George Zimmerman: Adds a Lawyer to Team

Update: Just heard from the state's attorney's office, nothing was released today. But, Mark O'Mara said a former federal public defender has been added to his defense team.

Today is the day new discovery should be available in the George Zimmerman case. Since I'll be at work, readers will likely see it before I do.

Here's an open thread to discuss it, and other matters pertaining the evidence and law in the case. Please, no references to negative information on character that has not been released by the state and which neither party has indicated it will seek to admit.

< John Edwards : Juror Issues | John Edwards : Not Guilty on One Count, Mistrial on Others >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Cornered/Confronted (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:11:15 PM EST
    I think the bond hearing took care of that one.

    O'MARA: Zimmerman confronted Martin, those words. Where did you get that from?

    GILBREATH: That was from the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog walk area. According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But it was between two people.

    O'MARA: Which means they met. I'm just curious with the word confronted and what evidence you have to support an affidavit you want in this judge to rely on that these facts with true and you use the word confronted. And I want to know your evidence to support the word confronted if you have any.

    GILBREATH: Well, it's not that I have one. I probably could have used dirty [sic; probably error for 'thirty'] words.

    O'MARA: It is antagonistic word, would you agree?

    GILBREATH: It could be considered that, yes.

    O'MARA: Come up with words that are not antagonistic, met, came up to, spoke with.

    GILBREATH: Got in physical confrontation with.

    O'MARA: But you have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion, do you?

    GILBREATH: I believe I answered it. I don't know how much more explanation you wish.

    O'MARA: Anything you have, but you don't have any, do you?

    GILBREATH: I think I've answered the question.

    "Evidence of one's right to be there..." (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:13:12 PM EST
    Ya mean besides birth right? ;)

    Just kidding, but seriously, If I lived in a gated community I wouldn't want my neighbors asking my guests/family members for evidence of their right to be there.  WTF is that about?  I guess thats why I'd never live in a gated community...the whole concept brings me down.  

    Give me land, lots of land, under starry skies above...don't fence me in

    Agreed on gated communities, (none / 0) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:40:29 PM EST
    and even, some condominiums.  "Condo cops" abound, making sure rules are observed, which may be important in such communal living and use of common areas.  However, it does take an understanding of,  and agreement with,  the differences in living arrangements.   And, it is not uncommon for guests or other unfamiliar faces to be asked if they "belong"(sometimes such as, can I help you find something?)  Often have wondered what the vision for the country is when little concern is given to the cities and the general welfare of the people--a gated community, private schools, private clubs.

    Sh*t K.D.... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:56:44 PM EST
    I say give those with such a vision their vision, it might well then resemble Utopia outside the gates! ;)

    A friend of mine who used to host a weekly poker game lived in a gated condo joint, they do have such strange petty rules (capital offense to park in the wrong parking spot!)...never mind the annoyance of waiting at the stupid gate while the rent-a-cop called for the ok to let me pass.  It's sad, and somewhat humorous.  The illusions people crave...


    Speaking as someone who lives ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 31, 2012 at 05:49:28 PM EST
    ... in a townhouse complex (not gated) with a governing condo board on which my wife serves as a member, it can be a real drag to have to live in close proximity with neighbors who somehow think that the association's rules only apply to other people.

    Most recently, we had to deal with a divorced father whose teenaged boys consider it way cool to invite friends over after midnight on weekend nights to jump off the poolhouse roof into the pool. His answer: "Boys will be boys."

    Sadly, these sorts of residents also tend to be the type of people who would endeavor to sue the condo association for neglect, were their kids to somehow become injured in the course of such foolishness.


    please keep this to Zimmerman (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:20:22 AM EST

    it was (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 31, 2012 at 11:39:09 PM EST
    this broken. Remember the test is a reasonable fear the person is in danger of serious bodily injury, and the danger itself does not have to be real. From the FL jury instructions:

    Read in all cases.

    In deciding whether defendant was justified in the
    use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used.

    The danger facing the defendant need not have been
    actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

    Based upon appearances, the defendant must
    have actually believed that the danger was real.

    Most ridiculous meme: (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Redbrow on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:23:27 AM EST
    "Zimmerman was ordered to go back to his vehicle but failed to run back at full speed so he is guilty of murder."

    He was never ordered or even suggested to return to his vehicle. He was never ordered to stay in his vehicle. The non-emergency dispatcher never even uttered the word vehicle, truck, car or suv during the entire call.

    Zimmerman has never claimed he was racing back to his vehicle as soon as the dispatcher suggested he no longer need follow the suspect. O'Mara only mentioned that Zimmerman stated "he walked toward the car" in reference to what he was doing at the time of the confrontation by Martin. It was during the 4/20 hearing as you can see for yourself at around 2:40 in this clip from the hearing.

    That is the only official statement we have from Zimmerman or his Lawyer on this matter.

    Tracy Martin had just had his son shot to death... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by unitron on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 02:34:57 AM EST
    ...perhaps you could cut him a little slack on the "get every little detail exact" front for the first few days afterwards?

    Recent Interview (none / 0) (#93)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:27:54 AM EST
    perhaps you could cut him a little slack on the "get every little detail exact" front for the first few days afterwards?

    The quotes under discussion aren't from the days after the shooting. They are from an interview with a local newspaper, on a visit to East St. Louis last week. The exact date of the interview isn't given. (East St. Louis is the part of the St. Louis metropolitan area that has its own government because it's in Illinois.)

    EMT report page 182 Discovery (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Clara Bow Again on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:14:13 AM EST
    I have attempted to decipher the emt report which is on page 182 of the released discovery documents & this is what I concluded it said. Please edit if something is incorrect.

    The report was taken by the emt at 7:41 pm which is 30 minutes after the shooting.

    Assessment 1941 (7:41 pm)
    Patient Conscious Breathing Quality Adult Normal 12-20 (respiratory rate - how fast someone is breathing  - which is normal, not panting or out of breath)
    No External Hemorrhage noted; Mucuous Membrane Normal
    Central Body Color Normal
    Extremities Normal
    Within Normal Limits - Airway, Breathing Quality, Accessory Muscle Use, Chest Rise, Radial Pulse, Skin Temp, Skin Moisture, Skin Turgor, Cap Refill, Pupil Size and Reaction.

    Secondary Assessment - Injury:
    Head - Laceration Hemorrhage (1 inch) Venous Occipital
    Abrasion: Forehead. Pair Tenderness Hemorrhage (Capillary) Nose

    Patient - 28 year old patient is found sitting up in the back of the police car handcuffed in the custody of the SPD.
    Patient states he was assaulted & his head was struck on the pavement.  

    Patient's GCS = 15 - Glascow Coma Scale, a level of consciousness scale 15 is normal and he is warm and dry with normal skin color.
    Patient has abrasions to his forehead + bleeding/tenderness to his nose and a small laceration to the back of his head. All injuries have minor bleeding.
    Patient also denies LOC (loss of consciousness), neck/back pain, and he has + PMS (pulse motor sensory function) X 4 (in all extremities) with - paresthesia or no tingling

    Patient's wounds are cleaned & SPD advises they will export patient. Patient is left in custody of SPD.

    we cannot edit comments (none / 0) (#110)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:11:01 PM EST
    I can only delete them.

    You missed this on the next page of his report, p. 183.

    "Cause of Injury: Struck by blunt/thrown object"


    The Can? (none / 0) (#113)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    Wow! GZ did not mention that.

    Continuing Discussion Of Dee Dee (1.00 / 0) (#152)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 05:25:45 AM EST
    Continuing discussion from another thread.


    Last comment.

    I was rushing yesterday to get one of our pets to the vet's on time . . .

    I hope he/she is doing well.

    I wish we could discuss our pets and our respective veterinary experiences, but that would be way off topic.

    TM runs down Twin Trees; GZ follows by running south on the sidewalk between townhomes . . .

    Why would Zimmerman make a hundred foot detour, into an area where houses would block his view of Martin?

    (obviously, he would see TM run through break between town homes)

    Only if Zimmerman was running more than twice as fast as Martin.

    when TM spots GZ "in the back" -- he runs from the back . . .

    Dee Dee said Martin saw the man in the car at just this time.

    7:20-44 -

    Dee Dee: So I said 'What's going on?' He said this man is still watching him, like in a car, so he about to run from the back. So I- I told him go to his dad's house. Run to the house.

    De la Rionda: Go to what?

    Dee Dee: Run to his dad's house.

    De la Rionda: To his dad's house.

    Dee Dee: Yeah.

    De la Rionda: OK.

    Dee Dee:  But he said he about to run from his- um, the back, because it's more easy, he said. So next I hear, he's just running.

    If Zimmerman was between Martin and home, why didn't Martin say so?

    Zimmerman's presence would make the way dangerous rather than difficult, so 'it's more easy' seems like an odd euphemism.

    traveling up Twin Trees.

    If 'the back' is the area between the townhomes, running from one part of Twin Trees Lane to another wouldn't take Martin any further from 'the back'.

    GZ doesn't see TM however until he's finished with his non-emergency call.

    I'll try to put this all together with the timeline.

    Times in parentheses are citations to the interview linked above.

    I'll call the three buildings on Twin Trees Lane the first, second, and third houses, numbering from the north. I'll call the gaps between them the first and second gaps, also numbering from the north.

    The first house has five units and is 120 feet long. The other two have six units each, and are 140 feet long. The gaps are about twenty feet.

    Martin runs south on Twin Trees Lane at (I assume) an ordinary speed of about ten feet per second (fps). Zimmerman pursues the long way around at over 20 fps. (Champion sprinters beat 30 fps.)

    Zimmerman catches up with Martin at the first gap. Zimmerman reaches the second gap before Martin, stopping there. The wind noise on Zimmerman's police call stops about this time, about 7:12:15. Zimmerman sees Martin run past the second gap, about 7:12:20.

    Zimmerman has seen Martin twice on Twin Trees Lane, but for some reason he remains in the area between the townhomes. He walks a short distance north or south of the second gap, so he can no longer see TTL. He continues talking to the dispatcher.

    Martin stops running beside the third house and answers his phone. Dee Dee has been trying to reconnect for at least twenty seconds. He talks to Dee Dee about his hood and a man in a car. (7:06-27) He tells Dee Dee he is 'about to run from the back' because 'it's more easy' than running home. (7:20-40)

    Martin runs north on Twin Trees Lane, past one or both of the gaps. Zimmerman is still on the phone.

    Martin tells Dee Dee he 'lost' his pursuer, and is now walking instead of running because he is 'right by his father's house'. (7:50-54, 8:08-9, 8:38-9:20)

    If Martin is walking on Twin Trees Lane, not concealing himself, and Zimmerman were to come through either gap to TTL, Zimmerman would see Martin regardless of which house Martin is in front of. How has Martin 'lost' Zimmerman by running one or two houses north on TTL?

    Martin has given Dee Dee two explanations for not running home, at two different places. The first was that it was 'more easy' to 'run from the back'. The second was that he was 'right by his father's house'. But he was at least as close to the house, possibly closer, when he gave the first explanation as when he gave the second.

    Now comes the 'couple of minutes'. Zimmerman finishes his phone call, about 7:13:39. Martin does whatever, leaving him in front of the second house for the beginning of the Slow Chase. I would estimate that to be between 7:14:15 and 7:15:30. Zimmerman prowls between the townhomes until he spots Martin.

    Thanks No Matter -- I see it now. I was looking (none / 0) (#153)
    by Mary2012 on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 11:29:16 PM EST
    for an open thread, sorry about that!

    Hearing Friday (none / 0) (#1)
    by OnTheLeft on Thu May 31, 2012 at 01:08:43 PM EST
    I thought the hearing on what documents will be released or not is on Friday.

    How can they be released today, if the hearing is Friday?

    Different Documents (none / 0) (#2)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 31, 2012 at 01:24:40 PM EST
    The documents to be released today are already approved. There are more documents whose release is being contested.

    Re: Different Documents (none / 0) (#71)
    by OnTheLeft on Thu May 31, 2012 at 09:02:13 PM EST
    So, I guess there weren't any "pre-approved" documents?

    I got an email (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 31, 2012 at 11:28:06 PM EST
    on May 25 from the state's attorney press person saying there would be a new release soon we would get 24 hours notice and have to our money to them by the next day.

    For the second discovery release, the SAO office will send an email alert 24 hours in advance of records being available. If your agency would like immediate access, the payment needs to be at the SAO before the set deadline.  

    I got another email on May 30 from a different public records person requesting money saying the money had to be received by June 1. I fedexed it immediately.

    Then today I got a confusing voicemail from someone at the State's Attorney saying something about her putting me on the wrong list and they would treat my check as an advance against the next release, but needed me to call to authorize them to deposit the check. She was apologizing for an error, but didn't say what the error was. I left her a voicemail telling her to deposit the check.

    I later emailed the person who had sent out the first email and got a reply nothing was being released today.

    So apparently, what they sent me 2 days ago (and cost me $25.00 in fedex fees, aside from the payment) was meant for someone else who hadn't previously purchased the discovery and mistakenly sent to me. I thought it was my 24 hour notice to get my money in.

    Sorry for any confusion. I hope I can keep up with the fedex fees -- it's odd they don't take credit cards and give only 24 hours to have the money physically in their office. On the other hand, I'm grateful to be able to have the access.


    Thank you. (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by DebFrmHell on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 04:43:01 AM EST
    I can't tell you enough how much your efforts to keep us apprised on this case are appreciated.

    Timeline (none / 0) (#3)
    by whitecap333 on Thu May 31, 2012 at 01:47:15 PM EST
    Putting aside the issue of Zimmerman's whereabouts, does anyone have a plausible hypothesis about where Trayvon was during the interval (4-5 minutes?) between the end of Zimmerman's 911 call and the gunshot?  If the "confrontation" took place near the "T," why was Trayvon so far removed from his residence.

    I'm also wondering whether anyone can clarify whether the walkways which intersect to form the "T" are public or private property, and how that might relate to the analysis.

    Public and Private (none / 0) (#5)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 31, 2012 at 02:13:13 PM EST
    I think the 'public' areas of the community, like the sidewalks and the clubhouse, are the joint property of the unit owners. That makes them 'private property' in the ordinary sense of the term, which I know is confusing.

    Also, in gated communities, (none / 0) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:06:17 PM EST
    the streets are private, owned in common by the HOA. The streets, therefore, are maintained by the HOA and may have their own rules such as no parking or regulated hours of parking.  Not sure of this particular gated community, but this is typical.

    7:16:56 PM -7:13:39 PM = 3:17 (none / 0) (#7)
    by unitron on Thu May 31, 2012 at 02:14:29 PM EST
    Gunshot = 7:16:56 PM

    Zimmerman hang up = 7:13:39 PM

    First 911 call = 7:16:11 PM

    Beginning of struggle = approx 7:15:30 PM, or at least that's the general consensus

    No idea where he was until beginning of struggle, sorry.

    Suspect everything that looks like a sidewalk inside The Retreat at Twin Lakes is property owned in common and available for use by all residents of that gated community but not the general public, but I don't see how it would make much difference to the case unless there's some justification for shooting Martin as a tresspasser for stepping off the sidewalk onto the grass at some point.


    Inconsistencies in Tracy Martins recent statement (none / 0) (#19)
    by Redbrow on Thu May 31, 2012 at 03:04:04 PM EST
    This quote from Tracy has been bothering me.

    "It's something I will never get over. I had talked to my son between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m., then 12-13 hours later I found out that he was dead. He was three weeks from turning 17. I know my son was a good kid who had a future. He was very responsible. If he said he was going to the movies or to the store, I know he was doing that," Martin said.

    1. Tracy knew about Trayvon's death around 2:00 and 3:00 a.m.?
    2. Trayvon reportedly begged to go to 7-11. So when did he actually leave and why wait until later to go if he did not want to miss any of the big game? Why make his poor little non-brother wait so long for his skittles?
    3. Why is Tracy always bringing up going to the movies? Why wasn't he or Brandy and Chad interviewed by investigators?

    So Trayvon was only 16 years old? (none / 0) (#47)
    by ZtoA on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:56:48 PM EST
    "He was three weeks from turning 17." (2.50 / 2) (#48)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:58:26 PM EST
    Looks like Tracy and Dee Dee speak the same dialect...

    I Think You've Got It (none / 0) (#55)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 31, 2012 at 05:16:17 PM EST
    It looks like Tracy Martin said 'three weeks from' to mean three weeks after, and the reporter misunderstood and declared Trayvon to be 16.

    It was 3 weeks after ... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yman on Thu May 31, 2012 at 05:02:58 PM EST
    ... his 17th birthday.

    seen, until this quote.  I was under the impression he turned 17 the week before he was killed.

    Going To The Store (none / 0) (#62)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:44:45 PM EST
    Trayvon reportedly begged to go to 7-11.

    I don't put much stock in the 'begged' story, from a single second-hand witness.

    It seems Tracy and Brandy told The NY Times that they didn't know Trayvon went to the store until they got home and Chad told them.

    Tracy Martin and Brandy Green returned to her town house around 10:30 p.m. to find her son, but not his. Trayvon had gone to the store, Chad explained.

    The adults did not panic. Trayvon was 17, after all. Maybe he had gone to visit a cousin in nearby Oviedo, or maybe he had met a girl along the way, and was chatting her up. Mr. Martin called Trayvon's cellphone, but it went straight to voice mail. Then he called the cousin, who did not answer, but he expected the young man to call back. They went to sleep.

    This doesn't exactly fit the picture of a teen who has to get permission for every walk to a nearby store.

    So when did he actually leave

    Dee Dee said it was after six when he told her he 'was going to the store'.

    The NY Times report linked above doesn't say when Trayvon left for the store. Has that been generally true of press accounts?

    and why wait until later to go if he did not want to miss any of the big game?

    The game didn't start until 7:30. Tip-off was probably later.

    That Martin went to the store during a game break was part of the initial propaganda blitz.

    Why make his poor little non-brother wait so long for his skittles?

    Maybe Chad wanted the candy to eat during the game.

    Much of Martin's behavior makes sense if he was putting off getting home until the game started.

    Chad said Trayvon wanted to go to the store because 'he was bored'. That might have been a polite way of saying he didn't care for the environment at the Green home. Maybe what he really wanted was privacy to talk to Dee Dee.


    My understanding of the law (none / 0) (#42)
    by TerryMann on Thu May 31, 2012 at 04:30:30 PM EST
    is that you don't need to have already sustained a serious bodily injury; you just to have have a reasonable fear that you are about to.

    There are numerous news stories about people who were struck by one punch, fell to the sidewalk/concrete/etc., and later died from blunt force trauma to the head. A recent CDC study says that, on average, about 5800 people die every year from assault-caused traumatic brain injuries. So I would argue that once Martin hit Zimmerman's head into the concrete and continued to assault Zimmerman, even after being spotted by a witness, that Zimmerman's fear of sustaining serious injury was reasonable.

    People have also died ... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Yman on Thu May 31, 2012 at 05:02:10 PM EST
    ... from a single punch.  So what?

    By that logic, every time there's a fistfight and someone punches someone else, the person punched should be allowed to use deadly force.


    The problem is (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 31, 2012 at 06:10:32 PM EST
    One serious Smash of a head on concrete, and that person is not thinking anything. He's either dead, or in a coma.

    That's why I've objected throughout this saga about using the Inflammatory
     word, "Smash."


    There's a lot of (none / 0) (#64)
    by Slayersrezo on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:18:11 PM EST
    inflammatory words to object to that are commonly used to describe this case , aren't there?

    yes, Rezo (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:35:41 PM EST
    If redundancy is your goal.

    "Smash" Honestly it is such a (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ZtoA on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:47:04 PM EST
    huge exaggeration that it really works against the defense. IF this goes to trial and the defense uses such hyperventilating terms when I can see only two small cuts and no bruises or indents of any kind on the back of his head and can see no evidence of broken nose or black eyes, then it really calls into question the credibility of the defense. I'm a "reasonable" person too and I would not be terrified enough to shoot someone dead because of two small cuts.

    I think smashed is appropriate. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by DebFrmHell on Thu May 31, 2012 at 11:47:58 PM EST
    If you look at the picture, his head was held and pushed down to the left or he was dazed enough not to move long enough for the blood to leave a trail that runs left behind his ear.

    Even after getting cleaned up around the wound you can see it.  

    There is also a goodly amount of dried blood in his beard. It is most likely from the nose bleed that accompanied the broken nose. There is a picture of that, too. It runs to the left.

    I think you would be a more little frightened if someone was doing that to you.  At least twice. And preceded by a punch of some sort to the nose. That is three contacts right there.  

    The fact that there was no DNA under TM's nails says to me he had GZ's head in his hands.  The autopsy report says there is a small abrasion on TM's left hand. That is the only other wound to TM

    ME-8 tested positive for blood.
    ME-8 Stain A has DNA consistent with GZ.
    ME-8 Stain B has DNA consistant with TM.
    ME-8 Stain D has mixed DNA and both TM and GZ are both included as contributors.
    ME-8 Stain E is consistant with TM.

    Stains A, B, D, E are from the cuffs of the sleeves on the shirt that TM was wearing.  I am sorry but even though I have read it more than a few times, I can't figure out if that is the right or left cuff.

    I cracked my head open when I fell on a tile floor.  It hurt and it was scary.  And that was me all alone doing that damage.  BTW, I refused EMS, also.  I should have gone.  So should have GZ.

    All IMO.


    Trickles of blood by ears and "Smashed" (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Mary2012 on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 11:44:32 AM EST
    If you look at the picture, his head was held and pushed down to the left or he was dazed enough not to move long enough for the blood to leave a trail that runs left behind his ear.

    Please. There appears to be trickles by each ear and (speculating) could've occurred right after the shooting, perhaps as he leaned over TM's lifeless body.

    "Smashed" conjures up a much different picture (such as a literally broken or shattered skull for example) and could be the reason the surveillance video initially released caused the commotion it did.  Blow-ups and enhancements were needed to determine/ ascertain whether GZ even had any injuries (imo and according to how I remember it).  This did not help the GZ side/ story/ defense.  



    Sorry... (none / 0) (#82)
    by DebFrmHell on Thu May 31, 2012 at 11:51:06 PM EST
    But the blood from the nose may be on the right.  I am doing this from memory so I apologize if I have that part backwards.

    Tracy Martin A Witness (none / 0) (#68)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 31, 2012 at 07:51:32 PM EST
    Tracy Martin is on the witness list (p.2). He probably has been interviewed. Maybe Jeralyn can tell us something.

    being on the state's discovery (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:16:07 AM EST
    list as a potential witness doesn't mean the state intends to call him.

    If called, I imagine it would be to put into evidence that Trayvon was staying with him at Ms. Green's house, and confirm he was going to 711. For context, more than evidence of the shooting since he wasn't there.

    He might also be called to testify about how he found DeeDee on the phone records.


    its a Zimmerman thread (none / 0) (#85)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:09:22 AM EST
    sorry but politics is off-topic.

    Again, sorry for any (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:23:37 AM EST
    misunderstanding but this is not an open thread for all topics. It's for topics related to Zimmerman.

    I won't be around tomorrow and rather than post another Zimmerman thread with nothing new to say, I'd like to have this one last until after tomorrow's hearing on the media challenges to record sealing. We only get 200 comments, and I think that hearing will generate enough to come close to filling up the thread.

    The deleted off-topic comments were fine, just not in the right place and a bit distracting to those wanting to talk about Zimmerman.

    I'll have an open thread for other topics up by morning.

    Bruising (none / 0) (#95)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 04:18:29 AM EST

    When I was into martial arts as a teenager, I did a lot of punching and I don't recall ever noticing bruising on my knuckles. I got lots of bruises on arms and legs, from blocking the blows of sparring partners.

    Two Interviews (none / 0) (#97)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 04:53:16 AM EST
    In the interviews for the NY Times report  I linked above (#62), Tracy and Brandy needed to explain why they didn't report Trayvon missing after he didn't come home that night. Trayvon didn't bring Chad the candy he promised, and they assumed that instead he had gone somewhere else without telling anyone, and they didn't 'panic'. The implication is that this behavior wasn't unexpected, hence not unusual.

    In the recent interview linked by Redbrow (#19), Tracy claimed 'If he said he was going to the movies or to the store, I know he was doing that.'

    Witness 2 (none / 0) (#105)
    by friendofinnocence on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:07:45 AM EST
    Do you have a date for this statement from W2?  The last I heard W2's statement had changed a couple of times.  Most recently, W2 said there was only one figure of indeterminate age, race, or gender.

    it changed, she saw nothing (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:07:21 PM EST
    and didn't have her contacts in. The only thing her sister, W-1 saw and heard of import was her neighbor John, calling out to them and saying he was going to call 911.

    and I've deleted the comment (none / 0) (#150)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 10:48:21 PM EST
    No Frank Shorter (none / 0) (#106)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 10:09:21 AM EST
    GZ was winded after running 10 yards and TM did not seem to want to return to the Greens.

    The Greens? (none / 0) (#120)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 11:51:22 PM EST
    TM did not seem to want to return to the Greens.

    I'm sorry, what does this mean?

    the Greens (none / 0) (#137)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 06:47:37 PM EST
    are the people who lived at the house Trayvon and his father were visiting. Brandy Green and her son Chad.

    Yikes! Apologies For Being Dense. (none / 0) (#140)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 03:34:38 AM EST
    Motion to Revove Bond (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cylinder on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 12:22:34 PM EST
    Apparently the state will file a motion to reveoke bond over a passport issue (the one given to the court was a replacement) and the Pay Pal issue.

    Was it a replacement turned into the court? (none / 0) (#116)
    by Cashmere on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 02:27:45 PM EST
    I once lost a passport and got a replacement... My old passport which I later found was no longer valid any longer as the state dept had deemed it invalid.  I am surprised the bond would be revoked if he had, indeed, turned in the new, replacement.

    Lester Agrees With You (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 02:39:39 PM EST
    Lester brushed aside the passport issue, revoked the bond because of the internet money.

    Passport non-issue (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Cylinder on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 02:40:13 PM EST
    The passport was a non-issue. Zimmerman lost his passport some years ago and applied for a new one. When he was arrested and set free on bond, he handed his passport to O'Mara to surrender.

    After he left custody, he packed his stuff to move because of the issues surrounding the case. In the course of packing, he found the old passport and self-reported that one to O'Mara. O'Mara drafted a notice to the court of the new passport, but failed to file it.

    It sounds a bit like a fish-tale, but O'Mara wisely printed the directory listing to show the creation date of that file and provided that to the judge, along with the old passport, when he was in court today.

    The issue was the PayPal account. The state contends that Zimmerman was caught talking about the money on the jailhouse phone.

    de la Rionda seemed foolish when he touted 15 as some sort of deceptive code for 15,000. Surely a state's attorney has bought a car or home or something before, right?


    No, (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by Karl Baden on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 03:10:59 PM EST
    he turned in the old, void one and claimed it was the only one he had.

    Bond Revoked (none / 0) (#114)
    by DebFrmHell on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:40:15 PM EST
    He has 48 hours to turn himself in.

    Bond revoked (none / 0) (#115)
    by Cylinder on Fri Jun 01, 2012 at 01:41:06 PM EST
    Zimmerman's bond was revoked and he was placed on a no bond status with a chance at another hearing.

    June 1 Hearing Audio (none / 0) (#122)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 03:21:55 AM EST
    Audio of the June 1 hearing. It's 53 minutes, with an icon for starting at the bond issue.

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#123)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 05:16:25 AM EST
    I had to start getting ready for work just about the beginning of the hearing so I only caught the last five minutes.  Much appreciated!

    It must be me but so many on the other thread seemed gleeful that this has occurred.  It should have come as no surprise that his bond was revoked. I think it is a rightful decision.

    I think this is a huge blow to his credibilty right now but I think MOM will get everything back on track.  I don't think it is the nefarious plot that de la Riondo made it out to be, however.

    I still need to read the Motion beore commenting further.

    And you know if there is a snowball's chance they are going to make GZ do the "Perp Walk."  IMO.


    Hearing, June 1 (none / 0) (#124)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 07:30:24 AM EST

     I don't think it is the nefarious plot that de la Riondo made it out to be, however.

    The tapes sound bad. I'm wondering if there is some exculpatory or mitigating context the prosecutors are withholding. They haven't been winning integrity prizes.

    I've listened to the whole thing. My first point of interest didn't get a mention on the thread devoted to the topic. It seems O'Mara got short notice (23:35).

    Lester was dismissive when O'Mara asked for a delay. I think he had his mind made up to revoke bond, and hear 'explanations' when Zimmerman was in custody.

    Things may look different after O'Mara has had time to dig into the facts.


    I still need to look into some things (none / 0) (#129)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 09:25:28 AM EST
    but since Shellie had control of the passport, could the  "hold on to that" be referencing the fact that he knows he will have to turn in his passport after getting bond?

    IMO, he could have 50 passports.  Only one of them is a legal passport.  The one reported lost would have been nullified by the government.  

    The one she turned in could have been an error on her part.  I don't understand the 30 days that MOM had info or the passport in his possession either.  I am confuzzled about that.

    The money trail is the part that looks bad.  MOM said that there was some concern on Zimmerman's behalf as to how he could actually use the money.  The story given and the way the Motion reads doesn't really dispute that.  His part of the recording seems to support that.  He seems hesitant to use it.

    Do you think they will release the full versions of those calls in the next round of Discovery?  I would like to read/hear the entire context of those jail house calls rather than the parts that the Prosecution cherry-picked to make his case.

    Could the $44 dollars and 46 cents be a referring to his commissary fund?  He was only there a few days and had spent a considerable amount of the money that was in that account.  It is such an odd amount.

    I just think if he thought he could use those funds willy-nilly, he would have bonded out the first day.  IIRC, he stayed in jail another 2 or 3 days before being released and he only used $5k of it to do so.  MOM has that account firmly in his control by that time and he didn't even know if Zimmerman had paid the other $10k to the bondsman which makes me wonder if his dad didn't complete the second on his house.

    (I don't think the house was ever put up as collateral for the total 150k.  That is up to the descetion of the bondsman, methinks.)

    With the GPS, he wouldn't have a chance to run either.  As soon as he would have popped the anklet LE would have been notified and someone would be there immediately.

    Lots of questions to be answered.


    Passport Questions (none / 0) (#132)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 11:41:41 AM EST
    could the  "hold on to that" be referencing the fact that he knows he will have to turn in his passport after getting bond?

    I've thought that 'hold on to that' can mean a lot of things. Hold on to it as opposed to doing what with it? That's one place where I wonder if the prosecution is withholding some clarifying context.

    I have been carelessly reading those lines as meaning that Zimmerman knew on April 17 that he had two passports. But they don't say that. George wasn't sure 'my passport' was in a certain bag, and his wife said there was 'one' in a safety deposit box. It's odd that she said 'one' instead of 'it', but it doesn't necessarily mean she knew there was more than one.

    In the June 1 hearing, de la Rionda said the conversation was about 'a passport' (27:00).

    I don't understand the 30 days that MOM had info or the passport in his possession either.

    It was just a mistake on O'Mara's part (33:40-35:55). O'Mara filled out the paperwork, forgot to file it and turn over the passport, and then forgot he hadn't done it.

    O'Mara said the Zimmermans found the passport as they were preparing to move after George was released.


    Seems like I am always thanking you! (none / 0) (#135)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 01:31:09 PM EST
    for much needed clarity.  I really do learn a lot from you.  Thanks again.

    Lester Gets Some Laughs (none / 0) (#125)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 08:46:05 AM EST
    June 1 Hearing (13:17) -

    Lester: In this situation, the state's saying that the statements made by the defendant are inculpatory in nature, akin to a confession. The defense is saying they're exculpatory, correct?

    O'Mara: We haven't said anything yet.

    Lester: I've had a chance to review them. You're gonna say they're exculpatory. I'm just letting you know. That's what you're gonna say. [Laughter.] So. There's not a whole lot of doubt about that.

    It sounds to me like Lester isn't too impressed with the prosecution's claims about Zimmerman's inconsistencies.

    No, it doesn't (none / 0) (#133)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 12:11:21 PM EST
    The judge is asking about the statements given by Zimmerman in general, not specific contradictory statements.  They're laughing not because he isn't "impressed with" the contradictory statements, but because the very heart of the defense is that Zimmerman's statements are (by definition) exculpatory, and he fully expects the defense to argue such.  The issue is whether such statements (generally) are "confessions", exempt from the disclosure requirements.

    From Nearby (none / 0) (#149)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 10:31:36 PM EST
    RZ was present at the video taped walk thru and must have heard his son explain himself, and his movements.

    I don't recall you citing a source for this, beyond 'it's been reported.'

    NY Times, April 1:

    The day after the shooting, George Zimmerman, according to his father, returned with at least three police officers to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, back to that grassy area where plaintive cries for help had gone unanswered. The investigators, accompanied by someone with a video camera, wanted him to re-enact the events of the night when the two strangers had stood their ground.

    Mr. Zimmerman's father watched from nearby.

    please keep your speculations (none / 0) (#151)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 07, 2012 at 10:55:32 PM EST
    to ones based on the disclosed facts, not rumors and things you think the facts will show.

    "Maybe this happened" based on a non-established fact is not worth publishing and spreading around the internet.