From the George Zimmerman Discovery

Our last Zimmerman thread is full. Here's a new one.

One thing I noticed in the discovery is the multiple persons who observed George Zimmeman's injuries at the scene:

Officer Stacie McCoy:

I instructed Officer T Smith to have SFR provide medical care to the subject reference visible blood on his face and to transport the subject to the SPD for everyone’s safety.

Officer Michael Wagner:

I walked to Ofc Smith's car where Zimmerman was sitting and in handcuffs and used my personal iPhone (due to an immediate lack of access to a digital camera) to take a picture of Zimmerman's face. I saw that Zimmerman’s face was bloodied and it appeared to me his nose was broken. I also saw that the back of Zimmerman’s head was bloodied.

I then walked to where Martin lay on the ground and took a photo of Martin’s face as well. I observed no physical injury to Martin


Here's Ofc. Wagner's picture (only a black and white xerox is provided) and the rescue worker's report of treating Zimmerman.

The injuries were still apparent at the police station. Officer Leon Ciscela :

On 2/26/12 approximately 2321 hours I again met wlth CST Smith, officers and investigators and observed CST Smith take photographs of the subjects' injuries, hands, collect possible gun shot residue gun shot residue using a GSR klt. This took place in a Sanford Police Department interview room 2.

As to Mary Cutcher and her roomate Selma:

Officer Jonathan Meade:

On 2/26/12, I [was collecting witness statements.] I observed a female on her back porch and asked if she observed anything. She said no, but her roomate did. I requested her to find her roomate. and ask if she would provide a sworn statement. She said she would look for her.

Several minutes later I returned and met with her and her roomate. I requested a sworn statement but both ___ and ____ advised they were afraid and did not want to assist in providing a statement.

Again, several minutes later, ___called me over to her porch. ____ stated that ____would provide a sworn statement and ------ would write it for her due to translation. _---- provided me a written statement sworn to by ---- based on — testimony. (my emphasis.)

Cutcher told it differently afterwards, when she and Selma decided to join Team Crump. But again the best evidence is her 911 call.

She starts relaying the post-shooting information as she gets it from her roommate. You can hear her on the call yell to her roommate,

"Selma, is it the black guy who got shot?"

Then she tells the dispatcher

"There's a black guy standing over him."

After learning Trayvon was dead and his age, she starts making the TV rounds to say she's sure it was a child screaming and it wasn't self-defense. She neither heard nor saw the stuggle. And she first tells the cop she saw nothing, only Selma did, but in TV interviews says they both did.

That's the problem with post-event information. She probably believes what's she's saying. But her memory is not reliable.

As to Trayvon's cell phone code, Officer Joseph Santiago wrote:

On March 5,2012, I contacted Mr. Martin (victims father) via cell phone and asked if could obtain the pin number from the vlctims cell phone. Mr. Martin stated he would contact his lawyer before releasing that information.

(OCR'ing these reports from scanned images is difficult. Any spelling errors or word errors are mine. The blanks represented blacked out information, like witness names.)

< No Verdict Today in John Edwards Trial | DEA Asks For License Plate Scanners of All Cars on Utah Highway >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Errors in Official Police Narratives (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Addison on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:39:03 PM EST
    Something very weird noted by DizzyMissL in the last (now full) "George Zimmerman Discovery" thread:

    In the 7-11 surveillance stills, Martin is clearly wearing long khaki pants -- this is a fact beyond dispute, right?

    However, in the police narratives contained in the PDF document dump, one police officer (Ayala) states he is wearing blue jeans and another police officer (Santiago) states he's wearing light-colored shorts. Both provably wrong!

    Zimmerman's lawyers should jump on the fact that police couldn't even get the basic color and type of Martin's pants right in their official reports/narratives -- how can we be sure of anything in these officers' reports?

    I don't get it. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Addison on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:55:50 PM EST
    She starts relaying the post-shooting information as she gets it from her roommate. You can hear her on the call yell to her roommate:

    "Selma, is it the black guy who got shot?"

    Then she tells the dispatcher:

    "There's a black guy standing over him."

    I don't understand the timeline here. If the shooting of the "black guy" had already happened PRIOR to the 9-1-1 call itself (and Cutcher says "I think someone's been shot" early on), how is the "black guy" (Martin) still standing over Zimmerman? Look at the timeline for the 9-1-1 call in question -- whether or not it's the "black guy" is doubted within the call by Selma ("I think that's the black guy that I see"). Perhaps the witness thought Zimmerman was the black guy in the dark of the evening? Otherwise, how was Martin still standing over Zimmerman almost a minute after the shooting?

    Just something I don't understand.

    This isn't new information (none / 0) (#45)
    by rjarnold on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:36:45 PM EST
    This was released in mid-March and is from Cutcher's call to 9/11 that night. I've felt that the most likely explanation is that it was dark and Selma didn't really have the best view.

    Another note from her 9/11 call was that she made no mention of cries or yells for help. A few days later Selma described "crying, or moaning in desperation" and then a few weeks later they claimed to hear cries from a young boy.


    Why the translation? (none / 0) (#115)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 19, 2012 at 10:20:23 AM EST
    __would provide a sworn statement and ------ would write it for her due to translation. _

    On the 911 call, when asking the roommate a question, is it not in English? Should there have been a translator there when the sworn statement was delivered?

    I am only reading on TL about this story and so I apoligize if I have missed something on this.


    Translation (none / 0) (#118)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 10:38:39 AM EST
    It seems English is Selma Lamilla's second language, and at times she feels the need for Cutcher to do some translating.

    See p. 41 of the evidence document.


    Is it just me, or does anyone else think (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:21:22 PM EST
    the prosecution has a very steep road to climb based on the information we have now? Is there the possibility that they have more info that we haven't seen yet?

    Yeah. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Addison on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:28:34 PM EST
    It seems to me that everything will be decided in favor of the side which DOESN'T have the burden of proof. So Zimmerman will not get "SYG" immunity, but he also won't get convicted of 2nd-degree murder. 2nd-degree manslaughter (I seem to recall that this charge is included as part of the 2nd-degree murder charge?) seems like a possibility, albeit a dim one.

    You know, (none / 0) (#11)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:46:10 PM EST
    Manslaughter just seems like a throw away charge. So the jurors, if they want to convict Z of something figure he must have done "something," but he also got beat up. So manslaughter is like "murder-lite." Let's go with that."

    But, I think, he's either guilty of murder, or he's innocent. And, I think everyone has been too compliant in believing that the scenarios put out by either side must be the only scenarios possible.

    And, I think Angela Corey has another scenario in mind, one that hasn't been considered yet.....publicly, that is.


    Manslaughter. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Addison on Fri May 18, 2012 at 09:01:54 PM EST
    Manslaughter just seems like a throw away charge. So the jurors, if they want to convict Z of something figure he must have done "something," but he also got beat up. So manslaughter is like "murder-lite." Let's go with that."

    Hence the "possibility, albeit dim".

    What do you mean by: " think Angela Corey has another scenario in mind, one that hasn't been considered yet.....publicly, that is"?


    based on my research, my life's experience (none / 0) (#21)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 18, 2012 at 09:57:10 PM EST
    I believe, and I believe Corey believes, Zimmerman started the fight.

    Should I go on, are you up to it?


    What would be more interesting (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:01:20 PM EST
    is how the prosecution will make that believable beyond a reasonable doubt. If you would go on about that, I would be interested in hearing it.

    Sure, (none / 0) (#27)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:09:05 PM EST
    but with a caveat: when I say I read something, I mean in an adult, unhysterical, truth seeking journal. I don't keep notes, so links will be missing....unless they're critical and thus I would take the time to find them. O.K?  

    All good by me, have at it! (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:11:06 PM EST
    I don't understand your phrasing... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Addison on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:09:07 PM EST
    ...but I actually DON'T think that Corey thinks Zimmerman started the (physical) fight -- the affidavit was vague enough to suggest much doubt on that. I think she thinks (on the professional level, anyway) that Zimmerman's behavior rose to the level where Martin's actions were not the initial "aggressive" action, and thus that Zimmerman is not entitled to SYG immunity. I agree with that in part, I understand many others don't.

    But of course we don't know any of this, so I don't know where you're going with any of it. Am I up to it? I don't know what I'm supposed to be up to.


    Girlfriend's statement to prosecutors (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:37:13 PM EST
    as reported by NYTimes, is that she heard Matin say "Get off, get off me!" or words to that effect.

    The implications of that are pretty clear, I think.

    This whole case may come down to this girl versus Zimmerman.


    New From Dee Dee (none / 0) (#60)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:04:26 AM EST
    If she told Crump that, I wonder why we haven't heard it before.

    I understand the only official version of Dee Dee's statement to Crump is in audio form. I don't know if it has been made public yet.

    Comparing the two statements will be important for her credibility.


    an audio is available, and (none / 0) (#63)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:10:10 AM EST
    Jeralyn posted it here yesterday.

    You'd have to go through yesterday's posts to find it.


    To Crump? (none / 0) (#69)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:45:50 AM EST
    Dee Dee's statement for the prosecution is here, on the left and down a bit, under the title 'Mr. Martin's Last Phone Call.'

    I didn't find the statement to Crump in yesterday's thread.


    "Get off, get off me!"? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Gandydancer on Sat May 19, 2012 at 08:31:00 AM EST
    Link, please. All I've ever heard is "Why are you following me?"/"What are you doing here?"

    Dee Dee & John (none / 0) (#91)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 08:59:15 AM EST
    It's in Dee Dee's statement to the prosecutor, Bernie de la Rionda. This page, on the left and down a bit from the top, under the title ''Mr. Martin's last phone call.'

    Just below is audio of John, confirming that when he saw the fight it was 'on the concrete'.


    As slow, and as thorough a narrative (none / 0) (#30)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:17:08 PM EST
    as is required. I'm sure you don't believe the harried, sarcasm-laced cross fire that passes for a "truth seeking blog" is acceptable to you.

    I'm not asking you to marry me, but if you have a question that requires a 100 word answer I can't do it in sentence. You don't have to stick around every minute, just understand that sharing information between and among like minded people we might raise the level of discourse and actually get somewhere.


    I have no idea what you're talking about. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Addison on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:41:42 PM EST
    I just didn't know what you thought Corey had in mind.

    O.k. let me ask you (none / 0) (#35)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:50:01 PM EST
    what do you see as her outline for conviction?

    Zimmerman provoked Martin's attack... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Addison on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:55:18 PM EST
    ...in such a way that Martin feared for his personal safety and thus Martin's attack was "justified" (if not in law, in the minds of the jury), and so therefore Zimmerman's killing was less justified (again, in the minds of the jury). Given the evidence I am currently aware of, and Florida's laws, that's all I see as an avenue for getting a jury to go along a conviction on the 2nd-degree murder charge.

    Tune it in a little more please, if you could (none / 0) (#43)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:23:53 PM EST
    How did Zimmerman provoke Martin? By his general invasive stalking? Do you believe Martin at some point was "laying in wait" to "ambush" Zimmerman? What I'm interested in exploring is how you could do a mock walk through for a jury as to how that provocation morphed into a martin assault?

    ASDF (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Addison on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:44:58 PM EST
    I feel like you're just stringing me along without purpose. This is the last time I'll indulge you on this line of questioning.

    I think a case could be made that Zimmerman provoked Martin by continued pursuit without actual cause, which made Martin (unaware of the conversations Zimmerman was having with the police) feel threatened and perhaps targeted by an unknown man with unknown predatory aims. So Martin ran until he was out of breath, and then stopped, and then thought, "well, this psycho is still after me, I'm threatened but I'm a goddamn man, let's see what he's up to". Then the psycho turns the corner...

    (To be absolutely clear: I don't think Zimmerman is a psycho, I am in this case being asked to imagine Martin's mindset).


    Addison and NYS (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Darby on Sat May 19, 2012 at 06:12:28 AM EST
    Even if your scenarios were true that Trayvon was pushed into feeling he needed to defend himself, how do you get around Zimmerman shooting Martin to defend himself. The evidence thus far seems to clearly indicate that Z was at the receiving end of a beating by Martin. If the jury accepts that it is reasonable that Zimmerman had fear enough of bodily injury or death isn't the shooting justified? Does anything else matter here?

    I just can't see how the law could expect Zimmerman to either 'allow' himself to be killed or be punished for defending himself. Again, supported by the witness and evidence we know so far, that Zimmerman was pinned down, screaming for help and being beat on 'martial arts style'.


    Since no one "knows" (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 19, 2012 at 05:40:29 PM EST
    We're all just trying to come up scenerios that are possible, based on what we do know. My point was that at one point the two of them were in close quarters to each other, by surprise or not. Somebody made the first physical advance. Then a scuffle ensued. I think every one can probably agree that, up to that point, it's a pretty close probability. And, from that point on, we're all guessing.

    My guess is that the "fight" was a pretty low level affair, as far as street brawls go. I'm not proud to say that I've been involved in quite a few of those (grew up in "fort apache" in the Bronx.) To me, Zimmerman's injuries seem no more than scratches from rolling around on the grass and concrete. The two guys were probably hugging and being hugged, as these things go, each trying to gain an advantage.

    O.K. at some point, Martin, apparently gains an advantage and begins hitting Zimmerman. Now, here's where the controversy is. If you've never been involved, or witnessed, a real fight like that it's hard to understand. And, it's what I can't understand here either. If Martin was hitting Zimmerman in the manner described, he's be unrecognizable. Direct punches to the face break cheeks bones, knock out teeth, splatter noses across their face, leave there eyes, and their sockets, looking like overgrown turnips. And, then the "bashing head on concrete." Everyone here probably believes that a head being bashed repeatedly on concrete would lead to mega serious injury, or death. So do I. But, Zimmerman only had a couple of scratches. But, I don't discount the fact that he might have been in fear that, if it were to really happen, he'd be in danger of being maimed, or killed.

    My point is, it never got to that level; neither the fight, nor the bashing. Martin was practically unscathed, and Zimmerman, moments after the altercation, walked, talked, and moved, fit as a fiddle.

    Again, I'm not saying Zimmerman wasn't in fear of his life. The question is, did he overreact, and pull the trigger prematurely. I don't know.


    Gee, shooter (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2012 at 07:22:49 PM EST
    If a broken nose and cuts on your head from having it slammed into concrete is "pretty low level" that must have been one tough neighborhood you grew up in.

    And I must note:

    Direct punches to the face break cheeks bones, knock out teeth, splatter noses across their face, leave there eyes, and their sockets, looking like overgrown turnips.

    It only takes one punch to break a nose and then grabbing his neck or face can allow the head slamming.

    And then:

    and Zimmerman, moments after the altercation, walked, talked, and moved, fit as a fiddle.

    Adrenalin does wonders. I once saw a guy with an arm almost torn off, hanging by a muscle or two, walk to where the medics were coming to get him.


    Jim, we're all guessing here (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 19, 2012 at 07:40:30 PM EST
    The scene wasn't video taped. I'm giving my best guess interpretation of how this altercation may have happened.....based on my experience.
    I was at a function years ago talking to a friend. A guy walks up to my friend, taps him on the shoulder, and when my friend turned around, the guy popped him in the face with his fist....not that hard, or so I thought. The next day when I saw my friend he had this wire contraption on his face, immobilizing his jaws. It stayed on his face for months.

    You know the saying, "everything's relative."
    If I was subpoenaed and ordered to give my best, hypothetical, based on my experience, sequence of events that night, the story I told would be it.
    Could there be other possibilities? Of course.
    But, I think other people with my background reading my hypothetical thoughts on this case would probably say, "yup, that's the way I see it too."

    Hey, at least I said it's a "possibility" and not jumping up and down denigrating anyone who doesn't swear allegiance to my view.


    your personal experiences (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 19, 2012 at 07:47:39 PM EST
    are your own. Please don't compare what's happened to you in the past with this case. It's just a contributing factor to your speculation and is not connected to this case.

    Key issue will probably be whether the (none / 0) (#172)
    by Angel on Sat May 19, 2012 at 05:50:59 PM EST
    fear of death was reasonable, and the jury would have to make that decision if it goes to trial.   What I have been puzzled by since the beginning is that Zimmerman refused medical treatment that night, three times, I believe.  That makes me think it wasn't a really vicious or prolonged fight, which could be an issue with some jurists - if it goes to trial.

    refused treatment (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Lora on Sat May 19, 2012 at 06:56:02 PM EST
    Zimmerman had just killed a man.  Adrenaline and emotions were running high.  I do not think it unusual that he refused treatment, even with a broken nose or even had his injuries been more severe.  He had other things on his mind and in his feelings and might not have really felt his injuries yet.

    I believe Jeralyn pointed out (none / 0) (#174)
    by lousy1 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 06:39:42 PM EST
    that death or great bodily harm were the standards.

     If you watch a MMA (Mixed Martial Arts ) fight which is not for the squeamish, you will have no remaining questions.

     John, the only eyewitness, alluded to MMA fight   analogy in his statement .


    Your scenario makes sense to me (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by ruffian on Sat May 19, 2012 at 06:41:06 AM EST
    I just don't know how much bearing it has on the legal case. To me it now comes down to whether GZ was correct in thinking he had to use lethal force to save his life. I ask myself - if he had not had a gun, would he have been beaten to death? think he would have marshaled his other resources had the gun not been available. But I probably am not sure of that beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I see the prosecution argument (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Sat May 19, 2012 at 06:54:09 AM EST
    being along the lines of 'you were able to maneuver yourself so your head was off the sidewalk, you got your hands down to your waistband, you could have further defended yourself without killing the kid'. What we have NOT seen yet are GZs statements to the police about how the fight was going. Maybe there is something in there to support that line of argument by the prosecutors.

    And GZ wil say he did not have to do more than he did under current self defense law.


    I'm sorry you're so sensitive (none / 0) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:58:51 PM EST
    You just answered precisely the question I was asking. I am offended at your "stringing along" crack, however.

    Don't want to converse? That's fine.


    Answer what you want, when you want. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Addison on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:02:47 AM EST
    Addison -- (none / 0) (#151)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 01:47:40 PM EST
    First of all in DeeDee's 20 min interview by the prosecutor she says Trayvon had gotten very close to where he was staying, which is a reason he gave for not resuming running.  If he was so scared why didn't he just go inside and lock the door?

    Second of all being scared is not consistent with deliberately approaching Zimmerman and demanding "what are you following me for?" when he could have just gone inside, locked the door and call 911.

    Being mad because he felt "dissed" for being racially profiled, suspected and followed would be consistent with approaching Zimmerman and making that demand.

    Zimmerman's suspecting Trayvon, calling him in as suspicious to the police and trying see where he was so he could point him out to police was not illegal, and was not an aggressive provocation under Florida self defense law giving Trayvon a right to commit assault and battery which then became aggravated felony assault and battery.


    It is legally possible (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Payaso on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:51:58 PM EST
    for both parties to reasonably believe they are acting in self defense.

    What Trayvon thought is irrelevant.  The issue is whether Zimmerman reasonably believed he was justified in using deadly force.


    A jury is going to consider... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Addison on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:58:33 PM EST
    ...Trayvon Martin's mindset vis-a-vis his right to self defense against a stranger pursuing him without known cause. We can pretend otherwise because he's dead, because he doesn't have standing to assert his self-defense rights, but that will be part of the case presented to the jury.

    Zimmerman's role in engendering Martin's mindset will necessarily also be a part of the case. That's basically all the prosecution has. To ignore it is to ignore a huge part of the case as it will be presented.


    So, (none / 0) (#62)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:08:29 AM EST
     here's the question I have. What if, when the two finally met up, after a surprised second or two, and both, exhausted, frustrated, and irritable, Zimmerman asks again, maybe more forcefully now, "what are you doing here?" Martin, also drained, testosterone flaring, snaps back, "none of yo business." Zimmerman snaps, grabs the lighter Martin by the neck/collar area and......the battle begins.
    Who started the fight, who is entitled to SYG, self defense, and who is the victim?



    plausible? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat May 19, 2012 at 06:55:46 AM EST
    no, not really.  First of all, if Zimmerman is going to say "yo" instead of "your", would he use "of" rather that "uh" or "o"?  Probably in the same manner he'd say bidness or something similar in your scenario.

     Also, I don't see a guy like Zimmerman who constantly calls the cops every time someone blows their nose,  grabbing a younger thinner more athletic guy and trying to beat him up.


    Plausible? Yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by Payaso on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:17:11 AM EST
    But that's not the rule.

    If there are several plausible scenarios consistent with the evidence, and one or more points towards innocence, the jury must acquit.


    thanks (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:28:23 AM EST
    my gut tells me that's how it will end.

    And, the epilogue will be: The police did their best, the prosecutor did her best, but a weird, tragic, "comedy of errors," mixed with an NRA conceived volatile law left nothing but sorrow and heartache in its wake for all concerned.

    The country's "race to the bottom" has just accelerated.


    GZ justification for shooting TM... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Gandydancer on Sat May 19, 2012 at 08:28:17 AM EST
    ,..has nothing to do with SYG law. It's ordinary self defence in 50 states.

    Assuming he is aquitted of 2nd degree M (none / 0) (#68)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:40:33 AM EST
    what "NRA conceived volatile law" are you referring to?

    NYS (none / 0) (#76)
    by Darby on Sat May 19, 2012 at 06:01:42 AM EST
    But is there any evidence that supports this version of events?

    NYshooter-- (none / 0) (#152)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 01:51:42 PM EST
    The scenario you paint is not consistent with any of the other times that Zimmerman had called in suspicious people to police and tried to keep them in view.  He never even verbally confronted any of them prviously or tried to get close to them according to the long Reuters article.   He tried to keep them in sight, but expressed frustration that he often couldn't for as long as it took police to arrive "they always get away" as he said on this police call.

    plausible is irrelevant (none / 0) (#186)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 19, 2012 at 07:48:44 PM EST
    when it's not backed up by facts. Please base your theories on actual evidence in the case, not possibilities of guilt and not your personal experiences.

    Addisson -- I definitely (none / 0) (#123)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 10:51:36 AM EST
    don't agree with that and Jeralyn has said she doesn't either.  That is if Zimmerman was the first one to hit or shove the other.  Suspecting and following someone for a reasonable period of time isn't illegal.  There's no Florida precedent for losing SYG immunity without first initiating improper physical contact.  

    A shove? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Lora on Sat May 19, 2012 at 08:33:27 AM EST
    note: SPECULATION follows

    It is possible that there was an issue of personal space.

    If Martin approached and Zimmerman felt Martin was too close (felt threatened), he might have shoved him back.  (Given what we may know about Z's history, this is a possibility.)

    Martin might then have felt attacked at this point and may have felt justified in retaliation.


    But there's no evidence for (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 10:54:11 AM EST
    that, or that Zimmerman wanted to be close to Martin.  He'd avoided even verbal confrontation or questioning of previous persons he'd called into police as being suspicious.  I think he just wanted to regain knowledge of where Martin was so he could tell that to police.

    Not any evidence anyway (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Lora on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:21:58 PM EST
    as to who did what first.

    Doug, you say "...or that Zimmerman wanted to be close to Martin."

    I didn't say that he did.

    Also: "I think he just wanted to regain knowledge of where Martin was so he could tell that to police."

    I think he did, too.

    What I speculated is that Martin approached Zimmerman closer than Zimmerman felt comfortable or safe, then Zimmerman shoved him away and Martin then punched him and knocked him down.

    The reason I think this could fit is that it could explain why Martin physically attacked Zimmerman.

    I think it is more likely than the other possibilities suggested.

    I haven't seen any evidence that Martin ever just attacked anyone.  There is evidence of Zimmerman's having had physical altercations with others, one of which was a shove.  This is in part what my speculation is based on.


    He would be guilty of (none / 0) (#92)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:00:26 AM EST
    manslaughter, not murder 2, if he UNreasonably believed he was in danger of great bodily harm.

    If he reasonably believed he was he should properly be acquitted of everything since even if he stated the fight (which I think is unlikely), he couldn't flee.  Acquittal is what I think the evidence supports.

    I think he'll get immunity hearing.  


    I think the DA/cops (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:06:03 PM EST
    were forced in to an arrest and putting on a case they were not all that sure off in the first place  Had Rev Al, the NYTimes and the hysteria of the left not reached a fevered pitch, this trial might have waited until they were ready, or it might not have happened at all.

    OTOH (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Lora on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:28:46 AM EST
    This is what has been happening in general:  If someone says/does/commits a crime against a member of ANY group that has any real political clout, the facts and severity don't matter; Heads Must Roll.

    Yuup. (none / 0) (#94)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:01:15 AM EST
    Agree also (none / 0) (#103)
    by Lora on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:25:09 AM EST
    Yes, and (none / 0) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:30:37 PM EST

    It is just (none / 0) (#10)
    by me only on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:32:52 PM EST
    I think (none / 0) (#14)
    by RKF on Fri May 18, 2012 at 09:14:18 PM EST
    They have Zimmerman's statements. Possible some value there.  

    More Evidence (none / 0) (#114)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 10:05:08 AM EST
    There's a lot we haven't heard yet. Many witness statements are in audio recordings.

    I'd appreciate a dispassionate analysis (none / 0) (#146)
    by magster on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:55:41 PM EST
    with Jeralyn or someone wearing the prosecutor's hat, where Zimmerman is vulnerable etc... Now that evidence is being released, be nice to see where the battle lines will be drawn on various key issues.



    Karyn - the EMT Medic wrote (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ding7777 on Fri May 18, 2012 at 09:29:53 PM EST
    ***Pt #2
    Name : John Doe (pt had no ID on him and SPD had no info on him)

    Pt #2 is an approx. 20 y/o male pt with a single GSW to the center of his chest

    I'm guessing Martin looked older than 17.

    What's the significance? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Addison on Fri May 18, 2012 at 09:32:30 PM EST
    Zimmerman said at his (none / 0) (#19)
    by ding7777 on Fri May 18, 2012 at 09:49:56 PM EST
    bond hearing "I thought [Martin] was a little bit younger than I am"

    That was always subjective. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Addison on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:00:16 PM EST
    I wouldn't say 20 is a "little bit" younger than 27 or 28 or whatever Zimmerman was at the time. But others might disagree. In any case it's an immaterial fact/judgment.

    I agree it's not material (none / 0) (#104)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:26:04 AM EST
    but may here in the Zimmerman must be guilty camp, and Crump of course, were trying to make big hay out of the "inconsistency".  "If he can't be believed on that maybe he'll lie about any or all of it".  

    On the night in question, ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Yman on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:03:42 PM EST
    ... he said "late teens" and called him a "kid".

    I'm thinking he looked dead. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Anne on Fri May 18, 2012 at 09:42:52 PM EST
    On his back, on the ground, in the dark and the rain.

    I don't think the EMT's assessment is going to have much bearing on this case.


    Well, maybe just as a small (none / 0) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:05:16 PM EST
    piece of the puzzle that determined Z's mindset that night. could be somewhat helpful.

    News To Me (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:16:04 PM EST
    The articles I read quoted friends of his who used terms as "hair trigger," "Jekyl & Hyde," . . . his wife's testimony that George "threw her" into the wall . . .

    First I've heard of any of this. I'd like to see links.

    I remember reading one article that sort of wove together quotes from neighbors with quotes from the Martins' lawyers, in a way that might lead a careless reader to come away thinking the neighbors had trashed Zimmerman.

    I doubt any of this would be admissible, even if true.

    Admission. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Addison on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:24:54 PM EST
    I doubt any of this would be admissible, even if true.

    The defense would have to call character witnesses which could be rebutted by such testimony, right?


    Why 'have to'? (none / 0) (#51)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:48:21 PM EST
    The defense would have to call character witnesses . . .

    NYShooter seems to be arguing that the net weight of the character evidence cuts against Zimmerman. If O'Mara thinks so, he won't open the door.


    I think you misunderstand me... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Addison on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:51:27 PM EST
    ...when I say "have to" I'm saying that in order for the prosecution to bring any of this up the defense will "have to" first bring up Zimmerman's character (i.e. "open the door"). The prosecution will not be able to call these witnesses unless the defense creates the opening to do so.

    I See Now (none / 0) (#55)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:55:40 PM EST
    Yes, I misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification.

    Look, (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:39:25 PM EST
     I don't care one way or the other. It's like being on a college debating team. I could take either side and try to make a case for that side. In the Corporate world where I was a director and Chief Negotiator for a multi national company these exercises were as common as your morning coffee. "Roll Playing," "Focus groups," "Strategy sessions." Attacking an issue from all directions to try and get the optimum results.

    Am I being that obtuse that no one understands that I only want to look at this tragedy from all sides; The prosecutor, defense, victim and perpetrator, their families, and justice for the country. I don`t have a  "side."
    If all people want is an argument, or force wild, unfounded speculations on unwilling counterparts.... Have a ball.

    Officer Joseph Santiago Statement (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat May 19, 2012 at 01:07:09 AM EST
    Pgs 16 and 17
    This officer made several comments that I found very interesting but the first one that really stood out to me is this:

    "I observed a key chain lying on the grass near the T portion of the walkway, a black flashlight lying on the grass just east of the key chain."

    Judging from the evidence tags (IIRC #1 and #5)
    the keys and flashlight were about 2-3 yards from the T intersection.

    Trayvon's body was perhaps 10-15 yards away to the south of the T intersection.  

    It leads credence to the fact that Zimmerman may have been returning to his car as he stated and was surprised by Martin.

    Martin was observed running at the 2:08(approx) mark on the non-911.   That call lasted a little over 4 minutes.  And there has been no accounting for his whereabouts during that time frame.

    DeeDee's interview with De La Rionda (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by rjarnold on Sat May 19, 2012 at 01:22:52 AM EST
    I listened to her interview a second time and have a few more observations.

    She said she wasn't girlfriend, but "getting there", however she is still being reported as his GF by some in the media.

    She adds a few new details than she gave in her earlier interview. She also sounds lower pitched and much less coherent than she did in the portion of her earlier interview with Crump that was played on CNNHLN. The voices in this recording and the one supplied by the NYT of the De La Rionda interview sound completely different to me.

    She appears to contradict herself when at one point she says she hears something hitting the grass and then the next thing is that the phone just shut off, and then a few minutes later she says that she heard someone say "Get off".

    At one point it seems clear that she said, "He aint gonna run.. Cuz he said he right by his father's house." The investigator just completely glosses over this and doesn't ask a follow up to this. Did she clearly hear him say someone was by the father's house? Was it Trayvon or GZ that was by the house? We don't know how she would have answered because he didn't bother to ask.  

    De La Rionda seems to lead her on with a few questions. An example was "And he was a good guy, wasn't he?" Another is when he asked her how she knew he was scared, and she mentioned that Trayvon's voice was getting kind of low.. He interrupts her and says, "So you could tell he was emotional like someone who was in fear?"

    She has trouble understanding and answering some basic questions. These include when the investigator asked her did he sent you any text messages or did he say that the man got out of his car. When asking did Trayvon ever mention the man getting out of the car it takes her more than a minute to give an answer to this question, and she seems to not understand the question at first. When he asked her if earlier that day Trayvon was talking about his mom at all, she said "like what do you mean?"

    My conclusions are that it wasn't the most competent interview as De La Rionda seemed to lead her in a few points, and he didn't ask some basic questions. Also she doesn't seem to be a reliable witness as it was more than a month after the incident, she seems to contradict herself at least once, and she has trouble understanding simple questions.

    As You Like It (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 02:51:42 AM EST
    When asking did Trayvon ever mention the man getting out of the car it takes her more than a minute to give an answer to this question, and she seems to not understand the question at first.

    This leads to the part of the tape that most impressed me. Unless I've missed it, no one else has mentioned it.

    De la Rionda took four sentences to ask the simple question. (14:29-45) Dee Dee's one-sentence response is hard to hear. But my attention was arrested by de la Rionda's reaction.

    Somewhat peevishly, de la Rionda said:

    I want to know the truth, whether- did he say that or not? If he didn't say that, that's fine.

    It sounds like Dee Dee wanted a little coaching. I listened to her response a few times. At first I wasn't sure if it was 'You want him to?' or 'You want that too?'. But now I feel sure that Dee Dee asked 'You want that too?'

    It's time for the audio experts again. I wonder what alternate wordings will be suggested, that will sound plausible and explain away de la Rionda's reaction?

    If I'm right, it sounds like the whole statement is just an exercise in giving the prosecutor what 'you want'. And it sounds like Dee Dee has, one might say, grown accustomed to being coached by people who ask her questions. How might that have happened? Does this not call for an investigation?


    Did She Say? (none / 0) (#99)
    by RickyJ on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:15:44 AM EST
    I am waiting for a transcript to appear somewhere since I am not sure of more than a few words of what she said.  I thought I heard at one point something like, "You want me to lie?"  Am I mistaken?

    Think Not (none / 0) (#102)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:24:21 AM EST
    I thought I heard at one point something like, "You want me to lie?"

    I didn't hear that.

    Nor did I. (none / 0) (#141)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:54:43 AM EST
    Good points. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 10:24:37 AM EST
    I agree with all you observations.

    I think when she was talking about being almost at his house it was quite sure she mean Trayvon was.  She gave it as a reason why TM didn't feel he need to resume running.  (This obviously doesn't fit in at all with the Crump narrative that Trayvon was just trying to get away from Zimmerman all the time until the fight.)  

    If was the next period before the first words between them were spoken where she was very unclear and contradictory.  It sounded to me like she was hiding or glossing over things in this period.  She might have known that  Trayvon had gone into hiding and then followed Zimmerman at a fast walk.  De la Rionda also did not try to clear this up at all.  He knew what Zimmerman's story was yet he never asked DeeDee if Trayvon went into hiding or began following Zimmerman as he started walking away from where Trayvon was staying and back to his truck.  That's not searching for the truth, it's trying to bring out one side's story.

    I like you thought her saying she heard get off me and that it was definitely Trayvon's voice sounded made up and it did contradict what she said earlier in this interview, and in the recording that Crump made and provided to ABC news.  

    She was definitely lead by de la Rionda through about the whole thing and sounded like she wanted to be.  I think a lot of her pauses were combinations of trying to think what the best thing for Team Trayvon would be to say or if the truth hurt it, and waiting for hints and coaching.  And yes there's very little doubt in my mind  that Crump coached her, given his conduct in this case.


    You are leaving out the part where (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Anne on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:27:10 AM EST
    the Sanford PD's history prior to the shooting of Trayvon Martin already had created tension and concern and even fear in the community; add that important piece to the conversation and all of a sudden, it seems like you are the one creating a false narrative.

    And it's not hard to see why that works for you.

    I've heard that claim (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    about the Sanford PD but I've seen nothing to back it up.  If any reporters dug into the legitimacy of those complaints in a reasonable manner, I haven't seen their stories.  Have you?

    Well, yes, Doug, I have, which is why (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Anne on Sat May 19, 2012 at 03:42:20 PM EST
    I said what I did; I'm not in the habit of just making stuff up.  

    Since almost every article I read and news report I saw or heard mentioned the SPD's "troubled" history in the area of race relations, I am pretty much forced to believe that the only reason you haven't seen anything about it is because you closed your eyes and stuck your fingers in your ears when the issue came up.

    So - open those peepers of yours wide, because here's something to get you started, from Mother Jones:

    Change came excruciatingly slow to Sanford. This was a community that held on to an archaic law ordering police "to shoot all pigeons on sight" until 1989, according to a St. Petersburg Times news capsule. "Over the years Sanford dug in its feet against change," a local newspaper editor told the New York Times in 1990. "It resisted integration, filling in the public pools rather than integrating them."

    It may come as no surprise, then, that law and order in Sanford in recent years has been plagued by allegations of racial injustice, and a series of public missteps involving its police department. In 2006 two private security guards--one the son of a Sanford police officer, the other a volunteer for the department--killed a black teen with a gunshot in his back. Even though they admitted to never identifying themselves, the guards were released without charges. Then, in 2010, Justin Collison, the son of a Sanford PD lieutenant, sucker-punched a homeless black man outside a bar, and officers on the scene released Collison without charges. He eventually surrendered after video of the incident materialized online; the police chief at the time was ultimately forced into retirement. "Bottom line, we didn't do our job that night," a police department representative told local news station WFTV of the incident.

    As it would turn out, the Sanford patrol sergeant in charge on the night of Collison's assault, Anthony Raimondo, would also be the first supervisor on the scene of Trayvon Martin's shooting death.

    "There is no trust, there is no confidence," between African Americans and Sanford authorities, said local NAACP leader Turner Clayton. "It's at an all-time low." Even embattled city manager Norton Bonaparte--who oversees Sanford's police department and is African American--acknowledges this truth. "The trust that may have existed is gone," he said, "so we have to start from ground zero."

    Huffington Post also has some reporting on this subject.

    Google is your friend, but you have to start from a position of actually wanting to know, and I don't think you do.


    Good grief, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 19, 2012 at 07:10:20 PM EST
    a local newspaper editor told the New York Times in 1990. "It resisted integration, filling in the public pools rather than integrating them."

    1990???? That's 22 years ago. A whole generation ago... Surely you can do better that these warmed over claims. I mean a shooting with no details and a sucker punch???



    Do you know the date (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by lousy1 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 08:18:11 PM EST
    Local editor was referring to in his 1990 interview?

    1960s, 70s (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 08:36:55 PM EST
    The events referred to would be another generation earlier. By my recollection (I was born in 1959) such issues were mostly settled by the mid-70s at the latest.

    BTW, discovery confirms GZ's role ... (none / 0) (#170)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat May 19, 2012 at 05:13:09 PM EST
    ... as an activist in protesting the Collison punchout. (One of the cops on scene remembered GZ in this connection.)

    Incidently, not matter how neatly it fits the Mother Jones narrative, this was nto a racial incident. Collison - a substance abuser like the homeless victim - assaulted a racially diverse collection of victims in three separate incidents that night.

    Some of the same Team Crump characters promoted that particular punch as a hate crime, with some financial success.


    Sounds like both were very possibly cases (none / 0) (#195)
    by Darby on Sat May 19, 2012 at 08:46:47 PM EST
    of nepotism and not racism.

    Getting Ahead (none / 0) (#190)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 08:06:23 PM EST
    Even-handed treatment of a racially charged issue is probably not the best journalistic career move.

    Trace DNA from Zimmerman's clothes (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Cylinder on Sat May 19, 2012 at 10:41:18 AM EST
    The FDLE Biology Lab found the following regarding Zimmerman's shirt (p 110):

    Of the 16 stains tested, 14 tested positive for blood. All 14 blood stains matched Zimmerman's profile.

    Regarding Zimmerman's jacket:

    Of the 31 stains tested, 17 tested positive for blood.

    9 stains yielded single DNA profiles that matched Zimmerman.

    Of the remaining stains:

    1 yielded profiles from at least two donors.
    The major contributor matched Zimmerman's profile.
    The minor contributor could not be determined.

    1 yielded a limited profile which was not interpretable.

    1 yielded profiles from at least two donors
    The major donor matched Zimmerman's profile.
    The minor donor could not be determined but excluded Martin.

    1 yielded profiles from at least two donors.
    The major donor matched Zimmerman.
    The minor donor matched Martin

    1 yielded profiles from at least two donors.
    Martin is included as a possible donor.
    No determination could be made concerning Zimmerman as a possible donor.

    2 yielded profiles consistent with a male individual but insuffecient for inclusion.

    1 yielded profiles from at least two donors. Major and minor profiles could not be determined.
    Zimmerman is a possible donor to the mixed profile.
    No determination could be made concerning Martin as a possible donor.

    Trace DNA from Zimmerman's firearm (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Cylinder on Sat May 19, 2012 at 10:55:24 AM EST
    The FDLE Biology lab found the following regarding Zimmerman's firearm:

    Trace blood was found on the grip. The DNA profile demonstrated the presence of at least two individuals. The major donor matched Zimmerman. Martin was excluded as a donor to the mixed profile.

    Swabs from the trigger were not interpretable.

    Swabs of the slide did not test for blood. A partial DNA sample was obtained consistent with at least one male donor but insuffecient for inclusion.

    Swbs from the holster did not test for blood. A DNA profile was obtained consistent with the presence of at least three donors. One donor sample matched Zimmerman. No other determination could be made.

    that's not quite (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 19, 2012 at 08:34:45 PM EST
    a complete interpretation.

    There were 3 persons DNA on the holster (Exh DMS 21 (d)). Zimmerman was the major contributor, and while the minor contributors were not able to be determined, Trayvon was not excluded. (Trayvon was excluded as being a contributor to the DNA on the grip.)

    You left out that GZ's DNA was found in bloodtains on Trayvon's shirt (the one he wore under the hoodie, see bloodstain A on ME-8, p 107) and both of them could have been contributors to bloodstain  D on that shirt.

    The shirt Trayvon wore under the hoodie was a Nike light gray shirt. The DNA reports show it had sleeves and a cuff. The trace evidence report refers to it as a sweatshirt (not the hoodie.) The medical examiner's report circled "t-shirt" for it. The light gray shirt is ME-8 and the dark gray hoodie is ME-12.


    Yea - I should have been more clear (none / 0) (#198)
    by Cylinder on Sat May 19, 2012 at 08:56:27 PM EST
    I should have been more clear on the holster. I guess that's why you get paid the big bucks. :)

    I summarized the samples taken from Martin's clothing a little downthread.

    Thanks for taking the timeeffort to give us this discussion space, BTW.


    Stain illustration? (none / 0) (#202)
    by Cylinder on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:14:06 PM EST
    Do you have access to an illustration/map of the
    stains/exhibits? It's not included in the MSN packet.

    Self defense (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by deminma on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    It seems clear that Tm was winning the fight with Zimmerman

    If TM got up off of Zimmerman after the winning the fight and then George gets up and shoots him,  can George still claim self defense.    

    The medical report states that the angle of the shot is straight and he is face down after being shot.   Both of these would be difficuly if trayon was beating him on the ground when the shot was fired  One of the witness statements also says that they were not fighting when the shot was taken.  

    Huh (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by lousy1 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:25:02 AM EST
    Please explain why? It seems much more likely that the actor straddling a victim, while pummeling him would have his torso at about 45 degrees to the prone victim. A shot fired from an elbow down position would be more or less perpendicular to Treyvon's body.

    On the other hand I have a hard time visualizing a
    surrendered foe being allowed to stand up withing striking distance of the victor.

    PS the witness who claimed the fighting had stopped was not an eyewitness. How could she tell?


    Cutcher & Lamilla Again (none / 0) (#137)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:38:32 AM EST
    Cutcher also claimed there was never any fight that close to her house. I'm not sure if Selma Lamilla has voiced an opinion on that.

    Wouldn't there be at least some blood? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Lora on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:32:13 PM EST
    Could a shot fired into someone on top of you, even if this person were at an angle, result in no blood on the clothes of the person below?

    Is that possible?


    Zimmerman had Martin's blood (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Cylinder on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:42:18 PM EST
    Zimmerman had Martin's blood on his outerwear.

    The majority of the bleeding collected in Martin's pleural cavities (the spaces surrounding his lungs.) The ME measures 2.3 liters of blood surrounding his lungs - that's nearly half of an adult's average blood volume.


    OK thanks (none / 0) (#159)
    by Lora on Sat May 19, 2012 at 03:35:22 PM EST
    no pulse (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by pngai on Sat May 19, 2012 at 02:13:53 PM EST
    The bullet destroyed the heart. Thus blood pressure immediately went to zero.

    Angle of would was NOT 'straight'... (none / 0) (#147)
    by CuriousInAz on Sat May 19, 2012 at 01:00:00 PM EST
    It entered left of center and came to rest right of center..

    Consistent with a right handed shooter shooting from a retention position at very close range.


    NOT a big fan of subcompacts (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cylinder on Sat May 19, 2012 at 01:30:04 PM EST
    Consistent with a right handed shooter shooting from a retention position at very close range.

    I'm not a big fan of subcompacts, but the one area they shine is the contact drill.


    No. (none / 0) (#164)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 04:38:06 PM EST
    In that case he can't claim self defense in using potentially deadly force against Trayvon. GZ's life or serious bodily harm would have no longer been in danger.  

    I think Florida's self defense law is reasonable and balanced.  It doesn't give license to kill anyone who demands any illegal thing of you, contrary to the MSM, NY Times wishing to spin it impression.  Not at all.


    DNA results from Martin (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Cylinder on Sat May 19, 2012 at 01:33:05 PM EST
    FDLE Biology Lab results from samples provided by Medical Examiner:

    Fingernail scrapings:

    Samples of fingernail scraping from Martin found blood traces present from right hand. No DNA results foriegn to Martin were present.
    Scraping from the left hand yielded no DNA profiles.


    Of the five stains tested, 4 gave the chemical indication of blood. Stain C and general rubbings from both cuff/lower sleeve area failed to yield chemical indications of blood.

    Stain A yielded a complete DNA profile that matched Zimmerman. There is a possibility of an additional contributor to stain A.

    Stain B yeilded a complete DNA profile consistent with Martin.

    Stain D yeiled a mixed profile with at least two donors. At least one donor was male. Major and minor contributors could not be established. Both Zimmerman and Martin are possible contributors to the mixed profile.

    Stain E yielded a complete DNA profile consistent with Martin.

    General rubbings from right cuff/lower sleeve yielded no DNA foriegn to Martin.

    General rubbings from left cuff/lower sleeve demonstrated the presence of at least two individual donors. Profiles foriegn to Martin were present. Results were insuffecient for inclusion/no determination regarding the possible contribution of Zimmerman to the mixed profile.


    Of the three stains tested, two (A,C) gave chemical indications of blood.Stain B and general rubbings of cuffs/lower sleeves failed to give chemical indications of blood.

    Stain A yielded a partial profile consistent with Martin.

    Stain C yielded no DNA results.

    Right cuff/sleeve rubbing yieled no DNA foriegn to Martin.
    Left cuff/sleeve rubbing yieled no DNA foriegn to Masrtin.

    Wow (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by Yman on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:19:58 PM EST
    Many American women make unfounded and exaggerated claims of domestic "violence" over trivial things these days when they're mad enough.  Both dropped charges.

    Is that what "many American women" do?

    One wonders (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:42:58 PM EST

    If the Reverend Al, the New York Times are proud of their rather shameful behavior.  

    One wonders ... (2.33 / 3) (#173)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 19, 2012 at 06:24:43 PM EST
    ... if you can find the open end of a paper bag without illustrated instructions.

    Of course they are (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:49:16 PM EST
    It is what they do.

    What (none / 0) (#4)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 18, 2012 at 07:50:29 PM EST
    did they do?

    Exercised their 1st Amendment ... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Yman on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:22:22 PM EST
    ... rights.



    first amendment rights (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri May 18, 2012 at 09:47:58 PM EST
    is that what we are calling race baiting slandering, twisting, convicting without evidence, witch hunting  etc.... these days?

    That's about it. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 18, 2012 at 09:52:34 PM EST
    Of course just because something is a "right" that doesn't mean that it should be done.

    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Yman on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:21:00 PM EST
    ... and just because you accuse someone of "race baiting slandering, twisting, convicting without evidence, witch hunting", ...

    ... doesn't mean it's true.


    answers (none / 0) (#23)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:00:48 PM EST
    Answer to Teresa......not worthy of an answer

    Answer to James....I couldn't agree more


    oooff (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat May 19, 2012 at 06:31:21 AM EST
    you really struck me a body blow there... took me a while to get my breath back.  = )

    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Yman on Fri May 18, 2012 at 10:19:30 PM EST
    Then again,...

    ... they didn't do that.


    yeah (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat May 19, 2012 at 06:34:55 AM EST
    they really did.  Didn't you notice how stupidly the left has looked the last few months having to back up mile after mile?  Makes me embarrassed to be a liberal, as if I didn't have so many other reasons since 2000.

    No, I didn't (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Yman on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:00:48 AM EST
    I did notice a lot of Zimmerman supporters making accusations of media bias, race baiting, slander, etc. against the media in general and occasionally the NY Times in particular, as well as the usual complaints about Sharpton.  Then again, ... accusations are easy.

    Of course, the accusations at hand are being made against "Reverend Al" and the NY Times specifically, as opposed to "the left".  But if we're going to lump unspecified comments/actions from "the left" into one big ball and attribute them to Sharpton and the NY Times, then I guess we should do the same with Zimmerman supporters on the right ... but there's a lot of pretty nasty stuff out there on the wagist, the blaze, conservativetreehouse, freerepublic, etc.


    Like what exactly (none / 0) (#101)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:23:14 AM EST
    by the bloggers as opposed to some of the commenters at the Wagist or ConservativeTreehouse?

    Seriously? (3.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Yman on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:41:30 PM EST
    Have you even been to those sites?  Like making accusations in the form of a question (i.e. "Was Trayvon Martin a drug dealer?"), guilt by association (a picture of someone purported to be his friend flashing what's described as a "gang sign"), invoking martin's image to suggest he had a threatening demeanor, describing Zimmerman's version of events as though they were established facts, offering imagined narratives as something other than hypotheticals, slectively choosing evidence which fits Linehan's narrative of Zimmerman as the victim and ommitting evidence to the contrary - all from a site that purports to be a news/journalism site, as opposed to an advocacy site.  Moreover, these are simply things that were so egregious the editor-in-chief was forced to publicly disavow them - though they remain on the site.

    That should get you started - if your question was really a question.  The conservativetreehouse is a joke - if you want to find the same kinds of things along with numerous attacks on the Martin family, it's all right there in the open.


    A fair and reasonable countervailing force to (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 03:35:09 PM EST
    Team Trayvon's lies and distortions, though a lot less influential, due to the biases of the MSM and the PC mindset, but hardly non influential.

    Also I've not seen either the Wagist or theConservativeTreehouse engage in intentionally misleading or lying spin as has been put out by Team Trayvon and a good number of their supporters.

    Speculation yes. Digging for Trayvon dirt?  To be sure.  Was there not a huge amount of scouring for Zimmerman dirt?  Of course there was by Team Trayvon.

    Is this stuff O'Mara should do?  No.  Some internet sites do to investigate a counter story against Trayvon, yes.  Why?  Well the whole narrative strategy of Team Trayvon (Crump and Julison with ok's form Trayvon's parents) was to make Trayvon look like an innocent and pure slight little kid who couldn't even hurt a fly if he wanted to, and Zimmerman to seem this big hulking, height unspecified beast of a 250lb man (once the cover on his not being white as was assumed by his last name was blown) who could effortless overpower unarmed except by skittles and an iced tea little bitty Trayvon.  

    And that had massive effect on early public opinion, and continues to have effect on some general and a whole lot of black opinion.  

    The MSM sure as hell weren't doing contrary to Team Trayvon's narrative investigative journalism stories worth squat, so conservative blogs did.  Good for them.


    Hahahahahahahahahaha ... (none / 0) (#167)
    by Yman on Sat May 19, 2012 at 04:48:55 PM EST
    You had me for a minute there.

    I almost thought you were serious ....


    From a person (none / 0) (#149)
    by Slayersrezo on Sat May 19, 2012 at 01:30:56 PM EST
    Who is basically claiming he or she didn't notice any race-baiting by Reverend Al, Crump, or Jesse Jackson, and can hardly be bothered to address the matter of regular media coverage, I say you have a long long LONG way to go before you can complain about how biased a BLOG is.

    You should read more carefully (none / 0) (#154)
    by Yman on Sat May 19, 2012 at 01:58:44 PM EST
    I never said anything about Crump or Jesse Jackson, and the claims went faaaaaaar beyond "race baiting".  Interesting that there's still no evidence to back up those claims.

    BTW - I, unlike the wagist, am not claiming to be a journalist.  But if you think I have a "long way to go" before complaining about bias, ... well ...

    ... that's just funny.

    Seriously .... funny.


    your posts will do that job (none / 0) (#85)
    by RKF on Sat May 19, 2012 at 08:10:36 AM EST
    Rubbish. Fact based and fair minded. You've (none / 0) (#160)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 03:40:26 PM EST
    never shown otherwise.

    Oh yeah, I do think the available evidence does come down way on Zimmerman's side.  I've thought that for awhile but I've always been willing to change my views as to his justifiable use of potentially deadly force if new evidence weights enough otherwise.  

    Unlike most of you "Zimmerman must be guilty" lot, I've given scenarios where I think he would be guilty of 2nd degree murder, which are as close to the know facts so far as I could make them, but sufficiently different to get there.

    I've never seen you do that in reverse.  


    Doug... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Angel on Sat May 19, 2012 at 04:48:11 PM EST
    You accused the funeral home director of lying about the injuries to Martin's body.  

    Yeah, you are soooooo very open minded.


    Whattt?? (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 18, 2012 at 08:47:42 PM EST
    So,they're guilty........................of something.

    Huge bias and buy the Crump & Julison (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:13:18 AM EST
    Commications and terrifically misleading photos uncritically.  

    The worst were ABC news, CNN news (especially Anderson Cooper), MSNBC of course, NBC with it's race baiting misleading quote of Zimmerman's police call (which got a producer and then a reporter fired, in an exercise of damage control over being sued for libel I imagine).

    The NY Times has handled this similarly to the Duke Lacrosse case, where the did finally in the end issue a couple of tepid apologies.  


    I mean for none of the major (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:17:00 AM EST
    media outlet to even question the up to dateness of that picture of Trayvon Martin when he was probably about 12 or maybe 13 that they ran for weeks as the only pic of him was ipso facto hugely biased and wanting to buy hook line and sinker into the Crump / Julison Communications narrative. It was outrageous -- and smoked out by conservative bloggers very soon after this became a national news story -- but the media kept running that obviously years old photo and some of them and some of them still are, though now using together with a more recent one, finally.

    No question. (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:51:33 AM EST
    I don't think there's any question that the two pictures provided for them by Crump and Julison that the media first ran for the first month of this investigation (and the only ones the ran in that time period) of Trayvon when he was probably 12 or 13 and looked like a little kid, and Zimmerman's face five or six years ago in a mug shot when he'd been drinking and weighed much more and had a scowling expression, greatly colored the public view of how wholly non believable it was that Zimmerman had to shoot an unarmed little kid to defend himself from him.  

    Yeah that was a spin job by Crump and Julison, but the leftie media let itself be spun.


    Oh and I'm not sure (none / 0) (#96)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:08:07 AM EST
    just what significant new information the special prosecutor and her two investigators have come up with.  Seems they've mostly just recycled the work of the Sanford PD.  Well they did take a deposition from DeeDee, but that's because on Crump's advice she wouldn't talk to the Sanford PD and the special prosecutor had been appointed when she was surfaced by Crump, or was very soon thereafter, iirc.

    I really, really, hope you are throwing these (none / 0) (#37)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:01:22 PM EST
    out there, as arguments a somewhat dishonest prosecutor might use to attempt to smear a defendant in the minds of the jury.

    Because mutual restraining orders (remember that  a woman got one against David Letterman because supposedly he was harrassing her through the TV)and a shove at an undercover plainclothes officer do not, to most normal people, a "history of violence" make.

    I deleted the comment (none / 0) (#184)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 19, 2012 at 07:45:11 PM EST
    you are replying to for saying Zimmerman has a violent prone history. That's a gross distortion and I'm not going to have such misrepresentations spread here.

    I'm with Dershowitz (none / 0) (#39)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:05:24 PM EST
    And I think Corey's rule in this is primarily political.

    Hey, Edwards is currently in the process of getting railroaded and we all know of the Duke case. This is hardly a wild conspiracy theory. So far after all the evidence that has come out, I'm still not even sure it was proper to charge Zimmerman in the first place, and people here have to come up with some pretty wild theories to explain how she plans to prosecute this as 2nd Degree murder.

    Overcharged. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Addison on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:11:07 PM EST
    I'm still confused (a little) about the range of options available for charging someone with a unjustified homicide in Florida. But 2nd-degree murder has always appeared to be an overcharge, given what it requires. There are things that need to be proved that can be argued, and perhaps successfully for some people, but probably never beyond a reasonable doubt for 12 people.

    Florida Homicide Statutes (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:40:42 PM EST
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Addison on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:48:45 PM EST
    Well, I have to thank you for the site, which is FAR more clearly organized than the ones I've found so far. But to be clearer than I was, my questioning was mainly about whether the manslaughter charge was encompassed in the murder charge -- can the jury "settle" for the lesser charge. I seem to recall Jeralyn saying they could. But I don't know.

    Yes (none / 0) (#58)
    by bmaz on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:59:26 PM EST
    You're Welcome (none / 0) (#61)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:08:13 AM EST
    I forgot to mention that Florida juries have six members for non-capital cases.

    Yup. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Addison on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:10:58 AM EST
    I actually knew that. But I don't know the historical reason.

    More easily organized than that (none / 0) (#108)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:35:14 AM EST
    is this listing off all of Florida chapter 776 by an official state of Florida web site.

     Justifiable Use of Force.


    Evidence? (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:14:42 AM EST
    The fact that some other prosecution(s) wasn't justified (or may have been politically motivated) has nothing to do with this case.  Do you have any actual evidence that this prosecution is politically motivated?

    It's self evident from the situation, (none / 0) (#112)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:58:58 AM EST
    what with all the media noise, all the black marching, dark musings that riots might be next, etc., that that is what lead to the special prosecutor being appointed by the governor, and it's self evident that she was under enormous pressure to charge and arrest Zimmerman.

    The nature of these things is that there's unlikely to be hard evidence that she caved to that pressure while not really believing that Zimmerman should be charged with 2nd degree homicide, but that's what a whole lot of highly esteemed criminal lawyers think, and even more now that there's been this first discovery document release.


    "Self evident"? - heh (none / 0) (#139)
    by Yman on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:50:30 AM EST
    Shorter answer ...



    I Totally Agree (none / 0) (#46)
    by DebFrmHell on Fri May 18, 2012 at 11:37:10 PM EST
    Just like I believe  they were politcally pushed into releasing the non-911 tape that was made by Zimmerman and Dispatch before they were ready.

    Fair enough, in the absense of evidence (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat May 19, 2012 at 12:36:47 AM EST
    of what actually occurred, the prosecution will attempt to portray the character of both GZ and TM and thereby paint a "what if" picture of what mayhaps might could have occurred, and hope the jury will align on TM's side. Align enough to believe it beyond reasonable doubt?

    Seems like a pretty tall order to me, but hey, who knows who will be on the jury. And, although ianal, I don't see that the prosecution has much other choice at this point...

    Audio of John (none / 0) (#73)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 03:04:50 AM EST
    I'm going through the audios at the NY Times. There are three more after Dee Dee's, on the left and down a bit from the top of the page.

    The next one is John. I've just learned that he backs up that the fight was 'on the concrete'.

    I am sorry... (none / 0) (#74)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat May 19, 2012 at 03:43:31 AM EST
    to be a bother but could you please link me to the 20 min interview she gave.  I looked high and low, probably more low, and I can't find it.  I would like to hear the whole thing.



    Dee Dee & de la Rionda (none / 0) (#75)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 03:53:44 AM EST
    It's on the NY Times page linked in the previous comment, under the title 'Mr. Martin's last phone call.'

    Input From John (none / 0) (#109)
    by RickyJ on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:40:03 AM EST
    At no point in any statement from him does he mention whether or not he turned on his light to better see the action going on in his back yard.  Unfortunately nobody asked him that.  We know that there was no moonlight and it was rainy.  In his last interview, he admits that he couldn't actually see who was screaming.  However he seems to be very sure that the guy on top wore a hoody and was pummeling the guy on the bottom.  I don't know if we can really accept that he could tell the colors, at that time, of the clothes of the participants.  I have seen mentioned that his view was 30 feet away through an open patio door.  Unless it was closer, I am not sure if I can be sure that he really observed Trayvon on top.  Of course we can infer that from other evidence.  

    Colors (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Mary2012 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:08:01 AM EST
    I don't know if we can really accept that he could tell the colors, at that time, of the clothes of the participants.

    Thanks for bringing this up.  I've wondered the same thing myself and even the investigators don't even appear to ask about it.  Gosh, even "store lights" can throw colors off some.  At least it used to be that way...


    he was very clear (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 19, 2012 at 08:04:35 PM EST
    on how he could only make out colors and the clothes, and why given the lighting. One persons clothes were darker than the other, that's not difficult to discern.

    He did say red and white rather than orange and gray, and he thought guy on top's jacket was black instead of gray, but the result is the same, he is accurately describing a difference in clothing between Trayvon and Zimmerman.


    The witness was able to discern (none / 0) (#131)
    by lousy1 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:14:16 AM EST
    the clothing worn by each of the participants, not the exact colors. He was certain that Treyvon was on top pummeling Zimmerman and that he was subsequently shot.

    What Interview? (none / 0) (#113)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:59:53 AM EST
    In his last interview, he admits that he couldn't actually see who was screaming.

    That's not correct, unless you mean a different interview than the one posted on the NY Times page that I linked.

    There is a new article posted (none / 0) (#128)
    by lousy1 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:10:12 AM EST
    in the Orlando Sun. May 18, 2012

    Witness Update

    "At first, I thought it was the person on the ground, just because, you know, me thinking rationally, if someone was on top, the person on the bottom would be yelling," he said.

    Now, though, he said, "I truly can't tell who, after thinking about it, was yelling for help just because it was so dark out on that sidewalk. You can't see a mouth ..."

    The witness did not, however, change his account that Trayvon was the one on top as he and Zimmerman fought. He identified both combatants by skin color and by the color of their clothes, although he described Zimmerman's orange jacket as red, and Trayvon's dark gray hoodie as black.

    John appears to be a very precise witness,


    Thanks lousy1 (none / 0) (#134)
    by RickyJ on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:22:49 AM EST
    It is very hard to find where you read something in this case.  John seems to be the only credible neighbor witness.

    Later John Interview (none / 0) (#130)
    by RickyJ on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:14:05 AM EST
    I know I have read of this second interview recently.  I think it was held in March at the police station. I couldn't find it in the document dump but I do remember that he said that he only inferred it was Zimmerman screaming since he couldn't see his mouth.  I hope somebody here can help.

    he has never wavered (none / 0) (#188)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 19, 2012 at 08:01:35 PM EST
    from saying he saw the two on the ground wrestling with the "darker" skinned male with a dark colored jacket on top and  a lighter skinned male with a red (or red and white) jacket on the bottom, that one yelled help and he ran inside to call 911.

    After talking to his neighbors, he decided that he just assumed the one crying for help was the one on the bottom. And it was possible that the man on top was struggling to restrain the man on the bottom rather than beating him up.

    His written statement and his audio statement on 2/26, the night of the shooting, are clear. In the 3/20 interview where he makes the changes I referenced, he says he began rethinking after he talked to his neighbors.  The 3/20 interview is very long, he goes over everything time and again. He says a few times it was a natural assumption he thinks anyone would make when they saw two people on the ground fighting, one on top of the other, and one crying out for help -- that the man on the bottom getting beat up would be the one crying for help.

    He also wasn't sure when asked on 3/20 that he had made eye-contact with the man on the bottom.

    He is witness number 6  -- "John." His fiance was also home with him that night.

    His Feb. 26 handwritten statement is at the top of page 86 in the 183 pages. Serino also quotes him is his 13 page report dated March 13, 2012.


    I didn't realize this change in his account (none / 0) (#199)
    by Darby on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:05:27 PM EST
    This seems like quite a big problem for Zimmerman's defense.

    Concrete (none / 0) (#201)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:12:32 PM EST
    I think it's more important that John saw the fight 'on the concrete'. Until now that was just Zimmerman's word and his wounds.

    John (none / 0) (#117)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 10:26:51 AM EST
    was sure that the body he'd seen on top hitting the guy on his back in his face, was the guy who was face down on the ground and who looked dead, after the gunshot.

    Under VAWA temportary restraining orders (none / 0) (#122)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 10:48:10 AM EST
    are automatic as soon as the cops make an arrest.  There's not even really any hearing before one is issued - neither the accused nor his lawyer can speak and one is issued even if the supposed victim doesn't want one.  For example the wife of that San Francisco sherrif didn't want one or her husband to be charged but he was anyway, due to some bruising on her arm where he'd held it he said (to keep her from slapping him?) as she tried to break it free.

    New Witness? (none / 0) (#126)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 10:57:26 AM EST
    On p. 41 of the evidence document is a summary of a statement from a witness who is acquainted with Zimmerman, and heard an argument in which 'there appeared to be three (3) exchanges of words'. She saw nothing.

    The summary doesn't say she called 911, and I don't see anything that identifies her with any of the 911 callers.

    I was going to ask if there were any other (none / 0) (#132)
    by Mary2012 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:16:39 AM EST
    documents re this one.  The audio for this is also on the NYT page containing Dee Dee's statement (audio).

    There is a written statement about someone standing in their kitchen; not sure if it's the same person but no mention is made re there was no fighting at the time the shot was fired.  


    More Documents (none / 0) (#140)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:50:52 AM EST
    I'm not sure what you mean.

    The third audio on the NY Times page is of a telephone joint interview with Cutcher and Lamilla. On this call they discuss future interviews at the police station.

    All three of these interviews, the joint telephone interview and separate interviews at the station, are summarized on p. 41, with the Cutcher one extending onto p. 42.


    That's probably Mary Cutcher (none / 0) (#133)
    by Cylinder on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:22:45 AM EST
    The statement related directly above the three exchange witness matches that of her roommate. As shown in the NYT audio tapes ("there was no fight"), Mary is desperate to interject herself into this case.

    The night of the shooting, Cutcher and freind saw nothing. Later that night, the roommate admitted that she did hear part of the altercation and gave a statement.

    My opinion is that they went home, saw the local news reports with the young Martin photos, became outraged and at least Cutcher recast her recollection of events to fit the desired narrative.

    Remember that we have witnesses such as John who saw the middle of the altercation and gave clear statements that have not changed. Since they were more favorable to the defense version, they were not selected by the media to do the circuit and therefore weren't under the same type of pressure to produce some newsworthy statements.


    Not Cutcher (none / 0) (#136)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:33:54 AM EST
    No, an interview with Cutcher is described begining at the bottom of p. 41.

    Cutcher didn't know Zimmerman, and only claims to have heard one voice.


    Yuo're right (none / 0) (#138)
    by Cylinder on Sat May 19, 2012 at 11:41:46 AM EST
    The later statement seems to match Cutcher better. Mea culpa.

    I'm curious about verbal exchange (none / 0) (#180)
    by willisnewton on Sat May 19, 2012 at 07:17:12 PM EST
    and this is another clue.

    Seems like this is Selma or Mary making a clarification.  

    But maybe this is like kindergarten and "everybody is right?'

    The exchange could be

    Martin Why are you following me
    GZ: What are you doing around here
    TM: (insult) or (repeating above)
    GZ (counter insult) or (repeating above)
    TM do you have a problem?
    GZ no
    TM you do now

    The part that interests me is that this may be the time the two
    are closing the gap from the top path down to the spot where the body is found

    but proving any of this is impossible.

    I'm just curious if this seems likely to others.


    Corey thinks cases should be tried in courts (none / 0) (#156)
    by Cylinder on Sat May 19, 2012 at 02:23:05 PM EST
    Angela "Justice for Trayvon" Corey thinks Sunshine Law a very bad idea, cases should be tried in courts:

    Talk about ironic timing. Special Prosecutor Angela Corey late Friday came out strongly against public records.

    "The public's right to know should never trump the state's right to a fair trial or especially the defendant's right to a fair trial," Corey said at a civic forum in Jacksonville.
    What is Corey's solution to curbing pretrial publicity? "I would say that nothing should be public until the trial comes," Corey told the forum.
    "Stop trying any of our cases in the media. Let us try them in the courtroom," she said Friday.

    I think she's (none / 0) (#162)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 04:31:55 PM EST
    (Corey) a menace to society, and I base that more on her charging a 12-13 year old boy with adult first degree murder, not on the basis of a gang land paid killing, but on the basis of his pushing his two or three year old brother hard against a bookcase and killing him.

    What the f*ck?  I'm and independent, a politically engaged one, not a raging leftist (or conservative one, though I do totally reject left wing PC lies), but what the f*ck with her???

    Get rid of her!!


    Her actions here (none / 0) (#163)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 04:33:08 PM EST
    are wrong too, but that was even worse.  

    It's on going, is my understanding.


    So, you do think cases should be (none / 0) (#179)
    by Anne on Sat May 19, 2012 at 07:11:19 PM EST
    tried in the media, then?  You disagree with the concept of a fair trial, on both sides?


    Would that fair trial thing be one of those "left wing PC lies" you totally reject?

    Something - perhaps the fondness for right-wing websites? - tells me you'd find Angela Corey to be a paragon of judicial system virtue if she had declined to indict George Zimmerman.


    Ann, the problem is (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Darby on Sat May 19, 2012 at 08:55:32 PM EST
    many people were assuming that when Corey indicted George on a murder 2 charge there was more evidence to the case to support the charge. Most(maybe all)legal experts I've heard believe the charge of murder 2 is baseless. Unless something new is introduced of course. We still haven't heard George's statements and how he might have incriminated himself. But I admit I am doubtful based upon the charging affidavit.

    As I understand the (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by lousy1 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 10:19:49 PM EST
    contention is "Situations that do not meet the thresholds and definitions  of a crime should not be tried in a court of law."

    Prosecutors AG's et al have a tremendous amount of power.

    If it is used outside the guidelines of the law whether for political expediency, playing to public opinion or personal aggrandizement IMHO a massive breach of the public trust.

    Out of control prosecutors are a greater threat than common criminals particularly when they apply or deny the power of the courts against unpopular individuals.

    On the other it's inevitable that controversies will be debated in the public sphere.


    Media supporters and they are legion (none / 0) (#165)
    by Doug1111 on Sat May 19, 2012 at 04:42:55 PM EST
    of Team Trayvon seem to be in full retreat and cover their asses mode to me now.

    The bulk of the released evidence is so far definitely on preponderance of the evidence, Zimmerman walks at the immunity hearing, side.

    I'll take your bet that he doesn't 'walk' at that (none / 0) (#169)
    by Angel on Sat May 19, 2012 at 04:50:29 PM EST
    hearing should one occur.  I bet this goes to trial by jury.

    true or false? (none / 0) (#175)
    by pitachips on Sat May 19, 2012 at 06:49:43 PM EST
    Zimmerman was told by the operator not to confront Martin, but did so anyways?

    False (none / 0) (#177)
    by Lora on Sat May 19, 2012 at 07:05:57 PM EST
    The operator told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that [follow Martin]."

    It is unclear whether Zimmerman sought out Martin or not.  In any case he was not told "not to."  


    Also (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Darby on Sat May 19, 2012 at 08:50:50 PM EST
    when told he needn't follow he responded okay. Shortly thereafter you can tell he stopped running (from the absence of prior wind noise and his panting). He continues to speak with operator for several minutes and it sounds as if he was not running that entire time.

    13 Seconds (none / 0) (#200)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:08:09 PM EST
    When Zimmerman said 'OK' he had been running for 8 or 9 seconds. He kept running for another 13 seconds.

    Fight Club (none / 0) (#182)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 19, 2012 at 07:31:23 PM EST
    I haven't taken time to look into the 'fight club' stuff. It sounds like the kind of gossip that gets accepted uncritically on extreme websites of any ideology. Didn't anybody screen capture the evidence before it disappeared?

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#187)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 19, 2012 at 07:52:00 PM EST
    it was based on a cousin's twitter account and is pure speculation.

    The twitter feeds are not evidence in this case as of this time.

    We now have sufficient, if not complete, documents and recordings that may be evidence from which to create theories. Please leave the gossip and unsupported ones out of it.

    This isn't writing a novel, it is trying to reconstruct what may have happened from official documents.


    Evidence Clarification Request (none / 0) (#205)
    by RickyJ on Sat May 19, 2012 at 09:23:41 PM EST
    1. Has it been definitely established that the blanket covered body was right in front of John's upstairs window?

    2. Where was Zimmerman's cellphone and flashlight found, and by whom?

    3. Where were Martin's cellphone, headset, skittles, and ice tea found?  I have seen two contradictory media statements about the tea, one that was in a hoodie pocket, another that it was on the ground.

    We're at 200 comments (none / 0) (#208)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 20, 2012 at 04:12:05 AM EST
    so this thread is now closed.

    As to the last comment about where Trayvon's items were found, not only are the statements of the officers contradictory, the evidence log on them is as well. Part of it is because some arrived after the items were moved. Other reports just seem wrong.

    The Iced tea was in his center pocket, and later, when an officer was about to do CPR, he removed it and put it on the blanket.

    He left 7-11 with the can in the bag. One of the ME reorts referencesGZ being injured with a thrown object.

    The skittles were in a white bag that had blood onthen or the bag. Most references to the headphones were either in his pocket or lying on the ground.

    I've accumulated all the misstatements and will get around to then as soon as I've finished the work in progress I've been writing all day today. I'll have at least one or two long posts up on Sunday, so check back.