George Zimmerman : State of the Evidence

I'm still working through the discovery in the George Zimmerman case. I have a long post I'm writing on Witnesses #6 and #13, who I think may be the most important witnesses to the criminal case.

One thing that stikes me is that police are no better than lay people as eyewitnesses. For example, in describing Trayvon Martin's clothes the night of the shooting:

  • Ofc. Ricardo Ayala, Page 14: 2/27/12, 2:28 am: Trayvon is lying in the grass, wearing a black sweater, blue jeans, white/red tennis shoes.
  • Officer Joseph Santiago, Page 16: 3/2/12: describing his participation on 2/26: Got to the scene, Trayvon was on his back, had gray sweatshirt, light colored shorts, white tennis shoes.

Trayvon had on a light grey Nike sweatshirt (ME-8) and a dark grey Fruit of the Loom hooded sweatshirt (ME-12.) (Report here. Curiously, the police reports list the sweatshirt as ME-12 and the hoodie as ME-8.) He was wearing tan pants, as is evident in the 7-11 video. [More...]

I've seen some questions in comments about the first 911 caller. She called in before the shot and keeps referring to "Jeremy", telling him to get down. Transcript and audio here and audio below).

I believe her handwritten statement from the night of the shooting is on p. 87 or on p. 103. She and "Jeremy" were both re-interviewed on March 2. Since recordings of their March 2 interviews are 12 minutes apart, I assume they went together.

She seems to be the witness Serino is referring to on page 41, who describes Zimmerman as "laid back" and says he was passionate about the watch program. I think she served on the Homeowner's Association board and that's how she knows of his activities in the watch program. (No link for that, it's based on my digging, not just the discovery.)

Bottom line is this witness and "Jeremy" didn't see anything at the time, they just heard stuff and called 911. But they were very close to the shooting site (which you can tell from the 911 call with the gunshot and yells.)

I haven't yet seen a map with the house numbers, so I made one. I'm not that great with adding text in Photoshop so the placements are approximate and not perfectly aligned. Since we don't want to use the names of witnesses who have not publicly come forward, it may be helpful to place witnesses by their number (W-6, W-13) by their location. I'll do that in a future map.

One item needs to be clarified. No one filed a capias the night of the shooting asking that Zimmerman be arrested. The capias request by Chris Serino is dated March 13, 2012. In his 13 page report dated the same day, Serino says he spoke to Asst State’s atty Kelly Jo Hines at 23:45 on 2/26 “and apprised her of circumstances.” There's no mention of anyone having an opinion Zimmerman should have been arrested or was not to be believed. I don't trust any of the media reports using unnamed police sources who may say differently.

Also, Serino says in his March 13, 2012 report that "the case was presented to" the state's attorney's office on March 8 at a meeting with Assistant State's Attorney James Carter that took place at the Sanford Police Department. (See p. 42 of 183.)That may be the earliest anyone with the Sanford Police had an opportunity to voice an opinion to the State's Attorney's office, other than in personal conversations.

Also on page 42, Serino says he received Zimmerman's medical records confirming his fractured nose on March 9. (So unbeknownst to O'Mara, they had them long before the bail hearing and the records made no difference to their charging decision.)

There's lots of questions about what was in Trayvon's pockets and the varied descriptions of the placement of the Arizona iced tea can, the skittles, the headphones, the lighter and the cell phone. I may do a separate post on that.

Witnesses who I don't think will play a big role: The confused older lady, Mary Cutcher and her roommate Selma, and 13 year old Austin Brown. The confused lady is too....confused and the roommates' stories have changed and evolved so much since their initial versions they will have no credibility.

As to Austin Brown, he only saw one person on the ground, thought he may have fallen and broken his leg, didn't get a look at him except to see he had a red shirt, could not discern his race, and he didn't see a fight or the gunshot.

The witnesses' recorded interviews are far more revealing than the 183 pages of discovery. They also take a lot of time to listen to and are not transcribed.

Who screamed may be a dead issue. As I'll explain in my next post, W-6 is no longer certain, Tracy Martin initially said it wasn't Trayvon's voice, and the FBI says it's impossible to tell. I think the FBI report will cancel out any other voice-expert who says differently. (W-6 still maintains Trayvon was on top during the physical struggle, he's just no longer sure he heard the scream coming from Zimmerman, as opposed to assumed it did because he was on the bottom.)

Nor do I think DeeDee will play a big role. She wasn't there, she is fairly inarticulate, she has a bias, she didn't come forward until Team Crump talked her into it, and her story has inconsistencies. She mainly can testify about George Zimmerman's following Trayvon, but that's not relevant to his self-defense claim, no matter how much the state wants it to be.

The state is left with: George made a bad judgment call by getting out of his car to look for Trayvon instead of waiting for the police. That's not a crime, and it's not provocation, let alone contemporaneous provocation, for Trayvon Martin's use of force against him. Even if it was, the state has no witness who said on the night of the shooting that George had an opportunity to extricate himself and avoid using deadly force.

The state has no witness from the night of the shooting to refute that Trayvon broke George's nose and banged his head into concrete (whether the cement manhole cover or the sidewalk) or was crying out for help. Opinions witnesses formed later that it was Trayvon or a child screaming won't carry much weight.

Any reasonable person in George's situation, on the ground, with a broken nose and having his head banged against cement, would fear serious bodily injury.

Your turn.

< Champions League Final | Sunday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The state's big argument (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by labrat on Sun May 20, 2012 at 08:11:50 PM EST
    The state is left with: George made a bad judgment call by getting out of his car to look for Trayvon instead of waiting for the police.

    leaves me unimpressed. If I was the defense I would simply counter this with Trayvon Martin's even more incomprehensible "bad judgement". Why didn't he just go straight home? The timeline PROVES he had plenty of time to do so. He chose not to.

    Might the State have more? (none / 0) (#170)
    by dontknowme on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:16:57 PM EST
    The fact that GZ left his car and was pursuing TM means NOTHING, because by both GZs account, the evidence of his police call, and DeeDee's statement Trayvon eluded GZ, at least for awhile. So, near the end of his police call, GZ is just a man walking around a neighborhood where he has every right to be. His loss of contact with TM represents a 'reset' button, if you will. This leaves several questions open: 1) What causes GZ to suddenly change his mind after agreeing to meet the officers at the mailboxes and say "Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?" 2) Is Angela Corey really so dense (or in the tank for Zimmerman) to present a case with evidence as thin as what has been revealed? I have my suspicions about #2 (which would be far less of a grand conspiracy than Watergate or Iran Contra, or the WMD, or even the Randall Dale Adams case), but for heuristic purposes if nothing else, let's imagine what else the State might have. With all that redaction we still have no idea what GZ himself told police about what happened that night. While the State may not have an eyewitnes who saw who started the fight, they may be able to prove Zimmerman lied in multiple elements of his statement. If his account is impeached, then you have the witness who saw one man pursuing another North toward the T, and DeeDee's account that Trayvon reported 'the man was following him again'. Benjamin Crump may not be the most trustworthy fellow, but I doubt he would have a successful practice if he were an utter fool. And suborning perjury from DeeDee would be extraordinarily foolish, as Crump would have no reason to expect her to be able to resist crumbling under pressure and admitting she was coached.

    This idea about Zimmerman (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:15:44 PM EST
    "has every right to...." may be the law, but to a jury of hopefully reasonable, intelligent, average people "the Law" may take a back seat to common sense and state of mind.

    Re DeeDee and the other witness (none / 0) (#172)
    by TerryMann on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:27:52 PM EST
    (1) "then you have the witness who saw one man pursuing another North toward the T," (2) "and DeeDee's account that Trayvon reported 'the man was following him again'."

    Unfortunately, both witnesses cannot be accurately representing what happened. In DeeDee's statement, she says Martin says he is not going to run when he sees Zimmerman again because he is tired. She says she is yelling at him to run and won't even though Zimmerman is getting closer. Then they exchange words.

    The other witness only had a "glance" at what happened without her contacts in and couldn't identify the shadows. Remember also that the 13-yr-old was walking his dog around that time and claims that it slipped its leash and he had to chase after it.

    I'm not saying who is truthful and who is not, just that the two accounts cannot stand side-by-side.


    If the fight started at the T... (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by redwolf on Mon May 21, 2012 at 02:48:23 AM EST
    does that mean Martin doubled back around from the other side(street side)?  Zimmerman was probably driven back from that area to where Martin's body ended up. Wouldn't that mean that Martin was actively stalking Zimmerman?

    Martin Doubling Back (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by J Upchurch on Mon May 21, 2012 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    I think Martin stopped running as soon as he got around the corner and Zimmerman was out of sight. He was probably sitting somewhere out of the rain, maybe on the porch at 1221. Zimmerman just walked past him in the dark. I think the encounter happened when Zimmerman was walking back to his truck.

    agree and I'll add this (none / 0) (#164)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:03:09 PM EST
    Sometime in that minute that TM reached the corner his phone rang.  It's another tragic step in this sad sequence of events that he likely stopped to answer it.

    If GZ was following him, which of course he admits, it seems he was facing east and likely looked down the T and decided that since the teen was not on the path he went east - the path continuing east is short, but the path continuing south is long.

    His father gives a clear enough account of GZ's likely moves if you look at the map while listening to it.  He's saying GZ went to RVC and then returned facing west on the same cut thru path.

    There is a dirt path rounding the corner in and out of the dog walk and if TM took it instead of the drier sidewalk, he'd end up in the back yards and GZ would have to look behind himself somewhat to see him in his dark grey hoodie.  

    On his trip west however, GZ is moving his perspective and facing in a natural way to see John's backyard and also by virtue of moving he might easily backlight the youth at some point - putting his vantage point at an angle where there is a light behind TM where there was not when he was facing mostly east.  

    Much has been made of why didnt TM run home, but consider his options as his phone rang.  He'd been frightened of a man in a car (possibly a moving car, this has not been established nor refuted at present) and had to consider his three basic options.  (North was blocked, hence the T intersection.)  

    If he went east (by any route, E or SE) he would find himself back on a street and at a disadvantage to a vehicle again.  It's also not the shortest route to his home.   Turning immediately back seems nonsensical, he'd just run from there.  

    But going south farther on the path meant exposing his whereabouts to a pedestrian pursuer, if the man was close enough to get to the T before he got to his door.  

    And going south also opened himself up to being cut off by the swifter car moving to the end of John's townhouse.  

    And remember this: he was a teenage boy who left the roadway - the domain of cars and adults, for the grass behind a townhome, where cars don't go.   TM may never have known if GZ exited his car or not until after he stopped running.  A car bothered him and so he left the roadway and assumed that was enough.  

    Most "road rage" minor incidents end when one leaves the freeway for a surface street.   It's when they take the same exit as you that you start to worry about an escalating situation.  

    But mostly, his phone rang and he answered it, speaking out of breath to Dee Dee and assuring her that he was "close enough" to home to be alright.  

    GZ's innocent path led back to his car, due west.  TM's led south to his home. The body ended up south of GZ's route.  Who closed the gap?    

    I've been wondering this for weeks, since we saw the yellow tarp in a video and heard from Robert Zimmerman the path his son may have taken.  Now we have more confirmation in the form of a "debris field" that has yet to be placed fully in geographical context by the discovery documents released to the public.  


    What about the call to DeeDee? (none / 0) (#165)
    by redwolf on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    Is that possible given that Martin was on the phone?  I don't really see a enough clearance where Martin could still be on the phone talking and Zimmerman didn't notice him.

    Zimmerman probably didn't go East (1.00 / 1) (#178)
    by dontknowme on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:57:52 PM EST
    It's not consistent with the physical evidence established by GZs police call. First, Zimmerman reports Martin as heading south before he leaves his car, and only seconds after he reports martin running. Unless Martin was already at the T (and why would he wait until then to run since he would have had his back to Zimmerman, who had not yet gotten out of his SUV) not even Usain Bolt could cover the distance from the East curb of Twin Trees Lane to the sidewalk and make a turn to the South in the 5 seconds that elapses between the time Zimmerman sees TM start to 'run' and the time he reports TM direction to the operator. 14 seconds after he reports TM moving to the South, and 11 seconds after he closes the door of his SUV, Zimmmerman tells the operator he is following TM. He continues running for another 10 seconds before beginning to slow down. The most plausible scenario is that Martin fled South down Twin Tress and Zimmerman pursued him in that direction. Even if Martin didn't 'run' until he was close to the T, more than enough time passes for Zimmerman to reach the T (approx. 50 yards from the "cut through"), and had he been following Martin, as he says, he too would have had to turn South down the sidewalk. Furthermore, given the fact he was running for more than 20 seconds, had Zimmerman gone East along the cut-through to check an address on RVC, he would probably have reached RVC no later than 19:12:30, and an even leisurely stroll back to his truck would have put him there by 19:14:00, a full 2 minutes and 11 seconds before the first 911 call. The numbers don't add up. Frankly, I don't think any of the investigators have done a serious scrutiny matching the events established by GZ's police call to the geography of the area. Serino certainly has his head up his butt when it comes to the physics of time and space. This lack of attention to detail has made me cringe since I started looking into this thing.

    On The Earbuds (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:29:06 AM EST
    Crump said at his big news conference about DeeDee:

    And all his family and friends knew Trayvon would have his ear plugs in his ear and he would have his phone on the side of his pocket. It was no different that day.

    The first police evidence logs say they were in his pocket.Later police reports say they were on the ground.

    Also interesting: Crump said he wears them all the time when talking on the phone.

    Crump also said in that interview that Deedee says he went over to Z's car to peer in the windows

    He then says, I think this dude is following me. And she talks about how he kind of slows down and he's trying to look in the car like, I think this dude is following me. And she tells him, baby, be careful, just run home. She tells him that.

    Constant contradictions. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by lentinel on Mon May 21, 2012 at 07:39:00 AM EST
    The first police evidence logs say they were in his pocket.Later police reports say they were on the ground.

    I also read that autopsy findings first showed no signs of bruises on Martin's hands. Then I read that no autopsy actually had yet be done. Then I read that an autopsy had been done and bruises were discovered.

    I read that Zimmerman showed no signs of bruises on his head or face. The video of him entering police headquarters was described as establishing that. Then, we have been told and shown that there were bruises to his face and head.

    And, I would add, I consider Obama's statement about his hypothetical "son" to have been somewhat ill-advised.

    The state of our media is as unreliable and hysterical as it has ever been. (With the outstanding exception of TalkLeft and Jeralyn.)


    'Absence of Malice' (none / 0) (#130)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:33:30 AM EST
    "You don't write the truth, you write what people say!"
    I love that quote from the movie. One day, a parent repeats what he says a police officer told him. Another day, a lawyer makes a claim. The next day, a parent speaks out. The media often will report this new statement with attribution, but many people will be influenced, even if they're savvy enough to realize people with different perspectives and agendas are talking.

    I missed where the autopsy (none / 0) (#146)
    by DizzyMissL on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:20:08 PM EST
    said Trayvon had bruises on his hands.  Can you please point that out for me?

    I believe it has been reported that he had a (none / 0) (#177)
    by Angel on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:55:17 PM EST
    small abrasion about 1/4 inch in size on his left ring finger below the knuckle.  

    One can look or try to see inside a car (none / 0) (#99)
    by vicndabx on Mon May 21, 2012 at 07:49:45 AM EST
    w/o walking over to it.  I think your comment is misleading.

    he went over to Z's car


    he's trying to look in the car

    except Zimmerman says (none / 0) (#136)
    by ding7777 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:58:47 AM EST
    "Yeah, now he's coming towards me"

    "Yup, he's coming to check me out"


    However he does not say (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by ruffian on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:14:58 PM EST
    he is 'peering in the windows', which implies his face is a couple of inches away.

    Sure is a lot made in this case of Martin's manner of looking at things....


    Why I think Dee-Dee is important (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by amateur on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:39:01 PM EST
    1)She establishes that TM started running from at or near the mailboxes, not right at the cut through where GZ's car was.  Based on the pretty good infographic at the Miami Herald, that's roughly 400 ft to the T.
    2)She establishes GZ's demeanor as aggressive (if you find her credible) in his response to TM's query.  This is corroborated by other witness accounts of "authoritative" and "dominant" voices.  And while GZ sounds very mild mannered when speaking with an authority figure on the phone, that's no indication of what he would sound like if he were confronting a kid.
    3)The very fact that TM was on the phone with her makes the idea that he surprise jumped GZ less credible.  I know this is the age of multi-tasking but I think jumping someone is one of those tasks you would want to wrap up a call for.

    Also, I would note that "right by" as an indicator of distance can mean a lot of different things to different people.

    So it would be OK to (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by TerryMann on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:48:49 PM EST
    lead creepy stalker-guy to the townhouse because the person inside wasn't Trayvon's "real" brother? -- It doesn't matter who was home. Inside behind a locked door is far safer than outdoors. And if you find DeeDee credible then, as I pointed out above, Martin had pretty much already reached where he was staying with no Zimmerman in sight.

    damage from a punch (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:06:36 PM EST
    I'm not sure if this is the appropriate thread, but Slate had an interesting article about how much damage a fist can do. This would be a rebuttal to those who think an unarmed person is no threat.

    Straw arguments (none / 0) (#191)
    by Yman on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:24:32 PM EST
    This would be a rebuttal to those who think an unarmed person is no threat.

    They're a lot easier to knock down.


    not posting under two names (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by lily on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:48:38 PM EST
    TL would not allow me to log on for a few days due some glitch, tried to recover password, no luck

    eventually I decided to rejoin and obviously to do so I had to select a new name.

    Look, for years I have read this blog among many.

    I only recently bothered to spend my time with a post or two.

    I quickly learned to avoid the few posters who I believe suffer deeply from cognitive dissonance, and will not respond to insincere or intellectually dishonest tactics.

    I responded only to clear up the name confusion.
    No conspiracy theory applies, you can chill out, or figure out why the site denied my log on.

    I do not need to explain

    No conspiracy theory (none / 0) (#207)
    by Yman on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:55:47 PM EST
    Just wondering why.

    Doug, you have no idea how fearful Martin was. (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Angel on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:26:35 PM EST
    [new] No good. (none / 0) (#217)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:23:36 PM EST

    He didn't call 911, he wasn't that fearful.

    What About Chad? (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:25:52 PM EST
    I've found nothing in the written material to suggest that Chad has been interviewed.

    We know there was time for Martin to reach his home and return to the shooting site. Chad should have been asked if he saw TM, if only to get a denial into the record.

    If Martin was 'right by' the house, did Chad see him out a window?

    We know Martin had THC in his blood, and that he was on suspension for possession. I don't think it's baseless to speculate that he many have had drugs on him that night, and hiding the 'stash' could account for some of his missing time.

    If TM had returned home, do you think he (none / 0) (#235)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:44:54 PM EST
    would still have the iced tea and skittles on him at the time of the shooting?  And wouldn't it also have given GZ enough time to get back to his vehicle (if TM were really that close to Brandy's home)?

    I took Dee Dee's statement as being relative to how far away he was while at the store...



    RickyJ, Evidence Clarification (none / 0) (#1)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 03:36:39 PM EST
    Responding to comment on earlier thread.

    Officer Anthony Raimondo, second on scene and first to contact Martin, reported 'As I lifted the shirt, I felt a large, cold can in the center pocket.' (p. 16)

    Revival efforts pushed the can out of the pocket, so the inventory lists show it collected from on top of the blanket used to cover the body.

    The flashlight was found 'near the T portion of the walkway' by Officer Joseph Santiago.

    I think Zimmerman had his phone on him. The inventory list would confirm that if true. It starts at p. 5 of the evidence document.

    Martin's phone was found on the ground, I think not far from his body.

    The candy was in one of Martin's pockets, according to the inventory. (p. 7)

    I've saved the worst for last. The headphone problem may never be resolved, because someone got sloppy. The inventory (p. 7) says they were in one of Martin's pockets, but one of Serino's field reports (p. 20) says they were on the ground next to the body.

    The same report says a photo button/pin was fastened to Martin's clothing. (This is probably the one Zimmerman mentioned to the dispatcher.) The inventory says the button was found in a pocket. So it seems someone was careless about logging items as found in pockets.

    If the headphones were found on the ground, they should have been given an object locator number. I haven't seen one.

    Testimony may resolve this. But if no one owns the mistake, we may never know.

    This could be very important (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:07:10 PM EST
    Girlfriend DeeDee said she knows Zimmerman attacked Martin because she heard the headphones fall to the ground. If they were in Martin's pocket, that invalidates her claim. It would also give credence to the premise that Martin intended to physically confront Zimmerman. If he took the time to take them off and physically disconnect them from the phone (not a Bluetooth device?), that shows a presence of mind that was preparing for physical action.

    Evidence Placement Significance (none / 0) (#3)
    by RickyJ on Sun May 20, 2012 at 04:06:08 PM EST
    Thanks, the significance of Zimmerman's flashlight being found close to the T is that it corroborates his story of being attacked while crossing the T from the east.  I thought I read that his phone was found directly across the walkway from the flashlight.  That certainly is more consistent with his story of being sucker punched as he was trying to make a call.  It is believable that the fight migrated from the T to John's lawn.  

    If Trayvon wasn't wearing his headphones, under his hoodie at the time of the attack, it certainly makes it harder to believe DeeDee.  He seems to be wearing them at 7/11.  Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was holding an unknown object.  If it was his cellphone to his ear, than he certainly would have known what it was.  Of course, Martin could have put it into his pocket as a prelude to the confrontation.  


    Filling The Roster (none / 0) (#2)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 04:02:31 PM EST
    Seven 911 calls, two before the shooting and five after.

    The five later callers include Mary Cutcher, the sister of Austin Brown, John, and The Teacher.

    The fifth was interviewed at her home by Chris Serino on March 10. Summaries of the interview are on p. 42 and p. 49 of the evidence documents. The first is part of a report (pp. 35-47) prepared by Serino and dated March 13. The second is part of another Serino report (pp. 48-54) dated March 18.

    The witness called 911 at 7:18, about a minute after the first police officer arrived.  

    In her interview the witness reported observations not mentioned on her 911 call. Like Austin Brown, she saw one person on the ground calling for help. She saw a person talk to him that she thought was a neighbor, but couldn't identify.

    The p. 49 summary suggests that by March 18, police had made a probable identification of the neighbor, the name of course redacted.

    The witness described the calls for help as 'crying' and 'groaning'. On her 911 call she said 'screaming.'

    Also on p. 49: 'She stated that at first she associated the sounds she heard as her elderly neighbor possibly having a heart attack.'

    The elderly neighbor was mentioned on her 911 call.

    I think your "teacher" (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 20, 2012 at 05:26:50 PM EST
    is who I am referring to as the "confused lady."

    Her statements to police need to be considered with her statements to CNN -- I described them here. Just like she took up too much time on her 911 call (talking about herself), she takes up too much time in her police report. No one else's statement is 13 pages. Here's both her 2/26 and later statement in one place.

    Here are the TV transcripts of her and her lawyer, complaining she was neglected, and basing her opinion of what happened during the struggle on what she saw after the gunshot.

    'Teacher's" Statement (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by dontknowme on Sun May 20, 2012 at 11:21:28 PM EST
    Her 13 page statement was NOT made to the police. Because, like Mary and Selma, she felt both manipulated and ignored by Chris Serino. So she hired an attorney, who in turn engaged a private investigator named John Wright to take a detailed statement. If you listen closely to her 911 call, she is "distraught," as SPD labeled her, but not confused. In fact, she is the only witness who actually maintains eye contact with the scene and describes events as they occur, rather than just relaying things they saw before calling.

    she didn't see anything (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:51:48 AM EST
    identifiable at the time before the shooting so her descriptions are of limited value. The problem is how she chose to interpret what she saw at the time after the fact. She's mixed up her original memory with the memory she has of events minutes later.

    Distraught is putting it mildly, as I've said before, the dispatcher offered to send an ambulance, then an officer and a victim's advocate. Her house wasn't "right there" because she says on the 911 call that others' porches were closer, they probably could have helped.

    She said, "I don't know the circumstances."

    She never said the voice sounded like a young boy until after she saw that Trayvon, the young boy, was dead.

    Everything from her written statement the night of the shooting  to her later statements is the product of her being distraught over a young boy being dead.

    It's perhaps understandable that she was distraught, but her post-event conclusions formed after she learned a young boy died  are a distraction.  She had more than 10 minutes to say something meaningful during her 911 call and she didn't. She said it was dark and she couldn't see. There's no reason to trust her after the fact new memory. It's not reliable despite her professed good intentions. Again, mistaken eyewitnesses are rarely lying, they are just mistaken, because of the external factors that have influenced their memory .


    After the fact new memories (1.50 / 2) (#162)
    by dontknowme on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:54:45 PM EST
    "There's no reason to trust her after the fact new memory." If so, that goes for John times 100.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by TerryMann on Mon May 21, 2012 at 02:32:17 PM EST
    ""There's no reason to trust her after the fact new memory." If so, that goes for John times 100. " -- No, the two situations are entirely different. John is realizing and admitting that he made an assumption based on what he saw--a man in black on top of and beating a man in red. (BTW I do happen to think his assumption is reasonable, that man being beaten is calling for help.)

    The distraught witness seems to have done the opposite--taken what she directly observed and added her assumptions to it.


    The other, more important (none / 0) (#182)
    by amateur on Mon May 21, 2012 at 02:54:58 PM EST
    aspect of John's later statement, IMO, is that he doesn't know for sure that the guy on the bottom was being hit, just that the dark hoody was on top and there was a struggle/wrestling.  That makes a huge difference because without witnesses who can show TM hitting him more than once "MMA style" we have only evidence that he was hit once in the nose, which GZ says knocked him to the ground. All of the eyewitness testimony is suspect in one way or another due to the high stress, darkness, weather, and the amount of news coverage that followed.  I think John was the closest and had the clearest view, so his may be the most valuable.  

    2-shot witnesses (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cylinder on Mon May 21, 2012 at 02:10:32 AM EST
    I'm starting to work under the hypothesis that the 2-shot witnesses were further from the altercation and probably on the opposite rows of townhouses. They would have heard the initial report quickly followed by the echo of the shot reverberating against the near-side block of townhouses.

    Regardless, it's hard for me to reconcile the witness is able to discern between fine points such as "agrumentative," "younger" and "older" while getting more obvious auditory characteristics wrong such as 2 shots v shot-and-echo.

    Also, I wonder if there's any spatial corrolation between the the witnesses that report an argument, a pause then the terminal altercation. This could point to some words exchanged that were out of range (or at least beyond the range that would draw attention) of the people best placed to eyewitness part of the fight and then the gunshot.


    Two Shots Again (none / 0) (#87)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:21:13 AM EST
    Which witnesses claim two shots?

    The first I heard of two shots was after the tapes were released. On the first 911 tape there's a sound, about 17 seconds before the actual gunshot, that sounds much the same to someone listening to the tape. The caller and dispatcher ignore the first sound, then react strongly to the actual gunshot.

    When the tapes came out, the Martins' lawyers made a huge fuss about two gunshots, 17 seconds or so apart, proving that Zimmerman killed Martin in cold blood. Then a lot of news reports started saying two gunshots, but in every case I checked they sourced the Martins' lawyers rather than vouch for it themselves. (There was a post at Just One Minute claiming the NY Times vouched for it, but the blogger was wrong. The NYT report used ambiguous wording, so a reader couldn't tell if the reporter was vouching for the second shot or taking the lawyers' word.)

    None of the 911 callers mentioned a second shot on their calls. Some of the dispatchers asked how many shots, and always got the answer 'one'.

    The distraught ex-teacher told CNN's Anderson Cooper that she heard 'more than one pop noise'. I haven't heard that she has ever claimed exactly two.


    At least 2 witnesses (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cylinder on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:52:20 AM EST
    At least 2 witnesses report more than one shots in their statement - the one referenced above and this one.

    Of course we know they are wrong, since Zimmerman had 7+1 - a full mag and a chambered round.


    You are correct on the echo (none / 0) (#142)
    by dontknowme on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:12:47 PM EST
    Yes, the witnesses who heard two shots live on Retreat View Circle, and several units south of where the shooting occured. The gunshot has a long echo becuase it's very loud. On the other hand, what the 'earwitnesses' say about tone of voice is completely consistent with what they would have been able to hear. The short term reverb created by the parallel walls of the buildings would have muddied the sound considerably, to the point where they would have had difficulty discerning words. But pitch, timbre, and the shifts in those that indicate emotion carry forward. It's like being in a cheao motel room and hearing an argument on the other side of the wall. You can't make out what anyone's saying, but you can tell one voice from another, and you know it's an argument, not a party.

    Ah, yes (none / 0) (#27)
    by rickroberts on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:12:02 PM EST
    She is the one who said she had no one to call to be with her. No friends or family. She is a lonely attention seeker. This is all a rare bit of drama in her life, it seems.

    It seems to me (none / 0) (#4)
    by Payaso on Sun May 20, 2012 at 04:07:27 PM EST
    that this case is either self defense or involuntary manslaughter (imperfect self defense).

    I just can't see how Angela Corey gets to 2nd degree murder with these facts.

    Crowded Page (none / 0) (#5)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 04:08:02 PM EST
    P. 42 of the evidence documents has a few points of interest.

    There's a report of Austin Brown's first police interview, on March 5, eight days after the shooting. Still no explanation for the delay.

    At this time Brown still believed the man on the ground was 'yelling for help,' and said he 'looked like he couldn't get up'. This report confirms that Brown said the man wore red.

    For more on Austin Brown, see my earlier comment.

    Zimmerman saw Martin enter the community 'between residences from the northwest.' That sounds like the notorious shortcut.

    Chris Serino's report inaccurately asserts:

    According to records checks, all of Zimmerman's suspicious person calls while residing in the Retreat neighborhood have identified Black males as the subjects.

    See here and here.

    Perhaps Austin Brown's parents would not consent (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:39:55 PM EST
    to his being interviewed earlier.  

    Not Mom's Story (none / 0) (#84)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 02:15:51 AM EST
    Cheryl Brown has said the Sanford PD didn't try to contact the Browns until March 2.

    Politics Nation (Al Sharpton) March 28


    What Does the State Have? (none / 0) (#6)
    by RickyJ on Sun May 20, 2012 at 04:15:59 PM EST
    I think we don't really know.  If I must guess:

    1. There may be serious contradictions in Zimmerman's 3 police interviews.  Unfortunately it might be quite a while before they are public.

    2. Possible character witnesses for Trayvon who will testify how he never got physical or confronted anybody.  They need teachers, coaches, friends to back up what the family has already said.

    Maybe you can tell us Jeralyn whether you have seen a prosecution go forward, only having evidence as poor as they have released already.

    the state has a (none / 0) (#19)
    by lily on Sun May 20, 2012 at 05:28:39 PM EST
    political indictment

    As Dershowitz has suggested (none / 0) (#25)
    by rickroberts on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:10:23 PM EST
    If true, are there professional or legal sanctions?

    which is why Corey is stepping back (none / 0) (#28)
    by lily on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:19:42 PM EST
    in her most recent statements, even the Orlando papers are questioning her job performance.

    I have always found it ironic, that TM supporters respect Corey, really look at her record of overcharging and increase incarceration rates of minorities.


    Well, that is just (none / 0) (#31)
    by rickroberts on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:32:26 PM EST
    the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Human nature. I understand it.

    What does that mean? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Yman on Sun May 20, 2012 at 08:09:41 PM EST
    Corey is "stepping back in her most recent statements"?

    Sanctions (none / 0) (#29)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:22:55 PM EST
    Nifong spent a whole day in jail.

    I'm not saying Corey is like Nifong. I'm just pointing to a bench mark.

    I'm wondering if Dee Dee's 'You want that too?' is sufficient grounds to investigate possible witness tampering by the Martins' lawyers.


    I don't think that is sufficient grounds (none / 0) (#63)
    by rjarnold on Sun May 20, 2012 at 09:09:53 PM EST
    in and of itself. She had trouble understanding several of his questions and it seemed like there was a communication barrier or something. Also De La Rionda would have a more authoritative view on whether there was witness tampering than someone just listening to the recordings.

    Thanks, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#7)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 04:16:47 PM EST
    Jeralyn, thanks for the address chart. You saved me the work I was about to start on.

    I think I've looked at all the written witness statements, including the handwritten ones. I haven't seen anything for the second 911 caller, who thought she saw a 'white tee shirt.'

    it's hard to describe (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 20, 2012 at 05:08:12 PM EST
    all the 911 calls by number since different sites post them with different numbers. When the sanford website first posted them, they said they were in no particular order.

    Other than the first call, I'm not sure what the correct order is. But the caller who mentioned the white tee-shirt is the caller who said she is 30 years old.

    Your comment made me realize that she could have written the statement on p. 87, and caller 1 could have written the one on p. 103, so I added that above.

    I'm going to try and use the police witness numbers for them so I don't get them mixed up.


    #1 & #2 (none / 0) (#23)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:03:02 PM EST
    There are only two 911 callers who called before the gunshot. On one call the gunshot is at 45 seconds. On the other it is earlier, and happens during a redaction. You can tell because of how the caller and the dispatcher react.

    I call these two the first and second caller. After that I agree there is no clear order.

    I also mentioned the tee shirt, because I knew some readers wouldn't understand who I meant by 'the second caller.'


    ok, she is (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:48:06 PM EST
    witness #3. She was interviewed again on March 19. She only looked outside for a second and again says she saw a guy with a white shirt on top. His back was to her. In the March 19 interview, she says she realizes neither had a white shirt. "I was confused though, because there was no one in a white shirt, was there? That's what confused me, when the guy in handcuffs had a hoodie on."

    She was right next door to the shooting. She was upstairs and her window was open. She only looked out for an instant when she heard the yell for help and then got scared and called 911. She didn't look out again until police were there. She was on the phone with the dispatcher when the gun went off but it's nowhere near as loud as in the first caller's 911 call who was next door on the other side.


    W3 (none / 0) (#67)
    by dontknowme on Sun May 20, 2012 at 11:57:51 PM EST
    What makes you think W3 was next door to the shooting? In her 911 call, also mentioning the white t-shirt, she explicitly describes the arrival of the police, observing that the officer does not know where to go, and repeatedly tells the 911 operator that the officer had to go BEHIND the building. Ofc. Smith, who was first to the scene reports he drove down Twin Trees Lane, and seeing nothing, drove around to Retreat View Circle, where he exited his cruiser. It would seem to be at this point that W3 observed him, making her location on RVC, not Twin Trees, thus somewhere across from the shooting, not next door.

    In her interview (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:16:08 AM EST
    on 3/19/12, she refers to the struggle and shooting as being at the "next house over." She says the struggle she saw was right by the concrete block in the grass at her next door neighbors. There's a concrete block in the grass at 1221 Twin Trees Lane.  

    The 911 operator said one officer should already be there and two others are on their way. Maybe it was one of the other officers she saw, and that officer had driven to the front of Twin Trees Lane, while the others, including Smith, went to RVC.

    I think the first 911 caller (whose fiance is Jeremy) lives at 1211 Twin Trees lane, the body was found right in back of 1221 Twin Trees Lane (where W#6, "John" lives) and w#3, who saw the white tee-shirt lives at 1231 Twin Trees Lane.

    I could be wrong and if so, appreciate the correction. Do you know that there weren't any police cars that pulled up to the front of Twin Trees Lane houses? I don't know if they did or didn't.


    Police (none / 0) (#111)
    by dontknowme on Mon May 21, 2012 at 10:11:31 AM EST
    It is confusing, like much of this case. There are photos of police cars parked on Twin Trees. However, after seeing the Ofc. in front of her house, W3 goes to her back window to see if he gets around to the scene, and it's some time before he does. So, she's clearly referring to the first Ofc. on the scene, i.e. Smith. However, my assumption that she saw him get out of his cruiser on RVC is not necessarily correct, given the other statements you've mentioned. One also has to consider the lag time between a caller reporting something to the 911 operator, the 911 operator typing data into a computer system, a dispatcher reading the data typed in response to multiple incoming calls, and then relaying instructions to the Ofc. in the field. So it's possible she lives on TT, and that Smith paused his car more or less in front of her house before driving on, and she went to her back window before he drove around to RVC, not yet having received the proper instructions from the dispatcher. What W3's 911 call establishes is the time Smith arrived at the actual crime scene, which was not 7:17 as many news stories have reported. 7:17 marked his arrival at The Retreat. He had apparently been sitting in the parking lot of the school on the other side of Oregon Ave., thus arriving in the general area of the incident during the same minute in which he received the dispatch. However, one way or the other, he wanders around driving or or foot not knowing exactly where to go, and the 911 calls establish that the earliest he could have actually reached the rear of 1221 TT was approx. 7:18:45.

    Twin Statements (none / 0) (#69)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:37:06 AM EST
    If W3 was upstairs when she first heard the screams, she didn't write p. 87 or p. 103. Those two statements are very similar. It seems likely they are Jeremy and fiancee describing the same events.



    your're right (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:12:23 AM EST
    in my post (not comment) I wrote the first 911 caller's handwritten statement from the night of the shooting is on p. 87. After reading your comment and re-reading the statements, looking for a statement by W#3,I found p103 and that seemed like it could have been written by the first 911 caller, so I added it to my post.  I was thinking the first 911 caller wrote one and W3, the second caller might have written the other. But you are right, W#3 didn't write either, one was the first 911 caller and the other was Jeremy.

    Sorry for confusing you (and myself.) So to answer your question, no I haven't seen handwritten statement by W#3 written Feb. 26, but I stopped looking when I hit p. 103.


    No More (none / 0) (#82)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:36:41 AM EST

    I've made quick pass through all 183 pages, with at least a glance at each page to determine its character. There are no more handwritten witness statements after p. 103.


    You have no evidence ... (none / 0) (#9)
    by rickroberts on Sun May 20, 2012 at 04:31:24 PM EST
    for this outrageous claim, and I predict you comment will not be here for long. We prefer a dispassionate discussion of the evidence over hyperbole.

    the comment you are (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 20, 2012 at 04:41:24 PM EST
    replying to was deleted for a totally unsupportable claim of a grand conspiracy.

    Just Curious (none / 0) (#10)
    by RickyJ on Sun May 20, 2012 at 04:33:05 PM EST
    What sort of function do those white fences between apartments have?  They certainly don't give much privacy.

    Just demarcation (none / 0) (#11)
    by rickroberts on Sun May 20, 2012 at 04:35:55 PM EST
    My guess.

    Dee-dee (none / 0) (#13)
    by rickroberts on Sun May 20, 2012 at 04:45:39 PM EST
    I, too, have wondered how she could be a part of the prosecution's case since she came in so late and Crump got a crack at her first.

    The only thing that could be relevant from my layman's perspective is that talking on the phone can cause a person to wander about and perhaps use his arms and hands, perhaps explaining why George thought Trayvon was acting strangely and "on drugs or something."

    And did George also say on the call that Trayvon was looking in houses? I need to go listen again.

    'AT' Not 'IN' (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 04:51:19 PM EST
    These two little words do not share a single phoneme. Why do some people have such a problem keeping them straight?

    I know the difference (none / 0) (#24)
    by rickroberts on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:03:31 PM EST
    I thought I heard in, but I will go listen again. What is your point though?

    The point. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Addison on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:11:38 PM EST
    "Martin was looking in houses" makes his behavior out to be quite suspicious, as it sounds like he's snooping around looking in windows -- casing houses for robbery.

    "Martin was looking at houses" is not, in itself, even remotely suspicious. In a condo development like that if you don't want to look at a house you have to look straight up or straight down.

    So the difference between "in" and "at" is very important (at least insofar as the state's case regarding "profiling" will matter), and at times people have appeared to use "in" to bolster their case that Martin was behaving like a thief. When the mistake is made, it's best to correct it immediately to avoid misinformation.


    Well, as it turns out (none / 0) (#40)
    by rickroberts on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:47:28 PM EST
    I was wrong about what I heard. Zimmerman simply said Martin was looking about. Never mentioned the word houses. Sorry about that.

    He says "houses", too, later on... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Addison on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:50:30 PM EST
    Zimmerman later says, of Martin: "He's [unintelligible], he was just staring...looking at all the houses...now he's just staring at me."

    "He's just staring . . . (none / 0) (#47)
    by Rand11 on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:55:42 PM EST
    . . . looking at all the houses" is in keeping with statements GZ made just prior regarding TM's overall behavior: "This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."

    Okay. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Addison on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:57:50 PM EST
    And that's fine. But Zimmerman did not say, "in", so the use of "in" is misinformation, it's misinformation with the effect of making Martin's behavior seem more innately suspicious, and it should be corrected.

    yes, lots of people (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 20, 2012 at 05:12:03 PM EST
    have mentioned that if Trayvon was using earbuds and had the phone in his pocket, it would have appeared he was talking to himself, and especially if he was gesturing, would have made his behavior seem odd.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#17)
    by denny on Sun May 20, 2012 at 05:14:57 PM EST
    There are a number of passages in the discovery dump that are blacked out. One in particular is , on page 39, following  Detective Serino's remark that he spoke to ASA Kelly Jo Hines. Perhaps this blacked-out information, once revealed, will shed some light on your finding that ." There's no mention of anyone having an opinion Zimmerman should have been arrested or was not to be believed ".

    Particulalrly curious is another blacked-out passage in the february 27th report, page 14, made by Officer Timothy Smith, the first officer on the scene.  I was able to find the contents of his blacked out passages on the original police reports that were made public a while back, here is the link : http://www.scribd.com/doc/87828890/Sanford-FL-police-report-on-Trayvon-Martin

    In the 1st passage that is blacked out (in discovery dump), Officer Smith writes (february 27th :
    "Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD. While the SFD was attending to Zimmerman, I overheard him state "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me. At no point did I question Zimmerman about the incident that had taken place. Once Zimmerman was cleared by the SFD, he was transported to the Sanford Police department where he was questioned by investigators.

    Here is the interview of the SFD parademic who attended to Zimmerman. The DA makes a point ask him if Zimmerman made any statements to him, his reply was no.
    http://axiomamnesia.com/2012/05/18/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case-witness-interviews-statement s-full-audio/

    Re the axiomamnesia audio (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by TerryMann on Sun May 20, 2012 at 08:24:31 PM EST
    Denny, I don't how reliable the audio is from that site. The interview with Martin's female phone friend has a couple minutes chopped out of the middle of it, including the parts where she says Martin got "near his dad's house" and that he "started walking back". The editing is pretty seamless; you can't hear a gap. But I have listened to the entire 22 minute interview and that's how I knew it was missing a part.

    ...that he "started walking back". (none / 0) (#76)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:13:02 AM EST
    I am so glad you heard that, too.  I thought I was mistaken.  I went and read a transcript and it wasn't in there.

    I thought at the time she was referring to him walking back towards the T intersection and I couldn't understand why de la Rionda didn't go farther in his questioning.  She had stated that there as a couple of minutes that went by and she made no mention of what activities Martin was doing.

    I wondered if it corresponded wth the couple of minutes that TM was out of the sight George Z.  He says "He's running"  and "towards the rear entrance" at about 2:08 and there is never another mention of where he physically is in that 4+ minute call to non-911.


    I listened to the audio again... (none / 0) (#81)
    by TerryMann on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:26:50 AM EST
    DeeDee's grammar is pretty bad--she drops words and uses incorrect ones (like "running from the back" instead of "running for the back" or "running towards the back"). At first I thought she meant exactly what she said "he starting walking back" but now I think she meant he walking "towards" the back entrance/where he was staying, that he stopped running and started walking because he was close to his destination. That fits better with the rest of the action she was describing at the time.

    However, there is still the issue of the missing time in her story--the time between when she says "he say he right near his father's house" and "a couple minutes later" when she says Martin sees Zimmerman again.


    'Walking Back Again' (none / 0) (#93)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:35:11 AM EST
    I understood 'he started walking back again' to mean that he stopped running and resumed walking, and so went 'back' from running to walking. The 'again' would be a redundancy. He had been walking before and was now walking again.

    If TM walked east, then ran east, then turned south and ran, and then as soon as he stopped running turned around and walked north, would that be 'walking back again'? What would it be an 'again' of? The last time he was walking he was walking east.

    What comes next is Dee Dee telling TM to keep running. So they were discussing whether he would walk or run, not what direction he should go. So to me it feels like the 'back' is about going back and forth between running and walking, and not about direction.

    For those who want to find what we're discussing, it's at about 9:05 on the tape.


    Back Home (none / 0) (#95)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:18:41 AM EST
    I think she meant he walking "towards" the back entrance/where he was staying

    The 'back entrance' part of this confused me at first. Leave that out and I think your explanation is more plausible than mine. Dee Dee was probably using 'back' to mean 'back home from the store.'

    Out Of Breath (none / 0) (#96)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:35:32 AM EST
    However, there is still the issue of the missing time in her story . . .

    Related to this, Dee Dee has both Martin and Zimmerman out of breath. But on the police call we can hear Zimmerman's breathing return to normal, and Martin had plenty of time to catch his breath too.

    I also noticed that Dee Dee said the rain had stopped shortly before the confrontation. This is close to the time of which The Teacher has said 'it had just started pouring out rain.'


    DeeDee interview (none / 0) (#102)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:33:50 AM EST
    Has someone got a link handy to the NY Times page that has it?  I listened to it before but can't find the link again. I want to listen to the last two thirds or so again.  Particularly from just before when she says Trayvon was close to his house.

    A better link to DeeDee's interview (none / 0) (#109)
    by TerryMann on Mon May 21, 2012 at 10:05:05 AM EST
    Doug, the interview has also been uploaded here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=relmfu

    This version is much easier to listen to because on the NYTimes site, the audio player cuts off a second or two every time you stop and start it. Youtube doesn't do that.


    Thanks. (none / 0) (#200)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:44:15 PM EST
    Breathless (none / 0) (#234)
    by Lora on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:43:37 PM EST
    When emotions are running high - nerves, anxiety, etc, a person can sound rather breathless.  I know I do at times.

    I personally don't care (none / 0) (#210)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:05:48 PM EST
    about the quality of DeeDee's grammer per se, or consider it germaine to her veracity as a witness. I also don't care that she doesn't seem bright as per her veracity.  

    However it does bother me that she often fails to communicate at all clearly, by whatever means. She also seems at many junctures to be pausing to wait to be even more guided by the prosecutor in her answers than she's already been.  

    As well at about the point where she says Trayvon is just by his dad's house, her voice changes, she sounds much more false after that, she starts contradicting herself for the first time any times, and so on.  Yeah I read lying.  Coached.  Not a good coaching subject.  Not telling the truth from then on.  My juror opinion.  


    the blacked out parts (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 20, 2012 at 05:30:11 PM EST
    are references to what Zimmerman said -- those are considered exempt from public records laws as confessions. All the blacked out material I saw in the 183 pages (besides names) seemed to be references to what Zimmerman said.

    So no, I don't think the blacked out passages contain opinions of the officers, if I understand you correctly.


    reply (none / 0) (#21)
    by denny on Sun May 20, 2012 at 05:50:08 PM EST
    I was referring to the discrepancy between what Officer Smith stated he heard Zimmerman say and what the paramedic's response to the DA.

    There is a 2nd blacked out passage(in discovery dump),where Officer Smith writes(february 27th) :
    "Zimmerman was placed in an interview room at SPD, where he was interviewed by Investigator D. Singleton. Zimmerman was turned over to investigations and this was the extent of my involvement in this case."

    In this blacked out passage I do not see a confession, so I am curious why it's blacked-out... unless it has to do with Officer T. Smith filing a supplement on March 1st to his initial report, that is now available for viewing in the "document dump", NOW stating that he was in contact from the time he secured Zimmerman on the scene until the time he was released from investigative detention.



    Bingo Denny (none / 0) (#66)
    by dontknowme on Sun May 20, 2012 at 11:44:22 PM EST
    Why do they now want hide the fact that Smith originally said he had no further role in the investigation? Maybe because Smith had a REASON not to mention those details in the first place. Hearing Zimmerman's account of the event as he was giving it at the Police Station, Smith would have been in a position to relay that information back to Ayala and Serino at the scene. Smith writes, "At no point did I question Zimmerman about the incident that had taken place." True, apparently, but misleading, giving the impression that he was not privy to Zimmerman's story, when in fact, he was. Why else would he make this a point of emphasis in a brief report?

    the blacked out sentence (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:01:58 AM EST
    in Smith's 2/26 report that appears in the intial report that Sanford posted on its website early on, and that has since been blacked out in the version provided in discovery, is:

    Zimmerman stated he had shot the subject and he was still armed

    In the state's view, that is a confession and not something they have to release to the media.

    The other statement blacked out is the one at the bottom that says he was placed in an interview room and questioned by Officer D. Singleton. He was turned over to investigations, and his involvement was over.

    That last  paragraph blacked out from Smith's report begins with him overhearing Zimmerman tell the paramedic or fire rescue worker that he had  cried out for help and no one heard him.  He puts GZ's statement in direct quotes. A "confession" for discovery purposes includes any statements the defendant made about the case.

    I doubt there's any grand conspiracy, or they would have blacked out Smith's March 1 report in which he says he brought Zimmerman tissues during the interview with Singleton.

    His statement about not asking GZ about the incident is referring to the time GZ was in his car, and when he drove him to the police station. The purpose for that, I assume, is to show there were no Miranda violations.  It's not uncommon for the transporting officer to allow the subject to be  Mirandized by those will be doing the questioning, and Smith knew that wouldn't be him. If he's not questioning GZ, he doesn't have to give him Miranda rights. Miranda rights have to be given to anyone in custody, which means anyone who is not free to leave, before police question them. I assume he was trying to convey he didn't violate Miranda since he didn't question GZ, and his overhearing of GZ's statement to the medic was not a statement made in response to a question by him.

    His March 1 report adds that he was watching GZ during the interview through the 3 way glass to monitor his medical condition. He says he went in to ask if he needed anything every 15 or 20 minutes. Zimmerman's replies to those questions are not about the case, so there is no reason to black them out.

    I don't think they are trying to hide anything. I think a prosecutor went over the reports and blacked out anything that was a statement about the offense attributable to GZ. Did he need to also black out that Smith had no further involvement? Probably not, but I don't think they are hiding anything since we've all seen it and he filed his supplement within days.


    Shortcut, not conspiracy (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by dontknowme on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:00:12 AM EST
    I am not positing a 'grand conspiracy.' My hypothesis, and it's certainly quite conjectural, is as follows: Timothy Smith knew George Zimmerman from having responded to GZ previous calls. So he knew GZ was Neighborhood Watch. GZ, wanting to become an LEO someday, was probably quite friendly to Smith on those occasions, and police officers probably appreciate neighborhood watch volunteers since their mostly deal with people who don't give a damn. Arriving on the scene, Smith has no idea that Trayvon Martin is a new resident of the complex, and has not heard GZ's police call. He has no reason to question GZ's version of events, but rather is inclined to believe them. And, like GZ, he is probably inclined to think that a male black teen in a hoodie may well be up to no good. It's a rainy night. The officers on the scene want to go home. Ricardo Ayala has just been through the rather demoralizing experience of giving CPR to a young man who had a bullet go through he heart. He REALLY wants to go home. So, he radios Smith, "Hey, Smitty, do you know what the heck happened here?" Smith relays the gist of GZ's account. Ayala accepts it, again having no reason to doubt it. So at this point, there's a clear dominant narrative, and the cops have a very simple and personal motive to follow it and avoid complicating it: they want to close the case and get on with their own business. Ayala's job is not to question witnesses. the canvas is assigned to Mead and Wagner. Yet Ayala does take one and only one witness statment, an act he leaves out of his section of the police report entirely. Who does he talk to? Yup, "John." (W6) And lo, of all the witnesses who called 911, John's statement differs the most from what he reported in his 911 call. In the call, he says the men were "wresting", that he heard one of yelling for help, but (chuckling) "I'm not going outside." The 911 operator asks "anything else you heard?" and he replies 'no." What he does NOT say to the 911 operator: That he told them to stop and he was calling 911. (He told that to Fox news). That the man on the bottom was wearing read. That the man on top was black. That the man on the top had pinned the arms of the man on the bottom and was raining down punches on him 'MMA style.' So I ask any reader of this post: if you had seen what John says he saw in his statements, would you have described it as he did to a 911 operator? I certainly wouldn't. John doesn't have to have evil intent, just be an impressionable fellow with a desire to go along with an authority figure. Ayala doesn't have to have any evil intent, just a desire to keep everything in line with the narrative he already "knows." So he asks John some leading questions... If something like this did happen, then in the days that follow, everybody involved would realize that things are way more complicated than they had assumed, and start covering their butts. For John, at first, this is going all in on the narrative, as he adds in his statement to Serino that he saw GZ getting his head pounded into the concrete. So why then is the Teacher adamnant that the men were on the grass? Why was Trayvon Martin's body found several feet from the sidewalk, with his feet toward the sidewalk and his head toward the building? I would not be surprised if the "I'm not sure who was yelling" change is only the beginning of John's backtracking.

    the teacher is on RVC (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:57:10 PM EST
    and not as close to the incident. They were on the grass mostly -- GZ's head might have been banged against one of the several cement manhole covers and she wouldn't see that.

    Trayvon's father said in a video walkthrough of the scene  that he was told his body was on the grass and feet on the sidewalk.

    The body was moved, who knows what position it was in at the time of shooting. It was close to the sidewalk.

    Some people think she is right across from the shooting and I believe she isn't, she's further down. And she says in her 911 call there are others whose porches were closer.

    How good are her eyes? Does she wear glasses and did she have them on?

    John won't be backtracking. If he did, he wouldn't be credible for either side, he was too sure. He told the same story on 2/26 that he did on 2/27 to the News and later. He changed it after he talked to his neighbors and all he changed was whether he could ID the person crying out for help and whether the flailing arms were delivering blows or trying to restrain the person undernedath. -- he has not changed that GZ was on the bottom.

    It's a given that TM beat up GZ, he has the injuries and there's no evidence they were self-induced or the result of falling first on his face and then on his back.

    Why are so wanting the evidence to go against GZ? You are aware this is a defense-oriented site. I'm not going to keep knocking down theories of guilt without substance.

    John told his story in a recorded interview the night of the shooting -- before Fox News found him. He didn't change it for Fox News.


    My position (none / 0) (#180)
    by dontknowme on Mon May 21, 2012 at 02:32:09 PM EST
    "You are aware this is a defense-oriented site." Forgive me, I thought it was a facts and justice oriented site. "Why are so wanting the evidence to go against GZ?" It has nothing to do with what I want, and everything to do with what I observe. I do not believe Zimmerman is a sui generis racist, or that he had bad intent, much less 'depraved mind.' The accounts of Zimmerman's surrogates simply do not make sense, unless like some of the folks drifting over from Wagist you have some fevered racist imaginings that Trayvon Martin must have been a vicious thug. Your response about John completely ignores my point, which is not about the difference between his statements, but the difference between his statements and his 911 call. You question other witnesses on the minor discrepancies between their 911 calls and their later statements, but give John a complete pass by the same standard? Please. This is not at present a case being tried in a court of law, but one being tried in the court of public commentary. In that 'trial' there are two defendents: George Zimmerman stands accused of shooting Trayvon Martin to death without sufficient warrant for self-defense, and Trayvon Martin stands accused of commiting an unprovoked assault and battery on George Zimmerman. The second claim is essential to the counter-argument of the first. If Trayvon Martin were alive he would be a potential criminal defendant. Who is to act as his defense council? Who is to question the inconsistencies of his accusers? Since when are liberal defense attorneys buddies with police departments that display evidence of institutional racism? Your observation that John told Fox essentially the same thing that's in the written statement he gave to Ricardo Ayala is an implicit argument for his trustworthiness. Yet he told Ayala that the men were on the ground, while later telling Serino they were on the sidewalk. He's specific about that, "sidewalk" not "utility cover". Is that not substance? It's more substantive than anything you have to support the theory that Martin attacked Zimmerman without provocation.

    Correcting a few things (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by SuzieTampa on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:39:29 PM EST
    In an earlier post, you described TM as a new resident. Actually, he was a visitor.

    Many, if not most, police departments in the U.S. exhibited institutional racism at some point in the past. Have you convicted the Sanford PD on the basis of two cases in which relatives were involved? Because that is just as likely to be favoritism or classism than racism.

    There is a difference between what TM may have considered provocation and what the state allows. In other words, TM could have punched GZ out of anger for GZ following him, or he could have punched him out of fear that, if he didn't take him down, GZ was going to commit a crime against him.

    The court of public opinion is dealing with various issues, in addition to the 2 you named. For example, I'm most interested in whether there was enough evidence to arrest GZ right away, and if not, how did the media get played so badly. Meanwhile, the minister of my church has been most interested in repealing SYG laws.


    Semantics (none / 0) (#219)
    by dontknowme on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:27:25 PM EST
    I would define 'visitor' as someone who comes and goes within a day or two. Trayvon was staying at the Green home for an extended period of time. Perhaps 'resident' implies permanence, in which case his staus falls short of that. But to me 'visitor' has improper inferences in the other direction. The point is, Martin had every right to be there, and the incident absolutely traces back to George Zimmerman's false assumption that TM MUST be a criminal intruder. AFAIK making such an assumption is not a criminal act, but if GZ had not profiled TM, TM wouldn't be dead. To answer your rhetorical question, no I haven't 'convicted' the SPD of anything, merely pointed out that there is some evidence pointing in that direction. But enough evidence for suspicion is not enough evidence for an indictment, let alone a conviction. As far as SYG goes, my hypothesis is that NRA-pimp Tea Party governor Rick Scott is using his influence to make sure this case has a minimal effect on SYG, which is why he had one of his political allies Norm Wilfinger, recuse himself with a mysterious "conflict of interest" and handed the case to another of his political allies, Angela Corey to move the case toward trial. O'Mara will probably make an SYG motion, because it would be incompetent for him not to, but I doubt the charges will be dismissed by a judge on those grounds. Not just because of Scott, but because Florida judges are elected and I can't see anyone being willing to take the heat as "the one person who let George Zimmerman get off" when the option exists to kick the can down the road to a jury. What I can't decide is whether Scott and Corey want to throw GZ to the wolves so they can say "See. The systems works. SYG no problems," and Corey's just horribly inept, or whether the preferred outcome is putting on a good anti-Zimmerman show at a trial the prosecution isn't really trying to win. But I will say that anyone who thinks this case isn't political, or that big-time pols don't have a stake in this thing, or that they wouldn't act on those stakes in some way or another, just has their head in the sand.

    that TM attacked GZ "without provocation," but also I think the question of "provocation" is legally immaterial since there is no way to prove what level of provocation occurred, if any, to the required standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt."

    iow, your point: "Trayvon Martin stands accused of commiting an unprovoked assault and battery on George Zimmerman" is moot.


    Jeralyn, I have not seen (none / 0) (#97)
    by ruffian on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:49:47 AM EST
    explicit references to when GZ was given his Miranda warnings. Was it at the scene, or at the police station that night?

    Might not matter, but shouldn't he have called a lawyer before he said a word to the police?  If, as I tend to believe at this point,  conflicting stories he gave to the police are one of the things that the prosecution has in its pocket, that might have been a pretty bad mistake for him.

    Just cueing you up for a public service announcement here...in anything remotely like the situation GZ was in, shut your mouth and call a lawyer.


    The correct response (none / 0) (#100)
    by Payaso on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:15:19 AM EST
    to all questions from law enforcement is "I don't want to say anything.  I want a lawyer."  That invokes both the 5th and 6th amendments.  If they ask permission to search say "No".

    Many defendants think they are talking their way out of trouble when they are really talking their way in.

    The best time to tell your side of the story is generally when 12 people are seated in the jury box.


    You are, of course, correct, but.... (none / 0) (#202)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:44:37 PM EST
    Zimmerman, to my understanding was friendly with the police and from his prior interactions with them probably had a vicarious sense of "being one of them." "Lawyering up" is not what the police like to hear, and even though it's the "right" thing to do it does change the atmosphere. The police are trained, experienced interrogators and George probably found friendly, receptive ears there.

    Redaction of "no further invovlement" (none / 0) (#149)
    by dontknowme on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:26:36 PM EST
    The paragraph in question is NOT contiguous with the redacted report of Zimmerman's comment to the EMT. The text immediately before it, and a line of text after it, remain unredacted. Meaning the person doing the redaction specifically chose to redact the words "Zimmerman was placed in an interview room at SPD, where he was interviewed by Investigator D. Singleton. Zimmerman was turned over to investigations and this was the extent of my involvement in this case." As Denny points out, there would seem to be no reason for redacting just this language.

    Longer Audio at NY Times (none / 0) (#74)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:11:19 AM EST
    The Axiom Amnesia version stops before a listing of Zimmerman's injuries. The NY Times version includes the injuries and the interviewer winding up the session.

    The audios are on the left of the page, down a little from the top. The EMT interview is fourth and last, entitled:

    George Zimmerman "had cuts and abrasions on his face ... a cut on the back of his head."


    Thaks for that NY Times link to the prosecutor's (2.00 / 0) (#105)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:18:53 AM EST
    interviewing of DeeDee.

    Yeah a couple of time she said he said he was right by his dad's house.  De la Rionda  never asked her if Trayvon was scared as she claimed to have heard in his voice, why didn't he just go into this dad's house and lock the door.  As well when he asked her how she knew he was scared (she said I know he was scared, which and the tone of falseness in it to me, since she didn't say how she knew until asked), she responded with his voice was real low.  

    Well that's consistent with his being in hiding in order to ambush Zimmerman and not wanting him to hear Trayvon.  Also soon after that she says in a glossing over way "and then a couple of minutes, he saw the man right behind him again"   DeeDee says "run, run".  Sounded phony to me.  He's right by his dad's house.  "Says guy getting real close to him".  Then "why are you following me for?  Old man, old man."  Other voice "what are you doing around here?"  Then she says no answer from Trayvon.  He voice changed from "run, run" onward.

    Then after saying the phone went off, then after that she says she could hear a little bit, Trayvon saying "get off, get off".   Very inconsistent and sounded made up.  

    I think she's lying from the point where she says "and then a couple of minutes".  I suspect she knew Trayvon was hiding to ambush GZ.  

    How does it make sense that Trayvon was right by his dad's house, didn't go in right away, waited a couple of minutes and then all of a sudden Zimmerman is close to him, unless Trayvon was in hiding to ambush Zimmerman.


    For someone who endlessly speculates (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Anne on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:37:46 AM EST
    scenario after scenario in support of Zimmerman's justification for shooting Trayvon, your imagination just evaporates when it comes to considering the possibility that there was nothing nefarious in Trayvon's actions.

    I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibilities that Trayvon was reluctant to lead this man who was following him, first in his car, and then on foot, back to the townhouse where his brother was home alone.  Let's keep in mind that Trayvon likely had no idea why he was being stalked, or what the stalker's end game was.  Simple mugging or possibly home invasion?  Who knows?

    Perhaps, rather than "lying in wait," he was simply taking cover and hoping that whoever this was would give up the chase, and he could then safely make his way home.

    That makes more sense to me than lying in wait to attack someone he didn't know, someone who could be armed, and taking the chance he could prevail in any physical confrontation.


    I don't find her very credible at all from the (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:56:13 AM EST
    point after she says Trayvon was right by his dad's house onward.  

    I think she's been extensively coached by Crump before this interview.  He sure had plenty of opportunity.

    She's simply the one straw that the "Zimmerman must be guilty" crowd around here have.

    Also what I was doing was weighing where she did and didn't sound credible, and consistent as opposed to inconsistent, not speculating.  The alternate story comes not from my speculation but from what Zimmerman has said through his proxies, his father and brother, his story is.  


    At this point, it seems you define (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Anne on Mon May 21, 2012 at 10:40:05 AM EST
    "speculation" as anything that doesn't support the self-defense/SYG justification for the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

    You think DeeDee was extensively coached?  Speculation.  That Crump had plenty of opportunity to do so?  An accusation of ill intent wrapped in speculation.

    DeeDee as "the one straw?"  That's wishful thinking, I'm afraid.  This isn't at all about clinging to "Zimmerman must be guilty," but about considering that your take on the situation is not necessarily the only one that is believable or possible.  

    "Weighing where she did and didn't sound credible?"  Still speculation; you are not an expert in voice/stress analysis, and drawing conclusions based on someone's speech patterns isn't your bailiwick, either.

    The "alternate story?"  Come on, Doug - this is also speculation, based on your concluding that  what Zimmerman has said through proxies is true when you don't even know if what these proxies are saying is what Zimmerman told them; shoot, I can go out right now and tell the world that you said "X" to me - but that doesn't mean you did, does it?  

    And what if what's being said isn't true, or turns out not to have been said by Zimmerman?  Then what?  Where's your story now, Doug?  How is it that in your world, "lies and speculation" are anything that doesn't support Zimmerman's proxied claims of self-defense?

    Give me a break.


    Rubbish as per usual. (4.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:25:50 AM EST
    You think DeeDee was extensively coached?  Speculation.  That Crump had plenty of opportunity to do so?  An accusation of ill intent wrapped in speculation.

    I have very little respect for Crump's legal ethic, that's right, based on his conduct in this case.  He's been extensively trying to pollute the jury pool among other things, and doing so among black jurors.  And yes I do think Crump has ill intent so far as actual justice is concerned, big time.  

    "Weighing where she did and didn't sound credible?"  Still speculation; you are not an expert in voice/stress analysis, and drawing conclusions based on someone's speech patterns isn't your bailiwick, either.

    No, it's evaluating the credibility of the witness and of her story.  That's one of the main things that tryers of fact, usually juries but sometimes judges as at the upcoming immunity hearing, do.   Juries are not experts in voice analysis except in the sense that we all are to a degree in exercising out common sense and judgment of the truthfulness of other people.  


    The "alternate story?"  Come on, Doug - this is also speculation, based on your concluding that  what Zimmerman has said through proxies is true when you don't even know if what these proxies are saying is what Zimmerman told them; shoot, I can go out right now and tell the world that you said "X" to me - but that doesn't mean you did, does it?  

    What his proxies have said and a few at first answered to the press and then leaked bits from Sanford police are what we have to go on as to Zimmerman's story so far.  It likely will be all we'll have to go on until the immunity hearing.

    I haven't just automatically believed his story is true particularly in every detail.  I've been weighing it against the eyewitness evidence, his injuries, Trayvon's only to his knuckle aside from the gun shot, the one to 18 inch range of the gunshot, and various circumstantial evidence as to who most likely started the physical fight.  

    You and Yman are simply hugely emotionally invested in Zimmerman being guilty, regardless of the evidence, unless perhaps it's absolutely airtight beyond any possible doubt.  Which isn't how it works.


    You have been "weighing" it seems, (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Anne on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:53:04 AM EST
    only in ways that get you to the same conclusion, and dismiss, or brand as lies, or categorize as speculation, anything that doesn't.

    Or, my favorite, you just don't bother to look into it at all - the Sanford PD's history in the community comes to mind.

    My point was - and you are remarkably gifted at missing mine and others to suit your own purpose - you ARE engaging in speculation, Doug; that's the nature of the situation, so why not just man up and admit that?  This isn't a jury, we aren't "triers of fact," we're people with varying levels of interest in this case, and we're talking about it.

    I think you might want to revisit which of us has the emotional investment.


    Ha! Talk about an emotional investment.... (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Angel on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:09:08 PM EST
    You're the one who had almost 50 posts on the Zimmerman thread the first day you were here and you've hardly let up since.  You've been one of the most vocal posters for Zimmerman's innocence since day one.  You've repeatedly accused people (funeral home director, Dee Dee, ear/eyewitnesses) of lying if their information doesn't conform to what you believe happened.  Let me remind you one more time - none of us knows what happened that night, other than Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, he has confessed to that.  And we don't know what George Zimmerman told the police in his several interviews because that information has not been released.  We simply don't have all of the information.  Most of us here are trying to keep an open mind, you aren't.

    Since we're keeping facts straight (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by jbindc on Mon May 21, 2012 at 10:26:40 AM EST
    Martin's "little borther" was not at his "home".  The person at the townhouse where Martin was staying was Tracy Martin's fiancee's son.  No relation to Trayvon Martin (yet).


    That makes more sense to me than lying in wait to attack someone he didn't know, someone who could be armed, and taking the chance he could prevail in any physical confrontation.

    But we all know that teenage brains aren't fully developed and don't always think rationally.


    What Trayvon might have guessed about Zimmerman (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by dontknowme on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:13:08 AM EST
    "Trayvon likely had no idea why he was being stalked, or what the stalker's end game was. Simple mugging or possibly home invasion?" Sadly, in post-Adam-Walsh America, young people have been given to understand that anyone surveilling them may well be a sexual predator. All the more reason for Trayon not to lead GZ to the Green home, and possibly a reason for Trayvon to turn to the north after eluding Zimmerman: to get the license plate number of his car. That is what I would have done. My first instinct would have been to go home, but then, I would have said, "Wait a minute. Bad idea if the creepy dude is still around here." So what do I do instead of going home? I try to ID the guy who's been following me.

    At the time that DeeDee says (none / 0) (#128)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:31:16 AM EST
    Trayvon was first nearby his dad's house, she had said Trayvon had gotten out of Zimmerman's view and she hadn't yet said he'd reappeared again, in fact she doesn't mention that until she says 'a couple of minutes', then Zimmerman suddenly reappears and is suddenly very close.  

    First it makes no sense to not go into his dad's Sanford place when Zimmerman is out of view.

    Second the story from when Trayvon is right by his dad's place on is very fishy if you listen closely and think about it.


    And if Trayvon was afraid of (none / 0) (#129)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    a gay sexual predator why didn't he call 911?

    Yes, and doesn't this (none / 0) (#216)
    by KeysDan on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:21:52 PM EST
    just switch "neighborhood watch" roles?  

    dontknowme: (none / 0) (#155)
    by TerryMann on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    "My first instinct would have been to go home, but then, I would have said, "Wait a minute. Bad idea if the creepy dude is still around here."" -- If you believe DeeDee is being truthful, though, Martin did indeed get to where he was staying, or at least "right by it" and at that time still thought he had lost Zimmerman.

    Also, I know we can't know what's going on in a teenager's mind, but home is much, much safer than running around in the dark and rain in a strange neighborhood if you're worried about a "creepy guy". That's what we teach our kids--if you feel threatened get inside where it's safe.


    Bad Interview (none / 0) (#208)
    by dontknowme on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:57:58 PM EST
    This is why I'm gob-smacked by de la Rionda's interview with DeeDee. She's all over the place about time and space, and he makes no effort whatsoever to get her to clarify things. As I posted before, he lets that "couple minutes later" slide right by, at which point I'm totally WTF? So it's not a matter of whether that part of her statement is truthful, it's a matter of whether it's coherent. (I'm thinking "no"). Who knows what "right by it" or whatever TM actually said means? Different people teach their kids different things. I don't have kids, and I'm old, so when I grew up we all walked and biked around our neighborhoods with no fear of predators. But as I've noted before in other forums, I was explaining the facts of the case to a friend under 30 who hadn't been following it and is pretty apolitical. And I said, "so the mystery is where Trayvon went after George Zimmeman lost track of him." I had said no more than that when my younger friend exclaimed "Well, I sure as s*** wouldn't have gone home." His unpromted, unbiased reaction was a sort of "Aha" moment for me, a revelation of generational change. Trayvon would have known that were no adults at home, in addition to the fact that Chad Green WAS home. At 12 or 13, being followed by a strange guy who had gotten out of his car, I would have run home anyway. But by 17, I definitely would have gone back for a look at the plate if I'd had an opportunity to do so. Do I have evidence Martin would have had the same thought? No. But it makes more sense than a male black teenager calling 911 with a vague story about some guy following him, given that male black teens are often (with good reason) distrustful of the police.

    No good. (none / 0) (#217)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:23:36 PM EST
    He didn't call 911, he wasn't that fearful.

    why would Martin think he was (none / 0) (#140)
    by ding7777 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:09:50 PM EST

    being stalked? Wasn't Zimmerman sitting in his truck
    when he called non-emergency-911?

    "Yeah, now he's coming towards me"

    "Yup, he's coming to check me out"

    Still possible their paths crossed earlier (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:44:10 PM EST
    The 711 videos show TM left the store around 18:24 (6:24 pm) but we still don't know what time GZ left home nor which direction he took.

    The scenarios here and from what I've seen start at the mailboxes but they each had to get there from somewhere else to get to that point.  Whether or not their paths crossed, who knows?

    If they did, it might've been so subtle (for lack of a better way of putting it) that TM didn't even bring it up to Dee Dee, i.e., he was aware of GZ, perhaps received bad vibes from him but didn't mention it since GZ was in his car driving and passed him (TM) by.  Then, as he walked further and saw GZ again & had a chance to observe him, in effect "I think this dude is following me..."  

    This is all speculation of course.


    From the looks of (none / 0) (#179)
    by amateur on Mon May 21, 2012 at 02:22:41 PM EST
    the map on the Miami Herald site, TM would have been heading East on Retreat View Circle.  That portion would have been on GZ's route out of the complex.  They may have first observed each other near the front of the clubhouse.  If TM cut the corner through to the mailboxes and GZ turned right at that corner to see where he was going, that would be enough for TM to get the idea he was following him.  OTOH, he could have noticed him at or near the pedestrian cut through and followed him from there.  

    It's amazing the kind of baselesss ... (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Yman on Mon May 21, 2012 at 10:10:40 AM EST
    I think she's lying from the point where she says "and then a couple of minutes".  I suspect she knew Trayvon was hiding to ambush GZ.

    ... accusations you can make against a teenage girl (or anyone, for that matter), if you qualify them with the words "I think ..." or "I suspect ..."


    Do you do anything other than (3.67 / 3) (#113)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 10:24:24 AM EST
    make personal attacks around here?

    There's nothing baseless about it.  It's evaluating her credibility. Which is most definitely something which first the judge at the immunity hearing, and then if it gets that far the jury, will be doing.

    She hasn't sounded that credible to most on here that have listened to her.

    Her tone of voice changes from just after she says Trayvon said he was right by his dad's house and she frequently contradicts herself after that. She glosses over a couple minute period when she was still on the phone with Trayvon but doesn't report anything he says.  O'Mara will have a field day with that on cross.

    She said the phone went off and then when de la Rionda asks if she heard things after the initial exchange of words she says yeah she could hear a LITTLE bit, and reports Trayvon, saying get off me.  Sounded totally phony and was of course contradictory.  Again an O'Mara field day.

    This interview occurred a month after the shooting and Crump had had plenty of opportunity to coach her.  But she's not such a good coaching student we hear.


    Accusing her of lying ... (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Yman on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:33:03 PM EST
    ... goes faaaarrr beyond "evaluating her credibility", although I greatly appreciate the irony in your complaints of "personal attacks".

    She "frequently contradicts herself", yet you only give one example?

    Her tone of voice changes from just after she says Trayvon said he was right by his dad's house and she frequently contradicts herself after that. She glosses over a couple minute period when she was still on the phone with Trayvon but doesn't report anything he says.  O'Mara will have a field day with that on cross.

    Her "tone of voice" changes?!?  Seriously?  She's being asked about talking to her friend moments before he's killed, and her "tone of voice changes"?

    That's funny.

    She didn't "gloss over" anything.  She was responding to questions put forth to her by the prosecutor about the killing of her friend.  Don't know if you've ever sat down to be interviewed by a prosecutor in a murder case, but it can be a little intimidating for many people.  More so for a teenage girl.

    Re: the one "contradiction" you pointed out - it's easily explained.  She was asked by the prosecution if the last thing she heard was the sound of "something hitting somebody".  She says "yes", but then is immediately asked about anything else she heard after that.  She clarifies that she could hear "a little bit", and mentions the sound of the phone/headphones rubbing against grass and Martin yelling "Get off!"  Trying to make this minor "contradiction" (your words) into a serious credibility issue would be pretty funny stuff.

    BTW - If a single, minor "contradiction" and a "change in tone" is all it takes for you to accuse a witness of lying, can I assume you're going to have a "field day" with Zimmerman?

    This interview occurred a month after the shooting and Crump had had plenty of opportunity to coach her.  But she's not such a good coaching student we hear.

    Really?  Is that what "we" hear?  I hear a young girl who's nervous and intimidated, being required to recall in great detail when she listened to the last moments of her friend's life.  You hear someone you like to mock as a liar and "not such a good coaching student".

    Now what were you saying about "personal attacks", again?


    Doug, you said the funeral home director was (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Angel on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:13:27 AM EST
    lying, too, and he wasn't.  I think you think anyone who doesn't conform to your ideas about what happened must be lying.  As for DeeDee, she's a young girl who apparently isn't very articulate but to accuse her of lying is just preposterous and condescending. I've learned in my life that the people who think others are lying all the time are probably the ones who are the real liars.  

    yes, the sanford police are looking (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:02:29 PM EST
    like a bunch of amateurs. not really surprising, i doubt they get many significant cases, nor do they get much training beyond what is required to receive their licenses. this puts them as average, compared to the police/sheriff's depts. throughout the country.

    i do, however, find it odd that, with a dead body lying on the ground, and a less than obvious claim of self-defense, they choose to make no arrest that night. is this normal? around my parts, mr. zimmerman would have at least spent the night in custody, pending a hearing before a judge or magistrate. dead people not dead from natural/medical causes tend to have that effect on my local law enforcement types.

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by rickroberts on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:43:44 PM EST
    less than obvious claim of self-defense, they choose to make no arrest that night

    They cuffed him, took his gun and clothes, and took him to the station for interviews. Then they determined they must release him under the law of Florida. The sheriff explained this in a letter to the community.


    They did arrest Zimmerman by most (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Doug1111 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:44:45 AM EST
    people's understanding of arrest.  They took him in handcuffs back to their station house whether Zimmerman wanted to go there or not, and then questioned him from, around 8pm to 3am, or for 7 hours, during which time they were also listening to witness tapes, and probably talking to some witnesses and to the DA's office.  

    They just chose not to categorize it as an arrest since the DA's office advised they didn't have enough to charge him, since his claims of self defense were holding up at least reasonably well that night.


    Actually, they did a pretty good job (none / 0) (#32)
    by Payaso on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:33:53 PM EST
    Not perfect, but real investigations are nothing like CSI.

    It is not unusual for the police to wait days, weeks or even months before making an arrest, even when the suspect is known immediately.  They want to make sure that all the "i's" are dotted and "t's" crossed.  

    They probably contacted someone from the prosecutor's office and discussed what evidence they had before releasing Zimmerman that night.  It would have been the prosecutor's call whether to book or release.


    No CSI comparison needed. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Addison on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:46:33 PM EST
    I don't think a single police report gave his correct pants style. Two officers gave incorrect descriptions (as did Zimmerman in the call to police, but he wasn't writing a report). Or maybe there's something we don't yet know -- it's VERY strange that Zimmerman didn't get the pants style right but was close enough to see the button on Martin's shirt. So, Martin somehow changed clothes after the 7-11 trip? The 7-11 footage is somehow from a different night? I don't think so, but it's weird. In any case, the bundle of evidence contradicts itself, and the police officers look like they've made a big mistake.

    The evidence list and ME's report both claim, apparently falsely, that the pin and the headphones were found in his pocket, bundling them in with all the rest of the personal effects. But multiple witnesses (including Zimmerman) said the pin/button was on Martin's sweatshirt, and the headphones were seen next to Martin at the scene. So, the placement of the pin shows that the evidence list is wrong there, and it's probably also wrong in the placement of the headphones. And what else?! Who knows?!

    This isn't an issue of not living up to CSI. It's basic misreporting in their narratives, and in their record-keeping. Pretty basic and serious mistakes were plainly made that have nothing to do with CSI-based expectations.


    I guess you haven't read many police reports (none / 0) (#49)
    by Payaso on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:59:07 PM EST
    They are often riddled with inconsistencies and errors.  Police reports are often written hours or even days after events take place.  

    How does the exact placement of the items you mention affect the question of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence?

    Does the case hinge on what type of pants Trayvon was wearing?  


    Off point. (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Addison on Sun May 20, 2012 at 07:05:37 PM EST
    How does the exact placement of the items you mention affect the question of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence?

    Does the case hinge on what type of pants Trayvon was wearing?  

    I don't see the value of applying post facto criteria about what does and doesn't make/break the case when judging the accuracy/amateurishness of an investigation. Looking back with the benefit of hindsight and saying, "no harm, no foul" regarding errors that wound up insignificant is fine for some things, but not for judging the quality of the investigation/evidence reporting itself.

    So, will incorrect pants style or faulty object location change the outcome? Probably not. But maybe it would have, and they got it wrong. They may have gotten substantive things wrong, too. We don't know. All we do know is that they got multiple things wrong.


    Not So Strange (none / 0) (#94)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:50:21 AM EST
    it's VERY strange that Zimmerman didn't get the pants style right but was close enough to see the button on Martin's shirt.

    Oh, please.

    When Zimmerman noticed the button, Martin would have been about fifty feet closer than he was for the clothing description.


    The button is quite large and fairly shiny. And I wouldn't swear those 'khakis' weren't 'sweatpants' even in that well-lighted store.

    I see the button is on the outer, hooded sweatshirt, not the inner sweatshirt.


    Okay. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Addison on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:12:59 AM EST
    When Zimmerman noticed the button, Martin would have been about fifty feet closer than he was for the clothing description.

    You're right. He just didn't update the "pants" information when Martin came closer.


    Bad police work (none / 0) (#125)
    by dontknowme on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:24:24 AM EST
    To their limited frame of reference, I don't think the self-defense claim was 'less than obvious" on the night of 2/26. It only became so after they discovered that Martin was staying at the Green home, and they were able to hear the language in GZs police call. By that time careless decisions had been made and butts had to be covered. However, by any standards of intelligent inquiry, the documents and tapes released just pile one gob-smacking moment of ineptitude after another. And it's not just the SPD, but the SAO investgators and Mr. de la Rionda as well. How can he listen to DeeDee say 'Trayvon was walking because he was near his father's house and a couple minutes later the man was following him again' without going "Whoa! A couple minutes? Really? If it was that long, what was happening in between?" I hear there's amotion before the Sanford city council to change the town's name to Keystone, in honor of their police department. ;-)

    How could Zimmerman (none / 0) (#30)
    by ding7777 on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:29:57 PM EST
    notice a "pin" on the hoodie but then confuse khakis
    for "either jeans or sweatpants"?

    Easy (none / 0) (#35)
    by RickyJ on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:42:31 PM EST
    Metallic pins reflect light much more than silk, rayon, cotton or wool.

    Big Button (none / 0) (#42)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:49:21 PM EST
    Have you even once listened to the tape?

    Zimmerman described Martin's clothing early in the call. He mentioned the button as Martin approached him.

    Some pin-on buttons can be quite large. I'd say almost as large as the palm of an average person's hand.


    pin visible in 7/11 video (none / 0) (#53)
    by lily on Sun May 20, 2012 at 07:08:41 PM EST
    the pin is obvious on the front of a dark hoodie, making it a distinguishing detail.

    Not all 'jeans' are blue.... (none / 0) (#73)
    by CuriousInAz on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:10:09 AM EST
    They can be other colors....

    Jean is the fabric (none / 0) (#101)
    by Payaso on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:17:20 AM EST
    not the color.

    They make khaki colored jeans.


    but (none / 0) (#137)
    by ding7777 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:02:44 PM EST
    when your giving a clothing description for ID purposes, IMO, jeans mean blue jeans  

    Just so you understand that.... (none / 0) (#148)
    by CuriousInAz on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:23:41 PM EST
    ...that is your opinion and may not be Zimmerman's take on the matter.

    if he was lying on his back on the ground (none / 0) (#104)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:56:21 AM EST
    with Martin on top of him, the pin would have been more or less right in his face, correct?

    DeeDee (none / 0) (#34)
    by jharp on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:41:03 PM EST
    "Nor do I think DeeDee will play a big role. She wasn't there, she is fairly inarticulate, she has a bias, she didn't come forward until Team Crump talked her into it, and her story has inconsistencies."

    Go figure. I guess this pretty much confirms I know nothing about juries and trials.

    I figured the entire case rested on her. Even if she is inarticulate.

    She was on the phone with Trayvon, right? And if she is as inarticulate as you claim does that somehow make it difficult to testify to the truth?

    Please Prosecution, Don't Call DeeDee (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by RickyJ on Sun May 20, 2012 at 07:01:26 PM EST
    You left out that what she had to say is irrelevant to the claim of self defense.  Why don't you list the reasons that it is?  She also said stuff helpful to the defense, like he told her that he was almost at his father's house well before the call ended.  

    I can imagine a really horrible scenario if she is called.  Say, especially under cross examination, she acts like she has no idea what the questioner is asking and the judge goes crazy trying to explain it to her while she just mumbles and shrugs her shoulders in reply.  Then the judge gets angry and DeeDee starts weeping; the judge calls for a recess, and finally excuses the witness and tell the jury to ignore her testimony.  


    Um ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by rickroberts on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:45:00 PM EST
    Have you heard her speak? Just sayin'.

    Assuming she was 100% truthful and reliable (none / 0) (#43)
    by Payaso on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:49:42 PM EST
    What does she really know?

    Does she know who started the fight?


    being inarticulate (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 20, 2012 at 07:07:58 PM EST
    has nothing to do with one's ability to tell the truth. It does make it more likely she wouldn't be understood by the jury and she is unlikely to fare well with a vigorous cross-examination. Go listen to her interview -- not the one with Crump, but the one with the police.

    Also, she was not Trayvon's girlfriend but a friend. She's known him since kindergarten. I have no idea why Crump portrayed them at his big news conference as Romeo and Juliet.

    She is traumatized over this. This was her really, really close personal friend. They were dating.

    She is traumatized beyond anything you could imagine. 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. Then suddenly and tragically, this is taken away and you have, unfortunately, a first-hand account of it.

    Because Crump (none / 0) (#56)
    by rickroberts on Sun May 20, 2012 at 07:42:15 PM EST
    thinks it benefits him to hype drama.

    Would it not show respect and (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:43:25 PM EST
    consistencyan consistency to refer to "Dee Dee" by her first and last names?

    we don't know her (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:51:54 PM EST
    last name. That's how ABC introduced her to us -- as DeeDee. She's a juvenile and they are keeping her real name secret. I don't want her full name here.

    Dee Dee Who? (none / 0) (#46)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 06:53:21 PM EST
    Do you know her last name?

    Last I heard she and her parents wanted to keep her anonymous or semi-anonymous.

    I'm not sure Dee Dee is her real given name, or nickname she normally uses.


    AT or IN ??? (none / 0) (#55)
    by lily on Sun May 20, 2012 at 07:32:01 PM EST
    people casing a neighborhood look AT the houses for obvious signs of whether someone is home.

    Few people case houses by looking IN the windows.

    Have any of you ever called in suspicious activity on your block following a rash of burglaries?

    GZ was watching TM, not following just looking to see which way he was heading.

    I have done this plenty of times in my high crime hood.

    OK (none / 0) (#57)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 20, 2012 at 07:51:14 PM EST
    I want to make sure I've got this. When you see someone looking at houses, you think 'burglar' and call them in as suspicious. When you see someone looking in houses, you think 'just a pervert, no problem', and you don't call. That's the protocol?

    please move on (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 20, 2012 at 08:13:39 PM EST
    to another topic, you've made the distinction. We only get 200 comments a thread.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#62)
    by Darby on Sun May 20, 2012 at 08:40:29 PM EST
    Where on the map do you believe zimmermans vehicle was parked?  And second,any thoughts  on the distance between the car and the fight?

    'Jeremy' and the female caller who refers to him (none / 0) (#65)
    by dontknowme on Sun May 20, 2012 at 11:32:28 PM EST
    I am quite suspicious of their claim not to have seen anything. I do not see how the woman could have been in a position where a cell phone would pick up the sounds of the screaming with the character of sound it has, without being in a line of sight to the events. (High frequencies do not go around corners.) During the call, the woman retreats into the apartment, and sounds from the exterior fade away. But she yell's "Jeremy, GET IN HERE." So if Jeremy isn't 'in here' where he is? My guess is out on his screened in porch, still watching the events occuring right next door. They're friends with Zimmerman. I think they're holding back.

    Upstairs (none / 0) (#68)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:06:56 AM EST
    I think when the 'get in here' starts they are already upstairs, and she wants Jeremy to join her in a closet or bathroom without windows.

    They hid.... (none / 0) (#77)
    by CuriousInAz on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:14:12 AM EST
    When you scream for help,  no one will come....they will hide.  Whatever was going on oustide PRIOR to the shot,  it was 'scary' enough that folks hid and made panicked calls to 911...

    That is scary to me in itself (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by ruffian on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:10:06 PM EST
    This is truly a story with no heroes. Would a firm, loud 'hey, get off of that guy - I have called the police' have snapped Trayvon out of it, assuming he was indeed beating up GZ, or at least given GZ a moment to collect himself?

    Yep... (none / 0) (#147)
    by CuriousInAz on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:21:44 PM EST
    "Genovese Syndrome"

    A small point of correction (none / 0) (#71)
    by TerryMann on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:53:25 AM EST
    Although low frequencies diffract around obstacles much more readily because of their longer wavelength, higher frequencies do also diffract. So higher frequencies will "go around corners", just not as efficiently as lower ones.

    Dispersion and diffraction (none / 0) (#187)
    by dontknowme on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:16:52 PM EST
    I have over 40 years experience recording sound for film and video. I am intimately familiar with the difficulty of obtaining intelligible sound under a variety of conditions in the field. From the first moment I heard the Jeremy call, with the audible screaming in the background, I said to myself "That has to be line of sight. They had to have seen something." It was only on further close listening to the call that I noted the caller's repeated, and initially ignored, pleas to Jeremy. The first thing she says is 'Jeremy get down!" Why would you say that to anyone unless they were in danger of being seen, which would mean that they were also in a position to see. In fact, just before the shot, Jeremy can be heard saying "They need to come NOW" and upon the shot going off he immediately says "Oh my god". These strike me as utterances of someone seeing, not just hearing. A final unrelated observation on this call: the last cry for help begins (that is the 'h' becomes audible) exactly 1.1 seconds before the shot goes off. So unless Zimmerman is the second coming of Billy the Kid, the gun was out of the holster and in his hand before the last yell for help. Of course, GZ's surrogates have suggested there was a struggle for the gun. Interesting how a guy who supposedly had his arms pinned, and supposedly received multiple concussive blows to his head without landing a return blow on his apparently superior opponent, manages to win the struggle for the gun to the point where is able to put a bullet straight into Martin's heart from only a few inches away.

    I think you're reaching... (none / 0) (#209)
    by TerryMann on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:58:14 PM EST
    Jeremy's statement from the night of the incident (I'm assuming it was the last included one) said that the back door to their porch was open. So that might very well explain the sound quality. But we don't know where they were in the room when this occurred, if the blinds were open or closed, if there was enough light to see out back (others have indicated that was dark), etc.. We haven't heard their later recorded interviews. In short, I'm not going to assume they are lying based on speculation without any evidence.

    Also, where did you read that someone claimed Zimmerman's arms were pinned? The statements I've read have alluded to wrestling or fighting.


    Idea re "light colored shorts" (none / 0) (#72)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:08:13 AM EST
    Just a thought & I don't know how to put "leads" on a person so it's just a guess, but, -- from the ("GZ had cuts and abrasions...") interview of the fireman who treated both TM and GZ the night of the shooting described placing 4 heart monitor leads on TM: one each for each arm and leg.

    Perhaps they rolled up the pant legs in order for lead placement and Officer Santiago saw TM as having "shorts"?? or maybe TM had only his shorts on at the time he arrived??


    good point (none / 0) (#78)
    by CuriousInAz on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:16:11 AM EST
    I wonder if the EMTs cut the pants to gain access,  I would be suprised if they took the time to roll them up if it was more than a little bit.

    Yep, that's even better, thanks (none / 0) (#79)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:24:20 AM EST
    That makes sense (none / 0) (#143)
    by DizzyMissL on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:13:08 PM EST
    I think I was the first one to notice this.  Calling them light shorts would make sense since he was wearing khakis. The story would have been much more interesting had he gone home and changed, though:)

    Time of George Zimmerman's call (none / 0) (#90)
    by MJW on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:06:18 AM EST
    This has probably already been discussed and resolved, but do we know for sure the time of Zimmerman's call to the SPD?  On page 40 of the discovery PDF, in a report prepared by Serino on March 13, the call is shown as beginning at 19:11:12.  The Wagist website says it was actually at 19:09:34, based on a call log.  The call log appears to be pretty strong evidence, but it seems quite surprising the SPD's investigators wouldn't understand their own system.

    it is 7:09 (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:30:33 AM EST
    that the call connected, and the later time that the log started.

    Serino's timeline is WRONG (none / 0) (#161)
    by dontknowme on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:50:32 PM EST
    The timeline in Serino's report assumes the call actually begins at the time of the first log in, and times succeeding statements by adding their elapsed time into the call to the start-time of 19:11:12. This is utter incompetence, and yes the SPD investigators do not understand their own system. If you look at the full original call log, you'll see the entry for "subject running toward back entrance of complex" is logged at 19:11:59, which means GZ had not only said "toward the back" but the operator had time to type that in and hit "return". If the start time of the recording is the log time of 19:09:34, then GZ utters the word 'back' at 19:11:52. In the timeline on page 6 of Serino's report, it says "Zimmerman relays suspicious person is running from him" at 19:13:19. Zimmerman says "S***, he's running" 11 seconds before he says "back". Which, by the Serino timeline would have Zimmerman saying "back" at 19:13:30. Which, were Serino's timeline correct, would have the original operator magically typing "subject running toward back entrance of complex" a full one minute and 31 seconds before it happened.

    Martin Autopsy (none / 0) (#116)
    by J Upchurch on Mon May 21, 2012 at 10:39:56 AM EST
    If a person dies within a few minutes of hitting someone, there may not be visible bruising because the blood flow stops. It can still be detected by peeling back the skin and examining the capillaries.

    The Autopsy report indicates that the M.E. didn't do this test. I suspect this is because the Sanford P.D. didn't tell the M.E. to examine under the skin of the knuckles for evidence of bruising.

    Jeralyn. your photoshop is showing (none / 0) (#132)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:41:23 AM EST
    It's likely unintentional, but in covering up the rectangle that used to be in another illustration, indicating the position of the body, either you or the original (more likely) has obscured one of the utility covers.  

    Please be careful people don't start wigging out about it.  I'm here to point it out in your defense.  The one that seems closest to the body is still visible, but one south of it is obscured.  

    Also, in the eye level photo illustration the utility cover you illustrate is north of the white patio partition and is not the same one closest to the X on the overhead drawing.   This one is the one perpendicular to the 2111 unit metal sunroom.  

    "John's" utility cover is not seen to me clearly enough to say for certain where it is in your eye level photo, for whatever reason - angle, grass, etc.  

    Don't be confused however, it's there somewhere, and the photos are helpful if only approximate in positioning.  

    This is not my illustration , but others have found this valuable


    It's an illustration of 911 callers and their relative positions.  Keep in mind each unit has built in "blinders" that form a frame so that if a person were deep inside their unit, the field of view would be restricted somewhat out into the dog walk so that an altercation that migrated a few units down south may have afforded each a different "freeze frame" of the action, thus accounting for each seeing or hearing different things as the two traveled.  

    and within the same photoset, I'll try to include my own visual notes on the idea of where the body was.  Any helpful comments on the flickr site are appreciated.  This is a work in progress for me and I'd like to attempt to plot the "debris field" as well eventually.


    i said it wasn't meant to be (none / 0) (#169)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:14:23 PM EST
    exact. I wasn't interested in the showing all the cement hole covers or doing a replica of the shooting site. I was interested in showing the street addresses placed the body roughly where it was found. I also identified the manhole cover since it was in the photo. There are manhole covers all over.

    i think the teacher's (none / 0) (#224)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 21, 2012 at 07:37:33 PM EST
    location is wrong in that map. Also it comes from a relentless, pro-TM website.

    Thread cleaned of (none / 0) (#171)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:21:36 PM EST
    sniping between 2 commenters and comments about the racial aspects of the case and Obama which I have repeatedly said are not relevant to the evidence in the criminal case. This thread is about the evidence in the case.

    Please stay on topic.

    I also deleted one comment that was article length as it took up far too much space and I don't want the server overloaded or slowed down I have previously warned this commenter about length of comments and suggested commenters keep their comments saved on their computers so if it is deleted, they don't lose their work.

    I'm thinking of reestablishing the forums we used for the Duke case for this case so it is easier for everyone. But I need our webmaster to do that and I don't know how fast it can be accomplished.

    I take long walks at night. (none / 0) (#174)
    by redwolf on Mon May 21, 2012 at 01:41:30 PM EST
    These walks often traverse neighborhoods a bit outside my own. I've never had anyone ask me while I was there but I've been followed before. I certainly wouldn't attack someone for questioning why I was in their neighborhood. I implicitly understood they were following me because I wasn't known to them and might be a criminal.

    We truly don't know for a fact that TM attacked GZ (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:18:33 PM EST
    when GZ asked what TM was doing here.  No one knows for a fact how the altercation started.

    What I was saying (speculating)was since GZ allowed himself to get close enough to where TM could ask the question "Why are you following me?" he (GZ)ought to have answered that question knowing first hand what can happen(i.e., he'd been in a similar type situation back in 2005 with a police officer where he assaulted the officer when the officer supposedly manhandled one of his friends.) GZ said the officer didn't announce him/herself as an officer.  Fine, I accept that; it's possible.  By the same token, however, the night of the 26th --- what happened? IMO, it's a fair question.

    To ignore the question, "Why are you following me?", and instead counter it with "What are you doing here", imo, and I'm not a language/ psychology expert, is to escalate or at least begin to escalate what happened and no one knows what happened for a fact.  GZ was supposed to be "the adult" in this situation-- the neighborhood watch guy protecting himself & his neighbors (which really included TM too that night, though he didn't think so for whatever reason) -- and an adult with a seemingly similar prior experience at that.

    I don't know how well your situation applies here but it seems apparent that when you take your walks traversing adjacent neighborhoods, you are still on your home turf, home city -- familiar with it's customs, ways, etc.  TM was not. He was a visitor temporarily staying with his dad at Brandy Green's home.



    If I saw a 6' tall man who I didn't (3.50 / 2) (#194)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:29:07 PM EST
    recognize hanging out in my neighborhood, I wouldn't think of him as a child. Given the number of burglaries in Zimmerman's neighborhood, I completely understand his wariness. It's easy after the fact to say the adult should have communicated differently. I teach my kids to respond differently; they know that hiding their identity in a hoodie is likely to escalate a dangerous situation. If there's an adult versus child theme to explore here, let's discuss the adults in Trayvon Martin's life that should be guiding him.

    Oh, please. It was raining that night, that's why (5.00 / 0) (#197)
    by Angel on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:36:29 PM EST
    he was wearing a hoodie.  He wasn't "trying to hide his identity."

    Nope (none / 0) (#212)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:11:59 PM EST
    The girlfriend says he put it up later. Almost as if she's trying to establish that he wasn't doing anything that could be called suspicious.

    The rain was on and off (5.00 / 0) (#214)
    by Yman on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:15:54 PM EST
    Hoodies can go up and down.

    But I do like how people are insinuating she was coached simply because she mentions he put his hoodie up ...



    How well GZ knew or didn't know who (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:04:32 PM EST
    "belonged" or didn't "belong" in his neighborhood (i.e., the Retreat) is apparently open for debate, especially since the housing crisis hit with people moving in and out and the appearance of renters (as opposed to homeowners).

    Re TMs parents: It's also my understanding (from 2 sources but I don't have a link for either) is that Trayvon had to beg his dad to let him go out to the store that night.  I would hardly think a real hard-core young thug would even bother to ask whether he could go out or not, wouldn't you?

    And maybe you can answer the question as to how long Trayvon was missing before his dad called the police to file a missing persons' report?  I'll give you a clue (not that you probably need one, but) the clue is: not very long at all.  It's been my impression Trayvon's parents (probably Brandy too though nothing's been said about it explicitly), kept close tabs on Trayvon.  Dee Dee called him a "Momma's boy" -- i.e., family oriented, loves his family, etc.

    Re his hoodie: Trayvon had his hoodie up while in the 711 and I don't remember seeing the clerk there cowering behind the counter or hugging the phone getting ready to call 911 or even keeping his 'eye' on Trayvon while he was in the store; the clerk didn't even seem aggitated. At one point he even turned his back to write something down. What was the clerk (and perhaps many of us) missing here?

    Lots of people wear hoodies: a hoodie doesn't make a person a thug.

    By "the adult" I am meaning GZ was the neighborhood watch guy, the captain, someone who's supposedly "in charge", as well as age.  I would add however that "the adult" would still fit even IF TM had been the same age as GZ, by virtue of GZ's (apparent) position as captain of neighborhood watch.  


    A totally hypothetical question (none / 0) (#192)
    by itscookin on Mon May 21, 2012 at 03:25:03 PM EST
    I've served on a couple of juries where I live now, and I have done grand jury duty in another state. I don't live in Florida so there is zero chance of my serving on the jury for this case. But I find reading what Jeralyn is writing about the case and the comments that all of you have made fascinating. I've pretty much made up my mind about who's guilty and of what and who's not. When I've been in the voir dire part of the jury selection in the past, I've been asked if I have been exposed to enough of the details of the case to have already formed an opinion. This time I would have to say "yes". Would that excuse me from jury duty? What if I added, "But if there are details that have not yet been made public, I would be open to changing my mind?"

    Martin's girlfriend sounds erratic (none / 0) (#211)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:09:37 PM EST
    but reasonably credible. There are a couple of spots that made me think she'd been coached on what to say, but overall I think she's being truthful. These are my impressions after listening to her recorded statement a couple of times:

    Their phones kept dropping the calls (jeez T-Mobile... still poor reception?)

    The girlfriend says that Trayvon went to the covered mail area because it was raining. He's apparently there before he notices Zimmerman watching him.  This statement sounds reasonable, but it also establishes that Martin had a purpose for being where he was, and that Zimmerman had no reason to think he was doing anything suspicious. The fact that the girlfriend brings it up makes me wonder if she was coached and told to say it. I'm just trying to imaging a conversation between a couple of kids and whether or not one would explicitly tell the other the reason he was standing by the mail boxes. It seems contrived. He may have been standing there for exactly that reason, but it seems fake that he'd say that to his girlfriend before all this went down.

    She says Trayvon told her that the man who was watching him was white. Interestingly, her voice changes when she says that. Is she being judgmental? Fearful? Remembering Trayvon's reaction to the watcher being white? Had he exhibited fear or anger to her about the white guy? Did he profile Zimmerman as a skinhead? Or is the girlfriend profiling Zimmerman after the fact? Did Martin use a derogatory word when he described Zimmerman to his girlfriend, and did she decide to use a more socially appropriate description, hence the vocal change when she's saying it? Listen to the recording; you'll here the voice change. Exactly what emotion or memory makes her voice sound different when she says this very short statement of Zimmerman's race during the interview?

    The girlfriend says Trayvon put his hoodie on long after he left the mail box area, but Zimmerman describes his clothes as having a hoodie. Would he have seen it if Martin wasn't wearing it up? Again, this makes me think the girlfriend was coached to say the hoodie went up after he left specifically in order to refute Zimmerman's claim that Martin was acting or looking suspicious.

    The girlfriend says she knew Trayvon was scared because his voice was low. Something about the way she says this makes me think she's not telling the truth again. I'm not sure why, but her voice changes or something, if feels artificial, as if she was trying to make a point instead of just remembering what happened.

    She says that Martin said he's right by his father's house and the guy is getting close to him. Then he says the guy is getting real close, then she hears "What are you following me for?" She claims she hears an old man say, "What are you doin' around here?" Now, part this is actually believable to me. If I were on the jury, I'd believe that Zimmerman could have or would have followed Martin to see where he went so he could tell the police where to find him. I'd also find it very credible that the girlfriend heard Zimmerman's voice because of the way she describes him as an old man sounding tired. She even mimics Zimmerman out of breath. It's as if she can't help but make fun of the "old man". She's a teen, 28 is ancient to her.

    What's not credible to me is her claim that she knows he was pushed because she could hear the grass before the phone shut off. What does the evidence say about Martin's clothes? If he was pushed down on the wet grass, surely there would be evidence of that on his clothing.

    She sounded not credible again at the end of the interview when she says that Martin would never fight. She even repeats it. Listening to her, I got the sense she had just remembered that she was supposed to have said that during the interview. It doesn't sound genuine.

    My impressions may or may not match what a jury would think. If she was coached before the police interview, you can bet she'll be much more practiced if she's called as a witness. I think she is the key to the prosecution's argument.

    A small correction, but an important one (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by TerryMann on Mon May 21, 2012 at 04:14:32 PM EST
    "She says that Martin said he's right by his father's house and the guy is getting close to him." -- She says he's right by his father's house, then "a couple minutes later", Martin sees Zimmerman again and Zimmerman is getting close. This "couple minutes" is a literal quote and is important, I think, to understanding what happened that night.

    Heard it through once (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by Lora on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:57:20 PM EST
    I think Deedee gave coherent, if hard to hear, replies that the interviewer just didn't catch, or maybe he just wanted the words more clearly enunciated for the recording.

    I was struck by how often he interrupted her or cut her off, almost putting words in her mouth at times, and not giving her a chance to reply before he broke in.  I was also taken aback by the number of leading questions he asked, starting with something like, "He was a good guy, wasn't he?"  Maybe that was his attempt at building rapport, I don't know, but I think it fell flat.


    Item Marker 6? (none / 0) (#221)
    by Cylinder on Mon May 21, 2012 at 05:57:41 PM EST
    Looking at this map I put together of the area near the final altercation, I can't seem to find any reference to Item Marker 6. The corresponding item is not photographed in the set that I used, and I can't find mention of it in the evidence list.

    Any ideas?

    Maybe the body? (none / 0) (#222)
    by amateur on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:34:58 PM EST
    ... since it seems to have been moved by this time.

    Thread cleaned again (none / 0) (#223)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 21, 2012 at 07:25:53 PM EST
    of baseless accusations against TM and off-topic discussions. I've opened it up to comments again since we're back down to 187.

    Thanks to all of you for choosing to share your thoughts here and trying to adhere to the parameters I've set.

    Please be civil in your replies so the thread reads like a conversation and debate.

    PS to Willis, I didn't mean to single you out and I deleted my comment to you. But please break your article-length comments up into smaller ones.

    The hoodie topic, not surprisingly, devolved into a discussion of race outside this case. That's off-topic to the evidence.

    I also think everyone should keep in mind that GZ never said he found the hoodie suspicious.Nor did he volunteer the info -- the dispatcher asked what the subject was wearing and Zimmerman responded, saying what he was wearing, which happened to be a hoodie.


    Question: When was Zimmerman arrested? (none / 0) (#225)
    by NYShooter on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:12:34 PM EST
    Answer: 7 weeks after the shooting.

    So, where's the Lie?

    You are correct (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Yman on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:34:53 PM EST
    There was no "lie".  Zimmerman was not arrested on the night of the shooting.  From the Sanford PD's public statement:

    Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?

    When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr. Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and circumstances they had at the time.

    Some people are looking for "lies" (and making accusations of same) that just aren't there ...


    Arrested at the scene at gunpoint by Stanford cops (4.00 / 3) (#227)
    by lily on Mon May 21, 2012 at 08:27:03 PM EST
    an arrest is when the cops cuff you, take you against your will to the station for questioning.
    An arrest is detaining a person and depriving them of their freedom.

    The prosecutor makes the charging decision.


    You Say Arrested, I Day Detained (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:02:29 PM EST
    The word 'arrest' is used very inconsistently.

    When I worked as a security guard, our training emphasized that any detention is an 'arrest' that if improper exposed the company to liability.

    A police officer once told me I was 'under arrest for suspicion of DUI' while we waited for a breath machine. (I passed.)

    Years later another officer asked if I had ever been arrested. I told him what the other officer told me, and he got mad and said there was 'no such thing' as being arrested for 'suspicion of DUI'.

    The police reports describe Zimmerman's status as 'investigative detention'.

    Fla. Stat. § 776.032:

    A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

    It seems there is a hair-splitting distinction between being detained/arrested for the purpose of investigation, vs. being arrested for allegedly committing a specific crime. Police language sometimes assumes that 'arrest' only means the latter, so that Zimmerman 'was not under arrest' even though he was detained.


    Dershowitz made the point during recent interviews (3.00 / 3) (#230)
    by lily on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:16:14 PM EST
    reminding the media and public that he teaches law.
    feel free to explain your perspective to Dershowitz

    Dershowitz Interviews (none / 0) (#233)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:38:47 PM EST

    I googled and just found numerous versions of Dershowitz's critique of the charging affidavit.

    Part of what I am suggesting is that police often use 'arrest' in ways that lawyers might not agree with. I would be surprised if Dershowitz would disagree with that.

    I feel your 'feel free to explain' is uncalled for and trollish.


    Some Confusions In My Mind (none / 0) (#228)
    by RickyJ on Mon May 21, 2012 at 09:02:26 PM EST
    1. Did Zimmerman follow Martin while in his vehicle?  I am trying to understand Martin's basis for thinking Zimmerman was watching him, apparently even before walking by and looking into the vehicle.

    2. Somebody I was arguing with in another forum claimed that since Zimmerman refused 3 times to go to the hospital that evening, his injuries were not severe enough to justify shooting Martin.  Did Serino use that argument in suggesting Martin be charged with manslaughter?

    3. Did Serino claim that Martin contradicted himself in his police interviews and reenactments?  I would find it strange that these contradictions were discovered only after Corey took over the case.

    If Trayvon had returned home why wouldn't he (none / 0) (#237)
    by Angel on Mon May 21, 2012 at 10:03:38 PM EST
    stay there?  I don't believe your scenario makes sense.

    Apologize if this has been asked and answered (none / 0) (#238)
    by hitchhiker on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:29:33 PM EST
    Not a lawyer, grateful for the window you all provide into that world.

    Isn't the simplest explanation for why TM didn't go right back into his dad's house that he wanted to stay on the phone with the girl?

    It's one of my strongest memories of adolescence -- the preference for being wherever my family was NOT, the need for whatever privacy I could scrape together.  

    I'm neither male nor black, so there would have been other issues if I thought somebody was tracking me, but if I felt reasonably safe I'd stay out and have my conversation outside the hearing of my family members.

    Zimmerman first 911 call & no blood on him (none / 0) (#239)
    by Clara Bow on Tue May 22, 2012 at 05:44:08 PM EST
    Ah OK, do you want to meet with him right near the mailboxes then? 
    Yeah, that's fine. 
    Alright, George I'll let him know to meet with you out there. 
    Actually could you have him call me and I'll tell him where I'm at? 
    OK, yeah that's no problem. 
    The dispatcher asked G. Zimmerman if he wanted to meet the police at the mailboxes (which was the area his truck was parked) & G. Zimmerman first agrees & then says "Actually could you have him call me and I'll tell him where I'm at?

    This leads me to believe, G. Zimmerman, did not intend to return to his truck, but instead continued to follow Trayvon Martin.

    My second question is about the condition of G.Zimmerman's clothes the night of the murder. In a full frontal photo, there is no evidence of blood on his clothes - nothing that is evident in the photo. - G.Zimmerman said Trayvon Martin was on top of him when he shot him at close range in the chest.

    My question is: wouldn't there be a lot of blood from a wound like that & wouldn't that blood pour out of a body & onto the person underneath the body? And, if G.Zimmerman was underneath T.Martin when he shot him at close range - why wasn't there more blood from T. Martin on G.Zimmerman?

    Any thoughts on these observations would be appreciated.

    thoughts appreciated (none / 0) (#240)
    by denny on Tue May 22, 2012 at 06:24:26 PM EST
    I would appreciate your thoughts about what I perceive to a discrepancy :

    In his statement, Officer T. Smith writes :
    "Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD. While the SFD was attending to Zimmerman, I overheard him state "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me".

    The attending SFD parademic provided an audio statement to DA. Link below, then click on paramedic interview.
    http://axiomamnesia.com/2012/05/18/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case-witness-interviews-statement s-full-audio/

    Thank you

    Not At The Mailboxes (none / 0) (#241)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 22, 2012 at 10:12:34 PM EST
    The mailboxes were one place where Zimmerman's truck clearly wasn't parked. The dispatcher suggested the mailboxes after he wasn't satisfied with Zimmerman's directions to his truck.

    Credibility (none / 0) (#242)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:43:54 PM EST
    What if GZ's version of events is skewed to his advantage? It is human nature. My question is if
    GZ's version is not EXACTLY what happened but TM started the physical altercation by throwing a punch, is GZ's self defense case still strong?
    For example, the fight happens forty feet into the backyard area. Witneeses say the argument sounded like it started at the top of the T. The evidence
    was found in the back yard area so there couldn't have been a 40 foot pushing match. Did GZ mention that the police were on their way and TM turned around and Z followed him? Was it then that the physical fight started? GZ lied at the scene and on the stand. Can the prosecution use that? Neither lie pertained to a shot being fired but was what a man worried about his rep and life might do.