ABC Reporter Says Serino Leaked Zimmerman Info

Investigator Chris Serino will no longer be acting as a homicide investigator starting July 1. He will be on night-time patrol duty. Apparently it's at his own request.

Yesterday, ABC's Matt Gutman responded to a question on Twitter asking if Serino was the leaker by answering yes, Serino was the leaker. But what did Serino leak? I'm not sure that's as clear. The person who asked apparently meant the police station video. [more...]

Expanded version here. Was Gutman talking about the exclusive video footage he obtained that purportedly showed Zimmerman at the police station with no injuries?

Later yesterday, Gutman responded on Twitter that he would never reveal a source.

I wonder if Gutman wasn't talking about who leaked the arrest video, but rather who leaked Zimmerman's statements to the Orlando Sentinel on March 26? That was the leak the Sanford Police Department said was unauthorized and would lead to discipline after its internal investigation was completed. More here.

Since Gutman has gotten so many "exclusives" in this case, it's hard for me to tell which one he is talking about, when the tweeter's question didn't specify the leak she was inquiring about.

For example, Gutman got the exclusive photo W-13 took 3 minutes after the shooting with his iPhone.

That's the exclusive that troubles me the most, even though it clearly favors Zimmerman. Gutman unloaded that photo like a bombshell the day of the April 20 bond hearing.

I've always wondered how Gutman got that, since W-13 didn't turn it over to investigators until March 20, after Sanford turned the case over to the state's attorney's office. (Serino submitted his Capias on March 13.)

It was during the March 20 interview that W-13 said he had forgotten he took the photos until that day, and while he had deleted them from his iPhone, he still had them on his computer. He shows investigators a copy during his interview, which took place at his home. He e-mailed them a copy on the spot. The interviewers were FDLE investigator Crosby and State's Attorney Investigator (Seminole County) Veaudry. (They cleverly only state their office association on the recording, but on the state's first redacted discovery notice, the state's attorney identifies the persons who interviewed W-13 on March 20 as FDLE investigator Crosby and SAO (Sanford) investigator Veaudry. On the recording, Veaudry says he's with the State's Attorneys' Office for Seminiole County. (Sanford is in Seminole County.))

Among the three photos W-13 took the night of the shooting was one of Trayvon's body, which he describes in the interview as showing his feet pointed towards his backyard and his head in the direction of W-6 (John's) house. (Here's a little map.) No photos of Trayvon's body have been released or will be released they are exempt from disclosure.

How did Gutman find out about W-13's photo of Zimmerman's injuries and get a copy? Did the state's attorney investigator or the FDLE investigator show it to Serino? Remember Serino called Zimmerman on March 25 and 26 trying to set up a meeting with the states' attorney and investigators in Jacksonville. Serino told Geroge he'd attend. He hadn't spoken to George since Feb. 29. And on March 26, state's attorney Bernie de la Rionda and his investigator O'Steen (who was the co-affiant on the probable cause warrant) interview W-13. Bernie is only interested in asking W-13 about Zimmerman's demeanor when he asked him to call his wife the night of the shooting. So clearly, Bernie and O'Steen know W-13's story. Did they tell Serino they were going to interview W-13 or what they wanted to ask Zimmerman about? (I don't think Zimmerman ever was interviewed by the state's attorneys office. (There's a memo dated March 26 we haven't seen yet about a call from Zimmerman and his former attorney Craig Sonner to state investigator O'Steen, which sounds to me like it's Sonner calling off the meeting Zimmerman agreed to when talking to Serino, but that's just a guess.)

[ Added: Zimmerman did meet with states attorneys investigators on March 22 to give them his cell phone and permission to search it and to do a voice exemplar of Zimmerman screaming. The voice exemplar was just released Weds. morning.]

Gutman says in this video he spoke to W-13 directly about the photo of Zimmerman's injuries. W-13 has managed to keep his identity out of the media. He hasn't submitted to any publicly aired media interviews or given any statements for publication. I highly doubt he called Gutman out of the blue and volunteered the photo. Someone who had seen it had to tip Gutman to call W-13. Gutman says in the video

"Sources tell ABC News investigators have seen the photograph and are aware of the photographer's story."

It was also Gutman who obtained and leaked Zimmerman's medical records (not just the police report in which they were mentioned.) ABC chose the day the discovery was released to leak it. The discovery says Serino got the medical records on March 9, and describes them, but does not contain the actual records. Zimmerman's lawyer emphatically denied they had anything to do with giving them to Gutman. Previously, I thought it was Zimmerman's family who gave them to Gutman. Now I'm not sure.

And of course, Gutman got the exclusive on DeeDee, but that came from Team Crump.

My point is there have been a lot of leaks in this case. Matt Gutman has gotten more exclusives than anyone else, but I'm not sure all his information comes from Serino. I believe him that he would never (intentionally at least) burn a source. So maybe someone besides Serino told him Serino was the leaker, or maybe the leak he was blaming on Serino wasn't the police arrest video.

I'd rather know who leaked the substance of Zimmerman's post-shooting statements and medical records to the media than his arrest video. A defendant's statements and medical records are protected from disclosure by law. If law enforcement leaked those, in my view that officer or agent should be fired, not just transferred.

On the other hand, perhaps it was Serino who leaked the arrest video to Gutman, to counter the leak of Zimmerman's statements that he was attacked by Trayvon to the Orlando Sentinel, which in turn prompted the Sanford Police Department to release the full video of the arrest at the station, which did show injuries, causing ABC and Gutman to eat some crow.

The Orlando Sentinel reported the leaked information on Zimmerman's post arrest statements on March 26. On March 27, Gutman tweets

ABC confirms State Attorney rejected police recommendation to arrest Zimmerman after he shot ‪#Trayvon‬ Martin".

There likely was no such recommendation, at least not in writing. Serino's capias request wasn't until March 13. On March 27, the same day Gutman made the claim, the Sanford Police denied it. Gutman then revealed the leaked police station arrest video which ABC believed showed no injuries on March 28. These all seem related.

All in all, it's another chapter of As the Worm Turns in the mostly pro-prosecution coverage of the George Zimmerman case.

< George Zimmerman: New Reports, New Injury Video | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Where is your (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by DizzyMissL on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:48:22 AM EST
    link to http://theconservativetreehouse.com/.  AFAIK, the were the ones to break this story.

    Sory for being repetitive BUT... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by deanno on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:32:06 AM EST
    I don't understand how Serino's attitude matches with his exclusive interview with the Orlando Setinel 3/16 (three days post capias) when he gives what looks like a ringing endorsement to GZ.

    "...Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmermna's account--that he had acted in self-defense."

    'The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says that the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event'..Everything I have is adding up to what he says."

    So how does this jibe with the idea that the same man wanted him arrested for manslaughter?  One can't be committing manslaughter and acting in "self-defense" at the same time, can one?

    Also the Daily Caller pointer out that Matt Gutman said on his Twitter account on March 12 that TM was "killed b/c he was black".

    Maybe the interview is when (none / 0) (#41)
    by firstfall on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:44:32 AM EST
    ...OS took control of his mind.

    Serino's point of view (none / 0) (#49)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:58:32 AM EST
    after his investigation was that George was basically telling the truth. They never had any evidence that the main details of Zimmerman's account were inaccurate. He believed that Zimmerman instigated the situation and which could have been avoided had he stayed in his car or had he introduced himself as Neighboorhood Watch when he saw Trayvon, and that's why he recommended manslaughter charges.

    Trouble is (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Doug1111 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:02:10 PM EST
    that view is legally retarded.

    Serino obviously doesn't know Florida self defense law at all well.


    Serino (none / 0) (#56)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:33:36 PM EST
    Had Serino been an investigator working for a personal injury law firm, trying to conjure up a basis for a simple negligence suit, I could almost understand why he wrote some of this tripe.  But for a police detective to fault Zimmerman for not rolling down his window and saying "Good evening, young man, I'm with Neighborhood Watch and I was just wondering...."?  Had such an attempt to "engage" Martin ended badly, Serino would doubtless have faulted Zimmerman for "not letting the police handle it."  Sizing up Martin as he appears in the 7-11 video, I would certainly not haved wished to "engage" him, in such a high-crime area.

    Obviously (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Kelwood on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:48:04 PM EST
    if they hadn't met nothing would have happened. If Martin hadn't been suspended this wouldn't have happened, if neither had gone to the store, and on and on. Getting out of the car wasn't wise, but it wasn't illegal, and that's the only part that is relevant to the states case against GZ.

    SYG v. Serino (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MJW on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:34:28 PM EST
    Though the central provision of the Stand Your Ground law don't apply to the Zimmerman case, the guiding philosophy does.  Serino would say someone who has a chance to get away from a dangerous situation and chooses not to is guilty of a crime, while the SYG law says he's not.  Of course, Zimmerman's best choice to avoid the dangerous is much less clear than a SYG situation.  In fact, Serino's legal theory assumes Martin wasn't doing anything wrong, and Zimmerman knew it.  If Martin were casing houses, and Zimmerman identified himself as being with the neighborhood watch, would Martin have shaken Zimmerman's hand and congratulated him on his civic mindedness?

    Oops (none / 0) (#74)
    by MJW on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:44:32 PM EST
    Though the central provision of the Stand Your Ground law doesn't apply...

    (I decided to change provisions to provision, but forgot to change the don't to doesn't.  I normally don't correct my many errors and typos, but that one sounds a bit too illiterate.)


    It (none / 0) (#84)
    by Kelwood on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:22:41 PM EST
    doesn't seem that GZ appreciated that this was a dangerous situation until he was punched in the face. After being punched it doesn't seem like he could have gotten away even if he wanted to.

    SYG says nothing of (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:34:16 PM EST
    avoiding a dangerous situation. And it does apply in this case unless unless Zimmerman is found to be the aggressor by provoking Trayvon's use of force against him.  Trayvon was only entitled to use force against Zimmerman he reasonably believed that it was necessary to defend himself  against Zimmerman's imminent use of unlawful force.

    Stand Your Ground

    3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    Even if Zimmerman somehow is deemed to have provoked Martins' use of force against him, he can still assert self defense if:

    Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

    This stuff about avoiding a dangerous situation is just a prosecution theory. And not a good one in my view since it seems not to be the law in Florida.


    Dangerous situations (none / 0) (#91)
    by MJW on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:10:41 PM EST
    Well, I'd say someone who's attacked is in a dangerous situation. And I'd say retreating is a method of avoiding that dangerous situation. The stuff about avoiding a dangerous situation is just a prosecution theory.  The point of my comment was to criticize that prosecution theory by pointing out it doesn't apply even when the dangerous situation is much more evident, and the method of avoiding the dangerous situation much clearer.

    "Avoidance" (none / 0) (#111)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:23:55 AM EST
    Perhaps some of the lawyers here can direct us to a Florida case or statute which confirms the validity of this theory.

    Him (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Kelwood on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:20:06 PM EST
    Exiting his vehicle didn't cause anything. Legally or otherwise. Whoever or whatever started the physical confrontation caused this. Had Martin ran home this wouldn't have happened, but that doesn't mean that not running home caused it.

    main problem for GZ (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by pyrrho on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:43:45 PM EST
    W-11 heard the argument start and progress into screaming southward over that period, and W-6 also heard the voices moving around, coming nearer... that does not at all go with GZ's maintaining he was dropped and mounted... as he said several times.  In his video walkthrough he offers a stumblings fall slappy fight which in itself makes no sense.  A man does not fall/stumble 40ft from a sucker punch.  There appears to have been a shoving/pushing conflict that moved 40ft or so over 30-60 seconds, and George's story doesn't admit to that.  

    It's not just a matter of adding missing detail... as it would be if GZ described that sort of conflict but was not clear on how long things took or how far over the grass/concrete they may have struggled. No, his version specifically doesn't admit that sort of struggle at all, all motion is him falling.  The self-defence claim draws from this characteristic of GZ's and W-6's second story about MMA fighting (he doesn't mention anything like this on his 911 call, unlike his neighbor that mentioned a man in a white t-shirt on top during her 911 call and subsequently).  It is this facet of GZ's story that argued that GZ had no choice. That he was lucky to get his gun while mounted and after 30-60 seconds of relentless undefended beating.

    Given GZ's too-stationary version conflicts what witnesses heard, one has to wonder what is the matter with the real blow by blow story that GZ could be telling us... such that he's not.

    It is also a problem for the prosecution (none / 0) (#93)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:00:06 PM EST
    Granted that it doesn't seem likely that Zimmerman was sucker punched, fell and mounted at the T and then rolled down to the area in front of John's patio.  But what alternative can the prosecution propose that is more believable with Zimmerman guilty?  You will find various scenarios on Trayvonite sites involving Zimmerman pulling out his gun before or after the punch in the nose and then chasing Trayvon.  They have their own problems.  

    Several witnesses have mentioned there were noises, that went on for a while, consistent with two people arguing, before the screaming started.  The defense may argue that Zimmerman was too stressed out to remember exactly what happened and didn't remember a pushing and shoving match that had him finally downed in front of John's patio door.


    Matching Up (none / 0) (#94)
    by pyrrho on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:27:43 PM EST
    thing is that's a convienent and odd memory loss... how much struggling, fine... but THAT there was a struggle.  It seems obvious from their (lack of wounds) there was a pushing/shoving type match of some sort, as one might expect at the begining of a physical conflict in my experiences at least.  It may be bad recollection, but either way, his story in which he has no freedom from the start (except to get his gun) is where the notion that this was justifiable is rooted.

    I can imagine ways for this to start, it could be a struggle over the gun, but I doubt it... more likely GZ tried to apprehend TM or was threatening, someone shoved, and the regular result ensues... at some point they fall, it's gets scary for GZ and he shoots TM.  It doesn't seem likely the bullet trajectory could be while pinned... more like while getting up.


    You know better than (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:45:08 PM EST
    the professional forensics analysts? The state spared no expense and left no stone unturned when trying to conjure some reasonable cause to charge GZ with murder.

    They had the forensics and ballistics figured out well before GZ was finally charged. If his story did not match up with the evidence, it would have been included in the affidavit and we would have heard it by now.

    Try using some basic logic.


    I'm confused (none / 0) (#99)
    by pyrrho on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:16:22 PM EST
    he has been charged with murder.  We have heard it... Serino recommended arresting him that night and again later.

    I'm confused (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by spectator on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 12:07:14 AM EST
    i've seen fights move much farther than 35 ft in just a few seconds, staggering a few steps and falling down can go beyond that, fights on the ground can move around that distance also as seen on the mats, remembering what happened when seeing shooting stars is not a requirement or expected.

    Serino never wanted to charge GZ (none / 0) (#102)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:32:32 PM EST
    with murder. He did not fill out the capias for manslaughter until weeks after the incident, and even then it lacked evidence for probable cause.

    Lets assume... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by turbo6 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:10:58 PM EST
    Most of us here probably don't get punched in the face all that often. But those of us who have taken a few serious hits to the face can attest to the fact that it will stun you, disorient you and if an ensuing attack continues there's no foolproof way to calculate with any certainty what you will do as a reaction.

    You may fall flat on your back, you may stagger to the right or left, you may fall down, get up, fall over again. You may attempt to flee your attacker in a haze only to be knocked down again. Perhaps as you clutch your face on the ground, he'll kick you in the head several times prompting you to roll away until he decides to hold you down and throw some more haymakers.

    The possibilities are endless, and this can all happen in a matter of 10 seconds.

    We can dissect it all day long but ultimately you have to ask yourself why was TM even right there to begin with? Why did he speak to his "creepy, crazy" guy?

    George had two perfectly good opportunities to confront/apprehend the kid at the clubhouse and when he initially parked. Why go to the trouble of chasing him on foot in the drizzly darkness when he was right there in front of him...twice? It makes no sense.

    Zimmerman left his car with the slight notion that perhaps he'd catch a glimpse of him exiting out the back gate, or fleeing to adjacent neighborhood, not so much finding him right around the corner waiting for him.

    The theory (none / 0) (#109)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:44:55 AM EST
    seems to be that George Zimmerman raced southward with such alacrity as to outrun the lean, lanky youth we see in the 7-11 video and cut him off from his residence, driving him back northwards to the top of the "T."  Or something like that.

    Perhaps someone would care to explain the rationale for describing Zimmerman as "creepy" and "crazy."  He looks perfectly nondescript to me, far different from his appearance in his widely published 2005 photo.


    You don't know why? (none / 0) (#110)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:03:17 AM EST
    Zimmerman is described in terms that tend to give a negative impression, because the conclusion is made first, then the stories are crafted to increase public support for the conclusion.

    There are hundreds of examples of "fit the outcome" bias in the Zimmerman/Martin case.  Propaganda.  It works.  It works very well.


    But why (none / 0) (#112)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 05:33:28 AM EST
    would the prosecution's star witness use such verbiage?

    Serino's motive (none / 0) (#113)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:28:13 AM EST
    I don't think Serino is any good as a "star witness" for the prosecution because, well, in the first place, his recounting of what eye witnesses say is hearsay, and in the second place, his legal theory finds no support in law, and he's not allowed to substitute his sense of what the law is, for what the judge says the law is.

    I speculate that he's adopted a theory that disfavors Martin because he laments what he sees as a senseless loss of life, and doesn't want to assign ultimate blame or responsibility to Martin.  If he blames Martin for the outcome (if he finds Zimmerman was justified) he becomes a "bad guy" in the eyes of a part of the community he does not want to alienate.


    DeeDee's Motive (none / 0) (#115)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:37:35 AM EST
    DeeDee would naturally be inclined to tell a narrative that has Martin in fear, and "creepy scary guy" is useful to establish fear.  Fear is useful to make Martin the victim in the initial face to face outdoors encounter.  The creepy scary guy runs after Martin, catches him, and then underpants gnome.

    I don't find her conclusion that Martin had fear to be well founded.  Her basis for that is that Martin reduces the volume of his voice.  I don't recall her saying that Martin expressed being in fear, or that Martin expressed the person following him was creepy or scary.


    Crazy, Creepy. (none / 0) (#120)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:45:13 AM EST

    I don't recall her saying that Martin expressed being in fear, or that Martin expressed the person following him was creepy or scary.

    She said 'creepy.' (16:11-48)

    Dee Dee: Now he got, the man got, he got problems. Like he crazy.

    De la Rionda: Trayvon told you that, or is that-?

    Dee Dee: Yeah. The man looking crazy.

    De la Rionda: OK.

    Dee Dee: And looking at him crazy.

    De la Rionda: When did Trayvon tell you that?

    Dee Dee: When he was walking.

    De la Rionda: OK. But you didn't mention that earlier. That's why I asked you that.

    Dee Dee: Yeah, walking home, to his daddy's house.

    De la Rionda: Right.

    Dee Dee: And when, before he say he gonna run.

    De la Rionda: OK. And he's saying the guy looks, what?

    Dee Dee: Crazy.

    De la Rionda: And did, did you say, 'What do you mean?'  

    Dee Dee: And creepy.

    De la Rionda: Did you say 'What do you mean by that?'

    Dee Dee: I said what you-? Because he said this dude is like watching him, like watching.

    De la Rionda: OK. So that's what he meant. The guy keeps watching him.

    Dee Dee: Eh. Yeah.

    De la Rionda: OK. OK. Alright.

    Dee Dee is the one that's ... (none / 0) (#139)
    by IrishGerard on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 01:14:22 PM EST
    Prior to pulling this creepy, crazy comment out of thin air, she pauses for 10+ seconds in response to BdlR's previous question:

    BdlR: did trayvon ever say, the guy's coming at me, he's going to hit me.

    pause: 10-15 sec. sounds like she is conferring with someone as to how to answer. BdlR presses her for yes/no before she comes up with creepy/crazy.

    I mean, how reliable is her testimony going to be?


    His fear had to be one of (none / 0) (#143)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:12:13 PM EST
    imminent use of force against him according to the statute. So please keep comments to that fear.

    "you want that too?" (none / 0) (#144)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:38:15 PM EST
    "you could say that"
    Unfortunately BDLR fails to clarify this part of her statement.

    BDLR:  Did Trayvon ever say, `The guy's coming at me...he's going to hit me?"

    Dee Dee:  ...yeah...you could say that.

    BDLR:  Now I don't want you to guess.  Did he ever say that?

    Dee Dee:  How he said it? He did say... [sounds confused as though seeking guidance]...

    BDLR:  No, I want...do you understand? Did he say that or not? If he didn't say it, that's alright...I, I...

    Dee Dee:  He got...the man got...

    BDLR:  Do you understand, I'm not trying to get you to say anything...

    Dee Dee:  He got problems...like he crazy.

    Photos aren't of GZ pretending to look at a crimin (none / 0) (#125)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 10:03:02 AM EST
    criminal; his photos are on other occasions.  On the night of Feb 26, he believed TM a criminal like the ones who'd been victimizing his community (imo).  That could make for a very different photo I would think, an angrier, more incensed GZ. (also, imo) ... perhaps closer in nature to the one from 2005 you mention.  

    Perhaps someone would care to explain the rationale for describing Zimmerman as "creepy" and "crazy."  He looks perfectly nondescript to me, far different from his appearance in his widely published 2005 photo.

    Unless, (none / 0) (#137)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 12:57:22 PM EST
    of course, it was the 2005 photo that inspired the descriptors in question.

    The discussion was about what TM might've seen (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 01:28:29 PM EST
    and thought wrt GZ as events unfolded that night.  In his case he wouldn't have known about the photo from 2005, only what he himself was seeing and how GZ came across to him.

    You've put your finger (none / 0) (#145)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 03:52:13 PM EST
    on exactly what I've been wondering: How could Trayvon have known about that 2005 mug shot when he uttered the "creepy" "crazy" language to Dee Dee?

    Gee, I don't know. Just speculating here but (none / 0) (#153)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 11:48:43 PM EST
    maybe those are the exact words TM relayed to Dee Dee during their conversation Feb 26 shortly before he was shot and killed.


    But, maybe you can explain to me Whitecap, my most recent GZ puzzle re the "smothering" GZ is claiming happened to him.  Initially I thought it would be a claim thrown out by GZ's actual statements but I can no longer believe that since he states it happened only he doesn't know when it happened.  Where do you believe it fits in since the screaming apparently started once they both hit the ground?  Any thoughts?


    It's hardly speculation (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by whitecap333 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 06:57:03 AM EST
    to conclude that, if Martin approached Zimmerman, he would not have wished to be "engaged" with Dee Dee and Zimmerman simultaneously.  The alternative, that the pudgy, out-of-shape Zimmerman ran Martin to the ground, exhausted, will not survive a realistic appraisal of the images of this lean, lanky youth as he appears in the 7-11 video.

    This "smothering" business is just a "throwaway" talking point.  Obviously, Zimmerman would have been writhing around as Martin was attempting to muffle him.  The crucial thing is the panic heard in those screams and shouts.  There can be no reasonable doubt that they were uttered by someone who feared for his life.


    Not following you, Whitecap. re your first (none / 0) (#161)
    by Mary2012 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 12:37:14 PM EST
    paragraph.  The only account we have of TMs words describing GZ, is through Dee Dee.  In this same account, TM approaching GZ doesn't enter the picture -- TM speaks first but only because GZ got close enough to allow for that to happen. (my interpretation of Dee Dee's statement to De la Rionda).

    Re "realistic appraisals":  Outside of knowing TM had just walked the better part of 2 miles on a Sunday evening, to and from the store (0.8 mi each way), and apparently knowing he was being followed once arriving back at the Retreat (possibly adding an additional stress factor to what would've been a regular walk, imo), we don't know anything else re what other activities, sleep patterns, last time he ate, etc., this teenager might've experienced earlier that day/ Saturday night.  Same goes for GZ, who apparently was driving through the complex in his truck as opposed to walking on foot.


    As for the second paragraph:

    This "smothering" business is just a "throwaway" talking point.  Obviously, Zimmerman would have been writhing around as Martin was attempting to muffle him.  The crucial thing is the panic heard in those screams and shouts.  There can be no reasonable doubt that they were uttered by someone who feared for his life.

    I don't remember GZ explaining it in that way.  Do you happen to have a reference for it?


    pyrro (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 01:51:38 AM EST
    you are becomming a chatterer. Please limit yourself to four comments a thread. Thanks. See our comment rules. All you do is argue he's lying or guilty. Enough.

    Serino's methods questioned (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by HupHup on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 09:28:32 PM EST
    Serino apparently used a technique called "assisted memory recall" during his questioning of Zimmerman. Serino encouraged Zimmerman make up details to get his memory stimulated.

    Not sure what format I am supposed to put links in but the article is on baynews9.com

    I figured out... (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by HupHup on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 11:08:55 PM EST
    ...how to link the Bay News 9 article.

    If this is true, this sounds like it could be pretty damaging to prosecution...  

    O'Mara grilling Serino on the witness stand should be interesting.


    local TV news story is poorly produced fluff (none / 0) (#156)
    by willisnewton on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:55:45 AM EST
    There's no "there" there.  Local TV news producer gets a comment from a private investigator about a supposed technique.  No background is offered, or objections quantified or explained.  .  

    Listen to the audio and then report your own opinion on how or why it's so objectionable.  Serino's doing his job here - just getting GZ to talk about the events of the night in various ways to see what details he can shake loose.  

    To do his job, Serino can lie, make up stories, ask George to write an Italian opera about the event - there are no rules here.  The game is just to keep the subject talking.  



    "Serino's doing his job here"??? (3.50 / 2) (#160)
    by HupHup on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 10:45:22 AM EST
    @willisnewton (#156):

    Never mind how you feel about the quality of writing in the Bay News 9 piece. If you listen to the audio, Serino clearly attempts to use this technique and implies by his statement to GZ that he has used it on other occasions.

    Considering that the crux of the prosecution case is that GZ's testimony has inconsistencies in it and inaccuracies that go against other evidence, you don't think people should find it disturbing that an investigator is using a technique that could induce inconsistencies and inaccuracies in this testimony?


    And since witnesses have alleged that they were pressured by police interviewers to change their testimony or to say certain things, is it possible Serino was "helping" their testimony as well? I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the 13-yr. old's mother said Serino was the investigator she accused of trying to mold her son's testimony.

    So how much of the evidence in this case is now questionable due to Serino's use of this technique?

    And let's not forget Matt Gutman has raised the specter of Serino being the SPD leaker. Was this also Serino "doing his job here"?

    I don't think I've seen anybody doing such "a heck of a job" since Michael Brown.

    And I don't know if this has been raised, but wasn't Chris Serino heavily involved in the earlier case of the homeless man getting beaten by the son of someone at SPD-- you know, the case that GZ publicly protested? Sounds like potential motive to me.


    Assisted Recall (none / 0) (#154)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 12:22:06 AM EST
    Serino apparently used a technique called "assisted memory recall" during his questioning of Zimmerman.


    February 29, Part 2, 2:26-4:13.


    IIRC ... (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by JamTowzy on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 04:11:33 AM EST
    .... assisted memory recall was the quack method which landed dozens of innocents in jail during the child abuse show trials during the 80s and 90s. That this (former) detective would attempt to get an intentionally-generated fabrication on video in order to use it some way to advance a case at this point in time is bizarre. What purposes other than to muddy the waters or to potentially leak a snippet of a false dream to taint the jury pool would it serve?

    If as a juror I heard this? I would toss any subsequent material produced by that detective as untrustworthy, and would seriously consider the trustworthiness of the police department which would pay such a character.


    Misstating facts (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Cylinder on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 01:19:06 AM EST
    You are misstating facts. Zimmerman clearly demonstartes and articulates the scuffle moving down the T. In his demonstration, he incorrectly places the end of the altercation behind W11 patio - in fact, it ended around 15' down the path behind W6. This may be an error of memory of this may be where the combatants became prone - with the remainder of movement being in that position.

    Zimmerman cannot give 11 seperate statements to police without inconsistentcy. Memory does not work that way. Recall without missing spots or vagueness, IMO, would be inconsistent with a person who was in fear of death from a violent ambush-style attack.

    the comment you are replying to (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 30, 2012 at 03:19:44 AM EST
    was deleted for falsely stating what Zimmerman said. Pyrro is warned to stop his representations.

    Things that make you go hummmm... (none / 0) (#1)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:18:26 AM EST
    Ask a simple question and get a simple answer.

    Methinks it is fixing to get much more interesting and quite possibly a great crow-eating contest!  The Rumor Mill has Matt G now reassigned to Tel Aviv.

    His denial that he was answering a different question is quite possibly the lamest of the lame since there are screen shots all over the internet of the original tweet from YancyFaith and his answer back to her...  Seriously, Nancy Grace?  I cannot think of a more Pro-Prosecution personality out there in TVland than her.

    It is odd that Gutman is half way across the world (none / 0) (#2)
    by Redbrow on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:43:35 AM EST
    just 2 days before a crucial hearing and discovery dump. He has been so involved in this case for months and now he is reassigned?

    I had put aside (none / 0) (#10)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:58:01 AM EST
    the next Doc Dump.  I wonder what is going to be left?  I certainly am not about to wade through 140 calls made to / from the jail.

    After the Serino/Guttman debacle, I will be looking at any comments or reports by Serino with a jaundiced eye.


    Reassigned to Te Aviv? (none / 0) (#5)
    by heidelja on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:33:11 AM EST
    Maybe more so Syria!

    One "leak" being the video of GZ "released" on Mar 29?


    Leak link... (none / 0) (#7)
    by heidelja on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:43:46 AM EST
    here showing how "helpful" the police were on about Mar 29...

    This msnbc report so ironically prolific now for the allegations of this case being only politically motivated...three days before GZ's SECOND bond hearing!


    Gutman claims official release (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cylinder on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:52:47 AM EST
    Nice find. Around 2:45, Gutman talks about the video itself:

    It was rather simple to obtain. All we had to do is ask for it and wait a couple of days. The police were quite helpful so I think they perhaps want to be rid of this story [that SPD and Wolfinger conspired to decline charges] and show they did due dillegence.

    The video presumably wasn't released through official channels, since it seems to be a video of a playback device instead of an actual copy of the video itself.


    Media services... (none / 0) (#17)
    by heidelja on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:25:52 AM EST
    ...wanting to always report "news" as credible state propaganda, this greatly perplexed me when it first appeared because it immediately homed in on the conclusive lack of injury it "showed" inflicted on GZ. Obviously, its sole purpose by someone (Serino?) to personally discredit others opinion of GZ and/or to support the agenda that GZ is certainly guilty of something.  Possibly to ABC's credit, within days there was an enhanced version of this video showing slight head injuries. But who's going to remember that now?

    By the way, just yesterday on Facebook, Orlando's ABC affiliate WFTV was still using a young kid pic of TM to the consternation of more than a few commenters.


    Enhanced? (none / 0) (#46)
    by lily on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:39:22 AM EST
    The so called enhanced video is likely the original recording provided officially after the fuzzy version was leaked. The Treehouse blog citizen investigators figured this out back on March 29 after the Gutman exclusive.

    For those with a curious mind.
    excellent analysis of this case and the false perjury charge against SZ.

    "In this article, I'll also be quoting from and referring to three excellent and professional articles, all written by lawyers of note:  one by Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, and two by Denver defense attorney Jeralyn Meritt at TalkLeft, here and here."


    Seriously ?!? (none / 0) (#3)
    by unitron on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:14:27 AM EST
    "It was during the March 20 interview that W-13 said he had forgotten he took the photos until that day, and while he had deleted them from his iPhone, he still had them on his computer."

    He had pictures of the victim and the shooter right outside his back door, a case the whole neighborhood has got to have been talking about non-stop, and it slipped his mind?

    I know the cop who used his own iPhone forgot to upload them to the department until a couple of days later, but that's not exactly the same thing.  He was the one, by the way, who took the picture of which they gave out a black and white photocopy that made Zimmerman look like Adolphe Menjou.

    I would like to see (none / 0) (#4)
    by spectator on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:29:51 AM EST
    this blow up, ethics by Gutman & Serino appear to be shaky, could this be criminal ?

    More so for Serino (none / 0) (#8)
    by firstfall on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:49:13 AM EST
    than Gutman I think. Gutman would have freedom of the press protection. Hopefully a lawyer will give a more informed/detailed opinion of the possible legal consequences. I think that even if Gutman didn't face legal consequences it would be quite an embarrassment and PR problem for him and ABC. Maybe open up the possibility of lawsuits from GZ or even the Martins?

    So how much... (none / 0) (#20)
    by heidelja on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:23:33 AM EST
    ..does the news media "ethically" pay their secret sources to illicit "official" information? Other than someone being disgruntled what is the motivation for leaks? Sort of like the spy stories for the way the KGB (and CIA) illicit "confidential military information"!

    Motivation for leaks ? (none / 0) (#21)
    by spectator on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:54:25 AM EST
    it seems to me Serino has an agenda in mind, possibly Gutman also, $...?.

    IMO it's about one persons lonely opinion and an attempt spread propaganda.


    Motivation for leaks (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by cboldt on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:05:53 AM EST
    I don't think money was a motivator.  I think Serino, like Corey, developed an affinity for the Martin family, and was unhappy with the possibility that Zimmerman would be found justified.

    Serino also has a working relationship with the community, and he may have been protecting an interest in keeping the communications lines open, from witnesses to the investigator, in his universe of cases.  If he suggests that Martin is to blame, then he's bound to come under the same fire that Zimmerman is under.  He is well aware of this, as he tells Zimmerman that the incident is going to draw community opprobrium to Zimmerman.  Serino does not want to be seen as on Zimmerman's side of the law.

    By leaking his opinion that Zimmerman is at fault, at bottom, he is minimizing the damage to his continuing investigative work; and he know the ultimate legal outcome isn't in his hands anyway.  A "no harm, no foul" sort of rationalization.

    I have wondered if Serino knew or knows that his basis for assigning blame to Zimmerman is outside the legal framework.


    Serino And The Law (none / 0) (#24)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:19:15 AM EST

    I have wondered if Serino knew or knows that his basis for assigning blame to Zimmerman is outside the legal framework.

    It's interesting that in the February 29 interview, Serino summed up the legal situation in a way that I think is very similar to Jeralyn's take. (2/29-1, 32:33)

    Serino and Singleton were doing good cop, bad cop, so it could have been part of the act.


    I wondered the same thing -- good cop/ bad cop (none / 0) (#55)
    by Mary2012 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:32:15 PM EST

    type of thing.

    That was also my 'take' as well (none / 0) (#57)
    by Mary2012 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:35:41 PM EST
    It's interesting that in the February 29 interview, Serino summed up the legal situation in a way that I think is very similar to Jeralyn's take. (2/29-1, 32:33)

    Listening to the interrogation I said to myself, "It's just like Jeralyn said"...


    Who knows about monetary (none / 0) (#31)
    by spectator on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:42:18 AM EST
    that's why the ?, but he's stuck his neck out way too far to be protecting anything, he's causing quite a bit of damage(or was),he's fanned potential for something much much bigger.

    No harm no foul?? (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:59:50 AM EST
    Well, maybe in his mind.

    Make that his ex-policeman mind.

    His career should be over.


    Not referring to the leak (none / 0) (#35)
    by cboldt on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:12:29 AM EST
    Sorry about that.  My "no harm no foul" remark overlooked the leak incident.  I was thinking about his adoption of novel (bogus) legal theories that result in justifying charging Zimmerman with a crime.  Serino can advocate Zimmerman's criminal culpability, and be wrong with no ramifications resulting from the error.  He's merely rendering an opinion on a matter that he is not empowered to decide.

    He has no excuse for leaking it.  I will be surprised if he isn't fired on or before July 7th.


    No problem. I took your comment as to (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:40:27 AM EST
    mean that was his attitude.

    The Gospel according to Serino. (none / 0) (#68)
    by IrishGerard on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:04:51 PM EST
    I always wondered why a police officer would include subjective or hypothetical statements in a 'police report'. It's unusually, to say the least.

    "The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement.."

    If being the operative word.

    I'm not sure if Serino has an agenda or he's just attempting deflect blame for zimmerman not being arrested. He probably had no idea, at the time, that his self serving opinion would be co-opted by the State as their case against zimmerman.

    Either way, his actions have sullied the Prosecution' case, as well as the reputation of the SPD. I see an early retirement in Insp.Serino's not to distant future.


    The reassignment (none / 0) (#23)
    by lousy1 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:14:59 AM EST
    of Serino is a very mild discipline if it is discipline at all.

    I wonder if he was acting on the behest of his superiors


    Sanford should go further (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by JamTowzy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 07:44:55 AM EST
    Serino's "lateral" will be good for future justice. Firing would be better.

    An investigator who helped create/spread the false image of a purely angelic TM (evidently without much legwork), and based his direction of his investigation upon it; who would not even grant GZ some credence on his suspicions about a loiterer; who loudly placed the burden of confrontation on GZ, instead of the person who approached GZ TWICE; who undermines the sensible right of a citizen to follow a running suspicious figure from a distance (I've done it myself in a burglary situation safely); who makes false statements to confuse a willing witness; and who double-deals with the press in order to further an iffy case which wasn't going his way?



    I don't know much about Matt Gutman (none / 0) (#6)
    by firstfall on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:43:42 AM EST
    but it occurs to me that Serino was losing his position as an investigator and being re-assigned to a position with far less access to information. For good reason I imagine. Maybe Matt just didn't care about him anymore since he wasn't useful. His attempt at a retraction may have been when he realized he and/or ABC could get into trouble because of the leaks.

    Matt Gutman in "trouble" ... (none / 0) (#11)
    by heidelja on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:15:40 AM EST
    ...is an understatement when you watch the link I offered in #7 above. It may have been the whole reason the cross bearing idiot Angela Corey thought she could get away with a charge of 2nd degree murder against GZ.  To say nothing for this showing the discontent in the ranks of the SPD, maybe on Mar 29 for Serino's buddy Lee having been recently suspended.

    Think how this will go played out in front of a jury on national TV when OM asks Serino why his duty is now in "patrol" at the SPD when stating he WAS the investigative detective on Feb 26 recommending the (over)charge of manslaughter when GZ has been charged with 2nd degree MURDER!


    By the way... (none / 0) (#13)
    by heidelja on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:32:27 AM EST
    ...local news reports yesterday from Orlando (Central Florida News 13) had it that the costs to the city of Sanford related to George Zimmerman are at about $400,000.

    Would Serino being proven (none / 0) (#9)
    by firstfall on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:57:39 AM EST
    a/the leaker effect the usefulness of his official report or testimony in court? It seems like he would be significantly discredited. Or rather the defense would have a nice wedge to put into his credibility. Currently everyone is talking about all these things the police (Serino) said and placing a great deal of weight on it. Also, could the defense use it to get a dismissal of some kind? Or as part of the case to get one?

    Who leaked the Serino affidavit? (none / 0) (#12)
    by cboldt on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:26:04 AM EST
    Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events.

    Trayvon Martin Investigator Wanted to Charge George Zimmerman With Manslaughter - Matt Gutman - ABC News - March 27

    And what about the reports of a meeting that occurred between SPD and Wolfinger?  The meeting where Lee and Wolfinger overruled Serino's recommendation to arrest Zimmerman?  That came out in a letter from Crump to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roy Austin dated April 2, 2012.

    News of Meeting predates Crump (none / 0) (#14)
    by cboldt on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:38:35 AM EST
    Watching the link to MSNBC segment touting the jailhouse video, I see that the story of Wolfinger meeting with Lee, in person, predates Crump's letter by a few days.

    So, the Serino Feb 26 affidavit, video of a jailhouse video, and narrative implying Wolfinger and Lee overruled a justified "arrest Zimmerman" decision, all of that is made public by ABC in a tight timeframe in late March.


    To be sure.. (none / 0) (#15)
    by heidelja on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:45:25 AM EST
    ...the "jailhouse" in the video from Mar 29 is the secured SPD station garage. It would have been video Serino had direct access to being the investigative detective involved.

    Keep in mind... (none / 0) (#18)
    by heidelja on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:05:17 AM EST
    ..in this tight timeframe just 2-3 weeks after this matter had begun to go viral the spreading knowledge of the affidavit was a sort of lightning rod for the discontent of conspiracy theorists over "WTF was REALLY going on?"! The leaked video on Mar 29 served-up was the propagandized "indisputable" photographic evidence of the conspiracy on that date!

    And I think the Crump letter you refer resulted in a terse letter of "outright lies" from Wolfinger reported on Apr 3.


    Wolfinger "outraged"... (none / 0) (#19)
    by heidelja on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:10:55 AM EST
    over "lies" here

    This is the best thing to happen (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:23:11 AM EST
    in defendant Zimmerman's case since Mark Fuhrman.  

    Mark Furhman (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:49:30 AM EST
    is part of this case too?  <snark>



    Not holding my breath ... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by JamTowzy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:06:40 AM EST
    O'Mara could make Serino completely toxic with a little bit of ongoing effort. Keep raising the suspicion about Serino's motives and tying him to Gutman's fake and unsupportable explanation ... and put pressure on SPD to come clean. Not that hard.

    That is, if O'Mara even has a clue about this. Considering that he was the last person to learn about GZ's online fund, he might not hear about this  for awhile.

    Not impressed with anybody connected to this case. MO'M. Serino. The city manager. Gutman. Corey's whole team, none of them playing it down the middle. Lester. Crump. What a collection to be dealing with. There's an Ito, a Nifong, and a Gottleib/Fuhrmann so far.


    Mr. O'Mara's job is to discredit (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:41:03 AM EST
    former Det. Serino's testimony in court, not the media.  

    It should be a twofold attack (none / 0) (#64)
    by JamTowzy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:39:34 PM EST
    If you recall correctly, Mike Nifong retreated heavily after the exposure in court of withholding DNA in Dec 2006. But it was the media turnaround in the days right afterward which caused him to alter his course, too. Sure, it took the NC AG to finally put a fork in that charade. But the lives of the accused immediately improved, once the public attitude shifted toward them 5 months previously, after Nifong's duplicity became the center of attention.

    It really might help MO'M's client to have him be considered a victim of police misconduct through a vigorous parallel track. If he can put heat on SPD to terminate Serino or disavow his (alleged) biased activities ASAP, it would go a long way toward collapsing this specious undertaking on a fast-tracked basis.


    Wasn't there information re TM also leaked? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Mary2012 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:50:55 AM EST

    PS Note the date: March 26. (none / 0) (#36)
    by JamTowzy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:22:41 AM EST
    Busy day for leaks, March 26.

    please put your urls in (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:30:29 AM EST
    html format so they don't skew the site. Otherwise I need to delete the comment. thanks.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#40)
    by JamTowzy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:42:15 AM EST
    I vaguely remember that admonition from sometime ago. But for the life of me, I can't navigate to a FAQ/tips/HTML sandbox link to learn how to comply. I tried the "cite" tags below ... no luck, same result.

    I apologize.


    Oculus taught me (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:31:12 AM EST
    a simpler trick.  All the stuff on the top just had me confused.

    say this is your original link:

    http: I want to link.

    Do this [ type in your title right before the http part and put this] at the end.

    Your link now reads

    Jam's link

    I always preview to make sure I have it right and it took a lot of tries to get it right but once it worked it was easy-peasy.


    First, copy your url link (none / 0) (#42)
    by Dadler on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:15:27 AM EST
    In your comment, shade the portion of your posted text that you want to be linked. Or write, say, LINK, and shade that.  Whichever you prefer.  Then click on the Link icon above (the icon that looks like links of a chain, between the underline icon and email envelope icon).  Paste copied link into the box that pops up, click OK, and you have done it.  Hit the preview to make sure it works.  Your linked section should be blue text, and when you click on it, well, you know the rest.

    The key thing to remember (none / 0) (#45)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:33:40 AM EST
    is don't link to an empty space.  The reader will know there is a link attached to text by the color of the text being blue.

    Try googling HTML coding (none / 0) (#53)
    by Mary2012 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:19:50 PM EST
    It might be of some help to you

    Easier still, I won't link (none / 0) (#59)
    by JamTowzy on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    It seems that every site software has its own coding quirks. I rarely link, and this is even more incentive not to. In an age of automation, I despise having to do something that belongs, say, back in the days of Windows 3.1 or thereabouts.

    :) It's easy -- and you can preview your work (none / 0) (#61)
    by Mary2012 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:17:31 PM EST
    before you post it to make sure you did it correctly.  I tried the quote marks recently, it too is pretty easy:

    All you have to do is highlight what you want to quote from the post you are quoting from and then just click on the quote marks.  They are furthest to the right as you type what you are posting.  

    The other thing you could do is just copy and paste what you want to quote in the spot you type in, to post.  Once you c & p it, then type in
    <.blockquote> (without the "period") at the very beginning of what you copied and pasted.  At the very end, you type:

    <./blockquote> without the period.  I added the period because if I hadn't, everything in between would be "quoted"


    there is a link button at the top of the (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:54:11 PM EST
    comment box. Type your comment, highlight the words you want hyperlinked with your mouse, click on the link and  a pop-up comes up for you to paste in your url. That's it.

    So if you want to write: The Sanford Police issued a press release denying an officer sought permission to arrest Zimmerman

    highlight "press release" with your mouse and click on the link button, and paste in the url of the Sanford Press Release.

    Then preview.

    If you are on a Mac or computer that doesn't show the link button, see the instructions below the comment box


    it works on my Mac (none / 0) (#85)
    by SuzieTampa on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 04:43:19 PM EST
    Echoing Mary2012 (none / 0) (#79)
    by Lina Inverse on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 03:47:23 PM EST
    JamTowzy: This site takes pure HTML (look below a comment box for the allowed subset).  You can insert a link, following Mary2012's convention of inserting periods, by:

    <.a href="http://foo.com/the-link">The text you want the reader to see<./a>

    And that will work on a number of sites, since it's the real, raw elemental HTML for a link.  And very thankfully, this site has a preview button so you can test everything, click on the link to make sure it's right, etc., before you post.


    How irresponsible (none / 0) (#39)
    by indy in sc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 10:39:35 AM EST
    of Matt Gutman.  Considering that some journalists have gone to jail to protect sources--to give it up on twitter of all places???  

    No matter where he was reassigned to, he will never get an "off the record" source to tell him anything ever again and therefore, his career as a journalist may be very limited after this...

    Peeps have short memoires... (none / 0) (#44)
    by heidelja on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:31:24 AM EST
    ...and so far NOTHING can be heard of this today on the "mainstream" news media that I have watched.  Only ones closely following this case who would be "pro Zimmerman" will likly remember it six months from now.

    There can always be found disgruntled peeps who might feel strongly enough to leak info to get their view across....even for FREE!


    HLN's Richelle Carey ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by heidelja on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:49:49 PM EST
    ..."headlines" her report of the "Trayvon Martin Case" this afternoon regarding the "new" evidence "released by the prosecutor" yesterday to be that the police thinks GZ had TWO chances to inform TM who he was and inquire what TM was doing.

    Sounds a little too much out of the mold of thinking that once stated "nothing would have happened had GZ not gotten out of vehicle."


    Gutman is still writing (none / 0) (#51)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:12:56 PM EST
    stories about Zimmerman. This very one-sided story which has no new information and is completely unrelated to the case, and it serves no purpose other than to defame George Zimmerman. But for some reason it appeared on the front page of Yahoo.

    I'd be a bit surprised if Serino didn't know (none / 0) (#54)
    by Mary2012 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 12:23:34 PM EST
    It might be possible he didn't know but I sort of doubt it.  It would all depend on what was sop for such cases.

    It seems to me he said something about from "what he could find" or what he was able to find, in his Feb 29 interrogation with GZ.

    There is a (none / 0) (#63)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:38:32 PM EST
    transcript of the conversation between Serino and Zimmerman where the "effing punks" is mentioned after Serino asked GZ what he said under his breath.  Serino makes the comment that either "he was no "effing punk" or that wasn't "effing punk," at least, something to that effect.

    Does anyone have the link to that statement?  I have searched high and low.  I can't seem to get the .wav to work correctly on this old computer so transcripts are all I have to work with.

    Sorry to be a bother and TIA.  I appreciate it.

    Not A Punk (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:22:53 PM EST
    I don't know about a transcript, but here's the audio.

    It's in part 3 of the 2/29 interview, 7:20-30. Serino said 'He wasn't an f*ing punk.'


    here it is (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:34:59 PM EST
    part 3 of feb 29 interview: Singleton, Serino, GZ:

    DS: Okay. [continues playing call]
    CS: What is that you're whispering? F*cking what?
    GZ: Punks.
    CS: F*cking punks. He wasn't a f*cking punk. [continues playing call] Okay. [continues playing call] Okay, at the point where he said, are you following him, and he said, we don't need you to do that, what went through your mind?

    Serino (none / 0) (#66)
    by MarvinM on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 01:53:31 PM EST
    made the capias request on 3/13/12, charges of Manslaughter.

    As far as I recall, this case was still off most of the media radar in those two weeks following the incident.  

    Something happened, and the charges of Manslaughter were not acted upon.

    I'm still trying to sort this altogether myself, so any info related is welcome/helpful.

    Was anything leaked to the media on or before 3/13?  I don't remember that it was.

    Serino, (none / 0) (#90)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 06:09:00 PM EST
    in Part 3 of the 2/29 interview, radiates the conviction that Zimmerman is lying, and that it was criminal of him to even think about where Martin had got off to, much less try to "spot" him.  I would surmise that, at some point along the way, Chief Lee and the state's attorney instructed him to desist from his half-baked theories.  Serino, brimming with self-righteous resentment, then retaliated by leaking prejudicial information.

    OT: Can we get an Open Thread? (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 02:16:41 PM EST

    Witness John, (none / 0) (#88)
    by whitecap333 on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:34:58 PM EST
    the only person to witness the struggle, says he heard the conflict moving down the leg of the "T" before he actually saw anything.  I don't agree with your "account" of Zimmerman's "account," however (and I here have plenty of company.)

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 05:45:31 PM EST
    because GZ's statements do not conflict with W-11 (or W-6). GZ says he was west of the T when he was attacked by Trayvon. During the struggle that ensued, they moved down the T and ended up W-6's backyard.

    the struggle (none / 0) (#95)
    by pyrrho on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 08:29:52 PM EST
    I don't recall GZ describing a struggle lasting 30-60 seconds... he said he was punched, fell down and was mounted... did he fall 40ft... wouldn't that be more like, NOT FALLING and then struggling over 40ft?   I don't recall GZ really describing a struggle most of his stories, and in one, it's not a struggle, it's a new part of the story that happens just while he falls down.  W-6 heard the -screams- coming -toward- him, yes?

    I don't remember (none / 0) (#114)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 06:32:28 AM EST
    GZ explicitly stating that he was immediately mounted after the first punch.

    The walk through  is probably the best vehicle for GZ to communicate details concerning the fight.

    Zimmerman Walk-through P2

    At 3:00 into the video Zimmerman indicates where he was sucker punched at the top of the T

    George then relates that he stumbled and Trayvon got on top of him.

    He was asked to demonstrate where that happened

    He then delves into the minutiae of the struggle,d providing additional details via demonstration.

    After the initial punch, a  brief, fluid, engagement ensued that moved down the walkway. Zimmerman gesticulates as he walks down the path recalling trying to push TM away from him. To my mind he is indicating an intense struggle where he is attempting to disengaged form TM, not a shoving match.

    In his recreation he clearly demonstrates that he fell subsequent to  the moving struggle and TM got 'on top of him' He is a bit unsure of the exact spot which is understandable.

    He struggles at this spot for some period of time until witness John verbally intervenes.


    right (none / 0) (#164)
    by pyrrho on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 07:10:00 PM EST
    that still has him going down and shooting TM 20ft+ from the body location.  And it's not my fault GZ has given various reports, in his written and spoken statements to detectives he did say he went down and got mounted.  GZ would like you to just go with whichever version you like best, but that's not really how it works, is it?

    Perhaps it is not 40 ft (none / 0) (#118)
    by Aghast inFL on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:33:47 AM EST
    Not just perhaps but likely it is not 40 ft.
    If you are trying to justify your perceptions based upon a specific measured distance would it not behove you to have an absolute reference? There is no such reference in the public domain, only inference. Before deciding guilt based upon distance traveled it seems reasonable we wait to find what that distance actually is.

    10 ft -90 ft (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 12:33:59 PM EST
    It really doesn't matter

    If you look at the walk through, after the initial strike by TM,  GZ is clearly indicating he was on his feet being driven down the path and trying to break free.

    The situation is similar to a football tackle where the tackler is driving ball carrier back. ( This is not a perfect analogy because the ball carrier is usually trying to move forward not just disengage)

    The two players can easily cover 45 feet. We have GZ's testimony as to where he was initially assaulted. Forensic evidence places the position at the end of the fight.

    Georges testimony was given early in the case before he was aware of any potentially conflicting evidence.

    I can see no reason to disbelieve him.


    this is at the heart of the case, of course (none / 0) (#155)
    by willisnewton on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 01:36:57 AM EST
    And the idea that you "see no reason to doubt" this man means you are clearly biased.  

    What's at issue is what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.   There's "what God saw" and there is what can be proven to a jury.  They don't necessarily have to be the same thing, and one's own personal certainty doesn't fuse the two, either.  

    George is innocent until proven guilty.  Do you extend this same courtesy to the deceased, or not?  

    In your football analogy, you admit that the ball carrier has a goal - getting to the goal post.  If you assume Trayvon wanted to get home the fight was carried towards his goal.  Did TM want to take GZ home with him to meet Chad, or was GZ trying to detain him?   Arguments like this can go on forever, and they add up to little.  That's why the case is so fascinating, and frustrating.  

    Events for which we have not enough independent proof are going to remain enigmas.  Who started the physical aspect of the altercation?  We don't know, and it's easy to argue either side.  George's overall credibility seems the best bellwether we'll get, IMO.  


    that doesn't work (none / 0) (#165)
    by pyrrho on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 07:11:07 PM EST
    because W-6 heard the SCREAMS MOVING, and BY THEN, GZ's story is he's pinned and being beaten severely.

    Zimmerman Doesn't Have to Prove Anything (none / 0) (#103)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 09:50:21 PM EST
    you have to prove you have justifiable cause
     Nope, I hope you have read Jeralyn's extensive explanations that preface recent threads.  Once he gets a self defense instruction, which should be a snap to do, it is the prosecution that has to show that all of these possible theories of innocence are unreasonable.

    Ricky I deleted the (none / 0) (#104)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 27, 2012 at 11:10:46 PM EST
    comment you are replying to for falsely stating the legal standard, but I also deleted your comment creating a possible scenario not advanced by Zimmerman. Please let's stick to what he has stated because that is what we are analyzing -- not what he might say to prevail. Since we now have his statements, there's no need to create ones.

    Is the Defense Locked Into (none / 0) (#116)
    by RickyJim on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:01:56 AM EST
    claiming that Zimmerman's account is 100% true, down to the last detail?  If the prosecution at the SYG hearing or trial argues that it is highly unlikely that Martin was on top of Zimmerman close to the T but the fight ended up in front of John's patio door, shouldn't the defense be able to counter saying that Zimmerman was mistaken about where he went down?  What is wrong with discussing this now here since this point is currently being hammered at pro prosecution websites?

    The mistake seems to lie outside the defense (none / 0) (#117)
    by cboldt on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:14:34 AM EST
    Zimmerman never claims he went down with the punch, never to move more than a few feet from that location.  That claim is put in Zimmerman's mouth by others, then they claim that Zimmerman can't be telling the truth.

    There can't be a requirement for 100% accuracy.  If that was the standard, nothing would ever be decided.


    Robert Zimmerman Sr (none / 0) (#121)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:49:23 AM EST
    Seems to be the source for the "decked with one punch" scenario. It is like the "telephone" game.
    A story will change when passed from one person to another. Dad misheard GZ's description of events.

    whoops! (none / 0) (#122)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 07:51:58 AM EST
    I missed that one.

    Homey? Why wwould he call GZ Homey?
    They're not neighbors.

    I realize (none / 0) (#123)
    by IgnatiusJDonnely on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 08:01:58 AM EST
    people will(or used to) say Pal, Buddy or friend in situations that weren't always so friendy, but
    Homey or Homeboy is a little more specific.

    Patrol Division (none / 0) (#124)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 09:39:31 AM EST
    Is Serino going to be a beat cop, at the same pay he had as an investigator? Or is he moving to a supervisory job in the 'patrol division'?

    This report seems to be suggesting the former improbability, while the actual quotes are consistent with the latter.

    The moderator states.... (none / 0) (#127)
    by heidelja on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 10:18:58 AM EST
    I'd rather know who leaked the substance of Zimmerman's post-shooting statements and medical records to the media than his arrest video. A defendant's statements and medical records are protected from disclosure by law. If law enforcement leaked those, in my view that officer or agent should be fired, not just transferred.

    Given that the only person so far fired has been former Chief Bill Lee. Would he be the guy?  After all, he was only on a sort of "self-imposed suspension" possibly leaving him with a key to the back door. He then still had access to info, or Serino may have been a "messenger" dishing info to Lee who passed it onto the media.

    The annoucement that Lee was stepping down was on Mar 22.  Certainly, it could be assumed there were some transitional duties that easily would have lasted several days, if not a week. Comments here (possiby deleted) shared there were numerous leaks occurring in a close time in late March. This coincided with the transitioning between the State Attorneys and their own investigators from another jurisdiction getting involved.

    The annoucement (none / 0) (#128)
    by heidelja on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 10:21:35 AM EST
    Makes you wounder if Zimmerman has (none / 0) (#135)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 12:38:23 PM EST
    a HIPPA complaint against the Sanford PD?

    voices in the dark (none / 0) (#132)
    by Philly on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 12:02:29 PM EST
    The 'smothering' claim may well have been exaggerated.  Folk that don't have a lot of training are going to feel out of breath after 40+ seconds of wrestling/fighting. However, you can still shout when you're exhausted, as anyone that's been at the mercy of a drill instructor can attest. If TM tried to cover GZ's mouth to silence him at one or more points in the fight, this could have been confused with "smothering" due to GZ being out of breath. But with even a small gap between fingers, you can scream with no muffling.

    On a related note, I'm surprised that no recorded samples of Trayvon speaking have been released by TM's family.  Serino asserted (perhaps bluffing) that TM liked to record videos of himself doing things.

    Martin's Unrecorded Voice (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 12:13:36 PM EST

    I'm surprised that no recorded samples of Trayvon speaking have been released by TM's family.

    I've suspected for a long time that they know very well the voice isn't Trayvon's. Tracy allegedly said as much the first time he heard it. (p. 56)

    All I've heard is they don't have any recordings (2.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Mary2012 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 01:07:14 PM EST
    of TMs voice, only that which he recorded for his voicemail message.  

    I don't know what to think of the voice with any certainty yet and it doesn't impact me either way that Tracy Martin didn't think it was his son's voice, in fact (manner of speaking), it sort of makes sense in a way, imo.  


    @Lily (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Mary2012 on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 03:19:06 PM EST
    Are you expressing doubt that all I've heard is that the Martin family doesn't have a recording of Trayvon's voice?

    or are you just doubting, since there is no scientific evidence one way or the other, that I don't have an opinion at this time re the voice heard on the 911 call?



    You can hear Trayvon's voice at 7-11 (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Redbrow on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:29:59 PM EST
    Here is a cleaned up version that removes some of the background noise. You can hear for yourself that TM's voice is quite deep and noticeably lower and more 'authoritative' sounding than GZ's.

    Trayvon Martin on the phone @ 7-11 via wired headset mic.mp4


    Punch Drunk (none / 0) (#136)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 12:45:07 PM EST
    That's 2/26-1, 13:22-14:11.

    Later in the same interview, 2/26-2, 6:47-52:

    He punched me in the face, and I fell backwards, and I don't even know where [crosstalk] ended up.

    He also (none / 0) (#142)
    by lousy1 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 02:14:52 PM EST
    didn't put anything near the maximum distance between himself and the 'crazy man'.

    Of course most people don't confront people they are afraid of. Martin could outrun Zimmerman.

    The Choice (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by whitecap333 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 04:28:52 PM EST
    Either Zimmerman ran the lean, lanky Martin down until, exhausted, he could run no more, an easy prey, or Martin approached Zimmerman to "confront" him.  If the latter, Zimmerman would have had no need to "detain" him.  Martin was right in front of him, and the cops were on the way.

    If you buy Dee Dee's version of events (which I don't), what follows next is Martin's question "Why are you following me?"  That question is answered by Zimmerman's response, "What are you doing around here?", in other words, "I suspect you are trespassing."  


    Preliminary hearing (none / 0) (#152)
    by MJW on Thu Jun 28, 2012 at 11:18:02 PM EST
    (I hope this isn't too off-topic.)

    There's a provision in Florida law, which seems to allow Zimmerman to demand a preliminary hearing.

    907.045 Habeas corpus; motion to dismiss; preliminary hearing.--A defendant who is in custody when an indictment, information, or affidavit on which she or he can be tried is filed may apply for a writ of habeas corpus attacking the indictment, information, or affidavit, or the defendant may move to dismiss the indictment, information, or affidavit. A defendant who has been confined for 30 days after her or his arrest without a trial shall be allowed a preliminary hearing upon application.

    (My emphasis). There doesn't seem to be a lot of case law on the statute (or it's former version, 909.04).  It's mentioned in Karz v. Overton.  The statute doesn't explicitly require the 30 days be consecutive.  If they must be consecutive, then Zimmerman wouldn't qualify if granted bond at the June 29 hearing.

    I think a preliminary hearing might benefit Zimmerman, since I'm not sure the state could convince the judge that's there's probable cause for 2nd degree murder.  If O'Mara could get the charge reduced to manslaughter, the bond problems associated with life felonies would go away.

    It wouldn't hurt (none / 0) (#158)
    by cboldt on Fri Jun 29, 2012 at 05:26:40 AM EST
    A couple thoughts.

    The bond problem associated with life felonies also goes away it the state doesn't have "Proof Evident," and there is no doubt that the evidence in the state's case against Zimmerman is not to the standard of proof evident.

    O'Mara has shown no desire to move this case to a quick resolution.  O'Mara can move for dismissal on these grounds without requesting a hearing on the motion.  As far as I know, there hasn't even been any action on his motion requesting a Statement of Particulars.