under the Public Records Act under certain conditions.  This seems reasonable to me.  link

    Opposing SYG restrictions (none / 0) (#4)
    by michele on Mon May 14, 2012 at 12:48:19 AM EST
    Jeralyn,

    can you point to a post where you have discussed your views on SYG restrictions or repeal?
    thanks

    I've said from the beginning (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 14, 2012 at 02:06:01 AM EST
    of this case I don't believe SYG laws are the problem:

    I don't think "Stand My Ground" laws are the problem as much as armed members of citizen watch groups who patrol neighborhoods looking for offenders. They are the ones who shouldn't be carrying guns.

    I added:

    I see where this is going -- the tragedy of this youth's death by a vigilante will be overshadowed by those with agendas -- including civil rights groups who insist this was a racially motivated, intentional killing, and gun control groups.

    Of course, at that time, the media was reporting he was on patrol that night, when he wasn't.

    It's not that I have argued for SYG laws. I've purposefully kept my analysis of Florida's SYG and self-defense laws neutral.

    I have argued for the 10 years I've had this site against passing laws in response to a singular event, no matter how horrific.

    I have also continually expressed my opposition to gun control laws.
    And I have written many, many times  since 2002 about my support for Second Amendment rights and my view that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms.

    Probably the only ad I've ever rejected on TalkLeft was one advocating for gun control. I wrote why here.

    I hope I've answered your question, but if anyone wants to discuss it further, please take it to an open thread and let's keep this thread to Zimmerman.

    Since the mission of this site is to advocate for the rights of the accused and oppose legislative initiatives and candidate who would restrict those rights, I'm not about to let anyone use this site to advocate for laws or restrictions I oppose.

    Parent

    As far as a minor's autopsy report goes... (none / 0) (#11)
    by CuriousInAz on Mon May 14, 2012 at 01:02:40 PM EST
    While I did not follow the case,  I don't seem to recall Caylee Anthony's autopsy results being held back prior to trial.

    While that case has nothing to do with this one,  evidently there is no Fl statute prohibiting their release.

    Trevor Dooley case (none / 0) (#17)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon May 14, 2012 at 03:52:05 PM EST
    I hope it's OK to post this in this thread. A judge in Hillsborough County, FL, just ruled that Dooley doesn't have immunity under SYG in the fatal shooting of a neighbor. Here, the case has been compared to the TM case.

    It would be compairible if Zimmerman comited a (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by redwolf on Mon May 14, 2012 at 04:09:27 PM EST
    crime before the SYG shooting.  Flashing a gun to intimidate is a crime in most states. We'll see if there's any evidence to indicate Zimmerman did something like this.

    Parent
    Most people commenting at this site don't (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 14, 2012 at 05:02:24 PM EST
    understand Florida criminal statutory law on self defense at all clearly.  They are actually very clearly written and easy to understand provisions, if you read them.  I've embeded links in the statute numbers.  

    There are several Florida self defense statute subsections.

    One,   776.012 (the section number contains a link), applies if Zimmerman did not provoke the fight by doing something illegal and provocative.  Under that provision Zimmerman would not have to try to flee if he would without significant risk to himself, but rather could "stand his ground" (those words don't appear in the statute) and use potentially deadly for if he reasonably believed that he otherwise risked his life, great bodily harm or a forceful felony (such rape, but a simple mugging wouldn't necessarily qualify).  

    Another,   776.041 entitled "Use of Force by the Aggressor"   would apply if Zimmerman did something illegal such as throw the first punch to start the fight.  In that case Zimmerman could not stand his ground if he could flee immediately before using potentially deadly force.  However if he could not flee at that time because Trayvon was on top of him pinning him to the ground, and he reasonably believed he risked serious bodily harm or death, he could use potentially deadly force in self defense without committing a crime.

    Most of the media and blog discussion of this case has gone to things which aren't at the heart of whether it was legally permitted self defense or not.


    Parent

    fixing following typos, sorry: (none / 0) (#105)
    by Doug1111 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    *try to flee if he  could without ...

    *use potentially deadly force

    *(such as rape, but ...

    Parent

    He is an analysis of this case by a Florida (none / 0) (#188)
    by Doug1111 on Wed May 16, 2012 at 06:06:50 AM EST
    criminal lawyer, under that state's statutes, including the two above which I discuss.

    http://www.southfloridacriminallawyersblog.com/2012/04/why-trayvon-martins-case-may-not-go-to-a-jury .html

    Parent

    Two questions re the Police Report (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 14, 2012 at 05:52:43 PM EST
    1) I would like to know the significance of the Offense section of the (partial) police report where it states: "Homicide - Neglig  Mansl - Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act"

    It seems to be suggesting 'someone' wanted to charge GZ that night however I've never come across any discussion of this whether online or  cable and thought I would ask.  

    2) Under one of the "Persons" sections, it has Trayvon's full name, birthdate, address, etc.

    Time Completed is given as 2-27-12, 3:07 [a.m.]

    Since this was perhaps 4-5 hours before Tracy Martin called the police department to file a missing person's report, how was it the information was filled out on the police report? Trayvon's body at the time was tagged as "John Doe".

    Possible Crime (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 06:24:55 PM EST
    I would like to know the significance of the Offense section of the (partial) police report where it states: "Homicide - Neglig  Mansl - Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act"

    When police investigate a possible crime, the paper work has to identify what possible crime is being investigated, even if it hasn't been established that any crime has been committed.

    Orlando Sentinel, April 2:

    Police did that night prepare an incident report that lists "manslaughter" as the possible crime being investigated, but in every case in which an officer prepares an incident report, he or she fills in that spot with some crime and statute number to allow the agency to properly report crime statistics to the FBI.


    Parent
    Thank you, NoMatter! (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 14, 2012 at 06:47:17 PM EST
    and for the link...

    Parent
    Old News (none / 0) (#29)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 14, 2012 at 06:10:37 PM EST
    The Miami Herald, March 21:

    This week the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement launched their own investigations.

    I recall seeing reports specifically that the FBI was questioning witnesses, but I don't have a link for that.

    If the FBI had declared its investigation complete, that would be news.

    the investigation is not complete (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 14, 2012 at 07:15:19 PM EST
    I deleted that comment. They aren't "seeking to charge him", they are investigating. And I think it's old news except that they may have recently re-interviewed witnesses.

    Parent
    missed this earlier. What a CRUMMY article! (none / 0) (#184)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:06:43 PM EST
    There is not one shred of proof cited in that WFTV article regarding the DoJ filing hate crimes.  Or anything that establishes a date at which the unfounded FBI questioning occurred. If  "thin" is a sheet of paper, this is a sheet of electrons.  

    It's possible, if you cared to IMAGINE the article was proof of anything, that the FBI is wrapping things up and some follow up questions or fact-checkers were asked, in advance of an inconclusive report.  But that's being charitable to WFTV to TRY to connect the dot (singular) and draw a complete picture fro what they are "reporting" here.  

    If I were a news editor or a TV station owner, I'd fire the producer AND the reporter and maybe the sound guy, too for good measure for letting such lousy work get on the air.  

    My sister worked for a paper right out of college and filed a story saying election was on monday, not a tuesday and her copy editor missed it.  It hit print,  and she was fired on the spot, and that's an honest mistake.  This is just...  stupid.  

    Parent

    of course TM's parents were coached by lawyers... (none / 0) (#62)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 14, 2012 at 09:53:00 PM EST
    Trayvon's parents are paying to be coached by their lawyers.  Or at least they have retained them for advice, if they are working pro bono.  They are also not accused of any crime.  

    I'm making the distinction here that whatever George's father said to him likely isn't covered by attorney-client privilege.  I don't think Robert Zimmerman is a lawyer, despite his employment as a Virginia Magistrate.  His background is career military.  And I don't think GZ retained his father in that capacity.

    As near as I can tell, Robert Zimmerman did three things relevant to the case.  He was present at the walk-thu and all that may imply.  He spoke to media and related second-hand his son's self defense narrative.  And he communicated with his son and the media in ways we don't know about fully.  Let's just leave it at that for now.  The rest would be on background.  

    Given the limited nature of this partial disclosure, there's not much to say that isn't speculation at present.

    I have a lot of theories of Zimmerman's innocence as well.  But others here are repeating those often enough.  Your warnings are noted, but I thought your objection was repetitiveness, not my opinions.  I'll review the rules one more time before posting again.  

    O'Mara to get George Zimmerman Discovery Monday | 196 comments (196 topical)