NY Times Details Missteps In Trayvon Martin Shooting Investigation

The New York Times reports the results of its reporters' investigation over the last several weeks into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

It includes a lot of unnamed police sources and claims by unnamed witnesses made after the fact. Most of this stuff we've heard before, and I'd caution against assuming the New York Times is reporting facts. It's reporting what unnamed police sources and witnesses told the reporters, which may or may not be accurate. [More...]

The Times devotes a lot of space to one eyewitness who talked to them. The witness complains about being ignored. It seems to be the freaked out 911 caller whose call lasted more than 10 minutes.

In her 911 call, she said there were other neighbors whose porches were closer to the where the shooting occurred, who might have helped. It was too dark for her to see anyone clearly until after hearing the shot. She was so distraught during the call the dispatcher offered to send an ambulance to her house. She and her lawyer, Derek Brett of Orlando, later made the CNN rounds, with her face and voice being shielded. By then, she was convinced it was a young boy, Trayvon, who had cried out for help.

Her wording in her 911 call is similar to her later interviews: the "pop" sound, the thought someone might have been walking their dog in the rain, and a lot more.

She doesn't describe the man as Hispanic in her 911 call, only in later interviews does she say she could see the man walking away was Hispanic. What she saw was Zimmerman walking away after the shot when people with flashlights had arrived on scene. She didn't even have her window open when she first heard what sounded like a scuffle before the shot. Then she turned her attention elsewhere until she heard them again. She called 911, and appears to be looking out her window describing what she is seeing. She says she heard a "pop." She wasn't sure it was a gunshot. She couldn't identify who was on top during the scuffle. She assumes it was the younger person because the older one walked away after it was over.

She is the witness who describes an "authoritative" voice. She assumes the older person has the authoritative voice. As I've said before, we've heard Zimmerman's voice, it's timid. We haven't heard Travyon's voice. She hears Zimmerman say he shot someone and surrender to police.

This is a classic case of an eyewitness memory being contaminated by post-event information, where the witness' memory of the original event is blended with information received later through the media. The result is a new memory is formed that is not accurate.

Listen to her 911 call.

911 calls released in Sanford shooting: MyFoxORLANDO.com

Then read the transcripts of her and her lawyers' CNN TV interviews. The witness' voice was disguised, sometimes as a male voice, but they all seem to be the same witness, the lawyer for the witness is the same, and it is the same lawyer as the one quoted about his client-witness in the New York Times article.

The only eye and ear witness accounts that should be considered reliable are the first ones the witnesses gave in their 911 calls and at the scene, when the witnesses were contemporaneously describing what they were seeing and hearing. All these witnesses later interviews were given after they comingled what they originally witnessed with information learned later. What a great example of why mistaken eye-witness evidence is the leading cause of wrongful convictions in this country. The witnesses aren't lying, they are just mistaken.

What inconsistencies do you notice between this witness' 911 call and later interviews?

As to the rest of the Times' article, Tom Maguire at Just One Minute lists his complaints.

< Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | O'Mara Denies Giving Zimmerman's Medical Report to ABC News >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Sounds like a typical investigation to me.. (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CuriousInAz on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:06:10 AM EST
    People have a mistaken impression and think Sherlock Holmes and CSI are going to descend upon the scene and sort it all out inbetween commercial breaks and have a verdict by the end of the hour.

    Yup. Pretty sure the SPD's investigation (none / 0) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:17:25 PM EST
    falls pretty much in the middle of the bell curve of police homicide investigations nation wide.

    Imperfect world, imperfect people, imperfect homicide investigations.

    Welcome to the real world.


    Authoritative Voice (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 01:02:49 AM EST
    But it simply not rational to claim you know what either Zimmerman or Martin would sound like in a life and death struggle.

    Jeralyn didn't claim to 'know' what anyone sounded like.

    The witness heard the 'authoritative voice' before the 'life and death struggle.'

    I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2012 at 01:14:22 AM EST
    It was the witness who referred to the voice as authoritative and concluded it was Martin based on that. I have pointed out how silly that is a few times, I certainly didn't endorse it.

    From my post on the bond hearing:

    The weakness of the state's evidence is shown in this question and answer:

    DE LA RIONDA: Why did you use the word "confronted" sir?
        GILBREATH: Because Zimmerman met with Martin and it was compiling the facts that we had along with the witness statements of the argumentative voices and the authoritative voice being given from one of the witnesses and then the struggle that ensued that came from several witnesses.

    This is an acknowledgement that no one saw the start of the struggle. Most of the witnesses described what they heard. A few may have seen it in progress.

    We're back to the "authoritative voice" that was heard, but its speaker not seen. Zimmerman has a low-modulated, almost timid voice. What happens if recordings of Trayvon are introduced and his voice is deep and assertive? Even his phone friend says he demanded Zimmerman tell him why he was following him. If Trayvon's voice turns out to be more authoritative than Zimmerman's, this authoritative voice theory will hurt, not help the state's case.

    The Teacher (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:39:26 AM EST
    On her 911 call, The Teacher described a single 'bang' (0:11-12) or 'pop noise' (0:31-31). In her March 29 CNN interview with Anderson Cooper, she said she heard 'more than one pop noise'.

    The Teacher was one of the last to call 911. The dispatcher told her there was already an officer on the scene. (0:35-40)  

    In her April 6 interview with Ashleigh Banfield, she said that 'I knew I needed to call' when she saw 'two men on the ground'. She said she was talking to the dispatcher at the moment the gun went off.

    The Teacher told Banfield that when she called 911 she told the dispatcher 'that there was two men on the ground'. In fact her first report to the dispatcher was: 'I'm looking out my back townhome and someone's screaming 'help', and I don't know, I heard like a bang.' (0:06-0:12)

    On her 911 call, The Teacher was unsure if the people she saw with flashlights were police officers.(2:23-27) On her first CNN interview she was sure the first person with a flashlight wasn't an officer. In the second interview she was sure the first person with a flashlight was a resident.

    Nothing on The Teacher's 911 call shows clearly that she had realized that Martin was not an adult. There is a curious passage about a 'young boy', seeming to pop up randomly in the distraught witness's stream of consciousness. (3:58-4:10):

    I'm just scared. I mean, I can't, I can't even believe that I, this is un- this is - other person. Oh, my God. I hope, the young boy, or something. I can't imagine, I've never seen anyone killed.

    This comes after The Teacher overheard Zimmerman admitting the shooting to Officer Smith. (2:30) The 'young boy' allusion may have come from something she overheard. But she didn't seem to have identified the deceased with 'the young boy'. Four times, after the 'young boy' passage, she referred to the deceased as 'the person'.

    In her first CNN interview, she said 'after larger[sic] man got off, then there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground, facing down.'

    The Teacher is one of three 911 callers who described the screamer as a 'man'. (None of the 911 callers described the voice as in any way youthful or juvenile on their calls.)

    'I saw, oh, those two men talking to each other, or, they looked like they were wrestling each other, and then - then I heard the man saying "Help! Help!"' (5:48-56)

    On her second CNN interview, she said of the screamer: 'Well, from the very beginning, and I still do feel, that it was the young boy.'

    The screaming isn't discussed in the first CNN interview.

    Great analysis (none / 0) (#72)
    by CuriousInAz on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:48:45 PM EST

    Thanks for doing this (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:05:34 PM EST
    I was hoping someone would.

    Clarification (none / 0) (#108)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 04:18:17 PM EST
    The screaming isn't discussed in the first CNN interview.

    On re-reading I saw how this could be misleading. The calls for help are mentioned in The Teacher's narrative. Cooper asks no questions about them, and The Teacher says nothing about who the screamer might have been.

    Ahh The New York Times (none / 0) (#1)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed May 16, 2012 at 10:33:23 PM EST
    I've read the Times. There was a period about twenty years ago when I had access to the paper every day at a college library and another time about ten years ago when I had access to it at my work breaks daily. Now I probably read at least ten online articles from it per month. The science articles tend to be first class, some of the opinion pieces are good. Occasionally there is some good reporting on this or that subject. But as this story shows then there is the bad sensationalistic reporting - and it seems they never learn from their mistakes.

    I detailed on The Good Men Project website how the Times decided to apologize for their abysmal Duke Lacrosse coverage twice. I had hoped the Ombudsmen or whatever had caused a change of culture at the times, with perhaps some steps taken to prepare for some more fair or at least better researched material. But as this case is daily demonstrating, apparently not.

    And this, among many other reasons, is why I would never subscribe to it, online or off. To be fair, it's hardly the only culprit in this mess, but I really did hope it cared to try and maintain some sort of reputation for being the "Newspaper of Record". Guess not.

    near hysterical witness, NYT observations (none / 0) (#2)
    by willisnewton on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:29:25 PM EST
    I've not thought abut her much, to be honest.  She seems too distraught to rely upon, the poor dear.  

    I agree eyewitnesses need to be interviewed fast, and that things people say on the telephone while an event is ongoing should carry more weight than what is "recalled" later.  

    I would be curious to know however how long she says the two argued, since the length of time the two conversed is very short in what we know of GZ's account.  Perhaps her testimony or recollections, whatever will work to corroborate the "you got a problem/ now you do" timing of the sucker punch that led the two to the ground.  

    In general, I'm glad to read a story written and edited by professionals, (Serge gets a single byline here, and he's already got a Pulitzer for his work on the Elliot Spitzer scandal, so he's no slouch) but overall there isn't a great deal of new information here.  

    The Grey Lady pisses a lot of people off, but for many different reasons.  Being "the paper of record" can't be easy, and they often err on the side of caution when maybe they should push for some real answers.  I didn't detect anyone having to squirm in their seat for the deeper answers here.

     When the NYT sold us a war in Iraq based on a guy named "curveball" I pretty much gave up on reading that paper without spending a lot of time thinking about the deeper reasons behind a story they print.  

    In no particular order, here are some more observations:

    Wolfinger declined to be interviewed.  The unnamed person from his office seems to have his remarks characterized by someone else, seemingly from the Sanford PD but not Bill Lee, who is quoted directly when he gives his opinions.  I'm hesitant to think we will ever get a peek behind Wolfinger's curtains.  He comes off well enough in this account.  

    No mention of Sanford PD keeping GZ's pistol or not, or for how long, etc.  The reported goes into detail about GZ's clothing being kept however so I'm not sure what to make of this aspect not being touched upon.  I did notice that in the 8 page list of discovery materials, there may be a video of GZ visiting the police station lobby a few days after the shooting.  Maybe he brought by his concealed carry permit this late?  Who knows.  

    Not too surprised that GZ's wife came and got the car before the cops impounded it.  Maybe she beat them too it and they are embarrassed to admit it. Lots of possibilities here.

    GZ was said by the "bloody head photog" to want to communicate with his wife, and in the bloody head pic itself he's on the phone it seems, not in handcuffs.  I guess he saved some money there, not having to get his car back from impound.  I can't help but wonder however if an "officer Friendly" didn't just let him not get his car towed if he had been asked nicely, and this later oversight is people higher up the food chain, who are chosen by Bill Lee to talk to national reporters are passing the buck.  (I've been cuffed and not had my car impounded before, at the discretion of the responding officers, who have no real allegiance to tow truck drivers.)   I'm sure someone will object to my speculating here, but as the resident skeptic I feel it is my duty sometimes.  There were a lot of less than network-episodic-TV-detective moves made here.  I doubt they have a lab that looks like the one on CSI Miami either, or handle a lot of serial killers who are "copycats," etc.  This is the real world, plus of course this is Florida, a place that gets a lot of ribbing for being not the most sophisticated of places at times.  In a way it's worth celebrating that they have so few murders.  There seem to be enough to go around elsewhere.  

    The fact that Robert Zimmerman has been reported to be present at the next-day walk thru with the A-team Sanford investigators is not mentioned.  GZ was initially questioned by what is reported here as a Sergeant who was a narcotics guy.  


    "In interviews over several weeks, law enforcement authorities, witnesses and local elected officials identified problems with the initial investigation:"

    This only scratches the surface of who the real sources were.  Are members of Corey's team talking here?  I don't think so.  She also declined an interview request as did the guv.

    Did Bill Lee decide who the NYT could interview?  We don't know.  

    City manager Bonaparte seems ever-eager to try to smooth out the reputation of his fair city, as does the Mayor.  

    On one last note, the article focuses on the Sanford PD and their initial investigation into the shooting.  I personally wish there was a companion article about the other half of the initial team, Norm Wolfinger's office.  No matter what your opinion is, it seems clear that these two reached a very different conclusion than Angela Corey and her investigation.  

    Narcotics Sergeant (none / 0) (#5)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:55:54 AM EST
    GZ was initially questioned by what is reported here as a Sergeant who was a narcotics guy.

    The NYT report doesn't confirm this bit of gossip, from an ABC report that contains some clear inaccuracies and other dubious claims.


    narcotics guy on duty (none / 0) (#41)
    by willisnewton on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:48:55 AM EST
    You are correct to say the whole story is not told here, but this is what I took from this

    The Sanford Police Department assigns homicide cases to its five investigators who handle major crimes. Their wide-ranging responsibilities cover everything from sex crimes to carjackings. On the evening that Mr. Martin was fatally shot, the head of the major crimes unit was on vacation. The rotation supervisor on call was a sergeant who works narcotics cases. In all, more than a dozen officers and department superiors were on the scene of Mr. Martin's killing -- which the police said was Sanford's first homicide of 2012 -- including Chief Lee, who joined the department last May.

    We just don't have the complete picture.  Serino's personal opinion of the case is in dispute, but I will grant  you that his statements regarding the STATUS of the case, etc are different.  He gave a joint interview with Bill Lee where he seems to toe the line.  I'm not convinced Cheryl Brown was making up the idea that he told her he didn't think GZ acted in self defense.

    Have you seen anything that says Serino was on the scene that night?  

    Feel free to correct anything I've said that isn't exactly right, but the conclusion I'm reaching is that we don't know fully yet, and that the narcotics guy seems to have been the one to take the first statement, and yes, I'm combining what this report and ABC's seems to indicate.  

    If we ever get these discovery materials we can stop speculating.  Until then I hope people can keep an open mind, and a critical eye on what is being reported before the majority of facts have been established.  

    Nomatter, you have a great critical eye and I appreciate your opinions even while I don't always agree with them.    

    This NYT piece is a limited hangout of all the errors the Sanford PD made, and not a very objective one either since all the sources are linked to authorities of one sort or another.  


    the officer who interviewed (none / 0) (#157)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 23, 2012 at 05:54:28 PM EST
    Zimmerman is Doris Singleton. Serino specifically asked her to go to the station and do the interview.

    The things that calls to question (none / 0) (#7)
    by DebFrmHell on Thu May 17, 2012 at 01:11:29 AM EST
    in my mind are that if the Sanford PD is taking so much heat for supposedly ignoring witnesses, how did they generate approx 70 pages of reports?  A vast majority coming from C Serino?  IIRC, it was +35.

    As for the GF and her call.  Why didn't she reach out to SPD or some other LE soon after the death of Trayvon Martin?  She obviously reached out to the family because in the witness list (W-8) her first interview was undated but with Crump. From an ABC interview with Crump on March 20th her recap is stated. Then nearly a full two weeks later she went to the SAO for that interview.

    If they "ignor" the 911 callers, and judging from the dates of the interviews I find that highly unlikely, what are they supposed to do with a witness that doesn't come forward but rather goes to the lawyer of the family that hired him?  Crump called her "connect-the-dots" witness, yet here is no urgency to get her story out to official sources.

    Couldn't that be considered as witness tampering?  Or hindering?  I am so far from being a legal eagle but these just make me curious.

    And it makes me give the side eye.

    Crump Found Dee Dee (none / 0) (#9)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 01:38:19 AM EST
    Miami Herald, March 21:

    Crump, who is based in Tallahassee, flew to Miami after Trayvon's father combed through his son's cell phone records and discovered he was on the telephone just moments before he died.

    The number belonged to a girl Trayvon had spent hours talking to that weekend, a girl he was dating. Crump recorded her statement and played it for reporters at a press conference in Fort Lauderdale Tuesday, but said he promised the girl's parents he would not reveal her name.

    RE: : DeeDee (none / 0) (#10)
    by DebFrmHell on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:03:47 AM EST
    Then she possibly would have never come forward were it not for the phone records that identified her?  

    This was her boyfriend or at the least a very good friend that got killed.  It would seem that she would have wanted to help with the investigation.  She would have had to have some sympathy for the family since they were the ones wanting answers.

    It boggles my mind.

    Now I am just embarrassed.  I wanted my first post to be correct.  I should go back to lurking.


    Stay Awhile (none / 0) (#12)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:16:37 AM EST
    I should go back to lurking.

    Oh, no, no, not so.

    Welcome aboard, we're happy to have you. There are some good thoughts in that first post. I'll be writing a longer reply later on.

    We've all made a ton of mistakes. Correcting errors and filling in gaps for each other is a big part of what makes these forums so valuable.


    Sympathy for Dee Dee (none / 0) (#13)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:19:17 AM EST
    With the political and media storm around this case, I wouldn't blame Dee Dee for wanting to stay out of it if she could.

    The thing is (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by DebFrmHell on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:58:53 AM EST
    that there was no media storm until approx three weeks after the shooting.  And that really cranked up after Sharpton and Jackson were brought on board.  

    It was barely a blip on the screen on the TV Screen the night it happened.  I looked high and low thru Google trying to find early reporting on this and it was a week or so into March before I could find anything more than this:


    I don't see that as a deterent for that young lady to come foreward although I can see why it would be later.

    Still makes me wonder when exactly her interview with Crump was orginally.  The only date listed is the April 2, 2012 with the SAO.  Do you know when Trayvon Martin's personal effect(s), including and possibly the only effect was the cell, were returned to the family?  His clothing wouldn't be a part of that since LE kept that for testing.

    Have a good night and thank you for the thoughtful responses!


    Phone Records (none / 0) (#16)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:16:22 AM EST
    It wasn't the phone that Tracy Martin used to get the information about Dee Dee. I think it was the records that came with the bill.

    The family didn't need the phone code (none / 0) (#22)
    by cboldt on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:55:15 AM EST
    All of the billing is under Tracy martin's account, and he is able to access that online.  If the online accounting doesn't identify phone numbers both ways (that is, you know the number associated with the account, just need the connection number), T-Mobile can provide that information without unlocking the phone.

    There is no need to unlock the phone, to learn what connections it made.  This is obvious to anybody who has a cell phone and account.


    Obvious to you. (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Anne on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:34:26 AM EST
    My family all have cell phones - we have a family plan, too - and I had no idea; if the police had called me, I would have had the same response: I don't know what the code is.

    But, rather than blame the family for this egregious bit of stupidity, or impute some negative motive to them for being so stupid, don't you think the police, or the personnel who handle what amounts to technological evidence, should have known?

    This is what the article states:

    Benjamin Crump, a lawyer for the Martins, said that Mr. Martin was carrying a T-Mobile Comet phone and that the police contacted his father a day or two after the shooting to get the password, but he did not know it.

    A law enforcement official said that the phone had died not long after the police retrieved it, and that it took days for the authorities to get a charger and an expert to try to get into the device. If the police had been able to get access to it, they could have interviewed Mr. Martin's friend about what he had told her in those final moments of his life and what else she had heard. The police eventually subpoenaed Mr. Martin's cellphone records, but did not receive them in a timely fashion.

    So, first, it takes the police "a day or two" to even contact the family about the phone.  And it takes them "days" to get a charger?  "Days" to get an expert to try to get into it?  What, there's no T-Mobile store in Sanford?  The police couldn't get the number to call T-Mobile for assistance - like where to get a charger, and what Tracy Martin needed to do to get into the records?

    I mean, come on - if this is all so "obvious" that Tracy Martin should have been expected to know it, how is it that it wasn't obvious enough to the cops responsible for the investigation?


    yea (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CST on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:11:40 AM EST
    and not to sound ageist, but the idea of technology being "obvious" to someone old enough to have a 17 year old kid is a bit naive.  My mother has a cell phone and online account, but I doubt she knows any of that either.  She still hasn't figured out text messaging, and it's not like she doesn't use technology, she had a cell phone before any of us.  That's not to say there aren't tech-savvy older people, but I wouldn't assume things like that are "obvious" to anyone over 35.  Some people, yes, everyone - no.

    Tracy Martin (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:24:26 AM EST
    is 45 years old. Not so old to not understand technology. I doubt he would know Trayvon's password, but I don't think that has anything to do with age.

    And my mom is 70 and texts and sends photos from her phone and emails. We had to help her with surfing from her phone, but now she does it when she needs it (she'd rather be on her laptop to look stuff up because it's easier to read).


    It's really not a question of understanding (none / 0) (#38)
    by Anne on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:39:27 AM EST
    the technology - it's more a case of not having any use for getting into someone else's phone usage.

    The three of us on our family plan (ages 63, 58 and 25) all text and e-mail, take photos, video and surf the web - and make phone calls; none of us are going into our phone records to check on anything, whether it's minutes or text usage or who's called, texted or messaged whom.  We may pay the bill online, but we've never had any reason to more than that.

    Which may be the case with Tracy Martin, as well.


    Tunnel Vision (none / 0) (#34)
    by cboldt on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    Assuming the police asked Tracy for the password, and he didn't know it, that's the end of the conversation.  But if either party goes on a bit further, like "why do you ask?" by Tracy, or "can you provide us access to the billing records?" by SPD, then the outcome maybe changes.

    That said, unlocking the phone gives the SPD access to stored text messages and maybe photos, which might be of interest. So even if the SPD knew of a phone call the moments before the shooting (from getting the phone billing records), and contacted that person, it sounds (from seeking phone passcode) they would still like to see what is recorded on the phone.

    But NYT's and Crump's criticism is that SPD didn't learn of DeeDee, and that it should have, and could have, with more aggressive pass-code forensics.  My point is that there is no need for pass-code forensics, if the mission is to find out the phone call connections.


    this is what I'd call "limited hangout" (none / 0) (#56)
    by willisnewton on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:03:48 PM EST
    The NYT is a major paper and the writer has a pulitzer on his desk, so I'll be careful here when I say that the article is only scratching the surface regarding the shoddy nature of the small town cops' initial investigation.  

    But all the sources for this article are ones that have an interest in protecting the overall reputation of the Sanford PD and the city of Sanford itself.  So they admit to errors where the reporter can confirm them, or ask the right questions but what are we to really take away from this?  Is this the whole story?  Heck, no.  

    I'm not sure what to think about the fact that the gun is never mentioned, whether it was taken into evidence right away or not, things like that.  It's been reported elsewhere but never conclusively what the chain of evidence is regarding the weapon.  
    Its's not in dispute as the weapon that killed the youth, but I think it's worth knowing where it traveled after the fact. If TM's fingerprints were on it, that would hugely bolster a self defense claim, I'd think.  I'm hardly charging a conspiracy, just pointing out that there is so much we don't know here fully, and a trial can only bring out so much.  

    Me, I think there needs to be a credible outside investigation into the Sanford PD and Norm Wolfinger's actions here.  There is not, however.  And I say this not because it should influence the trial - it should be done to ensure that the future victims of crimes are served by a police department that has been held to the highest standards.  Everyone benefits that way.

    Regardless of your personal opinion of the guilt or innocence of GZ, the family of TM is right to wonder if they are going to find justice here until all the facts can be established.  You may disagree with their methods or counsel's methods but their unarmed son is dead and they are right to demand answers, and seek justice.  

    The Sanford PD mishandled the initial investigation, muddying the water for the investigation of the Special Prosecutor, and that's a shame.  This article should be a dual piece on the two entities that allowed the admitted shooter of an unarmed teen to escape arrest and a courtroom's examination of his guilt or innocence: the Sanford Police Department and the local state prosecutor Norm Wolfinger's office.

    Norm Wolfinger refused an interview for the article however, and has quietly announced he is resigning at the end of his current term.  We don't know why, but he may think he re-election chances are slim now.  He may KNOW that his office acted improperly and that the trial will unearth this activity, who knows?  I'm speculating where we don't have all the facts.  His office here in the NYT article is reported as pushing for more investigative work but in truth that "push" seems to have been characterized by a single phone call.  That's what I mean by not knowing the full story yet, and "limited hangout."  


    The media storm has all (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 01:18:10 PM EST
    been against Zimmerman and those that have stood up for him or are related to him, including even his lawyer O'Mara recently, and not at all against those siding with or offering info helpful to Team Trayvon.

    I find DeeDee's not coming forward until she was contacted by Crump to be quite suspicious and to cut against her credibility.

    Perhaps the reality is she has something to hide.  Perhaps she gave Trayvon advice that made her feel guilty given what ended up happening.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#36)
    by jbindc on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:32:27 AM EST
    Wouldn't you call someone if your boyfriend sounded like he was being attacked and the phone cut off?

    Who would you call, if that were (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Anne on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:58:46 AM EST
    your situation?  You're in another city, and you're a teenager: would you know how to call the other city's 911 operator?

    It's not that simple.

    A couple of years ago, I got a call from an employee - the nursing supervisor - of the Virginia nursing home where my aunt was a resident.  She was calling because they realized they hadn't seen her husband in over a week, and he was usually in to see her every day.  Carla went with another employee to my aunt's home, knocked on the door, called from outside the house, and got no response.

    I found a number for the local police department and called them - from my home in Maryland - and after telling them what was going on, was told that I had to call my local PD and have them call the Fairfax PD.  My local PD had never heard of such a thing.  Back and forth I was on the phone for what seemed like forever - I could probably have gotten in my car and driven the 90 minutes to the house in less time than I spent on the phone with police department bureaucrats.

    I finally got someone to make something happen - but it took several hours before the police went to the house, gained entrance and found my aunt's husband dead on the floor.

    So, who would you call or tell?  Trayvon's mother?  Your own parents?  Both possibilities - but remember: these are teenagers, and maybe DeeDee thought somehow she would get Trayvon in trouble if she called his mom and it turns out he wasn't supposed to have been out of the house.

    You just don't know - none of us do; that you find DeeDee's behavior incomprehensible in the face of precious little information just feels like more of the typical knee-jerk judgmental reaction we've come to count on from you.

    Which is why I should have just ignored your "Exactly" and kept on going.


    I'm not sure (2.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jbindc on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:24:41 AM EST
    Why people around here want to keep selling teenagers short and think they are stupid. Maybe because it plays into the "they shouldn't be held responsible for anything until their magic 18th birthday" or whatever, but your post has nothing to do with my question.  I asked a basic question - why didn't she tell someone?

    Me? I would call my parents. I would call Trayvon's mom.  I would call a friend.  Someone I care about has just possibly been attacked, and if I couldn't get a hold of him, after I was just on the phone,  I would be scared, and getting in trouble would be a secondary thought.  I wouldn't just go on like nothing happened for a month until a lawyer called me.  I wouldn't have done it 15 or 16 and I wouldn't do it now. Most teenagers wouldn't either. Even if she didn't do at that moment, don't you think that she would have said something to someone, oh, I don't know, a day or two later when she found out he died?

    You're right I don't know why she didn't (but then again, neither do you) - but that's why I asked.  Of course, I should have stopped reading your post because I knew that you would make excuses about this case as usual, because the fact that she possibly didn't hear anything in her conversation with Martin that would help convict Zimmerman, wouldn't even enter your realm of imagination.


    I have been in that exact same situation (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CST on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:30:33 AM EST
    With the only difference being that I was older and my boyfriend only ended up in the hospital, not dead.

    No, not necessarily.  And it's not even about being in trouble.  It's about not wanting to scare the bejesus out of someone's mom because you weren't there and you don't know what happened.

    Also, from the accounts I recall, she didn't "go on like nothing" she basically had a nervous breakdown about it.  That's nice that in your hypothetical situation a 16-year old you would have handled it wonderfully.  But this isn't hypothetical and it's not that simple.  Finally, you have no idea if she called a friend or said something to someone.  All we know is that she didn't talk to the cops/lawyers right away.


    Good point (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by cboldt on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:46:24 AM EST
    She was so stressed that she had a nervous breakdown (or whatever one calls the need for an overnight in the hospital) - and as far as we know, STILL didn't make an effort to get her first hand account, in favor of a close friend, to an adult.

    Why would she hesitate in the least?


    What I know is this (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:11:10 PM EST
    DeeDee's twitter and Facebook accounts were hacked/screenshotted whatever and have been available online for at least a few weeks if not over a month now. People have analyzed this stuff, tracked down other accounts by her, etc quite a bit now.

    What is known:
    A. She wasn't his girlfriend. Her boyfriend posts on her Twitter. She might have had a sexual or other relationship with Martin in the past and  it's known that they were still friends.
    B. She didn't check into any hospital.
    C. She seemed sad when she learned he died but went back to tweeting and all that later the same day.
    D. He wasn't the first friend of hers that died.
    E. She didn't get contacted by Crump until weeks later and she has given extremely limited statements.

    My A thru E above is all we know. Anything else is speculation. Many are of the opinion that she won't be called to the stand for various reasons, including Crump perjuring himself by saying she was TM's girlfriend and was in the hospital and other crap of that nature.


    please let's not get into (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2012 at 01:51:05 PM EST
    the contents of her twitter account, I've previously said Trayvon's and GZ's social media accounts are not relevant unless one side moves to introduce them into evidence. They are used for character attacks, and I'm only interested in hosting discussions of the legal case.

    On a related note, I believe you are correct. They were not boyfriend/girlfriend, but friends. It was Crump that alleged otherwise  at a press conference when he announced her phone interview with his office to the media.


    Oops (none / 0) (#82)
    by cboldt on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:06:05 PM EST
    Sorry for posting the tweets I did - wasn't trying to make any point other than I don't think the other poster's source was correct.

    I'd add that I think DeeDee is genuinely hurt, and reasonably so.  The whole incident is heartbreaking, but it happened, and now society is looking to assign some sense to it.  My conclusion based on the available evidence, and what I infer, is that Martin was angry, misjudged his target, pushed his luck just a little too far.  Had he given up the attack 10 or 15 seconds sooner, he'd be alive today.


    Dating (none / 0) (#89)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:21:24 PM EST
    Crump didn't say 'girlfriend' or 'girl friend'. He said 'They were dating.'

    Crump didn't say when they were dating, so arguably it was true if they ever had a single date.


    Crump did claim a (none / 0) (#158)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 23, 2012 at 06:00:07 PM EST
    romantic relationship. Here's his press conference transcript.. He compared it to teenage "puppy love."

    They were dating. And so it's a situation where to know that you were the last person to talk to the young man who you thought was one of the most special people in the world to you, and know that he got killed moments after he was talking to you, is just riveting to this young lady.

    .... And we all were teenagers, so we can imagine how that is when you think somebody's really special, and you call it puppy love or whatever you want to call it.

    Ok (none / 0) (#95)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:40:48 PM EST
    Sorry, Jeralyn.

    No, you don't really know (none / 0) (#62)
    by ks on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:23:41 PM EST
    A. Speculation at best
    B. You can't "know" that simply by reviewing supposedly hacked Twitter and Facebook screenshots
    C. So?  Dubious insinuation.
    D. Again so?  Extremely dubious insinuation.
    E. Ok but, of course her statements would be limited.  

    ks (none / 0) (#64)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:29:39 PM EST
    Aww, you are cute.
    You have no idea how these accounts were linked, do you?

    The fact is my A through E above can be seen simply by her social media record. A social media record that Crump et.al have tried to hide. So yes, we do KNOW A through E. This girl was on social media ALOT the days after TM died, and surprisingly, he didn't come up very often. It almost seemed like he was an afterthought. And yes, before you ask, her twitter accounts were linked to the celly records that involve the Martin/DeeDee phone call, so we know they are the same person.

    I can link you to things if you want.


    she did not have (none / 0) (#76)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2012 at 01:46:23 PM EST
    a nervous breakdown, she went to the hospital for one night for stress. Please don't exaggerate, others pick up what you say and run with it as if it's true.

    The so upset DeeDee had to go to (none / 0) (#109)
    by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 04:33:03 PM EST
    the hospital was Crump's story to the press.  He's presented no evidence of that.  I don't trust anything Crump says.

    Full stop (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by ks on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:52:10 AM EST
    "I wouldn't just go on like nothing happened for a month until a lawyer called me."

    "Like nothing happened"?  That's a gross exaggeration. You don't really know what she did or didn't do other than what's been documented.  She was on the phone with Trayvon when she said she was and, iirc, attempted to call him back when the phone went dead.  All this other questionable speculation is just lame attempt to try and impugn her credibility.  


    If Dee Dee Testifies (none / 0) (#68)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:35:04 PM EST
    If Dee Dee takes the stand, questions like these will be part of the cross. A judge/jury may or may not agree that they are lame. It may depend on how well she answers.

    I never said a word about DeeDee being (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Anne on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:20:06 PM EST
    "stupid," so please don't put words in my mouth.

    As for your question, the most charitable thing I could say about it was that it was wholly disingenuous, because there is no one here who is reading your question who knows the answer, either first-hand or through the media or official reports.

    Which prompts me to ask you a question: how stupid do you think we are?  Time and again I have seen you attempt to disguise your judgments by "just asking a question," and this latest example is no exception.

    And your judgment is fully on display in your assertion that you would never "just go on like nothing happened for a month until a lawyer called me."  Because you know that that's the way it happened, that she didn't tell another living soul until she spoke to Ben Crump?  

    I just find it so ironic that you can speculate the way you do but see only excuses and lack of imagination in others for offering their own take, and for not buying what you're selling.  

    I never addressed what DeeDee may or may not have heard, and what effect or impact it would have on Zimmerman's defense - and to you that means I haven't considered it?   As with so much of this case, I think anything's possible; how probable or likely or credible those possibilities are is another matter.

    Just please, please stop putting words in my mouth and/or attributing feelings or thoughts or opinions to me that I have not expressed.


    As you couch yor comment with (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:32:45 PM EST
    Remember - these are just teenagers.

    Anne, I usually like your comments, but please stop the sanctimony about this.


    Wrong again - you added a word (none / 0) (#70)
    by Anne on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:44:39 PM EST
    that wasn't there - "just" - and that changes the meaning.  Further, my phrase was folowed by a very "teenager" reason why she didn't do what you've decided makes no sense to you that she didn't do.

    I don't think it's sanctimonious to be annoyed by words being put in my mouth, or for you to attribute things to me that I didn't say.

    The point is that you need to be more careful about what you've decided others have said, or even meant, and this latest "addition" supplied by you just proves that point .


    Stranger (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:52:50 PM EST
    I would call Trayvon's mom.

    I wouldn't assume Dee Dee had contact information for TM's parents. I would say it's more likely than not she didn't. Would the Martins have sent their lawyer on a mission to find her if they had any kind of relationship with her?

    Martin is said to have been on the phone with Dee Dee much of the day, but his father needed records to discover that. It seems Dee Dee was someone TM didn't talk to his family about.


    phone call records (none / 0) (#162)
    by pngai on Thu May 24, 2012 at 02:57:41 PM EST
    As account holder, Tracy Martin has immediate and full access to the call and text records of his son's phone.

    As a parent, that would be something I would check under such circumstances.


    Not Getting It (none / 0) (#163)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 25, 2012 at 04:47:16 AM EST
    I'm sorry, I don't understand what your point is.

    The timing of DeeDee's first account (none / 0) (#43)
    by cboldt on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:01:50 AM EST
    DeeDee didn't provide an account until after some of the 911 calls were made public.  IOW, she had lots of public information to draw on.  Not saying she wasn't on the phone with Trayvon, but if their dialog was radically different from the account she's giving (speculation - that Trayvon tells her he's angry, and is going to teach this short nosy dude a lesson), then in the first place, she's got good reasons to NOT want to come forward.  Doesn't want to talk bad about a dead friend, just for his memory's sake; doesn't want the stitches that come to snitches.

    That she did not come forward of her own accord is another piece of evidence; and in combination with her association with the Martin family, goes to the credibility of her account.  All that said, I don't think her testimony is relevant in the self defense case.  Her testimony stops at the moment the fight starts, not at the point where Zimmerman claims to have been in fear of serious injury or death.


    More speculation (none / 0) (#118)
    by Lora on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:56:41 PM EST
    We might need to know if DeeDee thought the cops would be allies for Martin or not.

    Or, if she agreed with Bob Dylan:

    The cops they don't need you and man, they expect the same.

    Lora of COURSE its more speculation (none / 0) (#121)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:11:17 PM EST
    But who brought DeeDee into this?
    Crump, for his own purposes to tell a story.
    Are some people very suspicious of that story?
    Of course.
    Are we going to continue to investigate that story?
    You betcha.

    I meant I was speculating (none / 0) (#122)
    by Lora on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:16:33 PM EST
    Didn't mean to refer to your post as "more speculation," I meant I was offering more speculation.

    I find I have to be very clear when I am speculating so I am not mistaken for stating speculation as fact.

    Apologies for not being clear as to whom I was referring.  I will work on my clarity.


    Tampering Or Just Obstructing? (none / 0) (#112)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:29:31 PM EST

    Couldn't that be considered as witness tampering?

    IANAL, but until one steps forward I'll play.

    I think it's only tampering if there is an attempt to influence testimony. I've heard of no evidence for that.

    It's crossed my mind that if Dee Dee isn't telling the truth, she might flee the jurisdiction to avoid testifying. Anyone aiding such flight could be charged with obstructing justice.

    Generally people aren't required to talk to government investigators unless there is a court order or subpoena. Until such paper is issued, it's not illegal for Dee Dee to keep quiet, and not illegal for anyone to advise her to do so.

    Dee Dee should have gotten her own lawyer long ago. She probably has, but I can find any information on the point.


    Erratum (none / 0) (#113)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 05:31:04 PM EST
    I can't find any . . .

    Sorry. I'm a lousy, lazy proofreader.


    Phone Code (none / 0) (#11)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:06:21 AM EST
    I'm surprised at how favorable to the Sanford PD the NYT report is. The reporter seems to accept that it was someone else's fault they couldn't get the code for TM's phone.

    There is no need for the phone code (none / 0) (#23)
    by cboldt on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:06:55 AM EST
    I noted above, probably more pertinent as a response here, that the phone connection information is available without unlocking the phone.  Crump showed "the phone bill" to the public, where "the phone bill" was pages from an online accounting form provided by T-Mobile to any T-mobile account holder.  Trayvon's phone was under Tracy Martin's account - he could and can look up phone activity up any time he wants.

    He won't get the contents of text messages, or recordings of the calls made, but he'll know what phones connected to "his," and one of "his" (Tracy's) phones was the one in Trayvon's possession on February 26th.


    Looking for Dee Dee (none / 0) (#28)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:53:15 AM EST
    Trayvon's phone was under Tracy Martin's account - he could and can look up phone activity up any time he wants.

    Maybe that's what he did. But then why did it take the Martins and Crump so long to find Dee Dee?

    I vaguely remember reading that the Martins had to wait until they got a bill to get the information, but that could be wrong.

    I wouldn't think the Sanford police could look up such information without the account holder's co-operation, or a subpoena.


    Really? (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:02:16 AM EST
    I can go online right now and check my plan - the minutes I've used both in text and data, the numbers I've called and the calls I've received, etc.  Do you think this couldn't have been looked up before a bill got mailed?  Or is that the story?

    Beats Me (none / 0) (#57)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:05:25 PM EST
    Do you think this couldn't have been looked up before a bill got mailed?

    I thought I just said, plain as day, that I don't know.

    Cooperation or Subpoena (none / 0) (#31)
    by cboldt on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:13:52 AM EST
    I agree that the Martin's would have to cooperate, or else be compelled by subpoena.  An alternative is for the state to obtain a search warrant, but I don't figure the state was going to bother with pressing posthumous charges of assault or aggravated assault on Martin.  Plus, SPD likely felt it had enough evidence as to Zimmerman's conduct, from witnesses in the Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood.  What I am suggesting is that Trayvon's telephone records are irrelevant in finding self-defense, and that is why SPD didn't look for them.

    Martin's, Crump and Corey have a different point of view, and that is to find evidence for murder.  And DeeDee's testimony goes, best I can figure, to establish depraved mind on Zimmerman's part.

    My criticism of NYT is that the story that "can't get the phone numbers connected to Trayvon's phone because can't unlock the phone" doesn't hold water.  I think the NYT is making a false attribution of SPD ineptitude.


    I think most people just want to know the truth... (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by Angel on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:19:26 AM EST
    what really happened that night.  I think the SPD failed in such a magnificent way that we'll never know.  

    Metaphysical Certainty (none / 0) (#37)
    by cboldt on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:33:52 AM EST
    We're all stuck having to reach conclusions based on available evidence, and for most of what we believe, those conclusions aren't made with metaphysical certainty.

    Just picking the example of Zimmerman's injuries.  Some will find that they support his account of events, others find that Zimmerman injured himself in order to avoid a murder rap.  So, insert additional evidence (eyewitness sees Zimmerman on bottom, hears voice from bottom call for assistance), then decide which is more likely.


    Available evidence....that is part of the issue (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Angel on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:44:56 AM EST
    here.  The SPF, in my opinion, failed to gather some evidence that could have been quite important in determining what happened that night.  Didn't locate or impound his vehicle?  Didn't know he was in a vehicle, thought he was on foot.  Seems like basic questioning wasn't done.  And no drug or alcohol testing was done on Zimmerman, another failure, in my opinion.  I would think if there is a killing involved then that would be required in the evidence gathering.  But, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a lay person with concerns about how this all went down and I'm not satisfied that a proper and thorough investigation was done initially based on what has so far been reported.  

    Totally agree. Major fails here. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Mary2012 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:16:20 AM EST
    Not the least of which was their failure to test GZ for drugs.

    More than one person here has made remarks as to the way GZ handled his call with the dispatcher at the non-emergency number.  Not that the one call would or would not mean anything wrt the medications he was on, but results of a drug test I would think wouldn't hurt, especially given the way the evening unfolded.


    Except (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    (And take this for what it's worth, and a criminal defense attorney can correct me), according to Peter Bella, a retired Chicago Police forensic investigator, "Except for DUIs, police cannot test suspects for drugs or alcohol, unless the accused demands or consents to it, or they get a warrant."

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#50)
    by Mary2012 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:34:39 AM EST
    I wonder what happened in this case...

    Experts Say (none / 0) (#61)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:21:21 PM EST
    Zimmerman would probably have consented had he been asked.

    Miami Herald, March 31:

    Much has been made by people critical of the investigation of the fact that Zimmerman was not tested for drugs or alcohol, although Miami police experts say homicide suspects are rarely tested unless it's a DUI case.

    The NYT report under discussion quotes an anonymous 'official' to the effect that:

    such decisions are left to the discretion of investigators based on whether they have reason to suspect the person is under the influence.

    asked or compelled to take drug test? (none / 0) (#87)
    by willisnewton on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:19:31 PM EST
    Which should the Sanford PD have done?  Asked, or compelled a self admitted killer to take a drug test?  What's the legal issue here?  They got a DNA sample, we see from the discovery inventory.  Did they ask or compel him to surrender his DNA?  I'm curious if anyone knows the procedure and rights a suspect would have in GZ's position.  

    that's basically right (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2012 at 01:57:36 PM EST
    Cops don't routinely test for drugs/alcohol unless they suspect the person of a driving offense. They had no cause to test him and they would have needed a warrant if he refused.

    Trayvon was tested because it's routine in autopsies. This is a false issue introduced by Crump and the media is buying into it.


    False on False (none / 0) (#92)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:30:39 PM EST
    Trayvon was tested because it's routine in autopsies. This is a false issue introduced by Crump and the media is buying into it.

    It is often implied, and sometimes explicitly alleged, that Martin's tests were ordered by the Sanford Police Department.

    Medical examiners do not ordinarily take orders from police departments.


    Drug Test Question (none / 0) (#65)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:31:04 PM EST
    Would a regular drug test have found the specific medications Zimmerman may have been taking?

    Good question. I have no idea. (none / 0) (#85)
    by Mary2012 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:11:23 PM EST
    Maybe he was at least questioned as to whether or not he was on any medications, and if so, what, how often, time he last took them, etc.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

    did the pills shoot the teen? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by willisnewton on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    I just don't know what to make of all the drug talk.  Even if one assumes the very worst, and GZ was some strung-out shell of a man with an addiction problem, it doesn't change the fact that HE puled the trigger, not the pills.  It doesn't speak to the motive much either, unless he was already diagnosed as clinically paranoid, possibly.  

    If you assume the best, the pills help him the way the makers and his doctor intended, into a model citizen and a pillar of the community.  Does that preclude him from making a poor decision and shooting not in self defense but in an illegal way?  

    And what if he added booze on top of them?  Does that suddenly prove criminal intent?  

    I know it might seem funny the way I am phrasing all this, but what exactly is the issue here?  People who take medications automatically are liars?  Or, if a doctor gives it to you, it must be okay?  Ask Elvis about that one.  

    and so on.  Personal responsibility.  

    Anything brought up in court will be inconclusive in the end.  No one could possibly argue that twinkies are responsible for...  oops.  

    But seriously, what are the parameters here?  What might we see at trial and what will that mean for the jury?


    More complete, fuller understanding and whether or (none / 0) (#107)
    by Mary2012 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 04:17:22 PM EST
    not it would/ could affect his state of mind, perceptions, behavior?  

    I'm not a doctor or a lawyer and therefore, not going to go on and on about this but it would seem to me that any medication being taken that has anxiety and aggitation listed as possible side effects, would be a good idea to look into it, imo.

    re personal responsibility: was he taking his medication as he was supposed to type of thing.


    Well, then, I guess the Sanford PD, (none / 0) (#35)
    by Anne on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:31:02 AM EST
    once it reads the NYT report, can refute it, so I guess you should be on the lookout for that.

    I am as critical of the media as anyone, and the NYT certainly doesn't get any kind of a pass; some of their "reporting" has been little more than compliant stenography in service to the power elite and not particularly trustworthy.  

    So, it's possible this NYT story had/has an agenda, and if so, I would expect other anonymous sources to provide pushback.

    It's really kind of exhausting trying to keep up with all the information, check and re-check media reports for facts and misrepresentations, and try to keep the constant speculation from running away with one's imagination; this kind of thing is why most people just take as gospel whatever the media chooses to give them in the nightly 30 seconds - maybe 90 on a newsy night - they allot to it.

    I think people should resist being herded like sheep, but the reality is, I think, that most people just don't care one way or the other.


    I doubt SPD cares what NYT prints (none / 0) (#40)
    by cboldt on Thu May 17, 2012 at 10:45:42 AM EST
    SPD did come out and criticize Cutcher, in writing, on her accusation that SPD was not interested in her statement - SPD said they asked for it, and she refused to go on the record.  SPD also criticized Tracy Martin on the "Zimmerman has a clean record" conclusion.  But I'm sure SPD has better things to do than react to the vast volume of false material since published by the press.  The case is out of their hands, and the evidence will either be sufficient to reach a conclusion, or not.  Corey said the SPD investigation was thorough, again, for what it's worth.

    SPD perhaps put a low priority on the cellphone contents.  They'd like to have it, but don't need it to reach a conclusion that it's safe to let Zimmerman out, and if the phone has a recording of events that contradicts Zimmerman, there is no statute of limitations on murder.

    SPD appears to have found Zimmerman generally credible.  Passed voice stress test; was roughly consistent; didn't lawyer up; was cooperative;  no credible eyewitness (meaning a witness was in a position to make the observations claimed) observation contradicted Zimmerman's account.


    Anne please don't (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:12:33 PM EST
    insult readers here by saying they are being herded like sheep. You have your opinions, others who have spent a great deal of time reviewing available information reach different conclusions.

    That isn't what I was saying, Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Anne on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:50:02 PM EST
    I took the media to task for its generally shoddy reporting, and since most people only get the 30 or 60 or 90 seconds the nightly news people devote to it, it becomes gospel for the vast majority of people who don't have the time or the interest (or who still believe that if they see something on the news it must be true) that most of the people here have taken - which has involved vast amounts of research, and time, in the interest of figuring out as much of the truth as it is possible to find.

    If you look back at the run-up to the war in Iraq, there was no question we - all of us - were being manipulated into supporting it by the full cooperation of the media with the administration.

    Sometime, it would be interesting to conduct a little experiment:  have your readers pick a topic that's in the news, whether it's a criminal matter, the economy, foreign affairs - whatever.  Have them watch only one network's news broadcast, whether that's NBC, Fox, ABC, whatever, for a week.  No internet, no newspapers, no pundits or commentary - just whatever is covered on the news broadcast.  At the end of the week, have them do a little fact-checking, and see how what they heard on the news compares to what they learned in their expanded research.

    My husband can tell you that it's nearly impossible for him to watch the evening news, because I am usually in the kitchen providing running commentary about what is being left out, or taken out of context or just flat-out misrepresented.  Most people - not the people here - are getting their news that way, which makes is very easy to construct conventional wisdom out of essentially whole cloth.


    it's not that they had an (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:11:04 PM EST
    agenda, it's that their interviews are with unnamed police sources providing unofficial accounts and interviews of those who came forward with changed stories.

    Because a witness told the same thing to CNN and the NYT doesn't make it true -- or even credible when her 911 call is inconsistent.


    there were four phones (none / 0) (#101)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:21:56 PM EST
    on that bill because there were four phone lines on the account. The full bill (which was reportedly  provided by Crump), as opposed to the one page version provided by ABC,  is here.

    Here is Crump's press conference


    Linked Interviews (none / 0) (#14)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:45:39 AM EST
    Jeralyn, thanks for linking the interviews. I hadn't heard of the two interviews with the lawyer.

    I like to use nicknames for anonymous witnesses. Unlike John, the distraught lady hasn't chosen one of her own that I know of, so I've been calling her 'The Teacher'. In her 911 call she said she used to be a teacher. I think she is the witness quoted in this March 13 ABC News report.

    I've just started reading the Mitchell interview, and I'm struck by the lawyer's claim that Corey's investigators 'did not even swear my client in'.

    As Jeralyn has noted, there is information in the probable cause affidavit that must have come from The Teacher. I would think there could be a problem if she really wasn't sworn.


    no swearing requirement (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:49:59 AM EST
    for witnesses. It's just an interview. They get sworn for depostions (very rare in cirminal cases. although Florida allows them). They may or may not ask them to sign a statement. I don't think I've ever had them swear my client in or tape the conversation. Anything that is written down ien in shorthand-type notes and then they write a general report from that, sometimes months later.

    They like to be careful in not getting too much down on paper because eventually, if someone else is charged, that person is getting the discovery.

    I had never even seen a video conferencing spaceship until today. It was humongous and it was in our only conference room open to meet with my client. We had been talking for about 1/2 hour, very privileged things, when we started hearing noises coming from it. Then I heard a women say from nowhere inside this machine that she wanted to know why we were talking. Totally flipped me out. Then she told me she was with a search firm in Stamford CT and could see me and my clients as well as hear us. I was really freaked by then and it took me 20 minutes to find the office manager to come in get it turned off. That's the danger with some of this high-tech gear --you never know when its on silently and someone can hear you, same for your phone. When we got up to leave a half hour later, music started playing. It was coming from my i{ad which I hadn't turned on. Took me a few hours to shake the feeling that BB was following me around today.

    I'm going to start keeping the power off all my gizmos for a while. The idea that some lady in CT can listen in on my attorney-client meeing without me knowing was just spooky.


    Surprised (none / 0) (#18)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 04:03:50 AM EST
    That surprises me, because the affidavit itself says:

    Your affiants, along with other law enforcement officials have taken sworn statements from witnesses . . .

    that whole paragraph (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:37:02 AM EST
    seems odd to me. Thanks for pointing it out.

    Your affiants, along with other law enforcement officials have taken sworn statements from witnesses, spoken with law enforcement officers who have provided sworn testimony in reports, reviewed other reports, recorded statements, phone records, recorded calls to police, photographs, videos and other documents in detailing the following:

    Since when do officers provide "sworn testimony" in their reports? Maybe it's a Florida thing. The only sworn reports I see are affidavits. Police reports, DEA-6's, FBI 302's  aren't "sworn to."


    Florida Sworn Facts (none / 0) (#27)
    by RickyJ on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:51:58 AM EST
    I think that this is a requirement coming from Florida 923.03 which specifies how a prosecutor may get around having a Grand Jury indict by instead filing an "Information".  The information was the cover letter for the probable cause affidavit.  Bernardo de la Ronda in the information and O'Steen and Gilbreath in the PCA, swear that they have sworn testimony to back the charges.

    "An information shall be in the same form and signed by the state attorney who shall also append thereto the oath of the state attorney to the effect following: Personally appeared before me  (official title of state attorney) who, being first duly sworn, says that the allegations as set forth in the foregoing information are based upon facts that have been sworn to as true and which, if true, would constitute the offense therein charged. The affidavit shall be made by the state attorney before some person qualified to administer an oath".


    The requirement you quote... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Gandydancer on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:55:00 PM EST
    ...is that the Information state that the truth of the APC be sworn to, not that what is in the APC be supported by sworn statements. E.g., the two investigators can swear that Trayvon's mother identified the screaming as her son's voice w/o putting her under oath. IMHO.

    "powering off" is not enough.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by CuriousInAz on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:41:28 PM EST
    Just FYI,  if battery is still in the phone it is still 'on' and can still be 'completely turned on' remotely and used as a microphone...

    You have to pull the battery for the security you are seeking....

    sadly this is not science fiction...  8^)


    Tinfoil? (none / 0) (#120)
    by Lora on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:09:51 PM EST
    I have an EZ Pass device in my car and it came in some sort of foil wrapper that you can put it in if you don't want it to send its little signal.

    Can you wrap your phone in tinfoil and have the same effect??

    Tinfoil hats on, everyone... :-)

    (apologies if this is too OT -- I will be good.)


    Yes, wrapping in tinfoil would work. (none / 0) (#129)
    by Gandydancer on Sat May 19, 2012 at 06:26:22 AM EST
    dangers of teleconferencing (none / 0) (#127)
    by pngai on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:49:00 PM EST
    Another thing to be careful about is if there are multiple parties, some of them muted, on a conference.

    It can be easy to lose track of how many people have joined and left so that you might think everyone else has dropped out and start discussing something that should never leave the room.

    The only way to be sure is to hang up the phone.


    With respect to Zimmerman's (none / 0) (#19)
    by Anne on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:37:50 AM EST
    "timid" voice, I think the only time we've heard him speak is at his arraignment and at the bond hearing, both venues where "timid" is probably both the accepted and expected tone, don't you think?

    This is a man who was, at least from the very few accounts we've gotten, in charge of his community's watch/patrol; as such, I'd be surprised if "timid," either in voice or demeanor, would describe the person who regularly roamed his neighborhood on the lookout for suspicious persons and/or activity.  

    Maybe he does sound timid when stressed, confronted or in the middle of some kind of adverse physical situation, but I'm not sure I can connect "timid" to someone who does seem to have a history of not avoiding confrontation, so I'm also not sure how likely it is that demeanor Zimmerman evidenced in his court appearances means what people want it to.

    Zimmerman's Voice (none / 0) (#20)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:19:35 AM EST
    I think the only time we've heard him speak is at his arraignment and at the bond hearing . . .

    You haven't listened to the police call?

    Oh, shoot - how could I forget that? (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Anne on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:06:20 AM EST
    Too early in the morning, I guess...I think I was focusing on his physical demeanor together with his voice, and of course, we didn't get that from the police call.

    But, as to that call, and Zimmerman's voice, I don't remember thinking he sounded timid; he was getting more agitated the longer he was on the phone and as things were developing, and the muttered aside about how the a$$holes always get away certainly wasn't at all timid in its tone.

    Here's the thing: we don't really know George Zimmerman, and we personally have no frame of reference for the "before" George v. the "after" George.  We have bits and pieces, but I'm not sure those bits and pieces are dispositive of who he was.


    also his call to Frank Taffe (none / 0) (#71)
    by CuriousInAz on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:44:44 PM EST
    that was recorded in Taffe's voice mail and aired.

    Hardly the voice of authority IMO


    how long did the "authoritative" go on? (none / 0) (#98)
    by willisnewton on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:54:41 PM EST
    How long did the authoritative voice and the answering voice converse?  Do we know this?  Because what we have heard about GZ's statement is the conversation was pretty short.  

    No matter who was using what voice, it may be the LENGTH of the conversation that corroborates or works towards disproving an account.  But I'm not familiar with the full account of this witness.  


    Another Known Unknown (none / 0) (#105)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:33:55 PM EST
    The Teacher has been vague about the time. I wouldn't trust her recollection even if it were precise.

    Her story is that she heard two men arguing loudly, but couldn't distinguish any words.  After an unspecified length of time the arguing stopped. She turned her attention to something else for a time that was 'not long'. Then she heard loud arguing again. She looked out her window and saw two men wrestling, then heard one of them call for help.

    The pause between periods of arguing is missing from what we know of both Zimmerman's and Dee Dee's statements. It may have been after Martin lost his earphone.

    In an earlier comment I transcribed excerpts from The Teacher's statements that are related to the arguing voices.

    Video of the CNN interviews is linked there, and in my long comment on The Teacher on this page.


    thanks, I find this interesting (none / 0) (#114)
    by willisnewton on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:22:52 PM EST
    We don't know what statements GZ made to the Sanford PD investigators, but this "teacher" witness is certainly describing a verbal confrontation that seems longer than "you got a problem/well, now you do" and then a sucker punch that put both on to the ground or sidewalk.  (She says grass, when asked.)  

    Perhaps what she heard was continued insults, taunts or accusations as a fight went on?  I'm not sure how to reconcile what she says she heard with what we know at present about how GZ claimed the fight started.  

    As far as he inconsistencies go, she may be biased indeed and exhibit the usual "mission creep" of eyewitnesses but since she probably doesn't know what GZ's statement to the police is (and neither do we) and she's consistent on the issue of the verbal exchange/argument, if she could ever quantify her time frame I think she may be a key witness for the prosecution if, like I said, GZ claims the verbal exchange was so short when her testimony would seem to refute that.

    It's such speculation, however.  Moving farther into the ether of everything we don't know, I wonder if the gap in time she speaks of corresponds to the "two person foot chase" that another witness may have seen, according to what we heard at the bond hearing?  

    None of that may have happened here, but one has to note that would certainly describe a typical parking-lot-of-a-bar fight, whatever.  Two people close a gap between one another hurling accusations, insults or demands until something physical happens.  In this case, I posit a short quarterback scramble that moves GZ from his cut thru path to(wards) his truck and into the dog walk area.  


    180+ pages of discovery just released, (none / 0) (#115)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:26:56 PM EST
    no one, it seems, except TM and GZ know what happened during the minute or so before GZ fired.

    no one but the witnesses (none / 0) (#116)
    by willisnewton on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:51:40 PM EST
    Like the one who heard arguing, and the one who seems to have seen a foot chase, and whatever else we are overlooking.  The one who was on the phone w Trayvon, etc.  

    Thanks for the heads up.  Please weigh in again after you have read all 180 pages the second time.  


    Or Not on the Phone (none / 0) (#119)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 06:57:19 PM EST
    Martin's earphone was found in one of his pockets. It looks like he wasn't on the phone when the fight started after all.

    my phone works fine w/o one (none / 0) (#124)
    by willisnewton on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:09:51 PM EST
    I think we learned here that he didnt have a bluetooth earpiece, right?

    "Headphones" or "earbuds" earphoens, headset - so many words that people use interchangably....  

    But in any case the call may have been done without the use of an earphone, could it not?  Like, holding the up phone to your ear?  


    It says in one place... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Gandydancer on Sat May 19, 2012 at 06:37:14 AM EST
    ...that it was in his pocket, but in another that it was on the ground. That is, I noticed what you did, but found it contradicted later on. Can't give you the pages, unfortunately.

    It's A Mess (none / 0) (#131)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:34:35 AM EST

    Also a photo pin/button, which is probably the one Zimmerman mentioned to the dispatcher, was listed in the inventory as found in one of Martin's pockets. Serino said it was still pinned to the sweatshirt, in the same report that put the headphones on the ground. (p. 20)

    If the headphones were found on the ground, they should have been given an object marker number.


    Sorry, not Serino. (none / 0) (#150)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 23, 2012 at 02:41:26 AM EST
     Leon Ciesla. His report is on pp. 19-25.

    Ok let me be more specific (none / 0) (#123)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2012 at 07:19:00 PM EST
    there were no witnesses to the beginning of the fight that led to TM's death. iow, no witnesses to who threw the first blow, or who jumped who, or any of the important stuff like that.

    Get back to us after you read the 180 pages the first time.


    fair enough. foot chase person? (none / 0) (#125)
    by willisnewton on Thu May 17, 2012 at 08:34:16 PM EST
    I have a sincere hope we can all remain civil as we mutually wade thru this document dump, which is redacted, repetitious and incomplete, it seems in some ways.  Hard to know just yet.

    on page 40 we have this:
    I am not sure what to make of it, but I have been curious about it since the bond hearing when we heard a bit about it..

    (not fully transcribed yet)

    "stated she heard a commotion...looked out her sliding glass door and saw and observed two men chasing each other, a fistfight between the two men, and then she heard a gunshot"

    "when asked to clarify her observations, she stated she could not identify either of the two men, but she did state the the person in pursuit of the person being pursued was approximately 10'-12'  behind."

    there is a bit more, and she seems to back off of her first statement somewhat...  not sure what to make of that.  Either she is a credible witness or she isn't.. hard to know based on just this.  

    Sadly, this document dump has major redactions and quite significantly for armchair juror types does NOT contain George Zimmerman's statements to the investigators.  

    I have been curious how this witnessed  "foot chase" fits into the narrative GZ provides, and if it is partial proof that GZ closed the final gap or not.   It doesn't matter who chased whom if the narrative is significantly different, in my opinion.  I've been suspicious for a long time that maybe GZ is CLOSE to telling the truth, but actually initiated the physical confrontation himself, after thinking he was done with his search, walking back west on the cut thru and being called to from behind as one or the other made eye contact.  The location of the body behind Johns patio seems confirmed here, and that means GZ traveled south between the buildings somehow.  Could this short chase be the way the gap was closed?  

    FWIW, the talking points from camp Crump seem to be more general at present.  

    But we don't seem to have GZ's statements.


    Addendum (none / 0) (#106)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:37:39 PM EST
    There's another point I forgot to mention. The Teacher has been inconsistent on a number of things. On the loud argument with a short interruption she has been consistent, across the 911 tape and the two CNN interviews.

    The Only Way I Can See a Conviction Happening (none / 0) (#24)
    by RickyJ on Thu May 17, 2012 at 09:24:25 AM EST
    If the prosecution can convince the jury that beyond a reasonable doubt, Zimmerman started the physical struggle, then they may get a manslaughter conviction, nothing more. The only way I can see that happening is for them to get enough witnesses to testify that Trayvon never physically attacked anybody (in contrast to Zimmerman) that the jury just might buy it. So the prosecution should start lining up coaches, teachers, fellow students, etc, to augment relative testimony.

    re Witnesses (none / 0) (#53)
    by Mary2012 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:52:05 AM EST
    The only way I can see that happening is for them to get enough witnesses to testify that Trayvon never physically attacked anybody (in contrast to Zimmerman) that the jury just might buy it. So the prosecution should start lining up coaches, teachers, fellow students, etc, to augment relative testimony.

    From the articles I've read/ videos I've listened to, I think it would be an easy thing for the prosecution to do (i.e., lining up witnesses for Trayvon).  If I'm not mistaken, some already have spoken out on TMs behalf.


    please lets not (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:08:15 PM EST
    speculate on ways for him to be found guilty. If you want to phrase it as what the  state would need evidence of to disprove his actions were justified or self defense,  that's ok. I don't want this to turn into a thread arguing for his guilt.

    comment by Willis (none / 0) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:33:33 PM EST
    deleted for stating  a vehiclar crime is involved and then offering rank speculation about incriminating items that could be in the car.

    Willis, last warning. Stop posting your unsupported musings of things that, if they existed, would be incriminating, and then analyzing them as if they did exist.

    You need to get your own blog if you want to post stuff that has no basis. There's enough factual material to quote without making stuff up and posting it as "Maybe GZ did this bad thing."


    According to the NYT article, (none / 0) (#99)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:04:18 PM EST
    the results of the toxicology screening of the body have not been made public.  Assuming that these results are negative the witnesses' testimony would seem to be helpful.  However, if the screening results prove positive, that testimony would be undermined.

    I think the only way the prosecution (none / 0) (#110)
    by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 04:56:19 PM EST
    can get a conviction for anything, and then I think it would be manslaughter not second degree murder, would be if the prosecution can convince the jury either that Zimmerman's head never was hashed against concrete or a rock by Trayvon, or that Zimmerman had escaped from that position and there was no chance that Trayvon could or would start bashing his head against it again.  Unless Zimmerman had gotten out from under Trayvon and could flee, I don't see how that's something a jury should buy.

    If there emerges evidence that Zimmerman started the physical fight, or if Zimmerman is so inconsistent and not credible in that part of his story, that shouldn't prevent Zimmerman from asserting self defense given the head bashing, because he couldn't flee.  However if the jury believes he started the physical fight that will tend to prejudice them, especially I think black jurors judging by comments on this and other blogs and so on.  I'd guess a hung jury on present evidence.   If the judge thinks Zimmerman probably started it he won't get immunity from trial and going before a jury, nor from a civil suit though.  

    Frankly I'm not even sure the prosecution even wants a conviction that much.  I think these charges were brought for political and riot avoidance reasons mostly, and because the special prosecutor thought there's  some change Zimmerman's guilty.   Going through the motions keeps those out for Zimmerman's blood and to avenge  Trayvon at bay.  Losing at trial at least if there's a black juror on there probably won't result in riots, I'm guessing.


    The NYT makes a lot of... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Gandydancer on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:06:32 AM EST
    ...the SPD's failure to search or impound Z's car, but what's the supposed basis for doing so (assuming it was legally parked)? Wouldn't they need a search warrant, and some adequate basis for believing they would find something? (Which would be what?) Same question for forcing any drugs tests on Z.

    Not that Z wouldn't have complied with any request, since that was his pattern.

    they had no grounds (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    to hold the car, there was no evidence it was involved in the shooting.

    They could have taken pictures of where it was parked.

    The Constitution doesn't get thrown out the window because police want to investigate a crime. All of you writing "they should have done this"  or done that, need to do some research before making these assertions. At least give some legal authority (not a reporter or columnist's opinion based on unnamed police sources).


    Location (none / 0) (#46)
    by Mary2012 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 11:19:39 AM EST
    Location of where he was parked and which direction it pointed would've been helpful, I would think.

    I believe where he (none / 0) (#111)
    by Doug1111 on Thu May 17, 2012 at 04:59:45 PM EST
    was parked can be figured out from GZ's police call and other info out there. Wagist has the location on a google map of his neighborhood.



    no one can know where the vehicle was (none / 0) (#128)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 18, 2012 at 01:22:19 AM EST
    certainly not the wagist, either.  They are speculating, as is Frank Taffee, unless he was told by GZ, which FT does not directly claim.  

    And at trial, I doubt that a website's speculation will count for much.  


    Apologies cboldt (none / 0) (#90)
    by ks on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    I misread.  I get your meaning now.

    Thanks - that clarifies a lot (none / 0) (#93)
    by Yman on Thu May 17, 2012 at 02:33:54 PM EST
    Particularly the reason there were no links provided in the first two posts.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#102)
    by ks on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:23:12 PM EST
    comment deleted (none / 0) (#103)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2012 at 03:24:25 PM EST
    containing rank speculation of misconduct  with sourcing consisting only of "I've heard it said".

    Not New (none / 0) (#132)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 12:19:52 AM EST
    Serino phone interview w female room mates who claim the fight started up by the T intersection but moved five units down

    That's Mary Cutcher and Selma Lamilla, saying the same stuff they've been saying all over cable news. They didn't see anything.

    It could be supported (none / 0) (#133)
    by DebFrmHell on Sun May 20, 2012 at 02:18:19 AM EST
    by the Evidence Markers #1 and #5.  GZ's flashlight and keyring were found by that intersection.  The flashlight was on one side of the sidewalk and the keys were on the other.

    Officer Santiago noted it in his report (pages 18-17) and I said earlier that it may lend validation to the fact that GZ may have been returning to his vehicle.

    Since their TV interviews I don't know how they would be treated as witnesses, should this go to trial.


    My Point Was (none / 0) (#134)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 03:19:15 AM EST
    The theory that Cutcher and Lamilla suggested has another element. It's not just that the action was spread out. It's that all the punching and wrestling happened at the north end, and south of that just a chase and a shooting.

    All they have to support this is that they didn't hear any fighting close to their house. But John and The Teacher saw the fight, in the same spot that Martin died. Much stronger evidence contradicts the one bit of testimony from Cutcher and Lamilla.

    The action may have been spread out, but if so it doesn't look like Cutcher and Lamilla will have anything to do with proving it.


    John's Testimony is key, IMO. (none / 0) (#136)
    by DebFrmHell on Sun May 20, 2012 at 05:03:40 AM EST
    I have to say that I don't give much credence to a person that saw two indistinguishable persons run past her patio door or window.  (I have to admit, I only listened to Gilbreath's description during the bail hearing and have not read the statement yet.)

    For all intents and purposes, it could have been Martin chasing Zimmerman as much as it could be Zimmerman chasing Martin.

    And there is the time frame of a minute or so for these gentlemen to meet up, exchange a conversation heated enough for one or the other to start a chase, progress far enough for Zimmerman to lose his flashlight and keys by the intersection, return south have altercation serious enough to create circumstances that would lead to a shooting down by "John"s" TH.

    If Zimmerman were on foot going up Twin Trees mirroring Martins move up the side walk towards the Green TH, wouldn't there have been some wind noise due to weather or his breathing patterns from the exercise?

    Up until the non-911 call ended, I couldn't hear anything that suggests he got back out of the vehicle before the call ended.  Either that or he was moving his car slowly up Twin Trees.  

    I don't think I have ever heard a definite address for where that vehicle finally stopped other than past the Mail Boxes at or near the bend.

    IDK.  The time frame is off to me to have them that far up towards the Green TH.  Hinky really.  

    You are very patient for reading this far...
    Thank you and have a Good Night.  This night owl needs a nap.


    lots of hints the fight migrated N to S (none / 0) (#137)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 20, 2012 at 10:49:40 AM EST
    Is there a good diagram of where the evidence tags were placed? It seems we only have accidental hints and no overall photo that shows the tags in context of a wide shot.  

    I think the non-inclusion of a diagram  or wide shot photo showing this "debris field" is frustrating and odd.  Either it was part of the Sanford PD investigation and will be given to the prosecution later, or we are led to wonder if the initial investigation never got so far along as to finish up these things.  

    Corey is no fan of giving away anything that shows to the defense what her strategy at trial will be.  I'm inclined to think that the prosecution has acted in ways that will delay her best evidence until later, but that there will be more "discovery dumps" in the future that include maps such as this, whether completed by her investigators or by Sanford PD.  We don't know if there are still issues of gag orders/ seals being deliberated by the judge, do we?  And no one has claimed to my knowledge that this is the alpha and omega of the discovery process.  Far from it, I assume.  

    Having said all that, how do folks here square the growing possibility that the confrontation led (or occurred mainly?)  40-60 feet south of the T with the probable narrative that the initial blow was a sucker punch that led to both being on the ground/ sidewalk?  

    I'm not going to repeat what I've been saying for weeks, as it gets characterized as "speculation"  often, and of course it is until we know GZ's full statements to Sanford PD and especially can see his video walk-thru.  

    But given the page 40 two person foot chase witness, the hints that the verbal exchanges migrated N to S,  this scattered debris field and the location of the body far south of the likely path GZ was on to(wards) his truck, his proxy story seems to be missing some elements that are hard for me to understand, and have always led me to wonder if he is pushing a false narrative in some regards.  

    We've heard plenty enough about how he may prevail in court even if he was losing a fight he initiated, but not much about what his chances are if he's pushed a false narrative about it.  

    It seems clear he was battered about the head to some degree, and all that infers, but was it at the spot where the two first met or not?  And what are the legal implications of a N to S migration he "can't recall" or may have deliberately mischaracterized?  


    Counter Question (none / 0) (#138)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 11:14:20 AM EST
    What do you make of Chris Serino arguing for a manslaughter charge without bringing up any of this?

    Hints (none / 0) (#139)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 11:48:40 AM EST
    the hints that the verbal exchanges migrated N to S

    Is this something you've discussed before?

    I think I'm behind the curve with regard to matching witnesses with dwelling units. Anyway, I don't have a clue what you are talking about here.


    here's an old but helpful diagram (none / 0) (#141)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 20, 2012 at 01:38:10 PM EST
    link to 911 caller diagram


    This ought to help some. Linking witness statement to 911 callers is easy in some case, harder in others. The diagram is not of my making, but the details seem to agree with the CW.  I'm sorry these people's privacy has been invaded and I don't like it when people repeat their full names but it's central to the case to understand who was where and thus able to see what and when.  

    Each 911 caller/ witness  got a "snapshot" out their own window and they don't agree with one another in part because everyone had those white "blinders" on their patio door restricting sight lines and the fight didn't take place in one spot, if we are to believe what this "debris field" evidence is telling us.  

    It seems clear to me now that no one who lived in the units north of the T was canvased, but maybe one or two came forward claiming to have seen something - but I doubt this.  Think about where the cops all parked  - on either side of the cut thru.  The witnesses live on either side of the dog walk.  

    Witnesses on the east, the ones on Retreat View circle oddly may have had a better field of view than the closer ones whose addresses are Twin Trees.  Hard to know.  


    Excellent (none / 0) (#143)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    Ahhh, thank you. Sweet division of labor.

    It seems the addresses all end in "1" and increment by tens. That will be very useful for fiddling with Google Maps. I haven't had occasion to use it before, so I'm just now learning how.

    CW puts the second caller, who saw the 'white tee shirt', on TTL? She saw officer Smith arrive. I don't see how she isn't on RVC.


    Smith responded to RVC (none / 0) (#144)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 20, 2012 at 03:46:18 PM EST
    But yes maybe with some division of labor we could math written witness statements to maps as has mostly been done for 911 calls.  

    As I think I said elsewhere I don't think cops canvased directly for witnesses in the unit north of the T.  

    South of johns unit was likely too far to see anything. Everyone who spoke up is right here in one of what, eight total units.  
    process of elimination.
    unless they were walking in the rain etc


    let's not split hairs (none / 0) (#142)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 20, 2012 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    The debris field suggests the two moved in concert with one another for some reason, engaged in speaking and/ or fighting over a 40 foot distance if indeed the clues are adding up here.  I really want that evidence tag map or a wide photo showing all the numbers.  

    According to witnesses who heard them, and saw parts of what happened in dim light, part of the confrontation was a verbal exchange, and part was the two persons on the ground where the body and GZ were found. presumably fighting.  But are these the only elements to the confrontation?  We don't know.

    All of the witnesses statements are wafer-thin about what happened and where during the overall confrontation. But the debris field seems to indicate not just talking in one place and wrestling on the ground in another.  Something had to happen in between, it seems.  

    The foot chase witness had just a glance, but seems to have seen enough to note the 10-12 foot gap between two people running.  Do you think this person is mistaken?  

    talk/ punch / run / tackle?  
    talk / run- pursue / punch to ground?
    talk / lunge-to-detain / taunt / backtrack /  walking pursuit /  punch to ground?  
    talk over a large distance / mutual closing of gap/ sucker punch to ground?

    talk over distance/ TM closes entire gap / sucker punch to ground seems impossible unless GZ was already where body is found, carried his keys and flashlight the whole time and dropped them later in confusion and remorse, post shooting.  And that 's the most charitable account I can give for one that matches GZ's proxy account.  

    who knows.  But it doesn't seem to me to indicate talk/punch to ground.  

    And this is what's bothered me for weeks.  

    I don't think there's much doubt TM battered GZ's head, or rode him like a rented mule on the ground.  But I wonder how accurate the GZ proxy stories can be if the FIGHT migrated, or even if the CONFRONTATION migrated.  

    Because talk/sucker punch to ground seems to be GZ's proxies' accounts, and told in such a way as to preclude all the other steps if the contention is that GZ was not closing a gap at some time, even if TM is the aggressor.  

    It's probably a minor point and won't even come up at trial since there is only circumstantial evidence and partial witness statements that form faint dots to connect.  And what jury cares to hear that?  But to me it speaks to credibility of GZ.  


    I don't make anything of it. But Serino's da man (none / 0) (#140)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 20, 2012 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    He's the man at the dark heart of the whole sad case, and probably the first to know  for certain what an enigma the whole thing will likely always remain, and as such I feel for him.  Let' face it, no matter what the verdict there will be a vocal camp who feels justice was not served.  

    I think Serino's public and private statements are shown to be different.  He's a competent person doing a difficult job under pressure from many sides, including his own career worries most of all.  I doubt he will ever give an interview again, nor do I think he has "leaked" anything to the press, ever or will in the future.  He strikes me as a cop's cop, and a fairly good one for a small force.  He has a lot of other cases to work, too I bet and isn't really that concerned with much besides doing his best and moving forward with his case load and his life.  

    He never got to finish his job, really but we can assume he has cooperated with Angela Corey's efforts in his official capacity and lent his knowledge to their efforts to present a strong case against George Zimmerman, the admitted killer of an unarmed teenager under murky circumstances.  

    I do think that his virtual pleading for some of the witnesses to come in to the cop shop where he could question them better is a tipoff that he never fully bought GZ's story.  I don't have all the info at my fingertips just now but I'm thinking of the one where a cop is telling the witness that the suspect  (GZ) isn't the kind of guy to fear a death threat from, in so many words.  This request for them to come in and make a full statement comes right after they BEGIN to hint that the fight was one that migrated from one place to a closer place.  

    Like he told Cheryl Brown, you have to read between the lines to see the fuller picture sometimes.  

    I personally don't think race has much place in the facts of the case - all that is mostly spin and counter spin, and if it bothers you I suggest you turn off the telly.  If you want to comment on the idea that the case can be WON or LOST in a legal sense by what happens on CNN, please start your proof of such by clearly stating if you believe George ZImmerman can receive a fair trial or not.  I'm not much intersted in the grey area here, because i firmly believe that he can get a fair trial, deserves one, and has a good lawyer, a good judge and a prosecutor that has no intention of getting her case wrong or trying it in the media first.  

    In fact, I'll just go ahead and ask you to put that into your reply anyway - Do you believe that George Zimmerman is going to get a fair trail or not?  Let's not shill-shally about spin and counter spin please.  

    I also don't think GZ is a paragon of moral virtue and tolerance.  But again, none of that has much place in his criminal trial.  Neither is THC or Adderall, even if they actually had a large bearing on the condition of the two brains involved.  I think this is a whodunit, plain and simple.  A who stood where and why did they do so kinda case. And a who is telling the whole truth and who is lying kinda case.  

    IANAL, so I don't have much opinion on what charges should be filed or why anyone claimed any such ones are significant.  

    Keep in mind Serino was present at the walk thru and saw the extent of the injuries and could make a personal judgement on GZ's character and veracity that means little in court cases but is the bread and butter of investigators.  A "smell test" is often all there is to go on at the start of an investigation, and this one isn't over.  

    I totally agree all the migration evidence is thin and difficult to present at a trail effectively.  You would have to connect some very faint dots to draw a good picture here, but I do think Serino felt this was what happened, in a nutshell - that GZ piled on a few too many exculpatory details when he maybe didn't even have to.  And this situation has led to his statements seeming inconsistent over the times he gave them, especially after the first night when he had time, like anyone would, to ponder the exact way a self defense case gets proven at trial.  

    GZ's PROXY tale, true or not, is a laundry list of bullet points including the verbal threat of death (which improbably comes BEFORE the cheesy dialog-spouting teen manages to take away his weapon, or even put one fingerprint upon it.)  That's the smell test stuff I mean.  

    GZ, by some means we can't know about yet, managed to keep his car out of the case.  That was a break for him but I'm sure Serino found out it was there soon enough.  And it had to make him wonder what the implications of that are.  Frank Taffee is pushing a narrative where the car never moved, and was facing a direction that seems improbable to me, and I don't know what to make of that either but Taffee also puts the body and fight in a place that seems to agree more with GZ's account than the facts do.  It's gut level things like this that must have been as frustrating to him as they are to me, only more so since it was his task to find evidence and he wasn't able to.  Nor am I.  (You can jump all over that statement all you want, it doesn't change what I feel, or the seeming facts that lead me there.)

    Keep in mind we don't yet have what I would consider exhibit one in a prosecution case, GZ's actual "confession" (that's the legal term as I understand it, and why it remains sealed) or "statements to the police," and we can't know what way they morphed or didn't morph as the time passed from the night to the day after.  

    We do seem to know that, as is his right, GZ had his father along with him for the video walk thru.  We also know that his father Robert Zimmerman is NOT a lawyer and so I assume shares no attorney client privilege and is open to questioning along the lines of whether or not he may have coached his son, fairly or not, on the details of a self defense case.  But the harshest grilling he got was after the video walk thru, and maybe GZ went a little overboard in trying to prove he was right to defend himself, leaving out bits or coloring his story beyond the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.   Gee, you think that is possible?  

    I have NO IDEA if GZ is innocent or guilty and am willing to let a jury decide.  

    But I think Chris Serino had a strong suspicion that the evidence he had  for Wolfinger to prove in court that GZ  is pushing a false narrative was very thin and on the other hand his hunch was solid that GZ went looking for this kid and found him, and that how he says he was sucker punched from the get-go doesn't match the location of the body and the "debris field" at minimum, and whatever follows from that.  Where does one go from there?  No one likes to let a killer walk away if they don't find them credible when they claim self defense.  If they are lying about one thing, what's to stop them from lying about the more important things?  

    I think in the end, Serino was unable to compile a STRONG case that proved his hunch.  His boss Bill Lee felt his PD's reputation was on the line, and the Chief hated that most thought race was such a big factor here.  Eventually the two gave a joint interview where Serino toed the party line and Bill Lee sputtered his outrage.  I don't make much of it.  I doubt either of them had much respect for the clueless reporter who fielded questions to them, weeks behind in drawing the right conclusions that we are only now just able to seem dimly emerging.  

    Actually, the murky circumstances, lack of a clear and credible eyewitness to the start of the fight, the rain,  and the fact that GZ was known and TM was seemingly an interloper were the initial problems that led the cops off the path to an easy charge to file and make stick.  Mostly however it was the lack of an eyewitness, because the shooter has such leeway to claim whatever he wants and there's no way to say it wasn't so.  

    The Florida version of "forget about it, Jake, it's Chinatown," is what his friends likely told Serino as his investigation stalled around the same time the world was starting to pound their collective shoes on the table and demand justice.  You win some, you lose some.  

    Manslaughter is what you charge when your case sucks but you don't like the guy, I suppose.  Most cases in America start with one charge and end with the accused pleading guilty to a lesser one.  Maybe that's what Serino thought.  How do I know?  I don't see how it matters much.

    I'm not sure what bearing that has on the truth, or what is at issue now, which is Corey's M2 charge, but that's my two cents.  IANAL and you are now welcome to tell me what YOU make of it all.  

    All of the above is one man's opinion.  What's your candid assessment?  


    Mixed Bag (none / 0) (#145)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 05:51:21 PM EST
    I personally don't think race has much place in the facts of the case - all that is mostly spin and counter spin, and if it bothers you I suggest you turn off the telly.

    Perhaps you and I have a different understanding of remarks like this. To me they are condescending, insulting, and not within the bounds of civility.

    Regarding your earlier remark that my critique of media conduct in this case could use more support, I don't disagree. It's one of a number of projects I've had on the back burner for a while. It would take a lengthy comment with several links, like what I did for Austin Brown. I haven't gotten to it yet, and I can't promise I will.

    Do you believe that George Zimmerman is going to get a fair trial or not?

    I don't know if there will be a trial. The prosecution's first hurdle is the immunity hearing.

    If there is a trial, I don't know if it will be fair. It's too soon to tell. That's my honest opinion.

    I totally agree all the migration evidence is thin and difficult to present at a trial effectively.

    Agree with whom? I haven't said that.

    BEFORE the cheesy dialog-spouting teen manages to take away his weapon, or even put one fingerprint upon it.

    Fighting for the gun I would expect fingerprints to smudge.

    The next round failing to chamber is consistent with a hand gripping the slide.

    Frank Taffee is pushing a narrative . . .

    You mean Frank Taaffe? It's been a long time since anything that person said has come to my attention. If you think he has said something worth discussing, please link.

    okay fair enough. (none / 0) (#146)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 20, 2012 at 09:59:20 PM EST
    Ask a question and I'll tell you what I think.  Make an observation, and I'll assume it's your honest opinion.

    I just think if more people concentrated on the actual merits of the case and not on what a bunch of talking heads said on cable tv we'd have a more civil society right there.  But the responsibility not to fall into this is in the hands of individuals, starting with the off switch unless you think somehow we need more censorship of a free press, or what?  

    If Crump was promoted to head of Rupert Murdoch's empire and had his own 24/7 cable network I still think there would be a fair trial.  His basic job is to advocate for his client, and so he does that.  He won't be in the courtroom except as a spectator, so what's the big deal? Keep in mind when he started his client had a dead son and no upcoming trial and the head of the PD that was investigating was telling him in essence to dry up and blow away.  And instead this grieving man cried out for justice and took what help he could get, where he could get it.  

    The state of Florida now thinks his son was murdered.  Should he doubt them?  Should he get a more timid lawyer?  And finally, the Michael Dukakis question:  if this were your dead son, and someone played that recording for you, how far would you be willing to go to get action?  And how far has Tracy Martin gone?  (And how far has Robert Zimmerman gone?)    

    If you really do think a fair trial may not be possible, then I'm stupefied and don't know what to say.  There are not six persons in the whole state of Florida who will remain untouched by this evil plot or what?  Or is it the judge himself who will fall sway to whatever?  Explain please, and offer your remedy.  Or better yet, skip it.  It's not important what you

    But don't fall into this, nomatter.  I think your talents at compiling and considering all the information is great, and you are on the trail of an understanding of the case like few others possess.  Stay focused on what really happened that night.  Turn off the tv, seriously.  Solve the puzzle.

    And I think it's foolish for us to bristle at one another when there is so much you and I tend to see in a similar way.  Counter productive.  Zero sum game.  Pissing contest, etc.  



    whoops didnt finish a sentence (none / 0) (#147)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 20, 2012 at 10:03:37 PM EST
     Or better yet, skip it.  It's not important what you think, not to make it personal - it just doesn't matter since neither you nor I can change it, according to your logic.  

    Fair Trials (none / 0) (#148)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 11:51:08 PM EST
    Do you think every criminal trial in this country is a fair one? Since we're trading free advice (worth every penny), I'll suggest spending a little time with The Innocence Project.

    Media coverage of criminal justice issues is a high-level subject, which I feel can wait while we process the new particulars in the Zimmerman case. I would hope we could agree to postpone discussion of the subject you find so unworthy of discussion.

    I'm not ducking the last question you posed in a recent comment.

    What's your candid assessment?

    It deserves a comment of its own, and more time than I have right now. I expect to get to it tomorrow, and I'll put it on the new Zimmerman thread.


    Correction (none / 0) (#151)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 23, 2012 at 07:46:18 AM EST
    The next round failing to chamber is consistent with a hand gripping the slide.

    This seems to be incorrect. Ciesla 'determined' that 6 rounds were found in a 7-round magazine, and one was cleared from the chamber. (Evidence documents, p. 20.)



    Excuse me if I'm butting in (none / 0) (#152)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 23, 2012 at 09:18:34 AM EST
    but doesn't Ciesla's "determination" support precisely what the phrase you quoted says?

    A 7 round mag, 1 round fired, and the remaining 6 still in the mag. So, the 2nd round failed to chamber.

    After you fire the first round from a 7 round mag, there should be 1 round in the chamber and 5 in the mag. Unless the round failed to chamber.


    7+1 (none / 0) (#153)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 23, 2012 at 12:38:55 PM EST
    Start with 7 rounds in the magazine and 1 in the chamber. Fire the round, the next round chambers, and there's 6 in the magazine.

    Sure, you can choose to (none / 0) (#154)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 23, 2012 at 12:53:24 PM EST
    manually load 1 round into the chamber in addition to the 7 rounds loaded in the mag so you have a total of 8 rounds available if you want instead of 7.

    But after you fire the gun the next round from the mag will cycle into the chamber - unless that round failed to chamber, which seems to be precisely the case here.


    I hope I'm not confusing things (none / 0) (#155)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 23, 2012 at 01:03:17 PM EST
    When you wrote:
    6 rounds were found in a 7-round magazine, and one was cleared from the chamber.
    Do you mean "cleared" as in the gun had been fired and the chamber was empty?

    If so, this agrees with my previous understanding that the chamber of the gun was empty.

    iow, regardless if whether the gun had 7 or 8 rounds in it to start, after firing, the next round had failed to cycle into the chamber, leaving the chamber empty.

    Did I misunderstand? Was there a round found in the chamber?


    Yes, everything I google says the gun had (none / 0) (#156)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 23, 2012 at 01:28:58 PM EST
    an empty chamber.

    Report (none / 0) (#159)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 24, 2012 at 12:34:27 AM EST
    Did you read what I cited, p. 20 of the evidence documents?

    I understand what I read there to mean that the police found a round in the chamber and removed it.


    Cleared (none / 0) (#160)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 24, 2012 at 12:53:56 AM EST
    Do you mean "cleared" as in the gun had been fired . . .

    No, I mean as in the police found a round in the chamber, removed it and bagged in a separate evidence bag.

    If you click the link I provided, you will see at the top of the page the number "1" in a box, followed by "/184". Click on the box, type in "20", then press Enter. That will take you to page 20.

    At the bottom of the page, the second and third paragraphs from the end are the pertinent ones. They are above the date "3/19/12".


    Thanks, I did not know how to use that (none / 0) (#161)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 24, 2012 at 10:08:57 AM EST

    I now agree with you, there was a round found in the chamber, according to the report.

    We can then conclude that there was no cycling failure.

    And, as the purported failure to cycle/chamber the next round was the basis for an earlier theory that TM was holding on to the gun when it was fired, it would seem that theory has no basis in fact.


    re Frank Taaffe (none / 0) (#149)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:25:39 AM EST
    This is a lot more productive than our own petty differences.  I'm sorry if I don't get what your personal politics are and say the wrong thing.  I just think television level debate is a waste of time and won't affect the fair trial that's coming.  You apparently don't.   'Nuf said.  It's an unjust world that we try to set aside when we enter into a courtroom.  

    Anyway, Taaffe or whatever his name is, seems to say the car was facing west on TTL and that GZ fought TM on the ground under the tree by the T.  He's clearly wrong on the last one and I contend he's probably also wrong on the car, but WHY did he think he knew?  Did he walk the scene with GZ?   Did he talk on the phone or f2f elsewhere and get an impression?  Did GZ draw him a map?  Was he confused because GZ told him the truth and he didn't understand, or was he confused because GZ hasn't been truthful with his friend or worse - is having his friend tell a lie knowingly?

    I can't go down that road too far without the host of this forum deleting my posts, so I won't say more.  She tells me not to couch unfounded aspersions in the form of questions.  

    But at the root of this is a basic question, and that is what did GZ tell people, and was it the truth or not?  I'm not sure how to not ask that question.  

    Frank Taafe's TV walk and talk with Scott Thuman of local ABC 7 says he knows TM circles the car "according to George" (his words.)  Later in the report the tv reporter walks a route with FT who claims he knows "through eyewitnesses," in the words of the reporter.  This route differs from the one Robert Zimmerman seemingly describes quite well in his own television report.  And it ends with FT at the T, claiming the fight ended there.  


    But Taafe is just straight up wrong about the location of the body and now we know it for sure.   So I wonder what's up about the car facing west, and his idea that GZ went south on the dog walk early in his walkabout and then met TM while walking north.

    That's always seemed unlikely to me, and if the opposite were true, if the car was in the same basic place by the cut thru path but facing the other way it suggests there was a point where GZ followed TM, moving his car from near the clubhouse to near the cut thru while he was on the phone with the operator.  And I wonder if GZ was forthcoming about this or not with investigators or thought it best to leave it out, and make it seem impossible by saying his car was in one spot, facing west.  


    Starring Roles (none / 0) (#135)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 04:59:04 AM EST
    Since their TV interviews I don't know how they would be treated as witnesses

    Their TV performances can't be good for their credibility.

    Cutcher seems driven to show the world that she is on the side of the angels. Lamilla seems like she's along for the ride, to please her friend.

    The more they identify with one side, the less they look like objective witnesses. If helping to convict Zimmerman were their priority, they would be acting very differently.

    But Zimmerman's fate won't turn on their credibility, because they aren't very important witnesses. Maybe they realize that.

    I'm not sure what you mean by 'how they will be treated'.

    I think the prosecution will put them on to tell their stories, if only to avoid criticism. (I suspect that is why Tom Owen and Ed Primeau are on the witness list.)

    I don't think the prosecutors will spend much time or rely much on them. What little they have to say lacks credibility because it's contradicted by other evidence. That their actions have further compromised their credibility may not make much difference for how much attention the prosecutors give them.

    should this go to trial.

    As I've said before, I don't think an immunity hearing would be much different from a trial as to evidence presented. Strategies may differ, because of judge vs. jury and different burdens of proof. But both sides will put on their whole case for the immunity hearing, if there is one.