George Zimmerman: New Reports, New Injury Video

Update 6/27: The state has just released a voice exemplar of Zimmerman yelling for help. It was taken on March 22, the same date that Zimmerman met with investigators to provide his cell phone and and a consent to search it. You can listen here.

Original Post 6/26/12 below:[More....]

The material released today in discovery in the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case includes details previously blacked out in reports released earlier, and a new version of the re-enactment video that includes several minutes at the end in which Zimmerman describes his injuries. Unlike several media reports I've seen, I don't think the new details diminish Zimmerman's self-defense claim.

First, the investigator, Chris Serino, does not say Zimmerman's injuries are inconsistent with self-defense. He says they are "marginally consistent" with self-defense. He says independent witnesses neither confirm nor refute his account of being attacked.

To get a jury instruction on self-defense, see, for example. Vila v. State, Zimmerman need only provide some evidence, "no matter how flimsy" of his claim. His medical reports and the photos of his injuries, along with his own statement, are more than enough. That police believed his injuries are "marginally consistent" with self-defense and are not refuted by independent evidence are helpful in that regard.

According to Vila's testimony, the victim attacked him first, and he responded in order to defend himself against that attack. The State contends that Vila was not entitled to the instruction because the evidence that he presented was minimal and self-serving. This argument lacks merit as a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if there is any evidence to support his defense. Wright v. State, 705 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that defendant is entitled to jury instruction on his theory of case if there is any evidence to support it, no matter how flimsy that evidence might be); Taylor v. State, 410 So. 2d 1358, 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (holding defendant entitled to requested self-defense instruction no matter "how weak or improbable his testimony may have been with respect to the circumstances" leading to commission of offense).

As to the investigator's doubts Zimmerman was in fear before getting out of his car when on the phone with the non-emergency police dispatcher, that isn't the point in time by which his use of deadly force will be measured. To be justified in using deadly force, Zimmerman had to be in fear when he shot Trayvon, not when he got out of his car. At the point in time that he shot Trayvon, Zimmerman only had to reasonably fear serious bodily injury or death from Trayvon's use of force against him. The danger he perceived need not be real, he just had to believe it was real, and his belief had to be reasonable.

Here's the photo Witness 13 took of Zimmerman's injuries at 7:19 pm, three minutes after the shooting, before the medics cleaned him up.

W-13, the first person to encounter Zimmerman after the shooting, said Zimmerman he had blood all over his face and on back of his head.

Here's the photo of the back of his head taken at the police station the night of the shooting:

Zimmerman said he thought Trayvon was hitting him with something he held in his hand. Here's what the medic's report says as to the cause of the injury: "Struck by blunt/thrown object." If Zimmerman were hit with an object, it would certainly explain the lack of bruising on Trayvon's hands.

The Orlando Sentinel has posted the final minutes of the reenactment video showing George Zimmerman describing his injuries to police. In it, you can see Zimmerman's black eyes.


You can see the bruising on the right side of his head.

He points out a cut under his right eye:

The Sanford police believe that if George Zimmerman had explained to Trayvon Martin why he was following him, either when Trayvon first approached his vehicle or when Trayvon first yelled out to him while Zimmerman was walking back to his car, that maybe Trayvon wouldn't have decked him.

No one knows why Trayvon punched Zimmerman. Nor does Zimmerman have to come up with a reason. Maybe it would have made a difference, maybe not. Perhaps Trayvon would have been just as angry had he confirmed he was being being watched, and hit Zimmerman anyway.

Regardless, it doesn't defeat self-defense. Why? Because even should the Judge agree and allow the jury to consider whether Zimmerman's failure to defuse the situation or his following Trayvon provoked Martin into punching him, making Zimmerman an aggressor, Zimmerman still has a self-defense claim. Here's the aggressor statute.

According to Florida statutes and Florida's 2010 jury instructions, the jury would be instructed:

A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent: 1. imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or

2. the imminent commission of a forcible felony against himself or another.

Aggravated battery, which is what Zimmerman says Trayvon Martin was committing at the time Zimmerman responded by shooting him, is a forcible felony.

If Zimmerman is not found to be the aggressor (which would be the correct ruling in my view, since there is no evidence Trayvon reasonably feared an imminent use of force by Zimmerman when he punched him in the nose), the jury would be instructed on the stand your ground standard:

A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he has a right to be. If the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

If the judge believes the evidence produced at trial raises a factual question as to whether Zimmerman provoked Martin into punching him, thereby becoming the aggressor, it doesn't prevent Zimmerman from arguing, and the jury considering, self-defense. It just means that instead of the "no retreat" language, the jury would be instructed that Zimmerman was allowed to use deadly force in responding to Trayvon if:

The force asserted toward the defendant was so great that he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger, other than using deadly force on his assailant.

What other means did Zimmerman have to stop Trayvon from seriously injuring or killing him? He had tried to get out from under him and failed. According to Zimmerman, this was the situation he faced -- none of which has been disputed by police or witnesses:

Trayvon punched him in the nose. He fell down. He tried to get up but Trayvon got on top of him, straddling him, and started beating his head into the cement. He started yelling for help. He yelled dozens of times. Trayvon put his hand over Zimmerman's mouth and nose and told him to shut the f* up. He sounded angry to Zimmerman. Zimmerman had no idea why.

Zimmerman squirmed, trying to work himself into a position to get his head onto the grass because he feared losing consciousness. When he did so, his jacket moved up. His firearm, which had been hidden from view, in his holster on his right hip, became exposed. Trayvon took one hand off his mouth and started moving it down his chest towards the weapon. Zimmerman was afraid Trayvon had seen the weapon and was reaching for it. If Trayvon had reached it, he feared he would use it to kill Zimmerman. He pinned Trayvon's moving hand against his chest, and with his other hand, grabbed his gun, pointed at Trayvon who was on top of him, and fired.

Zimmerman's fear of serious bodily injury or death from Trayvon need not be real or actual. He just has to believe it's real, and that belief has to be reasonable. Even if he was the aggressor, the jury would be instructed:

In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the
same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.

What reasonable person facing the same circumstances -- being punched, forcibly kept on his back, and having failed at trying to rise on his own, having his head slammed into cement while being told to shut the F* up, and then feeling his assailant reach in the direction of his suddenly exposed firearm, would not fear serious bodily injury or death? What lesser means were available at that point?

The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt never shifts from the state. As a result, since Zimmerman has enough for a jury instruction on self-defense, the state, in order to prove either second-degree murder or manslaughter (a lesser-included offense) has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense when he shot Trayvon.

If the jury has a reasonable doubt about whether Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force, it must find him not guilty.

In my view, the new details and video released today do not diminish Zimmerman's self-defense claim. While they could arguably impact a "stand your ground" immunity claim, if the Judge accepts the state's argument on provocation, Zimmerman's attorney has yet to say if he will even file a stand your ground motion. Nothing released today shows Zimmerman was not justified in shooting Trayvon Martin.

I wonder why the media doesn't point out the part of Zimmerman's interview with Detective Serino on Feb. 29, where, after telling Zimmerman that he "passed a lie detector test", Serino tells him that there's a possibility Trayvon captured what happened with his cell phone camera. Zimmerman's spontaneous response:

I prayed to God that someone would be [videotaping this] or the neighborhood had put up a video camera that I didn’t know about or something.

Listen to his voice when he says it, around 10:21 to 10:51 in the interview. I think that will be compelling to a jury. The variations in his statements are understandable. They don't amount to contradictions or differences on the critical issues: Was he attacked, was his belief reasonable that Trayvon was reaching for his weapon or would continue beating him, causing him serious injury, and what means other than deadly force were available to extricate himself at that moment in time?

What did happen to the cameras? Apparently, this one wasn't working. Zimmerman told Investigator Singleton Leland Management was in charge of the cameras. Kent Taylor of Leland Management is endorsed as a non-testifying witness on an earlier state list of redacted discovery. Could more timely attention to a non-working camera have provided the answers both sides need in this case?

Here's more on self-defense jury instructions, with case law. For stand your ground and self-defense, see here. Here's a rough draft of what I think a self-defense instruction might look like in this case.

Before you comment, read our commenting rules on this case so your efforts aren't wasted. Please save your comment on your computer in case it's deleted.

< Undoing The New Deal | ABC Reporter Says Serino Leaked Zimmerman Info >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Jeralyn, can we get an 'Open" thread.... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by CuriousInAz on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 09:56:31 PM EST
    Where we can discuss the Serino/Gutman drama?

    I just spend the (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:08:55 AM EST
    last three hours writing one, here it is! Since it took me so long to write, I'm going to leave your comments on this topic -- not your fault they are off-topic when I didn't have another thread.

    Zimmerman's reaction to Serino's video bluff.... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by CuriousInAz on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 09:58:29 PM EST
    ...has sealed the deal for some folks I know that were either on the fence or looking to hang GZ from the start.

    His reaction is not that of someone that would be afraid to see a video of their actions.

    The Claim that Martin Might be Filming (none / 0) (#98)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:13:16 PM EST
    during the nighttime encounter with Zimmerman is too silly to fool more than a four year old.  Maybe the most telling thing is that Zimmerman didn't ridicule Serino in response.

    Zimmerman may not go (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Radix on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:21:37 AM EST
    to jail, based on how the law reads;however, there is no doubt that he, Zimmerman, instigated this entire tragedy.

    Actually i see (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by spectator on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:59:06 AM EST
    it the exact opposite as you do Radix, i think GZ did exactly what i would've done,i wouldn't have taken a chance to start an altercation when he was circling my car and police on the way, and when he ran i would not have drove to the rear exit making TM feel "boxed in" and being a possible target, because i called the police i would've felt a duty too to get out and see if he left the gated community, no reason to waste police time if he was gone, there's no crime in keeping a visual, all this "if he hadn't did this" or that is nonsense and just infects a potential juror.

    You're right, he won't (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Doug1111 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:50:49 AM EST
    go to jail, and in fact he should win immunity at an immunity hearing.  There's much more than 50% of the evidence that he acted in reasonable self defense.

    You're wrong that Zimmerman instigated the whole tragedy.  He had a right to want to know where Trayvon was so that he could tell the police when they got there.  

    This whole thing wouldn't have happened if Trayvon hadn't not only punched Zimmerman in the face for no good legal or moral reason, but kept punching him, smothering his mouth and bashing his head against the cement sidewalk, and then reached for GZ's gun when it became visible.  


    Radix, that's not (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:16:45 AM EST
    what we're discussing. We're discussing the legal case. It's important not to equate one's sense of what a person should morally do or not do with his legal obligations. When you're talking about jailing someone for up to life, these distinctions matter. So please don't change the subject.

    For every one looking at stills and video... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by unitron on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:34:33 AM EST
    ...and trying to read the tea leaves, allow me to recommend
    this article.

    the camera (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:28:19 AM EST
    Here's the camera used to take the photos of Zimmerman at the police station the night of the shooting and the resolution of the photos. The same camera and resolution were used for the scene of the shooting shots the next day. In discovery, they provided the full resolution of 2240 x 1488.

    But we in the general public... (none / 0) (#105)
    by unitron on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:31:14 PM EST
    ...wind up seeing smaller and lower resolution stuff, depending on the site or the broadcaster, and need to be aware that we can't always trust our own eyes.

    Losing Visual Contact (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:58:09 AM EST
    Zimmerman said Martin passed out of view rounding the northeast corner of the clubhouse.

    2/27R, 2:33-51:

    Then the dispatcher said "Where did he go? What direction did he go in?" I said "I don't know," I lost, because he cut down here and made a right. . . . And they said "Can you get to somewhere where you can see him?"

    2/27V, 26:42-27:02, 6:45:19-39:

    As I was on the phone with the non-emergency line, he walked past my car. And I lost visual contact of him. The operator asked me if I could get to somewhere where I could see, or at least give them a direction of where he was headed.

    This part of the conversation is fantasy. The dispatcher never, in any way, manner, or fashion, suggested that Zimmerman change his location to keep or regain visual contact with Martin. Nothing was said about losing visual contact, nor about Martin's direction of travel, until much later in the call.

    This imaginary request by the dispatcher was the reason Zimmerman gave for following Martin down Twin Trees Lane.

    Zimmerman didn't mention losing sight of Martin at the clubhouse in his written statement or his first interview.


    I told the dispatcher what I had witnessed, the dispatcher took note of my location & the suspect fled to a darkened area of the sidewalk, as the dispatcher was asking me for an exact location the suspect emerged from the darkness & circled my vehicle.

    2/26-1, 10:58-11:34:

    I called the non-emergency line. And I just reported that there was a suspicious person in the neighborhood. The dispatcher, whoever answered the phone, asked me where they went. And I said I wasn't sure because I lost visual of him when he went in between houses.

    And he said "Well, can you tell me what direction he went?" And I said "Not really." And then all of a sudden I see him circling my car. And then he goes back into the darkness.

    The dispatcher did ask Zimmerman which way Martin went, later on, after Martin approached and apparently passed Zimmerman's truck. It was in response to Zimmerman saying 'Oh, sh*t, he's running.'  

    In his statements to SPD, Zimmerman didn't volunteer that Martin ran. Unless I've missed something, Zimmerman first mentioned Martin running when Singleton asked him about it.

    2/29-1, 22:47-57:

    Singleton: Do you say he ran?

    Zimmerman: Yes.

    Singleton: OK. Then you got out of your car and ran after him.

    Zimmerman: I didn't run after him, no. I, I walked, to find a street name, or a street sign.

    Zimmerman never explicitly said that he lost sight of Martin. The closest he came was 'I don't know where this kid is', and that was much later.

    Zimmerman put what he didn't say - that he lost sight of Martin - in place of what he did say  - 'Oh, sh*t, he's running.' He thus avoided, intentionally or not, the subject of Martin running, a subject he avoided consistently.

    When the dispatcher asked 'Which way is he running?', Zimmerman did not say he didn't know, or couldn't tell, or couldn't 'really' tell. He said 'Down toward the other entrance to the neighborhood.' (2:11-14, 7:11:45-48)

    Since Zimmerman did tell the dispatcher which way Martin was running, he didn't have to get out of his truck and seek a new vantage point in order to fulfill that request. He had fulfilled it already.

    Actually, It's not fantasy. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by firstfall on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:17:57 AM EST
    The dispatcher asked Zimmerman to keep an eye on Trayvon.  Zimmerman is just misremembering the exact words. And you do realize you are taking snippets of the interview out of context, right?

    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.
    Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. !@#$ he's running.

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

    on the audio you can hear the sound of the truck door opening as Zimmerman gets out to check

    Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.

    Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?


    Getting Out To Check (none / 0) (#57)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:56:59 AM EST
    you can hear the sound of the truck door opening as Zimmerman gets out to check

    Zimmerman began to answer the dispatcher within two seconds. He may have begun to exit the truck, but he didn't have time to get all the way out 'to check.'

    Zimmerman said 'When he says "Which way are you [sic] running?" I turned off the ignition.' (2/29-3, 6:37-40)


    What? (none / 0) (#59)
    by firstfall on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:03:30 AM EST
    I don't even know what you are trying to say here. He was doing as he believed the dispatcher wanted. The dispatcher didn't figure out that he had left the truck and was on the move for some time after he had already exited the truck. Then he asked GZ if he was following, etc. I don't know the exact time offhand.

    Pronoun Trouble (none / 0) (#71)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:09:46 AM EST
    Zimmerman was talking about the dispatcher asking him which way Martin ran. Zimmerman slipped a pronoun, saying 'you' when he meant 'he'. That's why my verbatim quote has 'you [sic]'. Just read that as 'he'.

    Nomatter, this is exactly what i'd expect (none / 0) (#136)
    by spectator on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:15:35 AM EST
    from anyone except Marilou Henner, trying to remember a timeline or what was said or even heard
    before a shocking event the next day is not expected to match up.

    yes he did mention (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    losing sight during his first interview while he was at the clubhouse trying to get through to the dispatcher.

    GZ: No, ma'am. I lost contact of him as I was trying to get through cause you have to...

    Singleton cut him off. I think he was going to say he was put on hold.

    He pulled over to the clubhouse, dialed non-emergency from there.

    DS: Okay. And then where do you go from there? This is where you start, when do you start calling the police, where are you?
    GZ: I pulled in front of the clubhouse.
    DS: Okay, did you pass him?
    GZ: Yes, ma'am.
    DS: Okay, so he was here and you passed him and went over here.
    GZ: Yes, ma'am.
    DS: Okay, put an "x" there that that's where he...Okay, put "911" that that's where you were when you called 911.
    GZ: Well, it was the non-emergency line.
    DS: Okay. Well, what...that's where you called the police, right?
    GZ: Yes, ma'am.
    DS: Okay. Okay, and then he's behind you? He's still over here, correct...
    GZ: I...
    DS: Cause you pass him
    GZ: Right.

    A few minutes later:

    DS: And then when he gets behind the houses you lose sight.
    GZ: Yes, ma'am.
    DS: Okay. And you said at some point he comes back and circles your car? Has he already done that?
    GZ: He looked into my vehicle...
    DS: Okay.
    GZ: But he didn't circle it at that point in time.
    DS: Okay, when does he come...you're still in the car talking to 911, right?
    GZ: I'm trying to get through, yes ma'am.

    Right You Are (none / 0) (#157)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 09:38:35 AM EST
    Thanks for the correction.

    You quoted 2/26-2, 1:43-46, 1:00-1:33, 2:12-29.

    Getting nit-picky, the third selection begins 39 seconds after the end of the second.

    This is part of the discussion associated with marking the map reproduced on p. 20 of these documents. The map is turned sideways, which confused me at first. North is to the right.

    The fuzzy B&W photocopy looks like second or third generation. I can't make out any of the lettering Singleton directed Zimmerman to add.  

    I see the lines showing paths taken, and dark oblongs marking four positions for Zimmerman's truck. Zimmerman changed his mind about the third one. (2/26-2, 2:32-3:10)

    Just as a point of interest, the (oversized) oblong at the clubhouse might be taken to show the truck parked parallel to the building, instead of perpendicular as in the reenactment. (2/27R, 2:08-24)

    More map work (2/26-2, 1:55-2:15):

    Zimmerman: He continues to pass me through here. And then he goes down here. You want me to [crosstalk]?

    Singleton: And then he goes somewhere here where you can't see him?

    Zimmerman: Correct.

    Singleton: So, just go to about where he, you think he might have been, to where you lose sight of him.

    Zimmerman: He started going here, and then behind these houses.

    Singleton: OK. And you could see that from here?

    Zimmerman: Yes, ma'am.

    Singleton: OK. And then when he gets behind the houses you lose sight?

    Zimmerman: Yes, ma'am.

    Comparing this to the drawing and an aerial photo, I think things are starting to make sense.

    The reenactment is very misleading (2/27R, 2:33-42). Zimmerman didn't lose sight of Martin when he made a right onto Twin Trees Lane. Parked near the eastern edge of the clubhouse lot, Zimmerman could have seen Twin Trees Lane to about the beginning of the bend. His field of view would also have included the house across TTL from the clubhouse, and extended well beyond its southwest corner (H-11).

    Zimmerman lost sight of Martin when he turned left around this corner.

    In the reenactment Zimmerman didn't repeat the explanation he gave Singleton. Maybe he thought it wasn't necessary because it was already in the record, and Singleton understood. It would have been awkward because a truck was blocking the view, and maybe occupying the actual space that Zimmerman was in on the night of the shooting.


    1 event that ties all this curious stuff together (none / 0) (#119)
    by willisnewton on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:14:26 PM EST
    The one event that ties all these curious observations together is the manner in which both persons traveled from near the clubhouse to near the T intersection.  GZ avoids close scrutiny of this topic IMO and this is an area where the prosecution can and will dig heavily to try to impugn his credibility.  Again, IMO the recorded NEN call suggests a narrative and timeline that differs from GZ's and there may be one specific reason for this at the root of all the seeming obfuscations and possible prevarications surrounding the move.  

    It's clear (none / 0) (#120)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:29:19 PM EST
    from the reenactment that Zimmerman did have a view, from his parked truck, of the top of the "T," and part of the leg which extends southwards from it.  He obviously exited his truck to see if he could determine Martin's whereabouts.  It never made sense for him to claim that he walked over to Retreat View Circle to get a street address, because he was parked on Twin Trees Lane.  The logical inference is that he went west along the top of the "T," to Retreat View Circle, to see if he could spot Martin running down the street, towards the rear entrance.  He began "crawfishing" when Serino started bullying him with the notion that it was unlawful for him to try to ascertain where Martin had gone, in violation of a police directive.

    "west" = "east" (none / 0) (#131)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:13:30 AM EST
    In Walk through he clarifies (none / 0) (#140)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    He is looking for the full address, specifically he needs a building number. He knows the street.

    Needs full address  for a car to meet him near the last known position of the suspicious person.

    Walk through part 2


    GZ clarified this early on (none / 0) (#148)
    by lily on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:08:10 PM EST
    yet people here argued for months that he must be dim witted or deceptive about his intentions.
    I think family and friends also said so much.

    As if it changes anything or really matters.


    Be this as it may, (none / 0) (#149)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:15:18 PM EST
    it seems clear enough that Zimmerman did "shadow" Martin from his truck, then proceeded towards the "T" to see if he could determine where Martin went.  Since, by this time, he must have been convinced that Martin was not a legal resident, I have no difficulty supposing he went east along the walkway to Retreat View Circle to see if he could "spot" him running towards the rear entrance.  Where I'm getting lost is where all this leads.  I don't see how it leads, for example, to a reasonable supposition that Zimmerman in fact found Martin hiding somewhere near the top of the "T."  What's the point of it all?

    I note, incidentally, that Zimmerman states, about 1 minute into the reenactment, that he first saw Martin, well off the pavement, looking into the residence at "1460."  Not "in," "at," "around" or "about" but "into."


    agree (none / 0) (#150)
    by lily on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:03:47 PM EST
    GZ had two things he was trying to do when he left the truck, see where TM went, and determine the best address to send cops to.  I guess that makes him a multi-tasker, but not a murderer, and not dimwitted, or deceptive.

    It seems clear to me (none / 0) (#152)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:25:59 PM EST
    that Zimmerman was trying to find a spot to hook up with the arriving cops. I assume the squad cars are equipped with a GPS System that accept street addresses.

    If I understand his, less than glib, explanation; after walking to the road he realized that he was his new  position was only marginally better suited to meet police and point out the last known location of the intruder than  his truck's location. This may have taken a few moments of internal contemplation in the rain. He decided to return to his truck and await police.

    If he happened to see TM again great. Since TM had already been observed going in a different direction Zimmerman certainly wasn't following him.

     He would relay that info to the police as he was attempting to do after Martin confronted him

    I see no reason not to take him at his word. Looking in 1460? Sure. Would even a casual passerby be looking at the rain enshrouded, shadows of the bushes?


    I just listened (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:06:03 PM EST
    to the voice exemplar.   There is absolutely no distress in the voice of George Zimmerman.  Wouldn't that effect the results?  

    I would think that unless you are able to put him in the exact same kind of threatening position the quality of his vocal sounds would be differing.  You would probably have to get him to plug his nose some too since he had already been hit there so there might be swelling issues.

    IMO, too many variables to be a factor and the reason the test came back inconclusive due to quality of the recording(?). (paraphrased)

    FBI Conclusion (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cylinder on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:39:00 PM EST
    The FBI Forensic Audio Analysis Unit concluded:

    Critical listening and digital signal analyses further reveal that the screaming voice of the 911 call is of insuffecient voice quality and duration to conduct a meaningful voice comparison with any other voice samples primarily due to the screaming voice being: (1)produced under extreme emotional state; (2) limited in the number of words and phrases uttered; (3) superimposed by other voices most of the time; and (4) distant, reverberant and very low signal level.

    So, yes, it was the first attribute mentioned in the comparison conclusion. It should be noted that the FBI Tampa office proposed comparison against a recorded call, though it's hard to say which one - the NEN call or the exempar.

    The request from Tampa was received March 22, the same date as the exemplar, the audio CD was received by the FBI Audio Unit the next day - March 23.

    The original exemplar filename submitted to the FBI Audio Unit was 20120571656_813PIR.WAV


    It sounds like the same voice (none / 0) (#102)
    by HupHup on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:41:19 PM EST
    It sounds like Zimmerman to me. His tempo and inflection are different, but it still sounds like the same voice.

    I think the second batch of "helps" around 3:49 are the better example.

    The site globalgrind have an edited version that fades back and forth between this sample and a 911 call for comparison.


    Martin "allegedly" decked Zimmerman. (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 09:45:05 PM EST
    And, in other news, Detective Serino transferred to patrol division:  CBS News

    unless you believe (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:59:51 AM EST
    Zimmerman's injuries were self-inflicted, Trayvon decked him. The state's attorneys have not disputed that. They are trying to justify Trayvon's punch by saying Zimmerman could have stayed in his car or engaged Trayvon in conversation to diffuse the situation and avoided such a reaction from Trayvon, or that Trayvon's punch didn't hurt him as badly as he claims.

    That Trayvon hit Zimmerman in the nose is a fact beyond change at this point. All the state can do is try to justify it and put the blame on Zimmerman.

    What's "alleged" is Trayvon's reason for decking Zimmerman. The state says he was afraid of Zimmerman. It certainly hasn't been established that Zimmerman did anything to warrant Trayvon fearing Zimmerman was about to physically assault him, which resulted in him pre-emptively striking Zimmerman.

    For Trayvon's punch to be a legally justified use of force, he had to reasonably fear an imminent attack by Zimmerman. He can't just have been afraid because he was unsure what Zimmerman up to.
    The statute on use of non-deadly force says:

    A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force.

    Jeralyn-- (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Doug1111 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:57:33 AM EST
    Zimmerman's injuries were self-inflicted, Trayvon decked him. The state's attorneys have not disputed that. They are trying to justify Trayvon's punch by saying Zimmerman could have stayed in his car or engaged Trayvon in conversation to diffuse the situation and avoided such a reaction from Trayvon, or that Trayvon's punch didn't hurt him as badly as he claims.

    That's a lame ass argument that has nothing to do with Florida law, but only to do with the inflamed opinions of much of the black community and some others.  

    I don't see how Zimmerman can lose at the immunity hearing myself, unless the judge chickens out, which he may do.


    ...a fact beyond change... (none / 0) (#28)
    by unitron on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:18:45 AM EST
    "That Trayvon hit Zimmerman in the nose is a fact beyond change at this point."

    Always sounded more like "might have happened this way" to me.

    There is a severe shortage of impartial witnesses for that first part of the physicality between the two.


    Well, (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:14:32 AM EST
    someone hit Z in the nose.

    Are you suggesting that Z hit himself in the nose?


    A probability is not a fact (none / 0) (#110)
    by unitron on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:08:02 PM EST
    Although Martin hitting Zimmerman is the most likely explanation, it is not the only one.

    He could have fallen and hit something nose first, so if nobody saw it except the dead guy and the guy trying to beat a murder rap, I don't think it should be labeled a "fact".

    We do not know for a fact that he was uninjured when he left his house that night.

    Does anyone know for a "fact" if Martin was right-handed or left-handed?


    Wouldn't engaging a (none / 0) (#63)
    by firstfall on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:19:57 AM EST
    ...suspect in conversation be considered a no no in the prosecution's eyes? It certainly doesn't sound as bad as confronting, but it is putting himself in the "path" of a suspect. Interfering. Even a simple question could provoke in some way. Not quite sure how to phrase it.

    You need to define "prosecution no no" (none / 0) (#67)
    by Lina Inverse on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:54:11 AM EST
    As we normally construe "conversation", it doesn't rise to the level of legitimately provoking assault (threat of violence) or battery (physical violence).

    The section from the affidavit reads like this, with a strange switch to the passive voice at the critical moment:

    Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.

    Zimmerman has to more than "confront" Martin for the latter to be justified in physically attacking him and escalating that attack to deadly force.


    I think you covered "prosecution no no" (none / 0) (#70)
    by firstfall on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:05:18 AM EST
    What I was getting at is if the prosecution might still consider any kind of interference/communication as a bad thing and put it on an affidavit as something that Zimmerman did wrong. If I'm understanding correctly even the stronger "confronted" doesn't qualify as something wrong. It's that missing part between "confronted" and "struggle ensued" that's important. It should be there, shouldn't it?

    I think they are refining confronted (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:48:02 AM EST
    to some thing less problematic and more provable.

    "George Zimmerman was born."

    With all due respect to Franz Kafka


    When you read his report and recommendation (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by leftwig on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:58:39 AM EST
    Serino actually admonishes Z for not verbally confronting MArtin.  He says he had 2 opportunities to do so and explain that he was a neighborhood watchman.  

    I guess basically what I am getting at is the prosecution is grasping at straws and hoping some sort of "magic bullet" shows up to prove their point.  


    Serino outed as leaker inside Sanford PD? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Raoul on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 09:45:48 PM EST
    It appears that ABC's Matt Gutman has confirmed via twitter that lead detective Serino was leaking information.  That certainly is unethical. Obstruction?


    Fixed link to Serino leak story (none / 0) (#3)
    by Raoul on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 09:49:33 PM EST
    Confusion (none / 0) (#8)
    by Raoul on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 10:02:23 PM EST
    Latest  tweet.

    @mattgutmanABC: @YancyFaith #TrayvonMartin #Zimmerman to be clear: I'd never reveal a source. The response earlier was 2 another tweeter abt something else!


    Yeah, that's the ticket! (none / 0) (#11)
    by MJW on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:06:21 AM EST
    A response to another tweeter who was also went by "YancyFaith," and who happened to ask a question that could be answered "yes he was."

    I believe Guttman (none / 0) (#17)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:41:48 AM EST
    No experienced journalist would name their source, even on Twitter.

    It works both ways (none / 0) (#7)
    by friendofinnocence on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 09:58:35 PM EST
    Trayvon Martin also had two opportunities to identify himself to Zimmerman.

    why would he? (none / 0) (#25)
    by unitron on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:27:15 AM EST
    He didn't know who Zimmerman was, or what he was up to, just that Zimmerman was acting weird, and he had nothing to explain.

    Zimmerman was not wearing his Captain Neighborhood cape and tights, and didn't have his big magnetic "NeighborhoodWatchMobile" sign on the side of his truck either.


    Explanations (3.50 / 2) (#29)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:31:37 AM EST

    Brandy Green had seven days to explain to Trayvon what a gated community is, why they exist, and why people choose to live in them.

    And surely many of us have seen the sign (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Lina Inverse on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:00:03 AM EST
    At the main? entrance of the community and I hope ones elsewhere that it had a Neighborhood Watch program.

    Well, then... (none / 0) (#111)
    by unitron on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:11:57 PM EST
    ...if it was a gated community and Martin had no reason to assume Zimmerman didn't belong there, Zimmerman had no reason to belive Martin didn't belong there.

    You're proposing (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:44:16 PM EST
    that Martin had the right to administer a "beat down" to Zimmerman for merely suspecting he might be trespassing or otherwise "up to no good"?  What are you driving at?  How did you come by the idea that you can't lawfully be asked to confirm your right to be on private property unless you're observed breaking a window or forcing a door?

    LOL... (none / 0) (#9)
    by turbo6 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 10:06:52 PM EST
    I was reading an article earlier today and someone astutely mentions "There's no places where Trayvon could have hid!" Hopefully the panning of the camera in this one clears that up.

    Regardless, if George's one working mini keychain flashlight was found just off the T, I can't imagine he's going to be doing that much searching in the dark...

    He claims the flashlight was not working (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:28:23 AM EST
    that night. Serino said it was working at the time of his interview with GZ.

    Unless you think that (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:59:02 AM EST
    the witnesses could not notice a flashlight I think we gotta go with GZ on this one.

    Flash lights quite often require a little readjustment to work.


    The larger flashlight (none / 0) (#107)
    by turbo6 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:43:06 PM EST
    apparently didn't work (do flashlights ever seem to work when you really need them?)....however from what I understand his mini flashlight attatched to his Honda key was operational and was found still turned on at the top of the T. Although, correct me if I'm wrong about that last part.

    Regardless, its a pretty solid piece of evidence to depict one being caught off guard.


    Flashlights, Big And Small (none / 0) (#123)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 12:24:03 AM EST
    from what I understand his mini flashlight attached to his Honda key was operational and was found still turned on at the top of the T.


    It' on p. 80 of the first, 183 page document dump.

    This is the report of the crime scene tech (CST) who actually collected the items of evidence. Several of the police reports mention the key chain and flashlight, but only the CST noted that it was on.

    Her report on pp. 79-80 is a long way from the police reports of the scene, so it's easy to miss.

    While I'm on the subject, I want to correct an error on a recent thread. The thread filled up before I got around to doing it there.

    One of the police reports was careless in describing the key chain and flashlight, noting that they were close together but not that they were attached. That misled some people into thinking Zimmerman's primary flashlight was also found near the T. That flashlight was found close to the body.

    This photo and this one (courtesy of Willisnewton) clarify the relative positions. We still don't have a diagram or comprehensive scene photo.

    Object marker assignments are on pp. 5-7 at the above link.

    Key chain - OM-1

    Primary flashlight - OM-5

    Cell phone - OM-7

    Cartridge case - OM-8

    OM-1 and OM-8 are not visible in the linked photos.

    The cartridge case is indicated by a yellow pointer, close to the mysterious OM-6.

    OM-8 can be seen here. (This page is misleadingly labeled 'Full Zimmerman Discovery'. It doesn't have all the scene photos, but it's the only place I know that has one of OM-8.)


    Near, not at (none / 0) (#137)
    by amateur on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 11:23:45 AM EST
    the top of the T.  In the photo linked in the above reply, the key chain is next to the leaf on the sidewalk.  That's about 1 1/2 concrete pavers down on TM's path, not on GZ's assumed path across the top of the T.  So whatever event we assume is represented by the dropping of the key chain, that event would have happened south of the T on the center path.

    Flashlight (none / 0) (#129)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:57:19 AM EST
    In Part 3 of the 2/29 interview, Zimmerman says he spent some time at the lighted area where the west leg of the "T" intersects Retreat View trying to get his flashlight to work.

    Dang! (none / 0) (#130)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:09:26 AM EST
    "west" = "east"

    four minutes to fix a flashlight? (none / 0) (#138)
    by willisnewton on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 12:08:36 PM EST
    In that same 3rd part of the 2/29 interview he claims he was on RVC by the time he says "he ran."  IMO it seems more likely he was at the T at that time and is wrong about how far he made it in the 20 seconds of wind noise time.  The distance is around 180 feet from where he indicated he parked to the T.  To RVC it's 270 feet or so.  He'd have had to run like Jim Brown to cover that distance in the time allotted.  IMO he's coloring his story excessively in places in a defensive manner, and this is one of those places where he "recalls" events that are hard to see as possible given the clues and distances we have.  

    But if you are inclined to believe him, that means he had the next 3.5 to four minutes or so to fool with his flashlight, standing in one spot. He's heard making some kind of noise around this time, but I tend to think he's walking from the T to RVC until his call ends.  

    During this final questioning, GZ seems to on the defensive and I'll not characterize his answers here but they are asking him difficult questions and giving him the opportunity to amend his statements "for the last time" in so many words.  

    From the end of his call to the first 911 call is the famous missing two minutes or so.   People love to speculate about TM's path but GZ himself could have walked 3/4 of the way to his own home in that time.   We just don't know where they went and what they were doing, other than that TM seems to have been on the phone the whole time.  

    The frustrating thing is that we probably won't ever know where the two went in the missing minutes.  We just know what GZ says and what DeeDee thinks she heard TM tell her.  If TM stood in John's back yard the whole time, which I personally think is likely, he was indeed "close to home." According to DeeDee he'd been nervous about a car, we know he left the roadway.  He's walked all the way to 7Eleven and back and wherever in between and was now a relatively short distance from his doorstep, down a path that cars can't take.  

    Fixing the flashlight is GZ's story and he stuck to it and no one we know can prove different.  

    But IMO the real problem he has is how he came to travel from the front of the clubhouse to the cut thru final parking spot, and his story about TM doubling back to circle his vehicle is the most suspect thing he's said given that he may have contradicted himself about where he was when he spoke about TM  "circling" and "having his hand in his waistband."  During the re-enactment he's certain it was while he was parked at the cut thru.  And back at the cop shop, he's played the 311 call recording and says repeatedly that he was by the clubhouse.  IMO he can't have it both ways, and there is likely a middle position where this happened, and it may be on the first curve where he initially marked a map for SIngleton, but quickly changed his mind and crossed out the position.  

    It's physically possible to line up the 311 call with a doubling back move and circling move by TM near the T and cut thru but GZ says TM is near the clubhouse on the call and in this 3rd 2/29 session repeatedly says the seeming description of TM passing his car comes at the clubhouse, presumably as he is parked by the front door but he may be telling the truth about being  "by the clubhouse" and omitting the exact location so as to obscure what happened after the teen passed his car.  


    Martin doubling back (none / 0) (#10)
    by punslinger612 on Tue Jun 26, 2012 at 10:15:05 PM EST
    I have not seen anyone mention this.  As I looked at the aerial photograph of the housing development, it appears to me that the townhouses are not in one long monolithic row but are clumped in groups of 4-5  attached units with space between them.  There appeared to be enough space between the units so that one could easily pass from the back to the front of the units.

    If true, Martin could easily have left the common area between the two rows of townhouse and returned close to Zimmerman without being seen, all of the way from the other end of the complex.

    He wouldn't have to (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:26:51 AM EST
    go far or double back. He could just duck into a yard. That's what I would have done. (and did a time or two)
    Zimmie, when he was not following, but looking for an address, was close enough that he could have/ would have seen TM running down the sidewalk if TM had continued any farther down the path to Brandi's Luv Shack. That's why it was a good strategy to hide and wait for the pursuer to pass by. Of course it does one no good to jump out of one's own little Briar Patch and confront one's pursuer unless said pursuer is a little too close and the hider comes to the conclusion that the pursuer is of such an unintimidating stature
    that he does not pose much of a physical threat.

    True, here's a map (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:14:38 AM EST
    showing the breaks. I believe there's also a video of Tracy Martin early in the investigation doing a walk-through with a reporter in which he speculates that Trayvon went down the front of Twin Trees Lane and crossed over to the back path between houses at a break. I'm sure you can google it.

    MAGIC BANDAID??? (none / 0) (#15)
    by fredquick21 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:08:09 AM EST
    were all these (4 back to back) taken at the same time i assume not because that 1 bandaid is sideways( eye-eye) then longways (fore-head to nose bridge)? i would like not to believe Zim switched the angle of his bandaid between photos. Also some claim Zim can be seen b4 his NEN call out of his truck with flashlight at the clubhouse. I think this could be headlights however one video of the door shows a man who is not black make an appearance the man seems to be bald. I don't have advanced HD or a top of the line computer but the prosecutors would be able to enhance it. Has anyone with a better computer seen any of these clubhouse videos?

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#16)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:39:29 AM EST
    These are stills from the continuous video that Jeralyn linked to. No slight of hand involved.

    The butterfly bandages on the back of his head were applied by SPD personnel, not Zimmerman. They can clearly be seen in the interrogation video from the night of the incident.

    Nothing can be seen on the clubhouse videos except for indistinct blurs.


    yes they were taken at the same (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:45:59 AM EST
    time from the video released today by the State. I took them from my copy of the new video which I downloaded from the state's server. The Sentinel video seemed had blank spots and black spots and other flakiness.

    I've watched the clubhouse videos in full several times (yes for hours) on more than one computer. I do not see what the gossip you have read elsewhere see, and I don't appreciate you posting unsourced gossip here. I see different things each time I watch, as I wrote here, so I have refrained from speculating along the lines you suggest.


    Zimmerman's Wounds, Martin's Wrath (none / 0) (#27)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:54:06 AM EST
    W-11, 3:23-40:

    Well, we only got a picture, because the officer that wanted us to identify him wanted us to come over there, and we didn't want to be a part of that. So he took a picture and brought it over. And at first we couldn't even recognize him, because it looked like his nose was broken in a few spots, his lip was all bloody, and he just looked completely out of it.


    Here's what the medic's report says as to the cause of the injury: "Struck by blunt/thrown object." If Zimmerman were hit with an object, it would certainly explain the lack of bruising on Trayvon's hands.

    I think the 'blunt/thrown object' would be the concrete pavement. It was Zimmerman's head that was 'thrown', but examining the wound wouldn't reveal which surface was in motion.

    Are you thinking the 'object' would be something like a rock that was overlooked as the scene? I think it would have been bloody, because Zimmerman's face was bloody, even if the object itself didn't draw blood.


    He sounded angry to Zimmerman. Zimmerman had no idea why.

    In his first interview, Zimmerman told Investigator Singleton 'I guess he was upset that I called police' (Part 1, 21:10-13).

    Why did Zimmerman think Martin knew he 'called police'? Yet another obvious question that an interviewer didn't ask.

    I guess I need to (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by firstfall on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:40:19 AM EST
    listen to all of those. My theory has been that Trayvon ran after seeing Zimmerman in the truck, watching him and on the phone because he realized that Zimmerman was talking to the police. He wasn't afraid of Zimmerman. He was afraid of the police. It also explains why Trayvon attacked when Zimmerman reached into his pocket. It wasn't because he thought Zimmerman had a gun. It was because he knew he was grabbing his cell phone to call the police again.

    it could be the AZ beverage can (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:51:07 PM EST
    he could have swung the bag with it at Zimmerman, hitting him in the nose. And then put the can in his pocket after Z. fell and he got on top of him, since he needed both hands at that point.

    Z. said he thought TM had something in his hands he was hitting him with. I'm really not sure about whether this is a viable theory, but the medic report saying "hit with thrown or blunt object." I can't tell if it was their observation or what Zimmerman told them.


    No obvious signs of being used as a (none / 0) (#93)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:07:33 PM EST
    Its hard to imagine the can wouldn't be (none / 0) (#94)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:14:05 PM EST
    deformed. I could not notice dents in the one picture I saw of the can.

    Could Trayvon have been striking with his elbows?

    I don't know if traces of GZ's blood was found on the arms of TM's sweatshirt


    White Bag, DMS-4 (none / 0) (#95)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    'One (1) white-colored plastic bag containing suspected blood evidence', designated DMS-4 in the property log (p. 6). I couldn't find any record of it being tested.

    Walmart bag (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cylinder on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:45:48 PM EST
    That was the Walmart bag that was used to seal Martin's chest wound during CPR. It was brought to the scene by a resident when SPD requested it.

    Bag ID (none / 0) (#125)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 01:10:15 AM EST
    I guess you're right.

    I recall thinking the 7-11 bag was white when I first saw the video. It's translucent, but it does seem noticeably 'tan' at some moments, as Martin walks about and the lighting on it changes.

    It seems odd to me that an item introduced into the scene for the rescue effort would be given an object marker. Maybe the bag, and the seldom mentioned first aid kit, were marked by someone who hadn't been told of their origin. Once marked, I guess protocol would require they be treated accordingly.


    Martin noticed a man on a phone (none / 0) (#34)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:50:24 AM EST
    observing him. Its not unreasonable to suspect that the phone is being used to discuss Martin.

    If Martin was up to no good, as Zimmerman suspected, then it would be not unreasonable for Martin to extrapolate that the man on the phone watching him was reporting to the police.

    If you are bothered by an aggressive driver, pick up your cell phone, look at them and pretend to talk into the phone. The other guy normally leaves at the next exit.

    This is not to say that Martin was up to no good, which has not been established,. Treyvon's actual state of mind is unknown. What is known is that after TM observed GZ on the phone he ran.

    It could explain GZ's interpretation of why TM was angry.

    Martin checked out Zimmerman while Zimmerman was on the phone- as an afterthought; I wonder if TM could overhear GZ on the phone as he walked by the truck?


    Well, let's see, (none / 0) (#37)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:20:59 AM EST
    you see an unknown, to you, visitor, in the "commons" area of a high-crime gated community, who "checks you out," sees that you're speaking on your phone, then "takes off."  If you're asked to "guess," why would you not "guess" that the subject of your attention assumed that you were in contact with the police?  Not sure how it would add to the store of investigative knowledge to ask "And do you have a 'backup' guess?"

    Sure (none / 0) (#40)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:53:32 AM EST
    I could guess that this person was using his phone to call the police about me (the observer). That wouldn't explain the anger though.

    I could also guess that TM was scared; but that wouldn't explain him doubling back to assault me.

    We could guess for ever - its irrelevant - I am exploring if GZ's postulation attempting to explain   why TM was so angry is plausible.


    Why assume anger? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by cboldt on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:10:49 AM EST
    There is more than one possible state of mind, assuming Martin strikes Zimmerman first.  Fear is one, and that is mentioned by Serino in interviews with Zimmerman, that Martin may have apprehended an attack when Zimmerman reached for a pocket, and moved to stifle it.

    Anger or something similar is another possibility, where Martin resents being profiled (or whatever you prefer to call Zimmerman's actions), and seeks revenge.

    A third possibility is "no good reason," or "just for the hell of it," or "just for kicks."  Knockout King victims aren't struck by angry assailants, or assailants with robbery as a motive, etc.  The battery is perpetrated out of a desire to create some excitement.

    Martin's close friends aren't about to tell the truth, if the reason was anger or "no good reason."  DeeDee is in that cohort too.  I don't think any stranger to Martin's circle of friends will ever know his state of mind, or his character.

    We do know that Serino believes Martin was of good character, and that whatever Martin did, didn't justify Zimmerman to get out of the truck, or to use deadly force.


    This was in response to NoMatters fragment (none / 0) (#45)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:47:50 AM EST

    He sounded angry to Zimmerman. Zimmerman had no idea why.
    In his first interview, Zimmerman told Investigator Singleton 'I guess he was upset that I called police' (Part 1, 21:10-13).

    Why did Zimmerman think Martin knew he 'called police'? Yet another obvious question that an interviewer didn't ask.

    So I have been discussing Zimmerman's statement and observation that 'Martin seems angry' and his guess that it may have been because of the police call.

    Martins reported anger may or may not have been sufficient to initiate the assault.


    No, actually we don't know what Serino thinks (none / 0) (#52)
    by Slayersrezo on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:10:48 AM EST
    Of Martin.
    Please remember that was at a police interview where Serino was trying to trip up GZ to the left and right. Basically playing the "We got all this evidence on ya" game.

    Legally, both were pretty spotless characters, but to be fair -since school suspensions aren't counted- Martin was more innocent than GZ - innocent as a Lamb, regardless if he had been experimenting with drugs or a "thug life" persona. And I think Serino was putting that out there to George on the theory that if he was guilty that might cause him some pangs of conscience.


    The knot on the side of his head (none / 0) (#39)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:46:22 AM EST
    is the injury they are referring to.(in my opinion) It's not an injury that the sidewalk would likely cause. My guess is Zimmie's flashlight came into play.

    he used the word angry (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:59:37 AM EST
    when talking to Serino and Singleton in the third interview on 2/29:

    CS: We don't hear him at all either. Was he being quiet, is he whispering to you or something?
    GZ: He's telling me to shut up.
    CS: Is he calm?
    GZ: No, he's like angry.
    CS: I don't hear him though. No.
    DS: Was he shouting it, or was he...
    GZ: No, he's on top of me, and he's telling me to shut the f*ck up, shut the f*ck up.

    ...CS: Why was he so mad at you?
    GZ: I've gone through it a million times and I have no idea.

    blunt object was cell phone? (none / 0) (#124)
    by willisnewton on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 01:00:19 AM EST
    It seems to me that given the location, TM had the cell phone in his hand up until at least the two were in John's back yard.  I have heard it was sent for testing for DNA but we don't have a report on that yet - but I heard this second hand.  Is that true?  I also heard that's why they didn't try to lift finger prints off it.

    Was GZ struck with the cell phone?  Didn't he say somewhere he felt like the teen had something in his hand when he was struck?  Those small cuts on the face seem like they could have been made by someone who struck out while still holding the phone in his hand.  

    THe odd thing is however how seldom GZ actually speaks of fists on his face after what he describes as the initial blow, the one that hit his nose.  In the video walk thru "reenactment" he doesn't really describe any fists to the face after the one he claims happened west of the T.  Instead he describes stumbling, possible pushing and then the head slams, but if he spoke about fists to the head I missed it.  

    The vertical cut to the back of his head and the injury to TM's INSIDE area of his hand/finger seems also to be a possible link to a phone in TM's hand.  

    I'm sure it can be argued til the cows come home that this says something about the mindset of TM, but I honestly don't see the point in going there - it is what it is, and we won't get to ask TM.  

    It's just that the list of blunt objects as we know seem to be small.  However it happened, the phone makes it the farthest from the keychain/flashlight, the first or last object dropped or tossed, whatever.  


    he said (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 01:28:03 AM EST
    during the reinactment that after shooting Trayvon:

    I pushed him off me or he fell off me, either way I got on top of him and I pushed his arms apart and I said don't move.... I got on his back and I moved his arms apart because when he was hitting me in the face and the head I thought he had something in his hands. So I just...I moved his hands apart.

    He says after the punch, Trayvon was focused on his head. But he points out a cut under his eye. He shows the bruises on his temple.

    There's photos from the night of the shooting showing cuts on his face and cuts at his mouth.

    The relevance is that if Trayvon hit him with an object, whatever it was, it would explain the lack of defensive wounds on his hands.

    George had no defensive wounds on his hands, there's no indication he used force against Trayvon.


    Defendant Zimmerman's (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:30:37 AM EST
    description of what happened after he shot the alleged  victim doesn't make sense.

    Actually (none / 0) (#133)
    by spectator on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:04:58 AM EST
    it makes perfect sense that GZ got on top of TM, i've noticed countless times beginning way back in grade school, when a losing combatant will quickly take a dominate role when given an opportunity to do so(even when the fight is over), i have no doubt this is a very common instinct, about the arms?,odd as it seems he might be telling the truth.

    No doubt. Except for the factor of the (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 12:38:28 PM EST
    gun and gun shot.  

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#141)
    by Cylinder on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 01:27:59 PM EST
    What's your objection to Zimmerman checking Martin's body? We know that it happened.

    Ms. Cutcher claims she witnessed what we know now to be Zimmerman "straddling" what we know now was Martin's body. Another witness reports Zimmerman walking 10-20' away and coming back to Martin's body. Cutcher thought this proof of guilt - that there was no fight at the time of the shooting and that Zimmerman was in the position of advantage. This is probably the misunderstanding that sparked the little feud between her and SPD. She thought it proof of guilt and SPD correctly asserted that all of the witness statements served to corroborate Zimmerman's story.

    We also know that wasn't the state of the combatants before the fatal gunshot because W6 stepped outside seconds before and saw Martin in the position of advantage and either hitting of holding Zimmerman down. W11's statement, neither knowing the the content of the other's, backs W6's claim that he witnessed the altercation seconds before the shooting. W6 is further corabborated by Zimmerman himself, who claimed that the altercation moved from concrete to grass.

    What is the evidence that casts doubt on Zimmerman's claim to have checked Martin's body after the altercation?


    I don't think there's evidence (none / 0) (#142)
    by amateur on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:02:20 PM EST
    that he didn't check the body. However one source of confusion for me is that I thought the body was found face down with arms under him, as indicated in the police report.  However GZ says, and I can't think why he would lie about this, that he held his hands out away from his body.  So how did his arms get tucked under him before the police arrived?

    That is a source of confusion (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cylinder on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:23:40 PM EST
    The position of Martin's arms as they were found is a source of confusion. Alaya filed his report on Feb 27 at 0228:

    I noticed taht there was, what appeared to be a black male wearing a gray sweater, blue jeans, and white/red sneakers laying face down on the ground. The black male had his hands underneath the body. I attempted to get a response from the black male, but was met with negative results. At that time Sgt. Raimondo arrived and attempted to get a pulse on the black male but none was found. At that time, Sgt. Raimondo an I turned the black male over and began CPR. Sgt. Raimondo did breaths and I did compressions.

    Some of the possibilities:

    Error of memory - Alaya's statement tends to correspond with Raimondo, the second officer to make contact with Martin. We know Martin's pants where light-colored from the 7-11 video.

    Fog of war - Zimmerman himself may have intended to check Martin's hands. We know that was around the same time that Flashlight Man entered the scene of the shooting, so Zimmerman may have been interrupted in the process.

    Matrin's movement - It cannot be ruled out, though the state will probably elicit experts to do so, that Matrin himself retracted his arms as he lay mortally wounded. I know this isn't very pleasant to contemplate. Zimmerman claims Martin was still alive shortly before - indeed that's the reason for him checking Martin's hands.

    In his interview with FDLE, the closest eyewitness, W6, describes the direct aftermath of the shooting:

    {Martin was] laying in the grass, kind of in the sprawled position

    To me, at least, "sprawled" tends to envision arms extended more than arms tucked.

    The position of Martin's arms post mortem is the source of legitimate confusion.


    John, (none / 0) (#145)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:45:04 PM EST
    as, I recall, has Martin working Zimmerman back onto the concrete, just as he ran upstairs.

    You're right (none / 0) (#146)
    by Cylinder on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:56:52 PM EST
    W6 claims [i]grass to concrete[/i]. Zimmerman claims [i]concrete to grass.[/i]

    But this (none / 0) (#147)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:05:05 PM EST
    was right before the shooting which witness 6 did not witness, he was running upstairs at this point.

    Disconnected earphones... (none / 0) (#132)
    by heidelja on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:02:05 AM EST
    ...and suddenly disconnected call "heard by" DeeDee, who claims to have heard a "salutation," all can be explained if the phone was used in this manner.

    "used in this manner" (none / 0) (#155)
    by heidelja on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 11:11:08 PM EST
    means as a blunt object.

    Cell phone (none / 0) (#156)
    by Mary2012 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 02:15:54 AM EST
    Was GZ struck with the cell phone?  Didn't he say somewhere he felt like the teen had something in his hand when he was struck?  Those small cuts on the face seem like they could have been made by someone who struck out while still holding the phone in his hand.

    Earlier on not too long after I first started paying attention to this case, I was thinking the cut on the top back of his (GZ's) head was due to being struck by an object as he (TM) was perhaps being apprehended/ taken to the ground.  The cut seemed too high (on GZs head) to me to have occurred from having his head hit on concrete, straight-on. It seemed to me GZ would have to arch his head back some to be hit that part of his head on the concrete but both he and John say his (GZs) head was 'forward' as in trying to get up (if I remember that correctly).

    TM would've had to sort of reach over him (GZ) as they fell together and the downward motion of the fall would've caused the object to slide/ make the cut/ gash longer.  

    This is all speculation however.


    Just to inject... (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 01:30:35 PM EST
    a different thought.  When I was much younger I was known on occasion to be a scrapper if put in the position of having to defend myself.  

    I always went into those situations with something in my hand, like a roll of dimes or quarters, because it keeps you hand rigid and less likely to break a finger or joint.  It makes me wonder if it was not the phone, but the lighter in his hand.  

    The phone would be hard to physically control and would break apart on impact.  Droids are "squattier" for lack of a better description.  

    Rounder or sleeker would be better for grip.

    On the other hand, I think the lighter was in his pocket so that doesn't make much sense to me either unless it is like the earphones.  Seeming to be in two places in the reports, IIRC.  IDK.

    Just IMO.  And a little personal experience.


    Off topic administrivia (none / 0) (#33)
    by cboldt on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:43:32 AM EST
    O'Mara has moved that Zimmerman be allowed to appear in civilian clothing, without restraints, at the June 29 hearing.  He made a similar motion (maybe the same text) before the April 20 hearing.  The state filed a motion in opposition (in April), asserting that a prospective jury pool would not be influenced by widely published images of Zimmerman appearing in court in prison garb and shackles.

    Passing By, On Retreat View Circle (none / 0) (#36)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:59:24 AM EST
    I didn't participate in the first two threads discussing Zimmerman's statements. I wanted to take some time to study them.

    Now I'm going to go through them chronologically. It will take a few comments. I don't know yet how many.

    I'll be citing the statements by their dates. I will distinguish the  February 27 recordings by 'S' for Serino, 'R' for the reenactment, and 'V' for the voice stress test. I will distinguish the written statement with a 'W', and cite the first interview with Investigator Singleton by the date alone. The part number will follow a hyphen, when needed.

    Citations to Zimmerman's police call, and the voice stress test, will be by recording time and real time, separated by a comma.

    Zimmerman told SPD that one of his grounds for suspicion of  Martin was his being an unfamiliar face in the neighborhood (2/26-1, 4:21; 2/27R, 1:20). He didn't mention this on the police call.

    'He looks black' and 'Yeah, he's a black male', now seem to me like an elaborate charade. If Zimmerman saw Martin's face well enough for dis-recognition, I think he would have been sure of his race as well.

    Zimmerman said Martin walked past his truck while he was parked in front of the clubhouse.

    2/27R, 2:24-32:

    Then he walked past me, and he kept looking at my car, and, still looking around at the houses and stuff.

    2/27V, 26:42-49, 6:45:19-26:

    As I was on the phone with the non-emergency line, he walked past my car.

    Zimmerman left the clubhouse lot within a few seconds of his call connecting. He and Martin had to get to the cut-through area in time for the drama to begin there. 'He's here now, and he's just staring . . .' (0:41, 7:10:15).

    In the reenactment, the journey was 42 seconds, from gearshift to gearshift. (2/27R, 1:35-2:17) Zimmerman had to drive a bit faster, in the dark and the rain.

    Zimmerman had to be backing out of the lot before he finished saying 'one-eleven Retreat View Circle', before beginning his first description of Martin's suspicious behavior (0:17, 7:09:51). He didn't mention 'looking at my car'.

    You're stretching quite a bit (3.50 / 2) (#47)
    by firstfall on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:54:13 AM EST
    ...and trying to make Zimmerman sound like some kind of evil genius. It was dark, raining, and Trayvon was wearing a hoodie which would have obscured his face. It would have been difficult to determine his race with any certainty at a distance. Confirmation came with a closer look. There's no evil genius plot here. You're grasping at straws and trying to remake what's already perfectly rational into something less rational that better fits your agenda.

    My Agenda (none / 0) (#54)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:18:42 AM EST
    What do you know about my agenda?

    Not recognizing someone (none / 0) (#38)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:38:42 AM EST
    'He looks black' and 'Yeah, he's a black male', now seem to me like an elaborate charade. If Zimmerman saw Martin's face well enough for dis-recognition, I think he would have been sure of his race as well.

    While you may need to be close to absolutely identify someone not recognizing someone doesn't establish the quality of the observation. We don't recognize many people.

    That being while driving down my road I can identify most pedestrian, neighbors from their back and at quite a  distance. That doesn't imply that I can discern details of individuals I don't recognize.



    To me (none / 0) (#44)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:34:30 AM EST
    it seems that GZ, in both the NEN call and the reenactment, is describing events that happened BEFORE he called the police while he simultaneusly desribes events that are happening while he is on the phone with the dispatcher. It is much more noticable in the reenactment video. GZ is very sensitive to any implication that he followed TM for any distance. I would theorize that GZ wants to make it look like he called police almost immediately upon seeing TM. The NEN call gives one the impression that GZ was already parked when he started dialing.

    IF I recall correctly (none / 0) (#46)
    by leftwig on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:52:59 AM EST
    Z said he was on his way out of the neighborhood when he first saw Martin trespassing/loitering around a house.  He said he continued on his path to the clubhouse where he began dialing the NEN.  In the walk through, he made it sound as if he didn't get through right away, so I imagine he was observing Martins behavior as he was trying to get through and as Martin was coming towards him, so it is clear that he made observations of Martin prior to connecting with NEN.  

    Here is the part I am vague on and someone please help me out.  When Zimmerman describes Martin coming towards him and notices the button on his shirt and says he has his hands in his pants, is he still parked in front of the clubhouse, or has he moved around the corner at this point?  My impression of combining his walk through with the NEN call is that the first 1:30 or so is of him sitting in the clubhouse parking giving his description as Martin walks towards the clubhouse and his vehicle, then as Martin goes around the corner and out of site, he pulls out to follow Martin at the dispatchers request to "let him know if he does anything".  Am I mistaken on this, or is he sitting on Twin Trees Lane for most of the NEN call?


    I get the impression (none / 0) (#51)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:08:15 AM EST
    the impression he was parked. I hear no engine/tire sounds and the the length of the call would have GM easily passing TM and driving well past him. GZ describes activities he observed earlier though. At one one point GZ starts to give the address to the clubhouse but stops.He's well pst the clunhouse by that point, but he's describing TM's behavior a few minutes earlier.
    When the dispatcher starts asking for an address later in the call(and gives the clubhouse address)
    GZ laughs and says, "That's the clubhouse!"
    The 13 year old witness' sister was showing Craig Rivera that the house where TM was first spotted happens to be where the shortcut to the outside business ditrict is located. That's why I would  say it is a easy target for burglars too. Easy access-Easy escape.

    Shortcut (none / 0) (#109)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:01:26 PM EST
    In the reenactment, Zimmerman says he first saw Martin standing in front of "1460," which would have to be 1460 Retreat View Circle, the residence of Frank Taaffe.  If you were facing the front of that residence, the "shortcut" would be to the immediate left.  Examining this area on both Google and Mapquest, it doesn't appear to be a route a resident would ordinarily take to get to the shopping area, because it takes one over unpaved ground.  It would, of course, be ideal for "unauthorized" visitors.

    the news reports residents (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:27:28 PM EST
    used that shortcut all the time.

    News photos of shortcut and users-- another here.


    Well, (none / 0) (#115)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:30:29 PM EST
    if you're not terribly fastidious about your footgear. . .

    Time Constraint (none / 0) (#64)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:43:49 AM EST
    The first question to ask, is how long would it have taken Zimmerman to drive from the clubhouse lot to his parking spot near the cut-through. However you answer that, the answer creates a strong constraint on your interpretations.

    I've discussed my own answer to this in comment #49 on this thread.


    Correction, Comment #36 (none / 0) (#89)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    Quoting myself:

    I've discussed my own answer to this in comment #49 on this thread.

    Sorry, that should be comment #36.

    YES, there is a strong time constraint ... (none / 0) (#121)
    by heidelja on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:31:28 PM EST
    ...given the existence of the NEN call. There is no changing this.  His narratives have to be taken as loose explanations of events before, during and after this call.  I think possibly he was avoiding saying too much directly to the police about how he may have "wrongly shadowed" TM that night. So they ARE a little skewed.

    Here's my take previously shared:

    My general observation is that GZ would have greatly behooved himself had he had a pad with some key recollections written down directing the reenactment along the physical path of his "bulletted" items. But this is hindsight.

    During his 15 min videotaped reenactment describing events "on the fly" before and after his audio captured from his NEN call, GZ at times appears to be in an almost surreal mental trance describing his deepest recollections from the night before in a narrative way - not always moving to exactly where the events he described happened. In other words, his thoughts drove the reenactment not his physical movement and the location he left himself in during the reenactment.

    To me "circled" describes the phenomenon that happened in GZ's mind caused the night before when he drove from the clubhouse to where he parked on Twin Lakes. When GZ drove past TM [the second time...the first time he passed him was where he first saw him "leisurely looking at houses" driving towards the entrance by the clubhouse]. After TM was seen heading along Twin Trees GZ followed from the clubhouse. TM was on one side as GZ passed.  After GZ parked further towards the cut through TM passed him on the other side. [Given the time constraints of the NEN call, the audio most likely starts after he had parked along Twin Trees...maybe he "dialed-it" when at the clubhouse and it was slow to connect.]

    In GZ's transcendental mindset over his recollections while in the car watching TM, TM "circled" him during the points in time traversed from the clubhouse/mailboxes to where he parked. I think too GZ's reenactment narrative for TM "going in and coming back" are similarly explained because GZ saw TM headed in an easterly direction ahead of him when driving towards the cut-through and then GZ passed him and then saw TM again "going back" in an easterly direction. Could this be a layperson's best explanaton of Einsteins theory of relativity?

    Its relevant to the case (none / 0) (#50)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:04:12 AM EST
    not this specific conversation.

    We have been asked by JM not to speculate on the lighter or other facets of TM's persona until (and if) background on TM is submitted to the court.

    I am not going to mess with anyone who can watch hours of surveillance video.

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:53:17 PM EST
    why Martin had a lighter is irrelevant. Zimmerman didn't see it. And yes, it just leads to character attacks and we're not allowing those -- on either TM or GZ.

    We're veering off topic here but............... (none / 0) (#55)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:33:23 AM EST
    but did anyone else hear GZ  Say, referring to his pistol. "and that's when he saw it, um  I FEEL LIKE HE SAW IT." hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    Hmmmm What? (none / 0) (#58)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:03:15 AM EST
    I wish all the people who like to say 'hmmmmmm' would just say whatever their point is. I'm always too dense to get it.

    I do recall Zimmerman saying something like that. I have no idea what your point is.


    My point is (none / 0) (#75)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:45:34 AM EST
    GZ is careful to not emphatically say that TM saw the gun, only that he, GZ, was of that opinion.

    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#62)
    by turbo6 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:15:39 AM EST
    Seems pretty reasonable that someone on top of you looking down would in fact see a weapon you are concealing now exposed in its unsecured holster, especially after the two have been scuffling on the ground.

    Its not a good time to start second guessing yourself when the guy on top of you may have seen your weapon, and his hand may be veering in that direction.

    I don't think that... (none / 0) (#72)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:21:16 AM EST
    TM saw the weapon but he could most likely feel its presence since he was straddling him during the confrontation.

    That would lead to another series of possibilities.


    Motion on Civilian Clothes and Restraints (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cylinder on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:31:07 AM EST
    Motion to Permit Defendant to Appear in Civilian Clothing and Without Restraints

    "The presumption of inncocence requires the garb of innocence, and regardless of the ultimate outcome, or the evidence awaiting presentation, every Defendant is entitled to be brought before the court with the appearance, dignity and self-respect of a free and innocent man" Kennedy v Cardwell, 487 F2d, 101.

    Civilian Clothes Motion (none / 0) (#86)
    by cboldt on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:36:33 PM EST
    The press must have missed this same motion when O'Mara filed in on April 18th.  Well, not exactly the same, the June 25 motion has a new paragraph noting the courts allowance of civilian clothes in April.

    The state can file the same motion in opposition that it did last time.  From the state's April 19 Response in Opposition to Motion to Appear in Civilian Clothing ...

    Defendant [requests civilian clothing at all pretrial hearings] on the novel theory that "the manner in which [he] is portrayed by the media will have a tremendous impact on his ability to receive a fair trial."  This is obviously, a false premise designed to provide a foundation for a meritless claim.  In fact, when the defendant actually proceeds to trial, ALL jurors (both prospective and seated) will be instructed that they are not to consider matters discussed or portrayed about the case outside the courtroom, including media both print and electronic.

    De la Rionda sings the opposite tune when the material to be released is the voice stress test.


    Why in the world would the (none / 0) (#122)
    by Darby on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:33:19 PM EST
    Prosecution object to Zimmerman wearing civilian clothing?

    The prosecution gives lip service (none / 0) (#128)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:34:46 AM EST
    The presumption of innocence is unknown to the prosecution.  The more it can present Zimmerman as guilty (de la Rionda even asserted that Zimmerman murdered Martin, during his April 20 questioning), the better its odds of obtaining a conviction.

    The prosecution also gives lip service to fear of tainting the jury pool.  When it argued for Zimmerman to be in court in shackles and prison garb, it said that this presentation would in no way affect the jury pool.  But when arguing about the voice stress test, the state argued that public awareness of that would taint the jury pool.

    The prosecution is quite transparent, and seems too, to have the favored presentation in the press.  Serino's novel legal theories comprise the vast majority of yesterday's reporting (Zimmerman's guilty because he could break the chain of events; the injuries don't justify shooting; Zimmerman wasn't afraid) and the civvie clothing request is presented as some bizarre "new" request, even though it was made and granted around April 20th.


    Comment incorrectly stating (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:27:30 PM EST
    what witness 6 (john) said deleted. His interviews clearly show the opposite of what the commenter wrote.

    In his interview, John says while the person with the black top was on top, the guy on the bottom (red  jacket or sweater) seemed like he was pushing up. As the guy on the bottom (Zimmerman) was pushing up, he heard "help help help"). He first said it was Z. crying for help and then said he may just have assumed it was Z. crying for help since Z. was on the bottom.

    He says Z. was trying to get up while they were wrestling. He says as they were wrestling they moved positions, onto the sidewalk, from vertical to parallel, with TM still on top. He couldn't tell if TM was trying to hold him down or throwing punches (in his first interview she said TM was throwing punches.)

    He shows the positions on a drawing we haven't seen yet.

    Corey's past track record on VSA (none / 0) (#85)
    by HupHup on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:34:59 PM EST
    Does anyone know if Angela Corey has ever used a "failed" voice stress test in court as prosecution evidence?

    If she has, can O'Mara use this to defense advantage?

    Inadmissible (none / 0) (#87)
    by cboldt on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:38:43 PM EST
    Lie detector and voice stress tests aren't admissible at trial.  BUT, they can be useful to get the judge to find probable cause for arrest and detention, and to protect police and prosecutors from wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution lawsuits.

    Witness 10 (none / 0) (#88)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:41:22 PM EST
    About Witness 10.  It says that this witness was interviewed by O'Steen but I cannot find anything anywhere regarding this witness.  Am I just missing it?  That number wasn't even listed in the SPD list of witnesses.  They went from 9 to 11.

    It is on page three of four.
    MEMO---copies attached.

    Gilbreath's list is on top then O'Steen's list.

    ETA: (none / 0) (#92)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:02:19 PM EST
    On the Consent to Search form:
    link to form
    Page 29 of 29.

    There is the added (Media) Records, (Data) Material.  It doesn't appear to be in GZ's handwriting.  I think it is the addition of Inspector Batchelor.  Yet, it hasn't been initialized by either GZ or Batchelor.  

    IMO, GZ was nervous.  He didn't print out his name correctly and had to initialize over the area.  Why no initials to the added part?


    Jeralyn do you think Zimmerman should have talked (none / 0) (#96)
    by redwolf on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:22:07 PM EST
    to the cops?  Everything I've seen now indicates that he's 100% innocent and yet his life has been largely destroyed.  I'm wonder if he would have been better off not talking to the police.

    Listen To Bobby Donnell (none / 0) (#97)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:32:28 PM EST
    The fictional defense attorney on the TV show The Practice once remarked 'The spirit of nothing to hide doesn't buy you very much.'

    The Duke Lacrosse players also co-operated fully with the police. What it got them was a prosecutor repeatedly lying to the press, saying they weren't co-operating.

    more than one pop (none / 0) (#104)
    by pngai on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:30:38 PM EST
    How could that be? It seems clear that GZ only fired his gun once.

    Crump & Natalie "2 shot" Jackson (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:56:40 PM EST
    claimed that this was literally the smoking gun which proved murder. They are never wrong or misleading. They would never state conjecture and speculation as fact in the media, which might potentially interfere with GZ's right to a fair trial.

    Lawyers Natalie Jackson and Benjamin Crump insisted then that they could hear two shots on one 911 call, a warning shot and a kill shot, and that that proved Zimmerman was a murderer.

    "You hear a shot, a clear shot then you hear a 17-year-old boy begging for his life then you hear a second shot," Jackson said.

    I thought (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:23:22 PM EST
    at one time the "first pop" was attributed to the slamming of an interior (bathroom?) door.  I may be wrong, however, since I am going by memory.  

    The gun shot is clear and distinctive on the 911 tape.  There is no discernible echo that I can hear.

    Even with my ears, I can tell a difference.  I thought the "2-shots" were just another part of the misinformation campaign or someone who has never spent much time around guns.


    Echoes (none / 0) (#135)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:02:29 AM EST
    On the night of the shooting, W-13 told Serino he heard two 'pops'. (p. 37 of the first document dump).

    W-18, who called the shots 'pops' or 'pop noises', that night told Serino there was only one (p. 38), but in her written statement the same night she wrote 'I think' there were 'more than 1' (p. 88).

    W-18 has repeated that in media interviews. I don't think she has ever said there were exactly two.


    Echoes: Addendum (none / 0) (#154)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 08:36:08 PM EST
    I forgot to mention that W-18 also indicated one gunshot on her 911 call.

    All the 911 callers said one shot, except for W-15, Austin's sister. She wasn't sure what she heard. 'I heard something,', and her brother running into the house, were all she directly witnessed.


    One shot fired (none / 0) (#106)
    by Cylinder on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:39:36 PM EST
    They were hearing the echo from the initial report. Zimmerman started out at 7+1 - 7 rounds in the magazine which is capacity and one round chambered. SPD recovered the firearm at 6+1. The round count can be found in the SPD report.

    the comment you are repying to (none / 0) (#113)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:41:58 PM EST
    was deleted. There is no reason to discuss  witnesses whose stories changed or who were not in a position to see what they later claimed to see, or who didn't report what they saw until after they learned it was Trayvon who was shot. They are not reliable and I don't want their statements spread. They have been discussed at length in earlier threads.

    The witness referred to in the deleted comment did not call 911 until hearing the shot and first told the operator it was too dark to see anything during the struggle and then when the flashlights came and she could see the aftermath of GZ surrendering, changed her story to provide details about what she had just said she couldn't see moments earlier.

    Please stay on topic.


    OK, I'll Try Googling Next Time (none / 0) (#118)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:10:59 PM EST
    I did find a previous discussion of the witness in question by entering <Talkleft Anderson Cooper Trayvon Martin witness> and came up with a previous column by Jeralyn.  Sorry I ticked you off.

    On the burden at trial, and charging the jury (none / 0) (#134)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:56:27 AM EST
    It hasn't been discussed, but if the motion for immunity is denied, the case can still be decided without charging the jury.

    See "Motion for a Judgment of Acquittal."

    The testimony of the female driver, the mother and the juvenile presented prima facie evidence of self-defense. Their testimony was that he did not initiate the fight with the male driver and that he acted to defend the female driver. The trial judge described the testimony of the mother specifically as being credible. Indeed the judge's own stated view of the evidence is that it was nearly in equipoise. In this circumstance it was necessary for the State to present rebuttal evidence disproving self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Its failure to do so required a judgment of acquittal.

    E.L.F. v. State, No. 4D09-703
    (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)

    Yes, and the courts have said so (none / 0) (#143)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:06:01 PM EST
    See the 2011 case Stieh v. State (addresses stand your ground and self defense and says MJA should have been granted.):

    It was the State's burden to overcome Stieh's theory of self-defense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stieh was not acting lawfully when he stabbed the victim....As noted by this court in Jenkins, "self-defense cases are intensely fact-specific." But where the evidence " 'leaves room for two or more inferences of fact, at least one of which is consistent with the defendant's hypothesis of innocence, [it] is not legally sufficient to make a case for the jury.' " ...Here, although there was conflict among the testimony of the victim, Flaherty, the victim's girlfriend, and Stieh, the conflict was relatively minor and did not rebut or otherwise foreclose Stieh's theory of innocence.

    Therefore, the trial court should have granted Stieh's motion for judgment of acquittal.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#151)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:12:40 PM EST
    the State should have argued that the defendant could have "defused" the situation by offering to return the money of the victim and his, uhm, "companion."

    Yes more to this case than meets the eye. (none / 0) (#153)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:43:05 PM EST
    Couldn't the state argue that the the defendant having just robbed the victim of his money and still presumably in possession of that money was in the act of committing a felony?

    Or does the violent threats of the victim invalidate that clause?

    Not hard to see why the jury convicted.


    Who Vetoed ER? (none / 0) (#159)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Mon Jul 02, 2012 at 03:07:07 AM EST
    Who decided Zimmerman would skip an ER visit after the shooting?

    The report of the arresting officer, Timothy Smith, says Zimmerman was asked three times if he wanted to go to the hospital (p. 1).

    Zimmerman was given the opportunity by SFD, while on scene at Retreat View Cir, to be transported to the hospital in order to be examined by a doctor for his injuries. Zimmerman declined.

    While en route to the Sanford Police Department with Zimmerman, he complained that his head hurt and that he felt a little light-headed. I asked Zimmerman if he would like to go to the hospital. Zimmerman stated that he wasn't sure what to do. I advised Zimmerman that it was his choice, and that I would drive him to the hospital. Zimmerman declined once again to be taken to Central Florida Regional.

    Once I arrived at the Sanford Police Department with Zimmerman . . . Zimmerman was asked once again if he felt the need to go to the hospital . . . Zimmerman declined and stated "I think I'll be ok."

    Some of Zimmerman's statements give a different impression.

    2/26, 19:02-11


    [S]omeone told you you broke your nose? They told you that?

    Zimmerman: The EMTs.

    Singleton: They told you that? Did you need to go to the hospital?

    Zimmerman: I don't know. They said I didn't, but I don't know.

    2/27V, 36:11-55, 6:54:48-55:32

    And they told, I don't remember if it was a police officer, or another EMS guy. They said, "His nose is broken, and he's gonna need one, probably two stitches on the back of his head." And, and they said, "We're gonna take him down for questioning." And somebody said "Should we take him to questioning, or CFR first?" And they said "No, we'll take him to the station first." And, I didn't realize at the time that CFR was Central Florida Regional, the hospital. I just kind of [unintelligible] in the back of the car, and they brought me here.

    Neither Singleton nor Irwin (CVSA) mentioned any of this in their reports (Irwin on p. 1, Singleton on pp. 11-12).

    None of the EMTs seem to have heard Zimmerman say he didn't want to go to the hospital. Two of them thought the police were taking him.

    Michael Brandy:

    Told the officer there that he was gonna need to go to the hospital probably and get some stitches. The officer said "OK." And I said "Do you want us to handle taking him or are you gonna take him?" He said "We'll take him."  

    Stacy Livingston:

    And, I don't know how the determination was made, but I know that we left, and it was determined that the police were gonna take him, take, see if he needed stitches.

    If Smith's report is accurate, Zimmerman made a significant omission in his CVSA statement. If it isn't, why haven't we heard more about this?