Friday Open Thread

The allegations against Dominique Strauss-Kahn keep coming, here's the latest from France.

Bunny Mellon's lawyer, Alexander Forger, will testify this afternoon in the John Edwards trial.

The ACLU files suit over 9/11 defendants' arraignments set for tomorrow. The Government plans to censor any statements regarding torture while in U.S. custody.

What's on your mind today? Here's an open thread to discuss it, all topics welcome.

< NBC Fires Lilia Luciano Over George Zimmerman Tape Edit | Tin Soldiers and Nixon Coming: Kent State, 42 Years Later >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Bruce tribute to Levon (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 04, 2012 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    Nice one mate... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:42:09 PM EST
    I gotta pass that on to my sis...she was down in N'awlins last weekend for Jazz Fest and was very upset there was no tribute to Levon by anybody...not Bruce nor Dr. John even.  

    She'll be happy to hear the Boss done right.


    RIP Adam Yauch of the Beastie Boys (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Fri May 04, 2012 at 01:46:48 PM EST
    I feel so very sad and old today.

    Time to kick it up. (link)

    Peace, y'all.

    MCA is gone... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 04, 2012 at 01:51:34 PM EST
    and Ted Nugent still walks the Earth.  Life ain't fair, man.

    RIP MCA.


    It shows that God is showing mercy toward them (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Farmboy on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:32:35 PM EST
    both. Mercy for MCA by relieving his pain, and mercy for Ted by giving him more time on Earth before sending him off to a warmer clime.

    What about... (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:47:46 PM EST
    the rest of us poor souls?  

    I think the Motor City Madman... (none / 0) (#62)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:54:26 PM EST
    (boy did he ever live up to that name today) has had his fair share of time on Earth--or a least in the public eye.  

    Growing up in Des Moines when I did, you couldn't escape ole' Ted.  First it was the Amboy Dukes seemingly every weekend of those heady summers during the late 60's and early 70's in Greenwood Park with my older sister.  Then the solo shows in old Vets (its a wonder I still have any hearing after that place) when I got old enough to drive. As you might imagine, there's wasn't a heck of a lot for a teenager to do in DMS--it was pretty much hanging out and partying, scooping the loop and shows at Vets.  Lots and lots of shows.  

    In short, I reached my Ted Nugent limit a long, long time ago.    


    Compared to SE IA, you (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by oculus on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:24:21 PM EST
    we're living in a Mecca of culture.

    The Beastie Boys Pulled Out of... (none / 0) (#14)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:52:28 PM EST
    ACL in 2009 because of MCA's diagnoses.

    I was so pumped to see them, and then the news of why... like you said, really made me feel old.

    I saw saw a photo slideshow and I wasn't sad until I saw him with his little girl.  They have been playing BB all day on the radio.  RIP my man.


    What a bummer... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:37:26 PM EST
    another musical hero of mine, thats 2 in a matter of weeks.

    Paul's Boutique, my favorite rap album of all time...I know every word of it by heart.  In my high school days whenever we crashed a party we hijacked the stereo and put on Paul's Boutique.

    I'm a writer a poet a genius I know it
    I don't buy cheeba I grow it (I'm a farmer)
    People always trying to get next to me
    But I'm down with Jalil Donkey and Ecstasy
    Smoked up a bag of elephant tranquilizer
    Because I had to deal with a money hungry miser
    Had a caine filled Kool with my man Rush Rush
    Saw my teeth fall in the sink when I started to brush
    You be doing nose candy on the Bowie Coke Mirror
    My girl asked for some but I pretended not to hear her
    You can't deny me you always want to try me
    You're just gonna get your a$$ kicked
    Homeboy throw in the towel
    Your girl got d*cked by Ricky Powell
    The Godfather of Soul is in the belly of the beast
    For smoking that dust at St. Anthony's Feast

    - Car Thief

    And I never saw them live, what a regret.  I had tickets for a show in ATL in 2000, but Mike D broke his leg and they cancelled the tour.


    I was in college... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dadler on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:45:03 PM EST
    ...when they first hit.  Brass Monkey was the party song then:

    M.C.A. with the bottle - D. rocks the can
    Adrock gets nice with Charlie Chan
    We're offered Moet - we don't mind Chivas
    Wherever we go with bring the Monkey with us
    Adrock drinks three - Mike D. is D.
    Double R. foots the bill most definitely
    I drink Brass Monkey and I rock well
    I got a Castle in Brooklyn - that's where I dwell

    License to Ill kid.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:50:34 PM EST
    my elementary school days...rhyming along to "Paul Revere" on my stoop with the multiple D Battery powered boom box.

    I did it like this, I did it like that, I did it with a Whiffle Ball bat sooooo


    Hot Dog... (none / 0) (#44)
    by kdog on Fri May 04, 2012 at 05:56:59 PM EST
    they got the entire legendary album on the youtube...which is appropriate seeing as it is one of the select rap records that is a true album experience, meant for listening in it's entirety.

    And Summer of '94, when Ill Communication dropped??? Soundtrack of a summer.  Sheeet if I knew it was gonna be that kinda party I woulda stuck my d*ck in the mashed potatos.

    Yes Yauch's on the Upright
    Sh*t just ain't funny
    Got mad bass lines
    like Russell Simmons steals money

    starring Nathan Wind as Cochese (none / 0) (#73)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:32:17 PM EST
    Cochese kicks @ss.

    Classic B&B.


    the Kent State Massacre (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Zorba on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:07:32 PM EST
    happened 42 years ago today.  The Kent State survivors are asking for a new probe of the shootings.  
    On the eve of the 42nd anniversary of the shootings, four students wounded that day asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate digitally enhanced audio evidence they believe proves an officer ordered the guardsmen to fire on the unarmed students.


    remember kent state... as the injustice it is. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:52:05 PM EST
    I don't think this audiotape is going to get us much closer to the truth here.  My personal opinion is that a small group of the troop conspired between themselves to "shoot some hippies" on a mutually agreed upon signal, and they did.  It's pretty clear who the bad apples were if you followed the cases.  Plenty of perjury to go around among the Guard.  

    The real blame however goes to the University President for inviting the poorly commanded Guard onto campus in the first place.  And of course, the officers on the field that day utterly failed in their duty to keep order.  The entire march to the practice field was a idiotic move in crowd control tactics.  

    (my how far we've come.  Now we have pepper spray to attack teenagers with indiscriminately, and so much much more ways for the oligarchy to silence dissent.)

    What's worth remembering here in that justice never came, and that the FBI was complicit in a cover up of related matters  - the Terry Norman episode - no direct bearing, it seems, but a dirty shame anyway.  

    We may as well ask Holder to investigate the invasion of Cambodia as to hope for justice here for the students who were shot on this date in history.  


    Well, technically, (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Zorba on Fri May 04, 2012 at 07:19:52 PM EST
    it was then Ohio Governor Jim Rhodes who called out the Ohio National Guard- the University President did not have that authority.  Although there is plenty of blame to spread around to the University, as well as to the Kent, OH mayor LeRoy Satrom.

    Holder won't touch it (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jondee on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:14:29 PM EST
    with a ten foot pole, especially in an election year.

    Not when Moron.com is already publicly accusing him of colluding with all three "New Black Panthers" etc..

    We've let the hard-Right hijack the discussion to the point now at which O, Holder and company are terrified of being publicly associated in any way with any parties percieved as being "radical" or "militant"..


    I agree, jondee (none / 0) (#46)
    by Zorba on Fri May 04, 2012 at 06:22:47 PM EST
    Sadly, I agree.

    more sloppy reporting on Zimmerman (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    J deleted this off another thread about bad reporting on the Trayvon Martin murder case.  I'm reposting here more or less at her suggestion.  Some interesting stuff was coming up, but not on her topic.  


    There is a lot of sloppy reporting going on here.  But that's hardly a surprise.  Until the bones of this case are more obvious to all, reporters will bungle the important details over and again.  The difference between "profiling" and "racial profiling," while egregious to anyone paying close attention, is just a case in point.  

    (I'm astounded people think the DoJ is running a full scale investigation of the SPD and Norm Wolfinger, when it's clear that they are not.  Their focus is on civil rights violations of TM by GZ only.)

    here's another case in point however of the glaringly wrong word being used in a story:
    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-03/news/os-trayvon-martin-circles-george-zimmerman-20120 503_1_special-prosecutor-angela-corey-source-police-department

    This story tries to make something of the rather obvious fact that Trayvon had to walk past GZ to get home, using the word "circling" in a sinister fashion without attribution or clarification of any sort.  

    George Zimmerman told investigators that while he was on the phone with a Sanford police dispatcher reporting Trayvon Martin as suspicious, the unarmed teenager was circling his vehicle on foot, a source familiar with the investigation told the Orlando Sentinel.
    The source said Zimmerman's account of events hasn't changed in his several statements to police -- in which he said he was so unnerved by the teen's behavior that he rolled up his window to avoid a confrontation. However, he never mentioned any of that while talking to the dispatcher.

    This supposed insight is no blockbuster.  If you listen to the police recording of GZ's call, he places the youth near the clubhouse at first, and then increases the detail of his description (and "suspicious" activity such as not being able to see what is in his hand) as the teen walks closer, and then past his vehicle, prompting the exclamation, "these a**holes always get away."
    What's clearly bad reporting is the use of the adjective "circling" with no further description to indicate if the reporter or informant or Zimmerman himself means "multiple 360 degree passes" or simply, "he walked past the car, making sure not to walk OVER the vehicle."

    Later however in the same supposed account by the inside source who seems to have seen the statements made by Zimmerman to the police, there is one much more telling detail dropped and then left without being followed up on, despite the obvious significance to the case.  

    Here, according to that source, is the sequence that Zimmerman provided:
    Zimmerman spotted Trayvon, called a nonemergency police number and began describing the teenager. While he was doing that, Trayvon came toward his vehicle and began to circle it.
    Zimmerman, though, never described that to the dispatcher.
    At one point, about halfway through the nearly three-minute call, he told the dispatcher, "Now he's just staring at me. ... Now he's coming towards me. He's got his hand in his waistband. ... He's coming to check me out."
    Trayvon then disappeared, Zimmerman later told authorities, according to the source, and while Zimmerman was still on the phone, he parked his vehicle, got out and began trying to find Trayvon on foot.

    The part that jumped out at me is the idea that he PARKED his vehicle while still on the phone.  This infers that he was DRIVING during the call, something that is currently not established well in the public domain.  If he was driving, it seems likely he was following the teenager once the "kid" (his words) passed his car - which certainly may have unnerved Trayvon, who seems to have started running about this time.  

    Yet, this important clue went unnoticed by the reporter.  One does not "repark" a parked car.  

    Reporters Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner of the Orlando Sentinel, I nominate you for "incompetent media of the day."  You've let a potential source slip in a loaded word like "circling" without clarification, while ignoring the significance of a possible  admission of car-stalking.      

    I read that this morning too (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:14:35 PM EST
    and it is a prime example of how it is so hard to make sense of this case from the reporting.  If Martin was indeed "circling" the SUV, as in walking around it, as the word implies, wouldn't Zimmerman have described it that way? Did the source use that word to the reporter, or was that his choice.

    It is why I have pretty much given up on forming opinions until I hear the evidence in court.


    source fed reporter the loaded word (none / 0) (#33)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:26:02 PM EST
    We don't know if the word "circled" was in the statement or not.  Sloppy reporting, and they missed the most relevant part, in my opinion - the admission that GZ was trailing the youth with his car, causing him to take off running in fear for his safety.  

    Yet the story gets reported as though it were TM that was somehow menacing the armed man locked inside his SUV, when it's most likely that he was simply walking towards his home.  

    Ignore the MSM, go to the primary sources and form your own opinion, I say, if you are an armchair jury member.  

    Zimmerman has a great story about his shooting the unarmed teen in self-defense....  it just isn't true, is all.  I doubt his lawyer will risk a SYG hearing at all, his client isn't credible on the witness stand and would be destroyed in cross-examination.  


    We could go on and on (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Fri May 04, 2012 at 05:08:48 PM EST
    I finally found some good maps, which someone else posted here the other night that, make it a lot clearer in my mind. As one of the neighbors said, TM was actually using the most direct route to his destination. There remains the question of how the confrontation started. GZ says TM 'appeared'. Did GZ almost catch up to TM without realizing it, and TM turned around to talk to him?  That's what it sounds like from what his girlfriend reported from the cell phone conversation.

    I hope there are some witnesses to that part of the scene.


    Location of travois body proves GZ lies (none / 0) (#47)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 04, 2012 at 06:39:55 PM EST
    Look at a map.  Ignore captions and speculation.  Note that the location of the body is between the back to back townhouses.  GZ seems to claim that he was looking for a street sign and returning to his vehicle when he was jumped.  Yet the body and he end up in a place where there are no street signs and off of the path that leads to his truck.  

    What was he doing there? It doesn't matter where they started, but we know where it ended.   Regardless of who spoke first, someone closed the gap between the two.  If zimmermans tale were true, the fight would be on the path to his truck, not the path to Trayvons home.  


    Lying Eyes? (none / 0) (#82)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 05, 2012 at 08:21:59 AM EST
    You think Zimmerman told the police not to believe their lying eyes about where they found a body?

    In the bond hearing, Detective Gilbreath conceded that Zimmerman had injuries on the back of his head, and that his injuries were 'consistent with' his head 'striking' a concrete or 'cement' surface.

    In time we will hear from the prosecution on the exact location of Martin's body. I expect the tale of the injuries will be repeated. Zimmerman will be vindicated and the media exposed. I wish I could say 'shamed', but that's not possible.

    Do you have a source for the location of the body?

    I've seen a video of Tracy Martin pointing out what he said was the location of the body. I've been trying to find it on-line, but no luck yet.

    The Miami Herald has a timeline, with a map that has locations marked with bullseyes. It puts the body 40-120 ft. from the cut-through by the outer circle, 60-100 ft. by the inner.

    No specific sources are cited. There's a list of the kinds of sources used for the timeline, which includes 'police reports' and the Herald's own interviews. But they aren't saying who told them where the body was.

    The Chicago Tribune marks the shooting site with an X, giving a precise 120 ft. from the cut-through. Their sources include the Miami Herald and ABC News.

    My source is Chris Serino, the Sanford PD's lead investigator on the case. He told The Orlando Sentinel, speaking of Zimmerman, '"Everything I have is adding up to what he says."'    


    Body shown in video and smiths report says (none / 0) (#97)
    by willisnewton on Sat May 05, 2012 at 11:12:34 AM EST
    Local tv captured the aftermath from a distance.
    The view is from the north peeking around a corner of the northernmost  townhouse on twin Trees.  Looks to be behind the middle units of four, definitely on the grass at least ten feet from sidewalk running north-south.  

    I'm on my cell so no URL, sorry.  

    Office Timothy smith responded to an address on retreat view - I think this was the hysterical 911 caller.  His report places the body further south than the screengrab seems to show, behind the third units south of the cut thru.  


    First Response (none / 0) (#116)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 05, 2012 at 11:30:15 PM EST
    Officer Timothy Smith responded to an address on retreat view - I think this was the hysterical 911 caller.

    The second 911 caller was the first to see a police officer. I think it was to her address that the police responded.

    The hysterical caller wasn't one of the first to call, unless the gunshot came during a redaction for her address. But to me it sounds like the gunshot, which she calls 'a bang', would have been before she called. This lady wouldn't be so calm if a gunshot had interrupted her speaking a moment before.

    In her second CNN interview she seems to be claiming to have called before hearing the gunshot. But that wouldn't be her only inconsistency.

    I call this witness The Teacher. Most likely she is the one who told ABC News an investigator 'corrected' her.


    Efficient Routing (none / 0) (#48)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 04, 2012 at 06:47:45 PM EST
    The path through the shooting site is the most direct route, or one of them, if you want to stay on pavement. But it includes a slight northward jog, which can be avoided by going south on Twin Trees Lane, then cutting between either the first and second or second and third houses on the east side of the street. Either choice leads to the backyard sidewalk, and the second leads to it at the corner of Brandy Green's back yard.

    There is a huge amount of time unaccounted for. Martin had time to go home by any of several routes, then for whatever reason go to the shooting site.


    I would stay on pavement if the grass was wet (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Fri May 04, 2012 at 07:18:45 PM EST
    especially if I thought I might have to run. The cutting through makes sense - if Zimmerman was already on tat sidewalk in the back yards and TM cut through it would look like he appeared from nowhere, or was looking for GZ. I can't explain the time lapse - maybe TM stopped walking for a little bit while he was on the phone. Could be any number of things.

    Between Houses (none / 0) (#53)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 04, 2012 at 07:35:23 PM EST
    I would stay on pavement if the grass was wet

    Good point.

    if Zimmerman was already on that sidewalk in the back yards and TM cut through it would look like he appeared from nowhere, or was looking for GZ.

    Or Zimmerman cutting through would explain his appearing suddenly behind Martin, as Dee Dee seems to suggest.

    Not if his feet were already wet. (none / 0) (#70)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:19:02 PM EST
    However he walked to the store may have already soaked his feet.  Plus he ran from clubhouse to his shooting location. Possibly this route was thru the grass as well.  His body lay in adopt where one might assume he cut the corner to get behind the building as quickly as possible.  Zimmerman However likely stuck to the  pavement and sidewalks until he had reason to close the gap to trayvon - departing from the path back to his truck- which he actually signaled he would do in his call to the dispatcher- and went to where the body was found- on Trayvons path home.  

    USA Today has a decent (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruffian on Fri May 04, 2012 at 07:40:27 PM EST
    timeline and map.  According to Dee Dee, she was on the phone with TM from 7:12 until the confrontation at 7:15 or so.  She can at least tell what she believed about what TM was doing. 3 minutes does not seem like a huge amount of time to me if you are walking and talking. Obviously we all wish he had just walked home and did not stop to talk to GZ, but that does not mean he was doing anything nefarious.

    Time Issue (none / 0) (#56)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 04, 2012 at 07:53:18 PM EST
    I get the feeling that people who haven't yet given much attention to the time issue, are picturing Zimmerman just running Martin down as he tried to get home. That is even implied by the probable cause affidavit.

    Something more complicated happened. At the moment I'm not arguing anything beyond that. At this point in the discussion, I feel this point needs some belaboring.


    Missing minutes speculation trayvon talked to gf (none / 0) (#68)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:55:35 PM EST
    Trayvon ran from a man in a car until he was off te road and behind a townhouse.  Yes he could have run home but I speculate instead he paused because his phone rang and while there at basicsllythe spot where he died he considered his three options - continue east to a street where he would again be a pedestrian menaced by a car, double back immediately after running away- illogical- or continue south toward home.  The problem is,  his pursuer had a car and could be ahead of him in seconds, cutting off his path home.  Plus let's face it, his girlfriend was calling him.  I think he stopped running when he was out of sight of the car and behind the buildings and waited there talking to his gf.  It seemed logical enough at the time.  He had eluded the car and was off the road.  And he wasn't doing anything wrong.  What sort of nut would chase someone who was walking home?  

    Multi-Tasking (none / 0) (#78)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 05, 2012 at 02:11:10 AM EST

    Trayvon could talk to Dee Dee and walk at the same time. He was doing that most of the way to the store and back.

    He also waited out rain by clubhouse. (none / 0) (#99)
    by willisnewton on Sat May 05, 2012 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    It was raining - he may have stood under a patio or tree.  I also think he may have watched GZ pass by the cut thru heading east once while GZ was talking on his phone.  

    This would fit the narrAtive of  the girlfriend as well, with tray on saying he thinks be lost the guy- either once by leaving the roadway or slightly later if he did in fact spot GZ walking and talking east on the cut thru.  

    I also think GZ missed trayvon by virtue of the act that he wS facing east walking the cut thru first but whenhe returned west TM was no longer in the "shadow" of the townhouse.  

    Most of this is of course pure speculation.  What is known is that the body was not found on the path GZ seems to be saying he took- the cutthru east-west path that leads to a street sign.  Someone closed the gap between the two.  


    Phone Facts (none / 0) (#60)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:06:57 PM EST
    According to Dee Dee, she was on the phone with TM from 7:12 until the confrontation at 7:15 or so.

    We're not reliant on Dee Dee's word for the times. There are records.

    Dee Dee and Trayvon were on the phone at the time Zimmerman called the police. The call was dropped briefly at 7:12 for unknown reasons, and re-established within the minute.


    Google maps is better (none / 0) (#71)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:44:14 PM EST
    1111 retreat view circle, Sanford fl

    That's the clubhouse.  The body was found in the Re west of the only sidewalk that leads between back to back townhouses, behind the second unit south of the "cut thru" sidewalk that joins twin trees and retrat view on an east to west line.  

    Zimmerman claims he was returning to his truck after looking for a street sign -  yet he ends up next to a dead body in between the buildings where there are no street signs and off of the path that leads back to his vehicle.  


    Where do you get "second unit"? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Gandydancer on Sat May 05, 2012 at 07:24:10 AM EST
    See picture, apparently looking S at "T", at http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/article1221799.ece "[Cheryl] Brown stopped and pointed to a patch of shade beneath a scrawny maple tree. 'This is where Trayvon was killed,' she said." CB is the mother of the 13 yr old dog-walker eyewitness. What is apparently the tree in question is behind the most (first) northwesterly unit, barely south of the "T", and therefor barely south of Z's E-W path back to his truck, from Retreat View Circle (where you can see S to the rear entrance, which is why I think GZ went there) to Twin Trees. Or is CB wrong?

    Trees and Trees (none / 0) (#83)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 05, 2012 at 08:36:42 AM EST
    Why would you think the tree in the foreground of the photograph is the same tree mentioned in the text? I don't see any indication of that.

    There are several trees further south, in the background of the photo.

    In the video I mentioned in another comment, Tracy Martin pointed out a tree as marking the place of his son's death. If I'm not mistaken that tree was well south of the cut-through.


    Only tree WEST of the sidewalk... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Gandydancer on Sat May 05, 2012 at 09:35:07 AM EST
    ...(where did -you- get that detail?) for -quite- a distance, and the only tree with leaves that suggest maple to me (though I'm not an expert). The ones on the east don't seem to have leaves to speak of, or tiny ones. Wouldn't appear capable of causing even a "patch" of shade... Here's a clearer shot of them: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-prompts-a-review-of-ideals.html?pagewan ted=all

    Trees and More Trees (none / 0) (#95)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 05, 2012 at 10:14:20 AM EST
    I recall the tree Tracy Martin pointed to being on the west side, so forget the eastern trees.

    The northernmost of the more distant western trees looks to be even with or just south of the break between northern and middle pairs of buildings. You can tell by the rectangle of sunlight from the west.

    The Chicago Tribune puts the shooting a little to the north of that.

    Cheryl Brown is in the Martins' camp. See her interviews with Al Sharpton and Nancy Grace. I don't think she would be breaking with the party line.


    I don't know that there's any... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Gandydancer on Sat May 05, 2012 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    ..."party line" on which tree Trayvon died under. I assume that Ms. Brown's son pointed out to her exactly where he saw the struggle, and she knows. I'm still unclear where you got second townhouse, but now you're plumping for fourth or fifth?

    Hmm... here's the Tracy Martin vid I think you're looking for: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/seminole_news/022712-man-shot-and-killed-in-neighborhood-alterc ation

    Lot of info in this. John's location doesn't appear to be where I thought it was. TM's body under yellow tarp? Tracy is gesturing pretty near where I thought... but maybe he's wrong? Doesn't seem to agree with reporter's early spiel, or was that looking north? Looks like Z's truck in the last shot. (Compare with image of truck Jeralyn provided... from where? ... http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/zimmtruck.jpg ...sure looks like it.) Oh, well. Gotta run. Let you chew on it.


    Who Knows Where? (none / 0) (#110)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 05, 2012 at 07:50:38 PM EST
    I'm still unclear where you got second townhouse, but now you're plumping for fourth or fifth?

    I think you are confusing me with Willisnewton. There are three of us discussing the location of the body.

    My first reply to Willisnewton is here.

    What part of this don't you understand?

    The Chicago Tribune puts the shooting a little to the north of that.

    There's a link, to a page with a map, with an X marking the putative site of the shooting.


    So some random reporter put... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Gandydancer on Sun May 06, 2012 at 08:01:00 AM EST
    ...an "X" on a map? In case you haven't noticed, the reporting on the case has been sh*tty. Here is the NY Times map, with the white box much closer to the "T": http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-marti n.html .

    And look where USA Today... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Gandydancer on Sun May 06, 2012 at 09:37:26 AM EST
    ...puts the "Site of shooting": http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-09/trayvon-martin-timeline-florida-shooting/541292 74/1

    Wrong side of the building! Way to go, USA Today!


    The Media and the Shooting Site (none / 0) (#197)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 08, 2012 at 09:35:07 PM EST
    In case you haven't noticed, the reporting on the case has been sh*tty.

    Noticed? I've harped on it.

    Your are still confusing my positions and arguments with Willisnewton's. I haven't disagreed with you about the location of the body. My point has been that the media have been misrepresenting it, and I think Tracy Martin has been one source for the misrepresentations.


    Video on Location (none / 0) (#114)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 05, 2012 at 08:51:03 PM EST
    here's the Tracy Martin vid I think you're looking for

    I appreciate the effort, but that's not the one.

    This video was made by local media the day after the shooting. Tracy Martin and Brandy Green are looking at a place that many assume was the shooting site, but the matter of location isn't actually discussed. I make the place they are looking at to be about 15 to 20 yards south of the cut-through. Btw I don't think TM and BG have made any joint public appearances since then.

    The video I had in mind is as I described. It was made later, and Tracy Martin is leading a camera crew through the complex. He points out the site of the shooting, and I think some other points of interest. He indicates a tree, and talks about the location of the body in relation to the tree. I think the words he used were very similar to those used by Cheryl Brown in the article you linked.

    I saw this video on a late night cable show, but I don't remember which one, or if they said the video was their own footage.

    I'm sure the tree that Tracy Martin indicated was further south than the one at the NE corner of the building. But I don't recall it being as far south as the other trees on the east side in the photo. So that's a puzzle.

    I recall Tracy Martin also saying that the shooting was about 70 yards from Tracy Green's home. I make the center of the Chicago Tribune's X to be 220 ft. north of the NW corner of BG's building, so that's close.


    Correction, West Side. (none / 0) (#115)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 05, 2012 at 08:53:47 PM EST
    But I don't recall it being as far south as the other trees on the east side in the photo.

    I meant west side.

    Sorry, this is confusing enough.


    that's the right video (none / 0) (#122)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 06, 2012 at 04:16:47 AM EST
    There are many clues in this video but nothing that gives us an exactly location of the body.  However, we do get a wide shot and a tight shot facing south that both show the yellow tarp.  If that's really the body, and it seems as though it is, possibly with an evidence tag on the ground closer to the sidewalk, it shows us a few things.  One, that the body was not near the sidewalk, and two, that it was at least fully between the townhouses.  I put it at the line between the first closest unit and the next.  

    Tracy doesn't know firsthand where the body was.  He's pretty close however, and it isn't on the path to Zimmerman's truck, or a street sign.  

    In the video, that's not Zimmerman's truck, however.  If it is, he drove there in reverse.  It's facing towards the clubhouse.  

    More likely it belongs to the resident who parks it there regularly, as can be deduced by the daytime google maps shot - it's in the same spot.  

    Early in the video you can see Tracy walking towards the news reporter from the south.  The camera is facing south since you can see a vehicle on the street.  A view looking north wouldn't include a street.  


    Parked SUV (none / 0) (#124)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:26:19 AM EST
    Looks like Z's truck in the last shot. (Compare with image of truck Jeralyn provided... from where? ... http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/zimmtruck.jpg ...sure looks like it.)

    I think Jeralyn got that image from a video composed of footage from the same I-don't-know-what-to-call-it (batch? collection?) that Fox News Orlando made that night. It's the same truck. I'm not sure that it's Zimmerman's.

    If Zimmerman followed Martin east from the clubhouse, I don't think he would take the time to turn the truck around before parking it. He doesn't seem to be taking that kind of time in the police call.

    Zimmerman tells the dispatcher he's parked at a cut-through that's not in front of a house. That describes the south side of the eastern end of the E/W stretch of Twin Trees Lane, which faces the end of a building. Coming east from the clubhouse, that would be a logical place to park before pursuing Martin further east on foot.

    In a popular aerial photo, there's a parked truck that looks like I imagine the one in the Fox video would look from above. I think the truck in the video is parked just ahead of where the one in the aerial photo is, on the other side of the place where the sidewalk intersects the street.

    The video and aerial photo may show the same truck, belonging to a resident who habitually parks in that general area.

    OTOH, if Zimmerman's truck was parked where I suggested above, I think it would be visible behind the one in the video. I don't mean to the rear of, but behind from the camera POV, on the other side of Twin Trees Lane.

    I have a tangential thought/observation about the image from the video. What's that pylon and post to the left of the officer? It's not visible in the aerial photo. Could it be a street sign? Does The Retreat at Twin Lakes have street signs marking the intersections of streets with sidewalks? The possibility had crossed my mind, but I haven't mentioned it before because I couldn't see anything to support it in the aerial photos.


    re: "Pylon" (none / 0) (#128)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 06, 2012 at 06:22:47 AM EST
    That's a pillar to a front porch, I think, if we are looking at the same photo of the resident's truck facing the clubhouse...  note the porch light illuminating it.  The color temperature is different than the sodium vapor street lights.  This is likely from a tungsten incandescent light, not a dusky orange street light.  The hedge visible at the base of your "pylon" is one of many that edge the buildings.  

    I know what you mean about where GZ would seem to have parked his truck.  I wonder if his wife came and got it?  These videos were shot long after GZ was hauled away, I bet.  

    The bloody head photo is showing him talking on a cell, seemingly not in handcuffs, and he also asked someone to call her too, reportedly.  "Tell her I shot someone" was the pull quote there.  


    Pillar (none / 0) (#129)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 06, 2012 at 07:55:45 AM EST
    That's a pillar to a front porch, I think

    I thought it was a little thick to be a signpost.

    The video you link to is the same... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Gandydancer on Sun May 06, 2012 at 10:05:58 AM EST
    ...Fox35 story I linked to directly, and doesn't show Jeralyn's truck shot.

    The aerial view you link to shows the a truck where I thought Z's truck was, and where Jeralyn's truck appears to be, circled. But, yes, if Z followed TM traveling east then the truck is facing the wrong direction and where you (and wagist.com) place it makes more sense. But it's less of a "cut through", and it makes less sense that TM "circled" (as opposed to walked directly over the hood of) GZ's truck to reach the west end of the "T". So maybe the predicate is wrong.


    Crime Scene Montage (none / 0) (#159)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 07, 2012 at 07:07:15 AM EST

    Sorry, I should have been more specific.

    Lower down the page is another video. I haven't watched it, but I think Jeralyn described it as a montage of images from the FOX35 footage, accompanying the 911 calls. I think she got the truck image from there, but as I said I haven't watched it.


    Austin Brown (none / 0) (#158)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 07, 2012 at 06:39:12 AM EST
    I assume that Ms. Brown's son pointed out to her exactly where he saw the struggle

    Do you have a source for the claim that Austin Brown saw 'the struggle'?

    I've been wanting to do a post on the history of this witness. Now seems a good occasion.

    Austin's 911 call is Call 6 at Axiom Amnesia.

    I saw a man laying on the ground that needed help, that was screaming. And then I was going to go over there to try to help him, but my dog got off the leash, so I went and got my dog. And then I heard a loud sound, and then the screaming stopped.

    That's all the pertinent information on Austin Brown's 911 call. Some of it is repeated, with the added detail that Brown thought the 'loud sound' was a gunshot.

    The police report shows six witnesses were contacted that night. From the 911 calls we know of ten potential witnesses, plus Chad Green. Austin Brown, his sister, and Chad are three of at least five potential witnesses who were not contacted on the night of the shooting. The others are unknown.

    Mary Cutcher has claimed that she and her roommate, Selma Lamilla, gave the police a joint written statement. Whether either or both of them were among the six listed witnesses is unclear.

    Austin Brown's first police interview was on March 5, eight days after the shooting. The reason for the delay remains unknown.

    Austin told the investigators that the man on the ground wore red. He has not recanted that statement.

    On March 15 The Orlando Sentinel reported that Austin Brown saw a man wearing red, and that he 'said he is not sure who called for help.'

    The last point differs from the 911 call, in which Brown expressed no doubt that the man on the ground 'needed help' and 'was screaming'. What did Brown say to the police on this point? I don't know.

    That Austin Brown has told journalists that the man he saw wore red is supported by this video. Sadly, I've been able to learn nothing about when it was made or by whom.

    A March 17 Huffington Post report recounted an interview with Austin Brown and his mother. It seems to use a pseudonym in place of Austin's last name. Possibly it was written before his real name was published by ABC News on March 13.  

    Austin's mother, Sheryl[sic] Brown, said that the trauma from the night has not been limited to what her son witnessed. It also includes the way she says that the police and some media have twisted his account of the night to fit a self-defense theory, to say that a 13-year-old witness has claimed Zimmerman, and not Martin, was screaming for help. Both Austin and his mother are adamant that the teen could not see who was screaming, but they believe now that it was Martin.

    The Huffpo piece doesn't explain how Austin and his mother formed their joint opinion. It does not directly quote Austin on the question of who was screaming.

    This undated Orlando Sentinel video may have been made before the Huffpo interview. Austin is non-commital on who was 'yelling for help', and doesn't mention the color of any clothing.

    On March 21, the Miami Herald quoted Austin Brown saying 'it sounded like a kid who was crying. . . . I think it was Trayvon.' This may be the first time Austin suggested the voice sounded juvenile. It may also be Austin's last contact with the media. Since then his mother has spoken for him.

    Cheryl Brown made TV appearances on Al Sharpton's Politics Nation (March 28) and on the Nancy Grace Show (March 29). Her comments on both shows were similar. She told Sharpton that Austin has 'feelings' that 'the cries for help that he heard were from a young person.' She admitted to Nancy Grace that Austin had told Sanford PD investigators that the man he saw on the ground wore red. On both shows she complained that the investigators had asked leading questions about the clothing color.

    For completeness I will mention a March 31 Miami Herald report, which claims that Cheryl Brown denied that Austin ever said the man he saw wore red. I heard her say the opposite on The Nancy Grace Show video. It's quite possible The Miami Herald got it wrong.

    In sum, Austin Brown's identification of the screamer has gone from  'a man laying on the ground' to 'not sure' to 'Austin and his mother . . . believe now that it was Martin' to 'sounded like a kid . . . I think it was Trayvon.' Austin didn't mention color of clothing on the 911 call, but eight days later he told investigators the man on the ground wore red. He has told journalists the same thing, and has not recanted it. Cheryl Brown argues those statements are the unreliable product of leading questions.


    Orlando Sentinel Video of Austin (none / 0) (#165)
    by Lora on Mon May 07, 2012 at 09:45:33 AM EST
    The video appears to have been edited -- there are discontinuous segments -- so there's no telling what other information was spoken or what questions were asked.

    Edited (none / 0) (#167)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 07, 2012 at 10:05:14 AM EST
    If Austin Brown said he believed Trayvon Martin was the screamer, or commented on the clothing of the man on the ground, do you think The Orlando Sentinel would edit that out?

    Just sayin' (none / 0) (#168)
    by Lora on Mon May 07, 2012 at 10:32:16 AM EST
    It was edited.

    Chicago trib places body via police report (none / 0) (#112)
    by willisnewton on Sat May 05, 2012 at 08:12:24 PM EST
    Officer Timothy Smith responded to an address on Retreat View Circle and says that the body was found behind it.  Its three units south of the T.  

    He's not exactly right but it was good enough for an initial police report by a patrol officer. This ain't CSI Miami.  In a general sense, the body in the backyard of this unit, but it is a shared backyard.  

    Chicago trib uses this unit's backyard since it is listed in the public record.  


    Answer to how many times Trayvon visited Retreat (none / 0) (#85)
    by Mary2012 on Sat May 05, 2012 at 08:48:19 AM EST
    I just wanted to point out the article Gandydancer just posted apparently has the answer to a question some of us were asking recently re how many times Trayvon had visited the Retreat at Twin Lakes

    Tampa Bay Times, March 25, 2012 "TM's killing shatters safety within RaTL in Sanford"

    From the article:

    "Trayvon Martin lived with his dad, who resides in the Miami area, and had visited his dad's girlfriend at the Retreat several times before. The kids in the neighborhood always looked forward to playing football with him...."


    so GZ is "barely" lying? (none / 0) (#117)
    by willisnewton on Sat May 05, 2012 at 11:47:42 PM EST
    When i look at that wide angle photo, I see the sidewalk squares and count them...  they are around four feet each.  

    She's at roughly to the spot, but it's farther back behind the tree, and closer to the townhouse.  See the night video w the body under a yellow sheet for a better idea.

    If GZ went three feet into the area between the townhouses, that's three feet he took to close the gap between himself and the teenager he shot.  But I'd put the distance at a lot father, at least 16 to 20 feet, maybe more.  I think the body is near the line between the closest and the next unit in.  And that's no accidental meandering distance.  

    He's taking bits of the truth and leaving out others.  He was no longer "returning to his truck" if he left that E-W path and went south between the buildings.  He was at the minimum, confronting the teen.  He's got the legal right to do so.  It's just not his story, is all.  He's chosen to lie about this crucial detail, and that makes him not credible on others.  


    Again the Lying Eyes (none / 0) (#118)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 06, 2012 at 01:56:28 AM EST
    Is it a sheet or a bag? If the body was already bagged for transport it might have been moved a few feet. Or they might have moved the body to do forensics on the ground underneath it.

    I keep coming back to the fact that the Sanford police back Zimmerman's story. Unless you're going full Johnnie Cochran, I think you have to attach some significance to that.

    That includes Chris Serino, the lead investigator. I've already linked it so I won't repeat the link. Serino went on record for the Orlando Sentinel, saying all the evidence he had supported Zimmerman's story.

    It's not likely a police officer would go on the record contradicting something he put in a sealed affidavit. Conceivable, but not likely. So all the anonymous gossip about that affidavit is looking dubious.

    The Sanford PD didn't have Dee Dee, and maybe the prosecutors have other things the police didn't have. Maybe Zimmerman can be impeached from this evidence. I'm skeptical that Zimmerman will be impeached with anything well known to the Sanford PD, like the location of the body.

    We still only have second-hand, inconsistent fragments of Zimmerman's purported statements. He must have turned to face Martin to get punched in the nose. Maybe he took a few steps forward to meet him, and maybe he told the police that the first time he was asked.


    Re: serino, etc (none / 0) (#123)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:04:01 AM EST
    Regarding Serino:  there is evidence, and then there is whether or not you find someone credible.  He may not be contradicting his belief that the guy is a liar.  

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/sto ry?id=16011674#.T6ZCU81nKPs

    Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events.

    There were also witnesses who claim that Serino told them he wasn't buying Zimmerman's story.  

    I realize the abc news story predates the quote you linked, but this may just be a case of the SPD closing ranks after the special prosecutor moved in.  I think abc still stands behind their story.

    I do agree however that we don't really know what's going on here regarding the initial investigation.  We may never really know.  The DoJ hasn't announced a real probe into this aspect of the affair, and Corey needs the cooperation of the department.  I did find it significant that no one from SPD was on the podium stage with her when she made such a show of the announcement of the murder 2 charges.  

    I suppose there might be yellow body bags, and I assume the body could have been moved to place it into one but once a corpse is bagged it is usually removed immediately since there is no purpose in leaving it there anymore.  I think however the yellow is a tarp - it was raining - and that the investigators seen milling about were not finished with the crime scene.  But whichever, I don't think the body is far from it's original resting place.  Again I mention the shiny thing that might be an evidence tag, like maybe where a shell casing was found, or TM's cell phone.  

    Those "few steps" GZ may have taken from the dry path leading to his SUV look like about 20-40 feet to me.  But yeah, all we know is second hand stories.  And maps and photos and police reports that place the body between the townhouses.  

    Let's assume for a moment that TM somehow "lured" GZ into an ambush.  Well, that's awful but it still doesn't seem to match GZ's account.  All the accounts we hear include the idea that TM approached him "from behind."  Someone closed the gap between the two by diverging from their innocent pathway and onto one that led to a confrontation.  

    If you want to continue speculation, take a look at my flickr page
    where I have posted some images and speculation about where the yellow whatever is shown in the local news video.  I think you are thinking this through carefully and have some good insights and links.  



    Your photo analysis really helps... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Gandydancer on Sun May 06, 2012 at 09:23:33 AM EST
    ...but I don't think they help your case. That is, Tracy Martin & girlfriend are looking at the spot you describe... but they never saw the body that night, and there's no tree where they're indicating. So if the father is right at least as to the side of the path the body was on, and Ms. Brown was rightly reported to indicate that the body was next to a (maple) tree (and her son was in position to, and presumably would have told her exactly where he saw the struggle) we are talking tree "D" (or even "C"?). And that's easily within range of GZ crawling off the top-of-"T" sidewalk, the direct path back to his truck.

    The yellow tarp may or may not cover the body, which may or may not have been moved out of the way.

    The ABC story is Matt Gutman, who's had plenty of access to the Martin side but no reliability in the "facts" he "reports". What he calls an "affadavit" could just as well be the police report with "manslaughter" as a classification, plus his weak grasp of the difference between reportable fact and his unreliable and tendentious mental constructions of events. He's the worst of the worst. This is the clown who,  AFTER it was pointed out that the poice station video DID show injuries to GZ's head, and he had to write a story admitting his contrary claim was false (but concentrating on a new assertion that the video was incompatable with a broken nose) THEN went back to saying that there was no evidence of injury on the police station video!  What Wolfinger categorically said was "lies" is this Gutman story.


    Tree, schmee (none / 0) (#151)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 06, 2012 at 07:33:08 PM EST
    I can't follow what you guys are saying about a tree.  I'm going with the yellow tarp, the location the NYT graphic and the police report of the first responder, ofc Tim Smith.  All of these lead me to put the body at least 30-40 feet south of the T intersection and seem consistent with one another.   The Chicago paper also seems to go with the police report, three units south.  

    The northern most unit  has what looks like a sunroom or screen porch made of metal sticking out of the back...  he's further south that that in EVERYTHING I can see.  

    "John's" window is at N27 from what I can tell.  That is also three units south.  The body was one yard north of his window AFAICT.
    Maybe I am wrong and it is at L27.  If so that's where the yellow tarp shots seem to place the body.  

    link to my "battleship" diagram here

    I'm pretty sure that someone closed the gap between these two people, and that it was GZ who left the path he claims returns to his truck.   Maybe there is a good explanation for that in his statements and maybe there isn't.  But I'm willing to shown I am wrong if someone can do it convincingly.  

    There is a lot of garbage data out there.  But something as bedrock as where the body was found is going to be key to piecing together what truly happened that night.  I appreciate all the speculation and your patience with mine.  


    speaking of abc news - bloody head photo? (none / 0) (#152)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 06, 2012 at 07:46:10 PM EST
    Gandydancer, what do you make of the ABC news bloody head picture?  I'm curious about the time stamp and the timing of when GZ was supposed to have been placed into handcuffs by the first responder Tim Smith, who claims in his report that he arrived at 7:17, pretty much the time of the shot and says he spoke to GZ and then put him into handcuffs FIRST and then disarmed him from the waistband holster right away.  It's stamped 7:19:07, which if accurate is very soon after the shot was fired but also seemingly after the officer was on the scene.  

    The photo seems to show a guy in the right color fleece jacket holding a cell phone to his right ear, not cuffed behind the back.  Is this taken with "john's" phone, before the cop arrived?  Was John there when Tim Smith arrived?  He's not mentioned as such in the report.  Did he go back inside?  Who is GZ calling?  What was the motive for snapping the photo?  etc.

    And lastly, what do you make of the fact that it is ABC that released it?  You seem to not like their reporting.  


    Don't have much to say... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Gandydancer on Mon May 07, 2012 at 04:36:27 AM EST
    ...on this, except that I don't think John would have gotten out there fast enough to take the pics, and certainly not before the first officer. His 9-1-1 starts upstairs after the shot and must have gone on for a few minutes, I haven't checked how many.

    I guess ABC was paying top dollar as well as being in bed with Crump. They got the police station video camera as an "ABC Exclusive" too. My problem is what they did with it.


    What Else? (none / 0) (#161)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 07, 2012 at 08:45:17 AM EST
    The yellow tarp may or may not cover the body

    If it's not covering the body, what would it be doing there?

    a picnic basket? we just don't know. (none / 0) (#171)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 07, 2012 at 11:56:26 AM EST
    Seems like the body to me.  But i have no proof, and we have only the police report of Ofc Tim Smith to go on at present as evidence.  Everything else is rumor and hearsay and conjecture.  

    Police report:


    Here it's listed as between 1231 Twin Trees Lane and 2821 Retreat View.  Google map it, that's here on the grid in one of these four squares:  M27, M28, N27, N28.  


    That's mostly much further south than the yellow tarp seems to be, but these addresses are linked to 911 callers, so I think that is the explanation for their being in an early police report.  

    I've put my opinion in writing.  I'm curious where others think the body was found and provided a grid for discussion purposes.  I'm thinking it's going to be a significant part of the court case.  


    Willis, please put your urls in (none / 0) (#172)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 07, 2012 at 12:23:58 PM EST
    html format because long ones skew the site. Use the link button at the top of the comment box or coding instructions at the bottom. I cannot edit comments, only delete them. Thanks.

    A very wise decision,, in my opinion. (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:02:03 PM EST
    Circling (none / 0) (#76)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 05, 2012 at 01:59:35 AM EST
    For the moment, Zimmerman's priority was when the officer would arrive. He wasn't describing Martin's movements at all.

    One of my top criticisms of the article would be its constant harping about what Zimmerman didn't say, without once mentioning that he was talking about something else.



    is it reasonable to speculate (none / 0) (#125)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:29:43 AM EST
    Ignore the poorly written article for a moment...

    Is it reasonable to speculate that TM walked past GZ's vehicle in the time between

    Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
    1:03  (7:10:37 EST)
    Dispatcher: OK.
    Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.
    Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
    Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens.
    Dispatcher: Late teens ok.
    Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got
    something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.
    Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok
    Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
    Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
    1:37 plus (7:11:11EST)
    Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away.

    To me it seems GZ's ability to perceive details increases in this time period.  And his tone is frustrated when it looks like the youth has eluded a shakedown.  But did he pass him just there at the end?  

    I'm curious where anyone thinks GZ's car is positioned as well, and which way it is facing?  

    Here's a handy chart to play "battleship" with:


    I put Trayvon at H6 and GZs car at maybe  J8 in my scenario. The timing fits but both are speculation.  

     In the diagram, each of these squares is around 20 feet.  


    Nice work. I've been imagining the... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Gandydancer on Sun May 06, 2012 at 10:17:42 AM EST
    ...truck parked at J22 facing W, but hadn't thought much about it. Wagist has it at about K19, presumably facing E, I think.

    Watching in rear view or not? Moving or not? (none / 0) (#147)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 06, 2012 at 12:58:03 PM EST
    It seems that GZ describes TM initially as loitering somewhere near the clubhouse.  Hopefully everyone can agree on that much.  The question then becomes, where were they?  GZ never actually places TM "at the mailboxes" directly, although most think that was where he was waiting out the rain.  The mailboxes are east of the clubhouse at H6 on this chart.


    Question arise:  where did GZ first see TM from his car?  Was he moving at the time or stationary? Did he follow him to the clubhouse and park to make his call?  Did he put the gearshift into park for the 2 minutes or so before he opens his door?  Which way was his car facing?  Did he move his car from where he started his call?  Where did he get out of the car, and did he drive/shadow TM to get there once TM left the clubhouse area?  Does any of this matter?  

    I think it does because a portion of this episode seems to suggest that GZ crept along behind TM shadowing his movement towards his home, thus unnerving the youth and causing him to run, most likely to the area where he was shot.  

    IF we speculate that GZ could see the clubhouse at the start of his call, and that TM walked past him in the time that he seems to be saying "here he comes/ these a$holes always get away" (paraphrased)  then we can establish a distance that a walking person can accomplish that.  So that tells us how far from the clubhouse his car could be at that time.  

    This is the framework for my speculation.  Added to that, we have GZ at the END of his call giving directions to his car.  That placement is not reported and is open to speculation as well.  But in general term he seems to be saying he is "by a cut thru" as opposed to in front of a numbered townhouse.  

    It's POSSIBLE he was parked "by the cut thru" the whole time, but it doesn't seem logical.  His view to TM is quite distant, likely from his rear view mirror,  and TM would have to walk EXTREMELY fast to get past him in the allotted time, faster than actual walking allows.  It's also not a "circling" move of any sort if that's relevant.  It's only later that GZ seems surprised to see TM run, so he's likely not running until that point.  

    So GZ has to be somewhere, and he has to be either facing the clubhouse or facing away.  Maybe he performed a U turn somewhere,  we don't really know.  

    If you, Gandydancer think he is at J22 do you also think that is his truck in the screen captures and google map shots?  I don't think he can be there since I contend that is some resident's regular spot.  It also seems illogical for him to arrive there from his home, headed to the store and stop there to watch a youth by the mailboxes...  what exactly is your thinking here?  Or are you saying he ENDED his drive there, somehow facing backwards from where he was at first?  

    Anyone else care to speculate?  I'm 6'2" and can walk 180 feet in 30 seconds if I hustle a bit.  On this grid, that's about 9 squares.   YMMV.  


    Location of Trayvon's body (none / 0) (#144)
    by Mary2012 on Sun May 06, 2012 at 11:28:32 AM EST
    Willis, where please would you place the location of Trayvon's body on the battleship diagram?

    Happy to speculate. (none / 0) (#148)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 06, 2012 at 01:19:39 PM EST
    I'd speculate that based on the yellow tarp shots, the body was on the line between K and L 22.

    I put a triangle on this pic where the portion of the body seems to be lined up with.  It's marked B, and an arrow points to by best guess as to where within that triangle it seems to be.  


    Admittedly I have ignored all the bystander's talk about trees, and only use them as reference points to ascertain the camera position and for general landmarks.  The dog walking mom and Tracy Martin both seem to be second hand witnesses.  I'm hanging my hat on the yellow tarp as being the body BEFORE it was moved. Again I contend that once the investigators finish, moving only minimally to examine, the body goes into a bodybag and is moved away immediately as SOP.  There's not much point in leaving it on location in a bag. I also don't see much point in emergency responders trying to revive the body in moving it far.  

    A police report puts the body father south, but this is explainable by using the address that officer Tim Smith first responded to, and using the general sense to say that the body was behind these units.  He does however list two units in so doing, both which are THREE units south of the T, "according to the googles".  

    So that's 30-40 feet off the cut thru path at the least, and I think this is a significant fact that has a bearing on the case.  

    I'm curious to hear what others think and how they arrive at their own speculation.  


    Thank you Willis (none / 0) (#156)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 07, 2012 at 05:26:29 AM EST
    I'm on a fact-finding mission right now and not ready to speculate but I've followed the posts, yours and the others, with interest.

    I have to say however I don't understand why it's commonly believed (seems that way anyhow, imo, that) GZ would have to go to Retreat View Circle to get a street number/ name.  He was already on Twin Trees and had directed the police (from the non-emergency call) to enter through the main gate.  Why not get the number of the townhome he was closest to on Twin Trees?  



    Rendezvous (1.00 / 1) (#160)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 07, 2012 at 07:29:53 AM EST
    If Martin wanted to lose his pursuer before going home, it's possible he was moving east the last time Zimmerman saw him. Zimmerman may have thought Retreat View Circle was the best place for the police to take up the hunt.

    The real problem isn't whatever GZ (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Anne on Mon May 07, 2012 at 09:09:49 AM EST
    thought was the best place for police to take up "the hunt," it's that GZ stopped thinking like the private, untrained citizen he was and made a series of bad decisions as a result.  

    If he had any duty at all - and I think an argument could be made that he really had none - it was to simply make the call, report "This is GZ, I live in the neighborhood, I'm out running errands and I saw someone I didn't recognize in the vicinity of this particular address, walking away from the clubhouse, not sure what the deal is, but we've had some recent break-ins, and this address is where I saw him; if you need anything more from me, you can call me - here's my number."

    He doesn't get out of the car, he doesn't follow in his vehicle or on foot.  If he does anything at all, he calls other community members to alert them to what he's seen and that the police will be there to look into it.

    There was no "hunt" until Zimmerman began one; I don't see how anyone can make an argument that it wasn't his decision to do so that started the cascade of actions and reactions that ended in death.  Police don't "hunt" people based on a phone call to report something suspicious - they drive by to see what they can see, they investigate.  

    Neither "hunting" nor "investigating" was GZ's responsibility - he was neither trained nor authorized to do either; I'm sure he regrets the decisions he made, but that won't bring a dead young man back to life.


    Okay, I see what you are saying (none / 0) (#164)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 07, 2012 at 09:10:35 AM EST
    It ought to have been the best route for him to take except for GZ & his truck -- would TM have risked getting so close to GZ/ his vehicle.  IMO, I'm inclined to think he wouldn't.  

    It seems to me there is some type of time gap because TM was trying to avoid GZ and apparently, not the other way around.  

    I still haven't ruled out GZ chasing TM down Twin Trees Lane.  DeeDee's call (7:12) would've come in at this time and someone on another thread (if I remember this correctly) speculated perhaps TM ducked off the road (to take the call).  (This is all speculation/ how I'm looking at it not ignoring TM going the truck route instead.) BUT, ducking off Twin Trees would also allow, imo, a better chance for TM to lose GZ than if, for example, he'd stayed on Twin Trees for the entire length of that road (i.e., bringing him closer to Brandy Green's home).

    I was trying to find out whether street parking was allowed in the Retreat; the article posted by Gandy said it wasn't and yet in google shots, there does seem to be some cars parked here and there. I was thinking hiding behind a parked car might've been a possibility, though not so much for TM but, for GZ.  Once GZ lost TM, he could've hid behind a parked car waiting to look for TM to reappear.  

    GZ could've walked up through the 2 townhouse units to get to the walkway (where the two ultimately ended up), then turned left (north?) to start walking back to his truck and of course, head on into TM.  In a way it sort of fits with the accounts of (all of a sudden) (one or the other) reappears (in the path of the other).  

    I also wanted to know if a 9mm would give off a flash of light when fired.  I don't recall any of the eyewitnesses mentioning it which makes me think perhaps none of them were watching at the time of the shot?  In the same vein it might be possible for GZ to have turned the tables, so to speak to where TM was underneath and that might be when GZ pulled his gun and fired.  (Of course I'm still going on the assumption his gun is still in his holster in the back of GZ).  For that matter, did GZ drive his truck with his gun in a back holster? did he draw his gun when TM was near his car?  What time did GZ leave home; which way did he drive, etc., on and on.  

    There are a number of questions I have and at least some of the answers are so hard to come by just doing normal searches (such as was the case with "had TM been to the Retreat before"), and if you do find 'something', how accurate it is? (rhetorical question)    


    Muzzle Flash (none / 0) (#166)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 07, 2012 at 09:48:56 AM EST
    Any firearm has a muzzle flash. The caliber doesn't matter.

    Only three of the 911 callers reported seeing the fight. That's John, The Teacher, and the second caller. We haven't heard from the last one, but I expect she will be called come testifying time.

    The Teacher in her second CNN interview claims to have been watching at the time of the gunshot. She didn't see a muzzle flash.

    Forensics confirms Martin was shot at close range. A witness likely wouldn't see a flash because one body or the other blocked the view.


    From what you're saying it would depend on how (none / 0) (#188)
    by Mary2012 on Tue May 08, 2012 at 07:27:16 AM EST
    GZ/TM were positioned wrt the Teacher (whether or not she saw the muzzle flash).  

    I agree she doesn't mention seeing the muzzle flash.  There was a muzzle flash, so, & just speculating here: it might be what caused her to see who was on top despite how dark it was outside, which in turn she mentions at times during the interview.      


    Unilluminating Flash (none / 0) (#189)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 08, 2012 at 07:44:07 AM EST
    I don't think a muzzle flash is bright enough to illuminate the surroundings.

    I've seen one, though not at night. I was an innocent bystander when a gal pulled a gun on her boyfriend and fired it in the air. It wasn't even in my general direction, but I saw the flash.


    Wasn't meaning to suggest "surroundings" (none / 0) (#198)
    by Mary2012 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:11:40 AM EST
    just enough light given off to allow for a better silhouette of the person on top at the time of the shot.

    Apparently she already knew there was a larger-sized (heavier?) person and a younger (thinner) person.  At least that's my impression from the interview.

    Glad to hear no one was hurt in the incident you witnessed.


    much weaker than you might think...

    Thank you, Sarcastic! (none / 0) (#210)
    by Mary2012 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:46:20 PM EST
    we don't know where GZ says he went yet (none / 0) (#174)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 07, 2012 at 12:36:54 PM EST
    However, since people love to speculate, and I'm a people too, I'll put in my two cents.  

    I think the route is simple for both with no doubling back by TM.  I think GZ's route and intention are to keep eyes on TM up until they spot one another across a distance.  GZ misses the turn TM made into the dog walk at first, and finds it later on his return.  

    I think TM starts by the clubhouse and moves in the most direct route to where he died, between the townhouses, waiting there in a dark spot having answered the phone.   His speed was thus: TM walked fast past GZ's car ( this covers the first corner, wheer GZ's car starts the recorded call) and then later TM ran when the car moved to shadow him slowly east on Twin Trees.  GZ then parks by the cut thru, exits on foot and takes the cut thru all the way to Retreat View, still talking on the phone and reluctant to give his address when he reaches the T intersection of sidewalks, where he last was able to see TM running.  He continues east, possibly spotted by TM at this time, who is behind him and south of the path, still near where he died.  GZ finishes his call in that vicinity of the cut thru and Retreat View and possibly walks north to look back west on Retreat, around that corner, killing some of the missing time before returning on the cut thru until the two spot one another.  Someone, maybe both, closes the gap between them and the fight occurs.  GZ is only ever in the "dog walk" backyard area after he knows TM is there.  

    If you want, I can add grid points to all this but again this is speculation.  What matters is who closed the gap when they saw one another, and to that we can add that the body is found between the townhouses.  Make of that what you will, but I think it's the key point in the case.  


    note about the holster: front or back ? (none / 0) (#203)
    by willisnewton on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:58:03 PM EST
    We have learned that GZ had a waist-level concealed carry hoslter but I have not seen it mentioned with certainty if it was in his front or back.  It's hard to drive with a gun in the small of your back.  

    Reading ofc Timothy Smith's report, it's inconclusive but he does describe putting handcuffs on first and then disarming him, in that order.  If he put the cuffs on behind the back, does that suggest that the holster was in the front?

    Then we have the story that TM went for the gun, which also seems to suggest a front-carry position, true or not.  

    One more detail we will have to wait to learn about.  

    I care about "front or back" carry because I think the timing of the ABD news blood-on-the-head iPhone photo shows GZ NOT wearing handcuffs, but instead holding something that looks like a cell phone to his ear.  Yet, if we are to take Tim Smith's report literally as to when he arrived and what he did first, GZ should be in handcuffs already, not making a phone call and having his picture taken by a bystander.  Tim Smith's report does not mention two people standing next to a dead body, either. If it were me arriving on a scene like that, I'd mention it in my report.   From what I can tell, "John" was still talking to 911 at the time the photo is taken.  However, I don't know if he is inside or outside his townhouse.  This is another matter I hope we learn more about eventually.  It seems curious to me.  


    street sign hunting seems like an excuse to me (none / 0) (#169)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 07, 2012 at 10:46:21 AM EST
    We don't know the exact words of GZ's statements, but from what we have heard thus far, it seems like GZ is working the claim that he was not pursuing TM when, and if, he took the cut thru path.   By claiming he was returning TO his vehicle he's got a good self defense claim.  In point of fact, he never got there and seems to have diverted from that path and into the backyard/ dogwalk area.

    He seems to be saying his mission, after he was told "we don't need you to do that," (follow TM) was to find a street sign (aka house number) for the dispatch to relay, either to set up a rendezvous point or to report where he thought the teen was possibly loitering by again.  It's likely GZ felt that TM didn't have a townhouse of his own that he could enter, so that if he, GZ,  kept looking that he would eventually find the teen loitering about again somewhere in the complex.  

    If this "I was ONLY looking for a street sign" mission/angle is true, I think this is pretty much the main reason his word will be seen as not credible.  Everything we now know from his recorded call seems to show us that he was still trying to keep the teen in view, at the least, and possibly catch up to him to detain him until police arrived.   These intentions however are unprovable if he sticks to his claim that he was looking for a street sign, and returning to his truck.  How can one prove otherwise?  (Possibly it can be proven as false by the location of the body, which is off the innocent path and intersects TMs path home.  IANAL, however)

    Consider this - GZ gave his statements without the benefit of being able to review what he said on his recorded call.  However he began his tale to the investigators, he was quickly locked in to what he said.  Maybe it's the gospel truth, we don't know.  But it seems fishy to me.  

    He'd given a decent enough set of directions to his car's position at the cut thru, although he never said what kind of truck he had.  And if he actually did go to Retreat View to look up a street number, he didn't call it in.  In fact, the last thing he talks about on the recorded call is how he wants the police NOT to meet him at his truck, but to let him call them with his location.  The entire subdivision only has three street names total, so he has to mean house number.  We just don't know how married he is to the idea that he's looking for a street sign, not TM.  

    I speculate that he knew or quickly learned enough about self-defense laws to feel that by sticking to this claim of house-number hunting he could bolster his defense and that it was worth the risk of appearing fishy since there isn't a way to legally disprove it.   If he backs off of it now, it won't help his credibility.  Either way it's a tough sell, given the recording and his demeanor on it.  

    We don't know when the "looking for a street sign" claim enters into his statements - it's possible this is a detail he adds the next morning, after speaking with his father, giving it during the walk-thru with investigators on the scene.  If he gave it from the first, it would appear slightly more credible.  We don't know.  If he is adding it the next day, it's less credible, I feel.  

    But again, the location of the body seems to be the best chance the prosecution has to impeach his credibility here, if not outright disprove his claim that he was not trying to detain TM.  

    GZ had every right to watch TM, but none to detain or assault him as the aggressor in a confrontation.  
    The problem for the prosecution seems to be that he's claiming he WASN'T following TM at the time, since he was indeed walking back towards his vehicle once he headed west from Retreat View, if indeed that is where he went.  

    The defense seemed to try to belabor this point at the bail hearing.  It seems like both the prosecution and the defense are willing to agree that his initial path from his car led to Retreat View, even though there is no real proof of it.  All of the movements before the last one are basically irrelevant, anyway.  In the end a jury wants to know who started the fight.  

    He also had every right to enter between the townhouses and follow TM - but this isn't the story he's selling.  If he is locked into the "returning to the truck" claim then once he leaves the cut thru and heads south he's no longer doing that.  His story seems to be that he was "jumped" WHILE returning to his truck, which SHOULD mean he was on the cut thru path.  How then does the body end up between the townhouses?    

    On one hand we have GZ's word about how (and possibly WHERE) he was jumped, and on the other we have the statements of Dee Dee and the location of the body.  GZ's statements predate what the prosecution now knows from Dee Dee, and likely his full recollection of what he said to dispatch.  None of this can be reconciled fully knowing what little we know now.  This is why lots of people think the prosecution won't be able to prove Murder 2.  But what is also not known is what other evidence or witnesses the prosecution may have.  

    I think Corey is politically motivated, and seems genuinely motivated to seek a conviction and that she is no fool.  She must know something we don't, and she must think her chances are at least good enough to go to trial with.  If all she knows is what we know, it doesn't seem likely she would care to go to trial.  

    I'm fascinated with the partial hints we got at the bail hearing about "inconsistencies" in GZ's statements.  And I think GZ is a poor witness on the stand.  His brief cross examination on very limited grounds didn't seem to go well for him.  I don't think his lawyer is anxious to risk a SYG hearing that would put his client on the stand, open to cross-examination.  At a full trial, the defense lawyer doesn't have to do that, just present a defense of GZ's earlier statements and cast doubt on the prosecution's case.  

    Here is one partial hint I picked up on at the bail hearing, with the prosecution examining the investigator after O'Meara put him on the stand to ask about the indictment's wording, etc.

    DE LA RIONDA: Isn't it true, sir, that at least one witness described first chasing another person in the back of that -


    The question is cut off by the "yes," and they never get back to the full implication of what was said here.  But "in the back of" doesn't seem to suggest the foot chase on the street.  Maybe it's the one on the cut thru, but that wasn't really a two person foot chase - it was one person following 20-30 seconds after the other.  

    Elsewhere Gilbreath seems to have said what is reported here:

    Gilbreath also said the state had a witness who reported seeing the shadows of two people running, one chasing the other, but could not identify who they were.

    link here
    http://southflorida.sun-sentinel.com/news/os-george-zimmerman-bond-hearing-20120420,0,4802623.story? page=2

    I can't find the actual transcript of this, but i remember watching it during the bond hearing.  I think CNN was on commercial when it happened, and thus it is not in their rush transcript.

    If this witness exists and is credible, then Zimmerman's story falls apart.  The detail about TWO people running doesn't seem to fit Zimmerman's account, where a short verbal exchange leads to a sucker punch that puts the rest of the episode on the ground.

    The MSM doesn't seem to be picking up on this angle, so maybe I am all wet.  What do others here think?  


    I felt/ feel the same way (none / 0) (#176)
    by Mary2012 on Mon May 07, 2012 at 02:02:44 PM EST
    All speculation:

    House number/ street sign hunting raised a red flag for me and is why I didn't really fit it into my recent posted scenario with/ to NoMatter.  I also felt the 'Hollywood type lines' GZ apparently gave to TM (via the detective who described to Tracy Martin re what happened) were also not really credible to me; perhaps to others they are credible but they weren't to me.

    Re the time gap again, using the chase on Twin Trees: I do have an alternative possibility though which allows GZ to follow behind TM past the (now vacated) truck and onto the cut through.  It all depends on where GZ is when he sees TM emerge again from the (northern) end of the town homes on Twin Trees (bringing him once again, near GZ's truck).

    Either TM, interested in knowing whether GZ was back in his truck OR didn't realize he'd be visible to GZ (still walking back to his truck along Twin Trees; all GZ might've needed to see was a 'flicker' of a person emerging & could then quickly duck/ hide) OR TM was tired of being in some state of '(high) alert' and didn't think to look back and check for GZ (on Twin Trees) -- for whatever reason, didn't see GZ and didn't see him in his truck and proceeded then, onto the cut through.  All GZ would need to do at that point would be to catch up to him, imo, once he was certain TM couldn't see him (GZ) doing so.

    I also saw just now your other post as well which you touch on another question I had but didn't mention -- and that is, where did TM enter the Retreat upon returning from the 7-11.  That sounds right imo that he used the short cut.  I would also add that somehow he knew GZ was to be avoided and that when he saw him again near the Club House (as opposed to not seeing him, i.e., as would happen if GZ had gone out on his errands as he should have), it would most likely have added to his (TM's) fear level/ alert level, however you want to put it.

    I watched the bond hearing but was interrupted several times but yes I was interested in the foot chase part as well.  At this point, and I could be wrong, but I feel safe in saying that TM tried to do the best he could to get away from GZ.

    Something else I noticed during the non-emergency call when the dispatcher asked GZ if he lived in the area, and what his address was -- it seems to me it could be another hint from the dispatcher for GZ to go home and wait to hear from the police?  Not sure about that but it just seemed to me one could take it that way, imo.

    It seems to me I had one or two more points but I'm blocking on them right now.

    Okay, thank you Willis for your input to the discussion.  I believe I'm at my 4 post limit for today being a new poster again, so I will have to be content to read now.      



    you lost me there... (none / 0) (#179)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 07, 2012 at 04:39:08 PM EST
    Mary, are you saying they first circled the townhome he died behind? Or that TM ducked into a hiding spot as he was being chased by the car?  Maybe you could refer to my silly "battleship" grid and give some reference points here.  I can't follow what you are trying to say without some fixed reference points.  The streets run every which way.   It sounds intriguing though.  

    Imagine a normal person walks nine of these ~20 foot squares in about 30 seconds, and can run faster.  30 seconds is the time it took TM to pass GZ's vehicle, to go from "he's coming over here" to "these axxholes always get away."  That's why I think GZ drove from near the clubhouse to near the cut thru.  TM couldn't have passed GZ in that time if GZ was first/ already parked by the cut thru.  

    15 squares is a hundred yard dash.  Olympic level athletes do this in ten seconds or so.  Real people, not so much.  

    Jogging however is only slightly faster than running.   Of course they aren't always moving, but if they were the maximum squares GZ can walk in the time from "He ran" to the end of his call is around 27 squares.  Then we have the missing time until a 911 caller places the two mid-fight.  It's 2:30 of unaccounted for time until Trayvon's call drops.  

    Here is what I think:

    Trayvon moved from H6 to L27.  And that's all.   He walked the first nine squares or so, then ran the rest in less than 20-30 seconds tops.  His phone rings and he answers it.  He stays here, chatting and possibly sees GZ pass east the first time.  

    GZ was first parked near J8, looking in his mirror facing south/east and drove east to K19 or thereabouts after being passed.  He tails the youth with his vehicle, causing TM to run eventually.  GZ parks near K19 and exits, losing sight of the yout as early as "f*ing punks/cold/goons/c**ns" and no later than "he ran" (past tense) and jogs to J28, i28 or so, about at the T intersection on the cut thru sidewalk but misses seeing TM, who is now at L27 in the shadows slightly behind and south of him, behind "John's" townhouse more or less.  GZ has been told "we don't need you to do that" and stops running.  He looks south but doesn't see TM.  GZ is still on the phone and worried about being overheard, reluctant to give out his full name and address. (Did he fear retaliation, a home invasion if overheard?)  He walks and talks to J33 in order to look up and down Retreat View for TM.  His call ends somewhere in here.  

    GZ looks up and down Retreat View, moving as far south as M33, then north to the corner to look back west from D32.  He's eaten up much of the missing time here, walking N and S on Retreat View.    He sees nothing and decides to retrace his steps, headed TOWARDS his truck and also the last place he saw Trayvon - running near the T intersection.  He fails to call in a street address.  He's told the cops to call him when they arrive, and NOT to meet him at his truck.  But he is headed TOWARDS his truck.  

    Then, near the T intersection again, facing west, he and TM spot one another and the confrontation begins, ending with the body and GZ found at L27.  He loses the fight but shoots the youth, ending the struggle.  

    Later, he claims he was "returning to his truck" and "looking for a street sign" when he was "jumped" and sucker punched to the ground.  His story doesn't explain why he is south of the J-line, in between the buildings.  It's only partly true.   GZ closed the final gap, and thus is the aggressor and cannot plead self defense.  His story however is only partly fiction and hard to disprove, without witnesses.  


    Oh my.... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Mary2012 on Tue May 08, 2012 at 04:28:46 AM EST
    Sometimes I just can't help myself I guess (speculating anyway when I wasn't quite ready to do so, writing it more clearly).

    For an attempt at clarity, I'll quote some of your statements here and follow each with my response, then follow my responses with an additional explanation/ foundation for why I'm currently thinking along the lines that I am:

    "Mary, are you saying they first circled the townhome he died behind?..."


    "Or that TM ducked into a hiding spot as he was being chased by the car?"


    "Maybe you could refer to my silly "battleship" grid and give some reference points here."

    The unit of townhomes I'm referring to is on Twin Trees Lane (P19 on the battleship diagram; I chose one 'point' on the building in question).  The backyards of roughly half of the townhouses in this unit look over/ out onto Gorla Pond, i.e., the people in those townhouses have a view of/ can 'see' the pond from the back of their townhouse, iow.    


    If you go back to GZ's non-emergency call to the police, picking up at the point where, emphasis below is mine:

    GZ: He's running

    Dispatch: He's running?  Which way is he running?

    GZ: Down towards the other [back] entrance.

    "Down"?  If TM was taking the cut through (which might very well be the case; I'm not locked-in at this point, it's a real possibility) -- but, if TM was taking the cut through, why "down"?  Why not "He's taking the cut through"? or "He's cutting across to the other part of Retreat View Circle"?  After all, one can get to the back entrance going that route as well but then, why use the word "down"?

    Re your speculation:

    Oh I love your speculation and I believe I've said as much. I thought the battleship diagram was brilliant and even bookmarked it, have used it occasionally already as a reference.  

    I really like the part in your theory surrounding GZ saying in effect he didn't want to give (his address) out, he didn't know where TM was.  It really made sense when placing it where you have. Other parts as well.

    At any rate, I do have a question or two re your spec as written out and that is, where are you placing the "foot chase" if TM moves to L27 and stays there?

    Also, why would GZ travel north on Retreat View Circle when the back entrance is to the south? (that is if I read the diagram correctly)

    If indeed GZ reached Retreat View while still on with dispatch, why not just give the address at that point?

    And, I'll ask one more for now: Would TM really stop to talk on the phone for that length of time at the time you suggest, when he's trying to both evade GZ and get home?


    Okay, I hope I've answered/ clarified your questions (further above), but if not, please let me know!


    Flash Of Inspiration (none / 0) (#191)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 08, 2012 at 08:15:00 AM EST
    If indeed GZ reached Retreat View while still on with dispatch, why not just give the address at that point?

    Possibly because he hadn't thought of it yet.

    Zimmerman asked for the police to call him as a change of mind, after first agreeing to the dispatcher's mailbox suggestion. This was near the end of the call.

    If we knew that Zimmerman was on Retreat View Circle at that moment, it would be evidence that he is lying about why he wanted the police to call him.


    towards back entrance via street (none / 0) (#201)
    by willisnewton on Wed May 09, 2012 at 10:59:45 AM EST
    We are reaching 200 comments -in the words of Waylon Jennings,  where do we take this from here?

    It's a timing thing that makes me doubt the possibility of what you suggest about a route by the pond. I think the action at this time was that GZ was driving east on Twin trees, and TM was just starting to be running ahead east on Twin Trees, not YET onto the cut thru.  But both are past the first route to the pond.  

    I'd put TM at or around J15-19 and GZ behind him but in motion.  TM stays to the left, northernmost lane to give the car a wide berth, and to make his surprise turn onto the cut thru sidewalk rapidly.  GZ stays in his lane moving slowly.  

    GZ: Down towards the other [back] entrance.

    I feel GZ is thinking like a driver, not a pedestrian.  Twin Trees runs east at the moment, but TM has stayed on it from the clubhouse through the first turn, where he passed GZ's vehicle.  GZ is giving general directions for a driver.  If it were a plumbing fixture, the teen is headed for the drain at the south.  I realize this is not a literal description but to my mind GZ is not the best navigator, either.  But that is where the street leads.

    I think if the youth ducked behind the townhouse that backs onto the pond, he would have done so by cutting very close to GZ's vehicle and likely while it was already moving.   I don't see that as a probable action, and if it were the truth, then GZ would mention he was off the road and sidewalk and given a description that was more about the pond than about the back entrance.  His directions are in part to explain a route for the police to follow, so he uses streets directions.  I think "down" is not south, but "he's running down the street" (that eventually winds to the back entrance).  

    THen we have the statement that GZ parked by a cut thru.  I think he has already made the distinction between "behind buildings" as super suspicious and would use that language if TM took a path that had no walkway.  Also, if he exited his vehicle and followed TM towards the pond at first he would say that too.  But I must admit we don't know any of this, really.  We are all speculating here.  My scenario is just the most direct route we can get to fit the ultimate location of the body and known clues like "returning to his truck" after first calculating how TM may have walked past GZ's car so quickly if GZ eventually is parked "by a cut thru."  That's what puts GZ's car in motion for me, the fact that he could watch him by the clubhouse at first, and then end up parked so far away.  

    As for the foot chase, I think it is brief and occurs after the two first speak to one another, and the call to the girlfriend drops.  GZ has closed most of the gap between them already, and it is possible that TM meets him halfway.  The area between the back to back town houses was dark enough that the cops used flashlights, we have heard.  ( I doubt that from his car, in the dark and possible rain that GZ saw TM turn south off the cut thru path.)  I think there are pools of light and deep shadow.

    After GZ completes the cut thru and is eventually returning west, he is able to backlight TM against someone's porch light by virtue of his tracking eye line.  On the way east, he was talking on the phone and not looking behind himself, but going west it's easy to spot the youth, who has not moved  - maybe he's under a patio or a tree to keep himself dry from the rain.  He's eluded his pursuer once by getting off the street, and possibly watched GZ pass east the first time, with or without knowing it was him.  I doubt TM looked back to see GZ exit his vehicle.  

    Once GZ passed TM the first time,  this would indeed seem like the opportune moment to run for home, but remember he's talking to his girlfriend and thinks he's in a good hiding spot.  So he stays put.  When GZ was still in the car tailing him, TM had to consider the possibility that GZ would drive ahead to P23 and cut him off.  He's run to a place of refuge but not sanctuary.  TM may also have not wanted to lure a "stalker" to his own door, where the little kid was alone.   Or, he wanted provacy to complete his call.  My teen use our street as a place to talk on their cell phones at night...  we have a crowded house with little ears about.  

    So my scenario is that the foot chase is brief, a little quarterback scramble where someone quickly falls to the ground, either slipping or being slung by the clothing, etc, a chase that occupies only three or four grid squares in a circle or something, ending where the body is found.  The location of the chase witness will tell us a lot if we ever learn it.  

    This exchange from the bond hearing speaks to it, but is cut off:

    DE LA RIONDA: Isn't it true, sir, that at least one witness described first chasing another person in the back of that --


    I don't think "in the back of" refers to anything on Twin Trees, at least.  It could be on the cut thru, though.  But I doubt GZ was ever close to TM when he jogged away from his car, and it is also probable he had no view to see when TM turned south.  If he had, he would have followed that way.  If he parked  "by a cut thru" at J16-20, he can't see TM turn south until he himself is to i/J 23 or so.  

    As for why GZ walks up north to where Retreat View turns back west ( D32 or so) when TM was seen running "down" I think GZ is just looking for all the possibilities considering he THINKS he has eliminated the idea that TM went into the dog walk area, having passed that already and seen nothing.  He looked down the  dimly lit sidewalk and didn't see the kid running there, so he continues east to Retreat view and looks N and south.  The nearest option from there is the corner to his north.  Once he's done that, in order to eliminate other possibilities he needs to go back to his truck after that, and drive around.  Or re-examine the dog walk.  

    GZ's story is not that far from the truth, in many aspects.  He WAS headed back towards his vehicle when he was "surprised" to encounter TM, who may have spoken first.  The reason I think however that GZ is lying is that someone closed the gap  between the two by diverting from an innocent route and onto a course that intersects the other person's innocent route.  GZ's leads to his car, and TM's leads to his home.   Who closed the gap, then?

    The location of the body seems to indicate that the diverting person was GZ and not TM.  If the fight was on the cut thru and the body found there, I would be inclined to believe GZ more.  I also think GZ DID get bested in the physical struggle to the extent that TM was on top and GZ was possibly the one yelling for help.  It's also possible TM was on top and yelling for help.  We don't know and the evidence is inconclusive at present, audio analysis or not.  (I do wonder why the lawyers/ spokespersons for Trayvon's family are not going forward to supply a voice sample for Trayvon to the press.)

    So the situation is nuanced somewhat - TM fought GZ, I think.  How well we don't yet know.  But at the point, GZ lost his right to claim self defense by virtue of having tried to "detain/ arrest" the youth.  I don't know how you prove this in court, but that's what I think happened.  

    I think the location of the body and the two person footchase witness may be enough to show that GZ is not a credible witness, and the jury will have to assume that GZ's account is a false one.  

    Okay, last questions

    "If indeed GZ reached Retreat View while still on with dispatch, why not just give the address at that point?"

    He wasn't even thinking about addresses at that point.  The whole angle about looking for a street sign is an alibi to explain how he was NOT in pursuit of the teen, concocted after the shooting.  He gave adequate direction to his vehicle already, and was told he would he called when cops arrived.  The change in plan from "meet me at my car/mailboxes" to "call me and I'll let you know" don't seem to be something that paints him in a good light.  It can be argued that this is his signal that he will be on the hunt instead of waiting for the police to arrive.  

    Why indeed did he not call in a street address in the minutes after he ended the call?  To me it's a suspicious action on top of the already TOTALLY ludicrous notion that he was "looking for street sign" at all.  He fully admitted he was out of his car chasing the youth in the call.  ("Are you following him?" A: Yes.)

    However, later at the police station he may or may not have recalled all that he said to the operator, and so his alibi seems plausible to him.  (probable Q: Why did you get out of your car? What were you dong all the way over there? A:  I'd lost him by then, and I wasn't even looking for him anymore... I was on my way back to my truck, you see.  I went on to the next street because I wanted to find a street sign so the cops could meet me.")  And once he said it, he's locked into it.  We don't know when this portion of the story enters his statements however.  It seems he was out of the police station by 10 or 11PM, and for what it is worth the police report of Tim Smith isn't filed until 3AM.  Some people suspect that this report was prepared carefully to include exculpatory details and possibly with the hand of GZ and his allies.  I have no proof of that, but it is possible.  There is also a bit of curious document-handling possible hanky-panky regarding Smith's report you can read about here:


    We also know that the next day GZ walked the scene with investigators and that his father was present.  Did the "looking for a street sign" detail come in this late, after consideration and consultation of the law?  We don't know.  The possible  existence of evolving levels of exculpatory details are going to be interesting to examine once we have access to all the five accounts GZ gave the initial investigators.  I think GZ piles them on a little deep in the bovine extract department, up to and including "you got me" as the teen dies.  The part where GZ is threatened verbally with death by a kid who has yet to get his gun away from him seems highly implausible.  (If I were a suddenly murderous skittle-carrier, I'd wait until I had disarmed the man to utter lines from B-movies. )   I realize I am biased here but this is an open thread and I just don't find GZ credible at all.  

    last question. (whew)

    "And, I'll ask one more for now: Would TM really stop to talk on the phone for that length of time at the time you suggest, when he's trying to both evade GZ and get home?"

    A: yes.  He waited out the rain before by the clubhouse, and now he was doing it again.  The call was still going at something around two minutes, when he'd been chatting all night, and something exciting had just happened to him.   We heard from DeeDee that the call was still going on when the two spoke and the call was dropped.  TM knew he wasn't doing anything wrong, and while he wanted to elude the car he had no idea that he was in physical danger yet.  I think his level of anxiety and fear skyrocketed after GZ closed the gap and the two began their foot chase and physical struggle.  

    We won't ever know how the fight began, and the prosecution admits as much. (We do seem to know where it ended.)  Maybe GZ WAS sucker-punched.  But GZ seems to have closed the gap after getting out of his car, and pursuing in a general sense, and closed the gap in a specific "last-moments" sense if we consider the location of the body and the innocent path vs the intersecting path of each person, and that means he cannot claim self-defense without a great lawyer and no close-order foot chase.  It's his credibility that will crack his defense, not the details of what his account is.  

    It's going to be a fascinating case.  It's already a sad shame that lies somewhere on a line that runs from "preventable tragedy" to "murder with police coverup."   And the blame for both begins with GZ getting out of his car with a loaded gun.  Whether it fits the exact legalities or not, expect to hear a lot form the prosecution about this.  GZ got out of his car with a loaded weapon - and one in the chamber, too it seems.

    The legalities are going to be ruled upon, but the actual truth will never fully be known unless GZ decides to change his plea and give a confession.  While this seems unlikely at present, wait until the defense gets discovery.  Who knows what the prosecution has?  They seem confident that they can prove murder 2.


    Hi Willis, good to see you! (none / 0) (#202)
    by Mary2012 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 12:31:44 PM EST
    When 200 is reached, one of the "open threads" is next.  There are 2 on the home page.

    I see you have a long post so I want to spend some time with it.


    Not the Best Navigator (none / 0) (#209)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 09, 2012 at 07:47:15 PM EST
    His directions are in part to explain a route for the police to follow, so he uses streets directions. I think "down" is not south, but "he's running down the street" (that eventually winds to the back entrance).

    That's a good answer to a problem that's been puzzling me.

    (I doubt that from his car, in the dark and possible rain that GZ saw TM turn south off the cut thru path.)  I think there are pools of light and deep shadow.

    You think Zimmerman was in his car when Martin turned south into the dog walk?

    I put him at I23, about a hundred feet behind Martin. The time would be 7:12, give or take a few seconds.

    I don't know what to think about the lighting. I'm not seeing anything on the aerial photo that suggests street lighting.

    Martin being in motion would up his visibility.

    If Zimmerman reached the T not knowing which way Martin went, I think he would stop there to look around. But his running seems to take him another fifty feet past that point, in whichever direction.

    If he went south after Martin, there's the foot chase. Martin may have answered his phone as late as 7:12:59, so there's plenty of time.

    Here's some speculation that's just come together for me. When the dispatcher gave Zimmerman the 'we don't need' line, it may have served to remind him that following a suspect is dangerous. But Martin was in view, a hundred feet in front of him and running away. So he decided to halfway take the dispatcher's advice, by continuing to follow until Martin was in any way lost to sight. Then he would turn back, rather than risk an ambush by going to the place of last sighting.

    Martin could have escaped Zimmerman's sight by cutting between any pair of houses, or going on past Brandy Green's building and turning either way.  

    returning west, he is able to backlight TM against someone's porch light by virtue of his tracking eye line.

    I was never in the camp that thought Martin choosing not to go home was damning in itself. I should have made that clearer in some of our more recent discussion.

    If Martin saw Zimmerman go east on the crosswalk, and wanted to avoid him, I think he would take this opportunity to get further away. Or he could at least find a better hiding place between the houses.

    Austin Brown, the teenage dog walker, has said 'Only one porch light was on.' In front of that one porch light might be the worst possible hiding place.

    going west it's easy to spot the youth, who has not moved  - maybe he's under a patio or a tree to keep himself dry from the rain.

    I don't think there was a downpour at this time. Zimmerman is still on the police call, and there's no striking change in the ambient sound to suggest such a thing. The Teacher in her first CNN interview said that when she first heard loud voices 'I had just shut my window because it had just started pouring out rain.' That suggests a lull before that time.

    He looked down the  dimly lit sidewalk and didn't see the kid running there, so he continues east to Retreat view and looks N and south.  The nearest option from there is the corner to his north.  Once he's done that, in order to eliminate other possibilities he needs to go back to his truck after that, and drive around.

    As I've said before, for Zimmerman to do a visual search of the dog walk area he would have stopped there. Other than that, these are good thoughts on Zimmerman's possible search pattern.

    He gave adequate direction to his vehicle already

    I've discussed this at length. The key point is that Zimmerman didn't give up on meeting at the then current location of the truck. The dispatcher did.

    Z: And then they go past the mailboxes. They'll see my truck.
    D: What address are you parked in front of?
    Z: I don't know. It's a cut-through, so I don't know the address.
    D: OK, do you live in the area?
    Z: Yeah, yeah. [Crosstalk]
    D: What's your apartment number?
    Z: It's a home. It's one nine five zero - oh, cr*p. I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is.
    D: OK, do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
    Z: Yeah, that's fine.
    D: Alright, George, I'll let them know to meet you [unintelligible].
    Z: Actually, could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?

    The dispatcher has so despaired of Zimmerman's directions that he's ready to send the officers to any address 'in the area'. When that doesn't work, it's the dispatcher who suggests the mailboxes as Plan C.

    Zimmerman clearly doesn't like the mailbox suggestion, and grudgingly agrees because at first he doesn't have a better idea. Why is he so unhappy? My only explanation is that the mailboxes are well to the west, and Zimmerman may have last seen Martin heading east.

    Here's another key point. Why was Zimmerman even giving directions to his truck? The phone talk had to be distracting. When the dispatcher asked him where he wanted to meet with the officers, he could have said then that he wanted a call back.

    This was about 7:12:40. He could have wrapped up the call by 7:13:00, over half a minute sooner than he actually did.

    Why indeed did he not call in a street address in the minutes after he ended the call?

    Calling the dispatcher again wouldn't make sense. The responding officers had Zimmerman's number and were going to call him. There was no reason to tie up more of the dispatcher's time. Relaying the address through a third party would increase the chances of error. The last point is minor, but it matters because, pardon the redundancy, there was no reason to do it. It had been agreed that the officers would call Zimmerman.

    However, later at the police station he may or may not have recalled all that he said to the operator, and so his alibi seems plausible to him.

    Innocent or guilty, the smart thing to do is not to make the nice police officers read those lovely rights in vain. Shut mouth. Await lawyer.

    Zimmerman seems to be one of those naive souls who trust the system.

    Come to think of it, Zimmerman wasn't formally arrested, so he probably wasn't read his rights. That's an underrated reason for not arresting him. When your guy wants to talk, there's no rush to remind him he doesn't have to.


    I'd like to reply to this on a new forum - tuesday (none / 0) (#211)
    by willisnewton on Thu May 10, 2012 at 11:21:13 AM EST
    I'm going to try to post a reply onto the tuesday forum

    I'm not having much luck with wordpress and a a mac, however.  

    ignore what is below - simply testing how to make links


    replied to this elsewhere (none / 0) (#212)
    by willisnewton on Thu May 10, 2012 at 01:20:58 PM EST
    my reply is here, on the tuesday open thread


    Thanks for your comments - you have a lot of good points to make and this is hard to parse by one's self.  


    Correcting 'Navigator' Comment (none / 0) (#213)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu May 10, 2012 at 04:09:16 PM EST
    But Martin was in view, a hundred feet in front of him and running away. So he decided to halfway take the dispatcher's advice, by continuing to follow until Martin was in any way lost to sight.

    I'll take comment #200 to correct this.

    In this reconstruction, Martin would be turning south onto the dog walk at just about the time of the dispatcher's 'don't need to' remark. Zimmerman would then have followed Martin to, and past, the first point at which he was lost to view.


    The Sidewalk Possibly Not Taken At That Time (none / 0) (#196)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 08, 2012 at 12:08:21 PM EST
    GZ parks near K19 and exits, losing sight of the youth as early as "f*ing punks/cold/goons/c**ns" and no later than "he ran" (past tense) and jogs to J28, i28 or so, about at the T intersection on the cut thru sidewalk but misses seeing TM, who is now at L27 in the shadows slightly behind and south of him, behind "John's" townhouse more or less.

    Great job on the grid. I've found it hugely useful.

    I've got a tip for the less mathematically inclined. By the pythagorean theorem, the diagonal of a 20 ft. square is about 28 ft. One of them can be approximated as 30 ft., but if there are two in one calculation that's 56 ft., closer to 55 than to 60.

    The grid has a minor flaw. The numbers 17 and 18 straddle lines, and the number 19 labels the interval that should have been 18. Not a problem most of the time, but it might trip you up if you're not aware of it.

    Getting back to the scenario, it's certainly a possible one. I don't think it's the most probable.

    I figure Martin to have a head start of a hundred feet or so. Unless something distracts Zimmerman he should see Martin turn south at the T.

    Zimmerman reaches the T about 7:12:10, and keeps running for another five seconds or so. There's your backyard chase.


    The grid worked just fine for my purpose (none / 0) (#199)
    by Mary2012 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 03:52:51 AM EST
    The grid has a minor flaw. The numbers 17 and 18 straddle lines, and the number 19 labels the interval that should have been 18. Not a problem most of the time, but it might trip you up if you're not aware of it.

    That's because of the font/ font size, i.e., the spacings, how it's spaced. I've run into the same problem myself at times & probably most people have run into the same thing at one time or another whether they're working on a diagram or not.  

    It's still a very helpful diagram.  



    Comment Policy (none / 0) (#181)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 08, 2012 at 02:04:16 AM EST
    You're mis-recalling the policy. New commenters get ten per day. Four is for those on probation.

    Thank you, NoMatter! (none / 0) (#184)
    by Mary2012 on Tue May 08, 2012 at 04:39:21 AM EST
    It was tough limiting myself to 4 posts at times and I'm not really all that talkative to begin with, lol. Thanks.

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#204)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 09, 2012 at 01:45:29 PM EST
    10 is for new commenters until I can judge they aren't blog-clogging or spamming.

    4 is for chatterers which includes new and old commenters, and refers to commenters who disagree with TalkLeft's stated positions and keep repeating their opposition. This is a not a neutral site, and while I allow some expression of opposing views, I have no interest providing a forum for such views, or to have such views dominate a thread or spread past this site via google or anywhere else. That includes people who speculate anyone is guilty, those comments are likely to be limited -- especially if they keep repeating the same reasons. I've shown more tolerance in this case because commenters seem to be addressing new and different facts and so long as they are clear this is their opinion, I've been allowing it so far. In the future, when we get to actual discovery being released and court testimony, I may get stricter on this.

    It's a good idea to keep a copy of your comments on your own computer in case one is  deleted here. I don't want anyone, regardless of point of view, to lose their work, and I know a lot of time and effort goes into some of them.  


    Not Dispatch (none / 0) (#186)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 08, 2012 at 06:09:45 AM EST
    He seems to be saying his mission, after he was told "we don't need you to do that," (follow TM) was to find a street sign (aka house number) for the dispatch to relay . . .

    No, to give to the responding officers when they arrived, and called Zimmerman. It was never said that Zimmerman was going to call dispatch again. Thus he didn't, as you've suggested a few times, 'fail' to do so.

    Directions (none / 0) (#187)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 08, 2012 at 06:43:52 AM EST
    He'd given a decent enough set of directions to his car's position . . .

    I don't think so and neither did the dispatcher. At least that's the obvious reason for the dispatcher to ask for an address, then suggest the mailboxes.

    Zimmerman kept saying 'turn left' when he meant follow the bend of Twin Trees Lane. It's true that 'go past the clubhouse' disambiguates, but how could the dispatcher be sure that wasn't an error? IOW, I think the dispatcher wasn't sure if Zimmerman himself knew if he was on Twin Trees Lane or Retreat View Circle.

    Remember, it was the dispatcher who suggested switching the location of the meeting from the current location of the car to the mailboxes. It was after that suggestion that Zimmerman asked for the officers to call him on arrival.


    I think all this "directions" stuff (none / 0) (#195)
    by Anne on Tue May 08, 2012 at 08:39:36 AM EST
    is just a distraction.  And a weak one, at that.

    Let's say you're in your house, or in your driveway putting out the garbage cans for the next day's pick up, and you see something a little off - someone you don't know passing by, a strange car driving very slowly - whatever.  You decide to call the non-emergency number to report your suspicions, and when you do, you give your name and your address - which does nothing more than pinpoint your location and the location of the person you saw at some fixed moment in time: it doesn't fix the location of anything or anyone you've seen if that person is moving.  

    George Zimmerman was in his car when he first saw Trayvon Martin; he knew where he - George - was, or at least approximately where he was when he first spotted Trayvon.  It was George's neighborhood, he patrolled it regularly, both in the daylight and in the dark.  All he needed to do was tell the dispatcher who he was and where he was when he saw this possibly suspicious person - and how long ago.  

    The rest is - as it's supposed to be - up to the cops.  They neither expect nor would request that any private citizen continue to follow someone they are suspicious enough of to call them.  Yes, if George stops following Martin and goes on about his errands, maybe the cops never do find out who George saw or what he was doing there.  So what?  As near as I can tell, there's one less dead person.

    I don't see how you escape the obvious here: George Zimmerman was playing cop; I don't believe he was looking to shoot, much less kill, anyone, or even harm them in any way, but I do believe he overestimated his abilities and decided that his role as some variety of community patrol person was so close to that of actual law enforcement personnel that he could take on that job until the cops got there.  

    In many ways, it's too bad the cops didn't get there before the shooting; then, with Trayvon alive and able to tell the cops who he was, what he was doing that night, and what he experienced being tracked/stalked by someone he didn't know for reasons he didn't know, it's quite likely the cops would have had a little come-to-Jesus meeting with Zimmerman, warning him of the danger his actions placed both himself and someone who was doing nothing wrong.  Of course, given the Sanford PD's history, it's also quite likely Trayvon would have been treated like a criminal, and been taken into custody - but at least he'd be alive.


    J8 (none / 0) (#162)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon May 07, 2012 at 09:09:12 AM EST
    My favorite scenario, for today at least, has the SUV parked about at J8, facing S/SE, when Zimmerman's police call connects. Martin passes in front of it, for about a second, as opposed to maybe three seconds to pass beside it.

    that makes sense to me as well (none / 0) (#170)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 07, 2012 at 11:24:40 AM EST

    I think TM took the shortcut to the store, and returned onto the complex by cutting between buildings and onto the road that leads in front of the clubhouse.  Maybe GZ saw him coming onto the property as he was driving towards the front gate, and shadowed him to the clubhouse.  None of this matters much in a legal sense, but it does complete the picture.  The other option would be coming in thru the main gate, and I don't know if there would be a code needed for pedestrians or not, but the likelihood of the two intersecting paths is less.  

    GZ then turns the corner on the clubhouse and watches TM in his rearview mirror.  TM's suspicions that he is being watched are already in place while he's by the clubhouse, and it's here that he declares to his g/f that he will "walk fast" instead of running.  

    GZ rolls up his window as the teen passes.  Then, the car starts following and so TM runs until he is off the street and between the townhouses.  maybe he knows GZ gets out and follows, maybe he doesn't.  His call either drops or he has hung up on his g/f during this time.  Then, shortly after he rounds the corner to the spot where he was shot, his phone rings again and he answers it, instead of running all the way home.   From here GZ passes, along the cut thru, talking on his phone still and misses seeing TM in the darkness.  he reaches Retreat view and looks to see if the youth went north or south, maybe even walks up north to see if he went west on Retreat.  Somewhere in here his call ends with him telling the police operator to "nevermind" the idea of meeting at his truck, but to have officers call him for his location.  Then he heads back towards his truck - and the last place he saw TM.  If he has spotted a street sign/ house number, he fails to call it in.  

    On the way back, he's facing west and not on the phone, so it's easier for him to spot TM in the "shadow" of the townhouse on Twin Trees, near where the body is found.  

    Somehow, the gap is closed between the two and a fight ensues. Possibly as GZ claims, with his being approached from behind and "jumped," while returning to his truck, or with a two person foot chase.  We don't know.  But the body ends up between the townhouses.    

    Like all tragedies, this one seems built from small details that added up to a bad result.  


    Location, Location, Location (none / 0) (#180)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 08, 2012 at 01:17:12 AM EST
    Somewhere in here his call ends with him telling the police operator to "nevermind" the idea of meeting at his truck, but to have officers call him for his location. . . . If he has spotted a street sign/ house number, he fails to call it in.

    He didn't 'fail' to call the address in. The agreement was for the officers to call him when they arrived, as you noted two sentences before.

    I think the idea was for Zimmerman to return to his truck, and drive it around to the address he had acquired. That address, his location, and the location of his truck would then all be the same.


    that would make a cat laugh, my friend (none / 0) (#193)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 08, 2012 at 08:34:44 AM EST
    I think the basic idea when he got out of his truck was to run after the teen.  The reason I think this because he admitted as much during his recorded call, when asked directly if he was following the youth, and his answer was "yes."  

    Later, he claims he was "looking for a street sign" as the reason he walked on, presumably to Retreat View Circle taking the exact cut through path that TM had just run down.  I call major bulls**t on that one, sorry.   From what we have heard so far, he isn't even admitting he went into the cut thru to keep eyes on the teen.  He's saying he is there to find a street sign which I frankly find preposterous.  

    Did he have the right to follow TM? As a private citizen, sure. He had every right to be between the townhouses, LOOKING to keep eye on another person in his neighborhood.  BUT THAT ISN'T HIS STORY.  He's changed it to claim he was "looking for a street sign" and "returning to his vehicle" in order to appear to be non-aggressor to the fight.  This just isn't a credible story to me.  Can I prove it in't true?  That's admittedly difficult if he stuck to this claim from the start.  We'll find out, presumably.  

    He also claims he was "returning to his truck" when he somehow ends up behind the townhouses next to a dead body he admits shooting, at least 20-40 feet off the path leading towards his truck.  I call that lying.  He's got no explanation for why his path diverted, since his story is that Trayvon approached HIM, and he was punched to the ground as soon as the two spoke a few brief words.  

    Psychologists say the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and we know Trayvon didn't have a  history of fighting or being arrested, yet GZ has 2 counts of domestic violence and his run-in with the undercover police when he was arrested and charged with assaulting an officer but was allowed to get into a program for first offenders.  Then there is the story of his job as a bouncer at illegal parties where he threw a woman into a wall for a minor infraction.  The witness says "he snapped."  

    Then of course we seem to have the claim that the teen verbally threatened his life BEFORE taking his gun away, or even putting his hand on the weapon.  I think if TM's fingerprints are on the gun we might have heard about that already.  GZ's story doesn't include TM ever touching the weapon.  I find it highly doubtful that a 17 year old would threaten death to a man he knew was armed, while the two were wrestling on the ground.  These are all exculpatory details inserted into the actual narrative selectively.  The fact that they thread the needle for a self defense claim is highly suspicious.  

    I do think he got bested in a physical struggle, and I also think it is likely he called for help during this struggle.  But I have a hard time believing he was not the instigator of the struggle, especially now that we have heard about a "two-person foot chase" witness.  

    For these and many other reasons, I think George Zimmerman is not a credible person, and that his claims are false. Proving this is court is not my job, thankfully, but this is what I believe.  


    These sorts of shorthand (none / 0) (#31)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:20:45 PM EST
    occur in the coverage of every case.  Jeralyn has (because it is her blog) taken to reading coverage of this particular case (and in fact any narrative that hurts the defense)with a laser eye towards pointing out any and every inconsistency when the reality is that reporters aren't lawyers.  There are nuances regarding a story that frankly they do not have the time, space or even obligation to point out.   The idea that a legal lens is being placed over journalism doesn't make much sense to me.

    I am betting that we could take any fairly high profile case and hold the indictment/affidavit/public facts in one hand and an article on the case another hand and find all sorts of inconsistencies.

    What strikes me as odd is that people here seem to be laser focused on any inconsistencies in one direction.  I have neither the time or the urge, but I am fairly certain that if I looked at news stories I could find articles which wrongly hurt the prosecution position as well.

    But it's not surprising.  Lawyers in these cases are looking at every fact in the most excruciating and minute detail with no time constraints, publishing deadlines or space limitations in mind.

    Journos have different considerations, limits and interests to balance.

    Can't we just all agree that journalists in this case and others will screw up facts, try to point out the big picture facts and call it a day?


    agree the reporting sloppy and the scrutiny high (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:30:33 PM EST
    But that just puts the burden on the reporter not to write obviously bad copy, and the editors to catch these mistakes.  

    If you are assigned to a case, learn the facts.  I've seen some great nuanced reporting on this case, and we've all seen the other kind.  

    But your point is well noted - no one is holding the reporters to any legal standards and they are free to screw up as they please, and most of us are foolish to think they will do anything different.  


    Agree with all of that (none / 0) (#36)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:43:59 PM EST
    Martin/Zimmerman and the Media (none / 0) (#43)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 04, 2012 at 05:11:39 PM EST
    In my observation, media coverage of the Martin/Zimmerman case has been egregiously bad and heavily biased against Zimmerman. It's an unusual phenomenon, but we saw it before in the Duke Lacrosse case.

    No. It's more than laziness. (none / 0) (#93)
    by Gandydancer on Sat May 05, 2012 at 09:44:23 AM EST
    "Can't we just all agree that journalists in this case and others will screw up facts, try to point out the big picture facts and call it a day?"

    The "big picture" they're drawing isn't some poor representation of reality because they're lazy and pressed for time. They evince an agenda.


    How you park a car.. (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:58:31 PM EST
    Try this...

    You've been setting there for a period of time with the car in Drive and your foot on the brake.

    At some point you put the car in "Park."


    Re-Thread (none / 0) (#40)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 04, 2012 at 05:02:07 PM EST
    I'm combining and updating my comments from the earlier thread, including replies to Willisnewton's downthread comments

    I'm astounded people think the DoJ is running a full scale investigation of the SPD and Norm Wolfinger, when it's clear that they are not.

    Local media reported that the city of Sanford asked for a full DOJ investigation of their police department in March. So far I can't tell if the answer was, 'yes', 'no', or 'we're still thinking it over'.

    Crump's request for an investigation of Wolfinger was another publicity stunt. I wouldn't be surprised if it was refused.

    However, the prosecution does seem to think [Zimmerman's statements] are inconsistent.

    I think this prosecution is a politically motivated bluff, so I don't put much store on what they seem to think.

    you can hear what may or may not be a gearshift knob adjustment around the time of the "a*holes always get away" comment, and then again right before the door bell rings.

    Good point. I thought those sounds might be the vehicle door, but I couldn't figure why they happen twice.

    My own highly unscientific speculation is based on the amount of time Trayvon seems to take to walk past the vehicle - around 30-35 seconds from ""he's coming towards me" to "these a*holes always get away"  - seems to place the vehicle no more than 150-180 feet south of the clubhouse at most, and likely a lot less.

    I've noticed that's a little tight. But why 'a lot less'? Are you assuming that Martin is still walking slowly after he starts to approach the vehicle? Zimmerman doesn't say that. And if Martin was walking that slowly it would be awkward following him with a moving vehicle.

    One of us is confusing directions. I think the main entrance is on the north side, and the cut-through is east of the clubhouse.

    I'm intrigued by the idea that Zimmerman's SUV was in motion between 1:43 and 2:09 on the police call. (Between 7:11:17 and 7:11:43 under prevailing wisdom.) I'll do some work on the possibilities that opens up.

    Crump implies that Dee Dee's account puts the truck in motion earlier.


    That my theory on timing of car move. (none / 0) (#57)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 04, 2012 at 07:56:47 PM EST
    Here are the clues as I see them- GZ has a view of the clubhouse where he says trayvon is loitering at first, and trayvon is able to walk past his car in about 30-35 seconds- from 7:10:35 or so until "these a/holes always get away."

    I'm 6'2" and I can walk no more than 180 feet in that time.  that puts his car somewhere south and east of the mailboxes but not far east enough to be past the townhouse and thus "by the cut thru" where he says his truck is later.   If he had been asked before trayvon ran his description of his location would be either still by the clubhouse or in front of the townhouses on the east-west part of twin trees.  He drove at least past the east end of the townhouse while seemingly shadowing the running teen, who rounded the corner out of sight in another 30 seconds, until the "he ran" comment is given in past tense.  

    Note This is sadly also about the time TMs phone rings again.  I speculate he stopped to answer it at about the same spot where his body was found.  

    Zimmerman follows quickly for 25 seconds and then at a different rate, presumably towards the direction he saw the teen run- onto the cut thru path.  In 40 seconds he's reluctant to say his address aloud.   I speculate he's near the T intersection that marks his path east and Trayvons south.  This is where he last saw the teen, but in the dark and still on the phone, he misses him and continues east to retreat view circle.  If trayvon was near where he died, perhAps on a patio out of the rain or under a tree it's easier for him to be spotted when Zimmerman returns facing west.  



    Shouldn't we be talking about the (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:03:34 PM EST
    "blind Chinese dissident"?  Cannot figure out why this is so extremely newsworthy.  

    What about him? Obama threw... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Gandydancer on Sun May 06, 2012 at 10:31:40 AM EST
    ...him under the bus for trivial reasons. What else is new? Bush-I pointlessly threw the whole effort of the first invasion of Iraq under the bus after GulfWar-I, with disastrous consequences, so this is small beer. On the other hand the Zimmerman railroading is an atrocity of media mendacity and prosecutorial lawlessness right here in the U S of A.

    Is it too late for Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 04, 2012 at 08:24:54 PM EST
    In a thought=provoking piece on his Esquire Magazine blog, Charlie Pierce talks the upcoming presidential campaign, Obama's recent switch from PPUS to a more populist rhetoric, and why it may be coming too late.

    As many of us here have done, Charlie wonders what took Obama so long to go after the crazy Republicans. Why did Obama waste the last three years in an attempt to find common ground with a GOP that was never going to find common found with him?  Why did he not make the point to voters, every time the Repubs held the nation hostage, that the GOP caucus was flat-out refusing to do the work it had been elected to do?

    Charlie is not hopeful about Obama's chances  in November. Neither am I. Maybe he'll pull it out. Maybe there will be an economic miracle, maybe there will be an Obama-favoring October surprise. Maybe. I'm not holding my breath.

    Barack Obama had a rare chance to change the trajectory of this country. A rare chance to begin to undo the inequality that has been eating away at the U.S. for the past three decades. He had an almost unheard of opportunity, and he declined.

    Read Charlie. As always, Charlie being a better writer than I, he says it more eloquently than I ever could.

    The thing is, what is Romney's attraction (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:30:30 PM EST
    to disaffected Obama voters?

    There doesn't have to be an attraction (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:40:40 PM EST
    to Romney. Disaffected Obama voters do not have to vote for Romney. If enough former Obama voters just stay home, well, Romney wins.

    And I think that is the more likely scenario. Obama having now proved that neither party is really invested in improving the lot of the majority of Americans, discouraged former Obama voters will simply not vote.


    I anticipate those who voted (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Fri May 04, 2012 at 09:51:32 PM EST
    for Obama will again do so due to SCOTUS and w/ d from Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Some undoubtably will. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by caseyOR on Fri May 04, 2012 at 10:02:41 PM EST
    Not all, though, not all. And the question is do enough people stay home that Romney wins?

    Also, people are wising up to the whole "say one thing and do another" aspect to this presidency. I doubt many will look at Obama's statements about leaving Afghanistan and fail to notice that he has committed the U.S. to staying in Afghanistan until 2024.


    Well I take some sober (none / 0) (#87)
    by brodie on Sat May 05, 2012 at 09:16:37 AM EST
    satisfaction to see that I am not alone in doubting O's chances for reelect (I noted last week that it had suddenly hit me hard that O was not going to win, largely over the sluggish economy).  Even Krugman in a recent column is beginning to doubt -- though he thinks O will still manage to win despite an economy that he says is really a Depression.

    The disappointing sideways economy, the ongoing layoffs and foreclosures, the unenthusiastic Dem base, the massively funded GOP super pacs, and the Repub anti-Dem voter laws in key states which the O camp has been too late in reacting to -- I don't see Obama overcoming all these factors enough to pull it out.

    Pierce's comparison with the final weeks of 1980 is apt.  I can see a lot of undecideds breaking late for the Repub, figuring the Dem had four years to right the economic ship but has barely turned the wheel, while the GOP nominee in the debates didn't look and sound quite as scary as his opponents portrayed.

    Hope to heck I'm wrong, but I don't think I will be.


    I don't (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 05, 2012 at 09:25:54 AM EST
    think that 1980 is really an apt comparison because under the current conditions I don't see Romney getting a landslide. This looks a lot more to me like 1976 with Obama playing the role of Gerald Ford.

    No historical comparison (none / 0) (#96)
    by brodie on Sat May 05, 2012 at 10:43:57 AM EST
    is perfect and no one is saying Romney will win by Reagan margins.  It will likely be a narrow win, perhaps controversial as many would-be Dem voters in key states find they are not able to cast a vote-- long lines, lack of proper ID, etc.

    Carter was the last Dem holding office not to win reelect.  Like O, he too disappointed the party base.  That race was tight until the end when many decided Reagan wasn't that extreme after all.  Slick, well rehearsed debate performance -- something the slick and slippery Romney is capable of pulling off -- was the final deciding factor.

    What distinguishes O from Carter is his personal likability and favorable grades on FP and probably a sense he was dealt a terrible hand coming to office.  These factors will keep it no worse than very close for O -- no embarrassing landslide defeat for him.  But probably not enough to put him over the top, unless the economy suddenly starts taking off in the next five months, a very unlikely scenario.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 05, 2012 at 11:31:11 AM EST
    I've watched Romney debate and you're right about his debate skills. He's actually a pretty decent debater and I was frankly shocked when I first watched him because he actually was not all that bad. Considering the fact that Obama is a terrible debater I would wager that debating will probably help Romney 'cause all the other stuff he has done is gonna hurt like pandering to the tea party.

    Another thing to consider too is that country is turning against conservative issues. So Romney can try to do all this conservative stuff if he'e elected but he will be booted out in '16 if he does not moderate the GOP stances on issues.


    Those are the Dems. (none / 0) (#139)
    by Gandydancer on Sun May 06, 2012 at 10:33:15 AM EST
    Independents, not so much.

    The $64,000 question (none / 0) (#74)
    by NYShooter on Sat May 05, 2012 at 12:24:04 AM EST
    So far no one has been able to explain Obama's behavior towards the Republican party during his first term as President. Oh sure, there have been dozens of attempts at explaining  his actions vis-à-vis the Republicans but none make any sense. What was it that Obama saw that no sentient human being saw with his degrading, humiliating, pathologically debilitating idea that somehow he would get the Republicans to cooperate with his Presidency in formulating ideas and plans that would benefit the American people?

    His epic failure to provide the "change" he promised us in his campaign is all the more depressing in that he was granted the usually illusive gifts all candidates for high office pray for: overwhelming good will, and an unmistakable, powerful mandate to effect that change.

    I don't think I'm all that much different than many Democrats are in trying to reconcile the dilemma we find ourselves in. We know that electing a Republican would result in a disaster for our country and yet we don`t feel like rewarding the betrayal "one of our own" has inflicted on us through his actions during his first years as our President.

    Like I've said many times before we don't need insiders and pundits to explain his inexplicable behavior; we need an army of psychiatrists.


    Cheer up. Romney will win. One term. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Gandydancer on Sun May 06, 2012 at 10:40:04 AM EST
    The dollar is like Wile-E-Coyote when he walks off a cliff and before he looks down. Looks now like the air walking act will last through the election. The the big smush happens on the Repub watch.

    "TheN the..." (none / 0) (#141)
    by Gandydancer on Sun May 06, 2012 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    Zimmerman has a well crafted self defense (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat May 05, 2012 at 09:19:23 AM EST
    Zimmerman has a well crafted self defense story that includes all the right exculpatory details
    Indeed. And he evily and craftily put it all together tight as a drum in the 2-3 minutes (or whatever) between when he cold-bloodedly pulled the trigger and shot and killed the kid he was beating up, and when the cops showed up. GZ is really that cold, calculating, evil genius bad guy character you love to hate so much in your comic book collection.

    Don't be silly. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 05, 2012 at 09:24:36 AM EST
    The Sanford PD detectives cooked up the story and coached Zimmerman on it, while the paramedics were moving the body, staging and photographing the phony crime scene.

    patrol officers took no statement (none / 0) (#126)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:45:04 AM EST
    Then on the night of the shooting, a narcotics investigator was the first to take a statement from GZ at the cop shop.  At the bail hearing we learned he also gave another statement to a woman, unless maybe the narc was female?  Eventually that night he is released having given at least one statement, possibly as many as four since the prosecution claims five were given, and that they show inconsistencies and such.  Then the next morning he walks the scene of the fatal shooting with Chris Serino, lead homicide investigator.  Conveniently, his father is there too for  the walk thru.  

    One can probably assume they had spoken to one another beforehand.  

    Again according to the bail hearing questioning, he's still "making statements" until later that evening.  The exact order and timing is unclear at present.  But it seems the process of collecting five individual versions took more than 12 hours and maybe as many as 18-24.  

    His tales are hardly characterized as "tight as a drum" by the prosecution.  They think he's guilty of Murder 2.  

    And oh yeah, I think Trayvon kicked his arse in the fight, right up until he was shot.  But I don't think it started or happened the way GZ says it did.  

    Are we also to believe that a 17 year old would threaten the life of an armed man BEFORE he got the gun away from him?  That part doesn't make sense to me.  


    Skeptic (none / 0) (#131)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 06, 2012 at 08:07:39 AM EST
    Has the narcotics detective story been confirmed by anyone but ABC News?

    I don't for one second believe that Corey believes that Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder. She has found it politically expedient to claim to believe that.


    Just because Corey ... (5.00 / 0) (#133)
    by Yman on Sun May 06, 2012 at 08:42:37 AM EST
    ... disagrees with your conclusion re: the 2nd degree murder charge doesn't mean she doesn't believe it ... and it certainly isn't any kind of evidence that the charge was brought for political reasons.

    NOBODY who's anybody thinks... (none / 0) (#142)
    by Gandydancer on Sun May 06, 2012 at 10:51:56 AM EST
    ...Corey has Murder-2. Wolfinger had nothin', and she's got nothin'+zero. She willfully misrepresented what went on in Z's call, and she'll willfully misrepresent elements in his statements as "inconsistencies" (see: He said TM put his hand over GZ's mouth. But GZ's yells are unmuffled. So Z is a liar. Sic!) Her case is gonna make a big hole in the swamp, if the judge lets it go forward.

    Not much of a surprise to hear ... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Yman on Sun May 06, 2012 at 11:08:50 AM EST
    ... you think so, particularly given your affinity for getting information from wagist.  Not sure who you mean by "nobody who's anybody", but I wouldn't include Dan Linehan or Josh Vogel on that list, particularly when it comes to this case.

    BTW - Most people who "are anybody" (as well as the rest of us) haven't the slightest clue about whether the 2nd degree murder charges are supportable, since they haven't seen the evidence that the state's attorney has.


    Boy, you are one confused puppy. (1.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Gandydancer on Sun May 06, 2012 at 11:52:29 AM EST
    Can't quite make out what information you think I've gotten from wagist - quote me, please - but one thing I have not noticed there is that Dan Linehan thinks Corey has a shot at M2. And if you had been paying attention to, say, the bail hearing, or to the cr*ppiness that is the APC,  you'd have a pretty good idea what Corey's got. A bad case of politics, plus nothin', plus zero. Have faith if you like. There's no arguin' with religion when it's fact-free.

    Couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#150)
    by Yman on Sun May 06, 2012 at 02:13:47 PM EST
    Have faith if you like. There's no arguin' with religion when it's fact-free

    "Fact-free" is the first thing that comes to mind when people make claims about Corey's "political" motivations behind the 2nd degree charges, when they have zero evidence and don't even know what evidence she has.

    Those of us who have been "paying attention" to the bail hearing and the APC know full well that the prosecution doesn't reveal all their evidence, and (as the judge noted), it's not the time to try the case.  At the probable cause hearing, the state merely has to establish to the judge's satisfaction that probable cause for M2 exists - which they did.

    BTW - Of course Linehan doesn't think Corey has a shot at M2 - my point was that relying on "information" from wagist is like someone relying on Limbaugh for their information.  You referenced them in two of your comments above.



    "a good judge will throw this out"... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Gandydancer on Mon May 07, 2012 at 03:53:25 AM EST
    Dersh; Jeralyn too. Many others.

    "At the probable cause hearing, the state merely has to establish to the judge's satisfaction that probable cause for M2 exists - which they did."



    So TWO people, ... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Yman on Mon May 07, 2012 at 06:12:53 AM EST
    ... who are both criminal defense attorneys and who also haven't seen the state's evidence, is supposed to exclude "nobody who's anyone"?



    No I didn't say that (none / 0) (#177)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 07, 2012 at 02:09:25 PM EST
    I have no idea how a judge would rule. And the stand your ground hearing is not a probable cause hearing.

    It's a hearing on immunity and Zimmerman has the burden of proving he acted in self defense by a preponderance of the evidence, which is more than probable cause.


    The subject of the comment I quoted... (none / 0) (#190)
    by Gandydancer on Tue May 08, 2012 at 08:02:03 AM EST
    ...was the Affadavit of Probable Cause, not the SYG hearing. I understood you to say that it was legally deficient. In what way did I misunderstand you?

    there was no probable cause hearing (none / 0) (#173)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 07, 2012 at 12:36:47 PM EST
    At the first appearance the judge accepted the affidavit for probable cause. (He had just received it via fax minutes before.) There was no probable cause hearing, which is the equivalent of a preliminary hearing or grand jury determination. Nor does it appear there will be.

    On the contrary, what I identify... (none / 0) (#192)
    by Gandydancer on Tue May 08, 2012 at 08:27:16 AM EST
    ...as "shameful" is precisely that the probable cause hearing WAS held, but the constitutional requirement that was thereby satisfied was treated with such contempt. It was so entirely pro-forma that you apparently missed it. Judge Herr: "After reviewing the short Affadavit for Probable Cause I do find that probable cause [exists] for the charge as put in the information." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI836x9laZc [@~1:00])

    The charge, of course, was 2nd Degree Murder. Jujdge Herr ruled that the "information" (Affadavit) established probable cause for that charge.

    I say that's shameful. You?


    O'Meara is using a tactic that is for tv (none / 0) (#175)
    by willisnewton on Mon May 07, 2012 at 12:55:32 PM EST
    His attack on the affidavit at the bond hearing was applauded by some as a smart move, but in my opinion it's all downhill from here for he and his client.  He's a lawyer and Gibreath is an investigator, so it was easy for him to appear to have the upper hand in questioning what the prosecution could prove and what they could not.  For a man who has yet to get discovery from the prosecution, it was a good move.  Usually the prosecution doesn't care to reveal it's tactics by trying to prove the whole case so early in the process.

    After O'Meara has discovery, we'll learn if he still thinks the state can't prove it's M2 case against GZ.  

    I don't think he will call for a SYG hearing.  His client has a hard time controlling his comments on or off the witness stand.  Even with a great deal of coaching I'm not sure I would trust him not to be the best witness the prosecution could ask for.  


    that is false (none / 0) (#178)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 07, 2012 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    his client has spoken once on the stand. It was with O'Mara's approval. He hasn't made any comments off the stand on this case.

    Please don't misrepresent the facts or your comment will be deleted.


    The interesting thing, for me, is... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Gandydancer on Tue May 08, 2012 at 08:36:33 AM EST
    ...that the judge allowed cross examination on the Affadavit when the motion under consideration was merely that the defendant get bail. If this were standard everyone would do it. And he wasn't nearly so tolerant on the scope of the cross of GZ.

    this bail hearing required (none / 0) (#205)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 09, 2012 at 01:56:19 PM EST
    the judge to determine if the proof is evident and presumption great. See here. There are special rules for bail hearings in Florida when the defendant is charged with a capital or life offense.

    Also, O'Mara didn't "cross-examine" on the affidavit. The investigator was his witness, he conducted a direct examination. (The prosecutor got to cross-examine the investigator.)  Because the investigator was O'Mara's witness, he got to pick the topics, so long as they were relevant to the hearing.

    The cross of Zimmerman was limited by the scope of the O'Mara's direct, which consisted solely of a two sentence apology.


    Is the W=Edwards trial televised? (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:06:27 PM EST
    Working at home today...I can listen to it at least.

    not televised (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:12:14 PM EST
    no federal trials are televised

    Thx J! I was googling in vain. (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:17:32 PM EST
    More bad economic news (none / 0) (#8)
    by jbindc on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:32:14 PM EST

    Economy and job growth is sluggish.

    Not bad (none / 0) (#10)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:36:43 PM EST
    Not good.

    Just a slow trek towards recovery that will take years.


    Pretty bad (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Fri May 04, 2012 at 02:49:10 PM EST
    Certainly pretty bad politically.

    Romney is Wasting No Time... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:02:12 PM EST
    ..in declaring it bad.

    I am in no way pro-Obama, but damn, the republicans seem like they just can't get past, "Me good, they bad".  Not matter the news, the action, Obama is wrong and they are right.

    I hope this is just a phase that is nearing it's end.  It's been nearly my entire adult life with this war of two parties.  I am so burned out.

    One party is the equivalent of a hate filled gomer pyle, the other a bucket of snot, unwilling to stand up for anything.

    I get there are fundamental differences, but damn, neither party is all good or all bad, is it too much to ask for them to agree is sunny today in Houston ?

    None of this is really a response to your post, except the first line.  Friday exhaustion...


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jbindc on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:13:19 PM EST
    But to be fair, and in response, the Dems have once again resorted to whining ("Obama inherited this mess!") instead of doing something.  That may be true, but voters don't care whose fault it is, and if the job is too hard, then maybe somebody else needs to do the job.

    I Agree as Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:28:23 PM EST
    That was good schtick and true on the front end of his term, but it's been time to stand on their own.  And to be honest, they are all whining about nearly everything and little seems to be getting accomplished.

    If they would put a tenth of the energy they spend on sound bites into getting people jobs, a lot of hungry folks would have full bellies today.

    And the Dems, it's not like they controlled Congress and the White House for two years...


    today is sunny in Houston due to global warming (none / 0) (#22)
    by willisnewton on Fri May 04, 2012 at 03:40:10 PM EST
    ...and global warming is a myth that needs "further study."  Sigh.  

    In other words, every act is a political act.  Get used to it.  These people make a living by bickering like seven year old siblings in the back of a minivan on a long long trip to wally world.  

    In other news however, the millions of people who are sick of both parties are organizing via social media to have a long summer of protest, dissent, community organization, and radical change.  Turn off the cable tv news and get involved locally.  Occupy your garden, move your bank account to a credit union, start feeding your family meatless Mondays, ride a bike....  It's easy to complain, but change starts at home.  

    "Don't vote... it only encourages them."  (kidding)


    Truer than you think (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:53:53 PM EST
    .and global warming is a myth that needs "further study."  Sigh.  
    In other words, every act is a political act.  

    So we have:

    "To capture the public imagination,
    we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
    make simplified dramatic statements
    and little mention of any doubts one might have.
    Each of us has to decide the right balance
    between being effective,
    and being honest."

    - Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
    ( in interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)



    I believe that the data supports global warming, (none / 0) (#41)
    by Farmboy on Fri May 04, 2012 at 05:08:15 PM EST
    Jimmy. What does that make me in your belief system? A mass murderer?

    Billboards in Chicago paid for by The Heartland Institute point out that some of the world's most notorious criminals say they "still believe in global warming" - and ask viewers if they do, too...The billboard series features Ted Kaczynski, the infamous Unabomber; Charles Manson, a mass murderer; and Fidel Castro, a tyrant. Other global warming alarmists who may appear on future billboards include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010).



    Farmboy (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 04, 2012 at 07:37:06 PM EST
    We are asked to use the commentator's moniker and not make word games with them. So I won't say, "Calf rider" or such if you will be so kind as to refer to me as "jimakappj."

    And I not responsible for your beliefs or what the "Heartland Institute" puts on billboards.

    My comment was a factual and linked to source showing that supporters of global warming have made public statements in which they admit they can't prove the theory and must resort to

    Each of us has to decide the right balancebetween being effective, and being honest.

    To me the argument was over when it became known that infamous hockey stick curve, used to justify rushing into giving money and power to a select group of "scientists" and UN bureaucrats, had left out the Medieval Warming period. Theories with missing data often fall into the "bumps on the head can show who is a criminal" or some such nonsense.

    My disbelief was further enhanced when CO2 increases were shown to lag temperature increases, not lead as they would have to do if CO2 was the cause.


    Fair enough on the appellation. mea culpa (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Farmboy on Sat May 05, 2012 at 07:53:24 AM EST
    But by denying science and facts you are choosing to stand with the Heartland Institute and others of that same hate-filled mindset.

    Your choice to stand with those groups is evidenced by how you're sharing their paranoid fears about "UN scientists" taking power as a proof that there is no evidence of global warming. The UN can't agree on what to have for lunch, yet you're terrified that their black helicopters are coming for you know that arctic ice didn't really melt. Right.

    Global warming isn't going to go away just because you and all your denier friends shove your fingers further into your ears. It's a fact. But as you say, I'm not responsible for your lack of belief in science. That's your choice.


    You know, I was gonna (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 05, 2012 at 09:29:32 AM EST
    give you some history and a bunch of facts with links but it is a nice day and I'd just be wasting my time anyway.

    Just one point. Science requires proof. Man made global warming has not been proven. Its proponents claim "consensus." That, of course, is silly and meaningless. Science does not deal in consensus.

    I invite you to read Popper and his writings on falsification re proving theories true.

    What you have is a bunch of statistics, some proven incomplete and others "tricked" used to "prove" the past and a theory that CO2 causes warming because it leads warming. Yet we now know that CO2 increases lags. It is an effect, not a cause.

    But keep on believing.

    I wouldn't want to stand between a man and his religion.


    A "bunch of facts with links" (none / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Sat May 05, 2012 at 02:02:25 PM EST
    Climatedepot.com and some opinion piece written by a skeptic with no expertise in climatology.



    Of course what "Heartland" is banking (none / 0) (#106)
    by jondee on Sat May 05, 2012 at 05:19:40 PM EST
    on is that the readers of those billboards have the same atrophied critical thinking faculties as their supporters..

    Basically, they're counting on the same fund of ignorance and unfocused anger that sustains Rush, Beck, O'Reilly and company. And why not?


    More misleading/innaccurate "quoting" (none / 0) (#84)
    by Yman on Sat May 05, 2012 at 08:37:50 AM EST
    Schneider was talking about the challenge scientists face trying to communicate complex, important issues without adequate time during media interviews.  But your incomplete and partial quote is designed to mislead people about what he was saying.  Here's what he actually said, as opposed to your edited "quote":

        On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but -- which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

    Schneider addresses yet another attempt to distort his statement by misquoting him out-of-context on page 5 of the American Physical Society newsletter.

    Try again ...


    It's going to be a long summer. (none / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Fri May 04, 2012 at 07:22:41 PM EST
    Romney will waste no time declaring anything bad for the next 7 months.  I am already tired too.

    Good politically (none / 0) (#27)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:09:23 PM EST
    The base unemployment number continues its stead decline and will be lower than the day Obama took office at the time of elections.

    From a reality perspective, less good. But still, we had two over-performing months and then two under-performing months. Each may have been deviations.

    The next 2-3 months will tell the real tale.


    No (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:17:36 PM EST
    Not when you also look at this.

    only (none / 0) (#86)
    by sj on Sat May 05, 2012 at 08:56:01 AM EST
    half a Friedman unit?

    The last couple days has been another experience (none / 0) (#35)
    by Farmboy on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:42:05 PM EST
    in watching the play on stage unfold as all the players are handed their scripts.

    Act 1: The herald strides forth with an announcement. "Behold, unemployment is at 8.1% and over 130k private sector jobs have been added to the nearly 4 million jobs created over the last three years." A misshapen group of people with oversize heads, twitching hands, and lolling tongues, the females among them tressed with shiny blond locks, stare fixedly as the data is relayed.  Upon the end of the news they form a chorus and begin chanting, "Underwhelming, yet still positive. Could be better, still not bad." as a series of rounds.

    Act 2: Noise blasts from the well-polished pipes of the media wurtlitzer. This startles the chorus, who quickly tear off their outer garments to reveal the motley they wear underneath. Haphazardly they begin cavorting to a new song. "Our master's oracles haven't predicted employment numbers correctly in many years," the chorus cries, "yet woe unto Obama for the economy's growth being slower than what they dreamt of!"

    Act 3: Rising from behind the chorus comes a tall figure, shrouded in mist. The district odor of Avon musk cologne wafts out to the audience. "This president has done nothing to fix the downward slide of the economic crash he created! The economy is failing! All bad news is his fault!I" he announces with authority. "The economy is getting better," he says a moment later, turning toward the herald, "but it is not because of anything the president did!" He shakes his head as if in sorrow, muttering "let Detroit fail." as he lapses into silence. From backstage comes a gentle cough. "Just as I am my own man..." The figure straightens. "Just as I am my own man, self-made, I will order employment to rise to its highest level since WWII! 500k jobs a month! A week! A day!" The chorus stares, enraptured. "Up with Job Creators! Down with Entitlements! My wife is a woman, you know," he says with a wink to one of the blondes. The chorus responds with an obsequious posture as the indistinct figure walks among them, singing a monotone tone poem with vaguely patriotic words.

    Act 5: (sadly, still unfolding) The audience, those members not asleep at least, wish desperately that there was something else on...


    The Baird has nothing to (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:55:06 PM EST
    fear from you.



    Please God (none / 0) (#94)
    by kmblue on Sat May 05, 2012 at 10:08:21 AM EST
    It's the Bard.

    Arrests made in hazing death (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Fri May 04, 2012 at 04:24:56 PM EST
    In other Orlando crime news, this was the case that had the headlines last fall. A young man, Robert Champion,  a drum major for FAMU, was beaten to death in a "hazing" on the band bus in a hotel parking lot here in Orlando.  As with the case of the student locked in the holding cell for 5 days, this is just too horrible to comprehend. The investigation was completed enough to file charges against 13 of the students on the bus. Max sentence for hazing to death is 6 years.

    Champions parents mostly just want an end to these physical hazing rituals altogether, as do I.  The universities have to get serious about it.

    Yes, the FAMU (none / 0) (#100)
    by KeysDan on Sat May 05, 2012 at 01:06:46 PM EST
    drum major case was horrible.  The crime, in my view, earns more than felony hazing, but the circumstances are sort of like "Murder on the Orient Express".   So many involved in the pummeling of the victim that it would be very difficult to determine and prove who, all  or how many landed the fatal blow.  The fact that Robert Champion was gay may have been a factor, but the charges relate to the hazing.  

    Martin/Zimmerman Scenarios (none / 0) (#45)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri May 04, 2012 at 06:01:31 PM EST
    Combining two deleted posts from the Miami Herald thread, with apologies for not remembering or making a note of who was being quoted.

    If Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, Martin might have reasonably believed that he was attempting a kidnapping, Fla. Stat. § 787.01, which is a violent felony.

    If Martin reasonably believed he was the target of an attempted violent felony, he would have the legal right to use deadly force in self defense, with no duty to retreat under SYG.

    I understand that pre-SYG case law would negate Zimmerman's justification claim in such a case. It may not be clear how or whether that is affected by SYG.

    However, the prosecution has admitted it doesn't know who started the fight. It seems unlikely that there will be any evidence to support this scenario.

    I don't see how racial motivation would affect the scenario.

    We have no reason to think that Zimmerman even approached Trayvon rather than the other way around which is what Zimmerman says and Deedee doesn't contradict.

    That's an important point.

    Our longest account of Dee Dee's statement is from Crump's March 20 presser. Crump didn't give any explanation for Martin suddenly starting a conversation with his pursuer.

    The probable cause affidavit says Zimmerman 'confronted' Martin. Gilbreath couldn't explain the word or support it. He suggested 'Got in physical confrontation with' as an alternative. That construction avoids committing to who initiated the verbal or the physical interaction.

    The ABC News segment's claim that Martin 'was cornered' by Zimmerman, is not supported by Crump or the prosecution, which I believe means it's not supported by anyone outside ABC who has heard either version of Dee Dee's statement. The claim is also inconsistent with what we know about the area where the fight happened.

    Yes, 'cornered' is another of those (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Fri May 04, 2012 at 07:25:35 PM EST
    sensational word choices. Just ridiculous. If you look at that map you wll see very few places to corner someone unless you are right at someone's front doorway.

    I have also heard 'approached Zimmerman at his car' , equally misleading, perhaps twisting GZ's statement that he was on his way back to his car? who knows.


    Martin's belief is not what matters. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Gandydancer on Sun May 06, 2012 at 11:28:32 AM EST
    As I understand it (iaw previous exchange w/JM), under 776.041(1) (http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041) Z would would have to actually BE "attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony". You can't prove THAT unless you charge it. Since kidnapping isn't charged, it's irrelevent. And it wouldn't be an independent "forcible  felony" anyway, iaw JM. I'm still not so sure about that (still haven't read the cases she pointed me to, to see if they actually settle that question), but the fact it wasn't charged is, it seems, dispositive.

    Martin's possible right to attack Z is irrelevent, too. He's not charged with anything. He's dead. Z's right to shoot M in self defence is unaffected by M's right (or not) to attack Z. If Z couldn't retreat and reasonably feared grave injury it's a good shoot.

    776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
    (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
    (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
    (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
    (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

    I'm Not Sure (none / 0) (#182)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 08, 2012 at 03:09:59 AM EST
    You've ignored the sentences that carry the point of my comment.

    I understand that pre-SYG case law would negate Zimmerman's justification claim in such a case. It may not be clear how or whether that is affected by SYG.

    I got that from this discussion.

    JimM47 has a broken link for People v. Gleghorn (1987)
    193 Cal. App. 3d 196.
    I fixed it in my response.


    I didn't ignore those two sentences. (none / 0) (#200)
    by Gandydancer on Wed May 09, 2012 at 09:51:06 AM EST
    Just the first, which seemed to be true.

    As to the second, my reply was on point: Since no independent violent felony was charged, 776.041(1) has no relevance to this case.

    This despite the fact that I'm tenatively with JimM47 rather than Jeralyn on

    Finally, note that, where the defendant commits a forcible felony, independent of the charge for which he claims self-defense, the option to use force in self-defense is completely precluded. It is plausible that in some circumstances an initial unlawful assault provoking a fight and a subsequent act taken during that fight could be considered to be independent felonies.

    Now, in that thread you start with the same position as I in regard to 776.041(2)(a):

    As I read the Florida statute, a person in deadly danger and unable to retreat is allowed to use deadly force, even if he started or provoked the fight."

    But then it seems you are dissuaded by the following argument from JimM47:
    ...I would be cautious in adopting any interpretation of the statute that abrogates the general common-law rule about provocation, which holds that where the defendant knows that his assailant is using lawful force by virtue of being privileged to act in self-defense against the defendant, then the defendant cannot himself be privileged to use self-defense against his assailant. See, e.g., People v. Gleghorn, 193 Cal.App.3d 196 (1987)

    But this is, (a) arguably a misreading of Glockhorn, and (b) a misapplication of California common law to a state which has explicitly substituted a statute for that common law.

    First, in Glockhorn the victim had used deadly force against Glockhorn but was attacked by Glockhorn when he was engaged in putting out a fire, not threatening Glockhorn. That's dispositive and the other dicta are accordingly irrelevant.

    Secondly, there is no reason to be "cautious in adopting any interpretation of the statute that abrogates the general common-law rule about provocation". Abrogating the prior common law was the whole point of the set of provisions somewhat misleadingly summarized as "SYG". No "interpretation" is required. 776.041(2)(a) is pellucidly clear. Provocation does NOT disallow self-defence unless 776.041(1) applies. Period.

    As to,

    ...a jury may consider the fact of provocation when weighing whether the use of force was reasonable.

    I don't follow this at all. Is there such an instruction, even in California?

    Good Answer (none / 0) (#208)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:54:23 PM EST
    Thanks for this response. It's thorough, thoughtful, and well-argued.

    I need to give this more thought before I comment on the substance again. I wanted to express my appreciation for the time and work you're putting into the discussion.


    Oh man... (none / 0) (#72)
    by desertswine on Fri May 04, 2012 at 11:09:56 PM EST
    and I thought that my dentist was the queen of pain.

    "Dentist pulls out all of her ex-boyfriends teeth"

    "Is it safe?" (none / 0) (#108)
    by jondee on Sat May 05, 2012 at 07:03:07 PM EST
    Chasing Shadows (none / 0) (#75)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat May 05, 2012 at 01:36:01 AM EST
    At the bond hearing we learned the prosecution has a witness to a two person foot chase.

    The shadow of one, anyway.

    But there was no information about where the witness was or when they saw the shadows. Why isn't this the foot chase we already knew about?

    I guess we will find out. (none / 0) (#103)
    by willisnewton on Sat May 05, 2012 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    I watched the whole bond hearing but have t seen a transcript of it.  At the time the foot chase was brought up I felt it was in the context of what happened right before the gunshot, but perhaps that was my own interprettation.  If the witness was describing shadows in the dark it seems to follow that they were not on the street under the streetlamps.  

    Did you watch the whole bond hearing?  Did anyone else here see it?  I thought the foot chase witness was significant.


    your comment saying (none / 0) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 05, 2012 at 08:50:56 PM EST
    you learned at the bond hearing etc was deleted. As you say in the later comment, it was your impression that's what was being said and you haven't read the transcript.

    Please don't state your opinion as fact. It's misleading.


    Gilbreath's Concession (none / 0) (#119)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sun May 06, 2012 at 02:26:51 AM EST
    At the time the foot chase was brought up I felt it was in the context of what happened right before the gunshot, but perhaps that was my own interpretation.

    Detective Gilbreath admitted he had nothing to nothing to contradict that Zimmerman was returning to his car.

    O'MARA: That he turned back to his car. We'll start with that one.

    GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that.

    O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?


    O'MARA: No evidence. Correct?

    GILBREATH: Understanding -- are you talking about at that point in time?

    O'MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?

    GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.

    O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.

    UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.

    If the investigator thought the chase witness could be used to dispute the point he would have done so. That goes also for the location of the body, which we've been discussing elsewhere in this thread. It's not just the Sanford PD, but now the prosecution, tacitly admitting that nothing, including the location of the body, or the chase witness, can serve to impeach Zimmerman on this point.


    walking towards his car is true. (none / 0) (#127)
    by willisnewton on Sun May 06, 2012 at 05:59:58 AM EST
    However, we know he never got there, did he?  As I recall, he left the scene in a police car, after admitting he shot an unarmed person fatally.  

    Therefore, after turning TOWARDS his car, he ended up somewhere else besides AT his car.  I don't get how this proves or disproves anything.  

    And my OPINION is that the foot chase witness would most likely be brought up to impeach GZ's account, would it not?  No one seems to dispute that GZ got out of his car and followed the ROUTE of TM for at least a while. (It does seem to be the contention of GZ that he was "looking for a street sign" when he entered the cut thru.)  If you want to call that a foot chase, it's fine.  But I don't think that is what was being hinted at here by the prosecution during their brief cross-examination.  


    Excited for the Derby tomorrow (none / 0) (#77)
    by lilburro on Sat May 05, 2012 at 02:06:54 AM EST
    for my mom, who has probably watched every derby for the past 25 years, this is like the Super Bowl.  But she will be attending a wedding and missing this one!  I have to do right by the family and watch the race, although I would do so anyway.  Not sure which horse to root for at this point, savoring winners past instead.  So many great memories, like this hometown hero, Smarty Jones...at his sassiest.

    Who (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jbindc on Sat May 05, 2012 at 05:59:41 AM EST
    Dared scheduled a wedding for Derby Day???!

    Tell your mom to watch the Derby and go late for dinner /cocktails!


    Lol. I know! (none / 0) (#107)
    by lilburro on Sat May 05, 2012 at 06:34:41 PM EST
    Most of the family on my mom's side will be itching to watch too.  I'm sure I'll find out if she snuck out to watch or not!

    My daughter's wedding will be (none / 0) (#111)
    by Anne on Sat May 05, 2012 at 08:02:04 PM EST
    next year - 2013 - on Preakness Day, May 18th; it's the weekend between Mother's Day and Memorial Day.

    Guess we'll have to put "Black-Eyed Susans" on the cocktails list, huh?  And make sure there's access to a TV at race time!


    To all commeres (none / 0) (#206)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:06:41 PM EST
    particularly willisnewton and Gandy:

    Your urls must be in html format. Long ones skew the site and I have to delete your entire comment. Look how others do it. Highlight the text you want hyperlinked, eg., "this article" "this video" , "X said" or the source name, click on the link button at the top of the comment box and paste in the url. Preview your ocmment to make sure you did it right. Only the text should appear in blue, not the url.

    If you are on a Mac that doesn't show the link button, there is coding below.

    But please dont paste urls directly into the comment box. If it's long and may skew the site, I will delete it. Thanks.

    this thread is now closed, (none / 0) (#214)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 10, 2012 at 04:39:51 PM EST
    thanks, you can continue the discussion on today's open thread.