PayPal account was active for 11 days, is technically still active and has a current balance of $700.  Net $197,567.91.  PayPal rules $10,000 maximum transfer per transaction.  No funds unaccounted for, will discuss cash residual.  None of the $10,000 or less were cash transactions, so no violation of regulations pertaining to cash transfer reporting.

Cash $12,100 spent on household expenses, $13,000 still in Zimmerman accounts.  Records (receipts, statements) exit to legitimize the $12,100 expenditures.  April 25 check of about $125,000 to O'Mara.

Expenses were payments to WalMart, Target, dining out.  $250 to WAMU, in response to de la Rionda inquiry if any funds were used to pay college expense.  Witness knew amounts of cash, but did not know disbursement of cash.  On April 20, there was $130,000 under Zimmerman control.  O'Mara establishes that money-out / money-in amounts balance, so that the sister's account doesn't have any gain as a result of the transfers [but may have a gain from the cash].

O'Mara mocks the notion that spending on living was out of line, in light of the website saying it was seeking money for living expenses.  Dining out was for Chick Fila and similar.

Also paying car loans (O'Mara previously noted the cars are a net negative to Zimmerman).  As far as the witness knows, the only money coming in to Zimmerman is via public largess.  $24,000 for debt payment and living expenses.  De la Rionda is focused on payments to school.  Witness points out you don't hide money by transfers, only by cash.

Photographic evidence of injuries also moved into evidence.  De la Rionda objects, I think, but Lester says "the Court has already seen them."

De la Rionda asks about injury to Marin.  Gunshot to the chest, deceased on [EMT] arrival.  Witness did not see any weapon on Martin.

West asks the witness to describe "minor bleeding" as a term of art in the medical field. De la Rionda objects, overruled.  West notes that head injury can be life threating without showing external damage.

Can't diagnose concussion in the field.  No skull fracture ....

De la Rionda asks or states that the witness can't tell which person was the aggressor based on an injury.

IMO, this is a rabbit hole of an argument.  Fear of injury may or may not depend on sustaining an actual injury, and Zimmerman's fear in the last moments of the combat is driven primary from fear of being disarmed.

De la Rionda argues that Zimmerman went to the doctor because his workplace required a police report?  Huh?

O'Mara asks to admit the voice stress test.  De la Rionda objects.  Lester sustains the objection.  O'Mara says this is a bond hearing, not a trial, and the stress test is corroborative of the witness statements in evidence, and is being entered partly in response to the court's contention that the state's case is "strong."  I think the state won this one.

W6, W11, W20 is the material being submitted into evidence.  The press asks what will be redacted.  O'Mara intends that witness ID remain redacted.  The press says if the court is receiving material with names unredacted, it changes the legal dynamic of public disclosure.

O'Mara enters the coroner's report into evidence; then holds off until O'Mara redacts victim address information.

7-11 video being entered into evidence.  No objection.

Thinking ahead a bit, I think O'Mara is establishing 1) that Zimmerman's financial condition doesn't support an increase or maybe not even a new bond, 2) that Zimmerman has a valid self defense claim (so the state's case doesn't meet Proof Evident), 3) that he's not violated a condition of bail (and ergo hasn't acted in a way that establishes flight risk) and will conclude just with a request for release on bail.

De la Rionda says that it's possible Zimmerman could have violated his bail conditions, drinking or weapons, and the probation officer would not know this, other than two times his premises were checked.  I keep forgetting, which side has the burden of production of evidence?

If Trayvon Martin had just gone straight home, the city wouldn't be out so much money.  

And if Martin's family and their attorney hadn't called for protests in the city, the city wouldn't be out so much money.

See how easy it is to say "if only....."? How far back do you want to go in this game?

Screaming being heard in background of the call.  Caller doesn't want to go out to investigate.  Caller thinks the voice is calling for help.  Just heard one gunshot.  Caller orders somebody to "get in here now."  O'Mara will submit the entire call, but the part that is relevant for the bond hearing has already been played.

O'Mara examines the witness.  Testifies he is George's father.  Had an opportunity to review a 911 call.  O'Mara is going to play it again (I think Sybrina and others from the Crump camp left the court the first time this was played).  The screams are coming out pretty clear - then the gunshot.  O'Mara asks "were you able to hear it?"  Yes.  Same tape you heard before?  Yes.   You filled out a statement?  No - gave oral statement.  How many times did you listen to it?  Once there, had heard it once before.  Who was with you?  An investigator, don't recall his name.  Could you ID the voice?  Yes.  Whose was it.  It was absolutely George's.

Cross exam.  You had listened to it before?  Yes.  Once.  You hadn't heard your son scream before had you?  Yes, many times.  You agree there are other voices?  Yes.  Do you hear more than one screaming for help?  No.  You are aware Zimmerman says his voice was muffled (no, he says he was being smothered).

Tough to cross examine, as whatever de la Rionda claims against Zimmerman's father, also goes against Sybrina.

O'Mara says he would like to have called Shellie, but her counsel objected.  He wants to put Zimmerman on the stand to address the court.  O'Mara argues for no cross exam.  Lester cites the wrong law for applying a no-bail condition.  Lester says the wrong isn't against Lester, it's against the Court.  If Zimmerman takes the stand, he'll be subjected to cross examination.  Lester will not be the person submitting questions.

O'Mara admits that Zimmerman should have jumped up and said his wife was lying - Lester objects to that.  O'Mara points out that Zimmerman did offer up the information (27 April).  O'Mara says even if the error causes some distrust on the part of the court (maybe mutual distrust), you should look at Zimmerman's other actions as trust building.

Will he appear?  He has a history of submitting.
Danger to the community? No evidence of that.
Financial condition? You have testimony today.
Strength of the state's case for 2nd degree murder? Now you have evidence.
Zimmerman was minding his own business as well.  There is nothing in Zimmerman's statement

Lester says the only issue is the lie.  That all O'Mara is doing is a reverse Arthur.  O'Mara says he was responding to the Court's order that said the state's case was strong.  O'Mara says he is obliged to present evidence that 2nd degree murder is an improper charge, and the evidence presents a strong case of self defense.  O'Mara errs by referring to W9, should be W6 who said MMA style fight.

O'Mara is putting on a strong argument for self-defense, now based on evidence.  O'Mara says the state's case is weak, and does not merit high bond.

De la Rionda says the self-defense evidence can't be considered now, because Zimmerman did not take the stand and submit to cross examination.  De la Rionda says that Zimmerman was the aggressor (O'Mara will ask again, what is the evidence).  De la Rionda says we aren't here to try the case.  Martin's parents say the voice is Martin; Zimmerman's account is inconsistent; he can't be screaming with hand on mouth and nose.  W6 isn't sure who is on top.  One witness says there was a chase, which is Zimmerman chasing Martin.  Why is the 7-11 tape in evidence?  Does that mean Martin is a criminal?  Did the clerk perceive Martin as a threat because Martin was wearing a hoodie? (we don't know, but from the tape, the clerk kept an eye on Martin).  De la Rionda says Zimmerman is acting as the police, and at some point the victim does hit him.  Injuries are inconsistent with being bashed, there is no skull fracture, there is no concussion.

Back to April 20, and Zimmerman being deceitful.  Commends O'Mara for bring the finances to the court.  Requests no-bond.

O'Mara explains 7-11 picture brought in to show Zimmerman's size, not the hoodie.

No disclosure in discovery yet that Zimmerman challenged Martin in any way.  Asks to not punish Zimmerman any more than he's already been punished.

DLR seemed strangely agitated by O'Mara putting into evidence an image of Martin from the 7-11 video.  As well as I could follow his sputtering, he's suggesting that Martin looked so "stereotypically" criminal that his appearance alone inspired Zimmerman to "chase him down."  

Odd that DLR didn't call Sabrina to rebut Mr. Zimmerman's very persuasive testimony that the cries on the 911 tape were made by his son.  He got his head handed to him when he tried to bullyrag Mr. Zimmerman with the claim that his son couldn't have made those shouts if he was, as he claims, being smothered.  Mr. Zimmerman replied that he could tell from the injuries to his son's head and face that Martin's hands weren't on his mouth at all times.

Wasn't that the witness who saw shadows on the drapes after she took her contacts out, but she is pretty sure it was Zimmerman chasing Martin because her seeing eye dog barked twice?

I need to look that up...

Ahh, here is Witness 2:

""I couldn't tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white. I couldn't tell you because it was dark and because I didn't have my contacts on or glasses. ... I just know I saw a person out there."

That was a March 20 re-interview by the FDLE.  Her early statement included this:

"She told authorities that she had taken out her contact lenses just before the incident. In her first recorded interview with Sanford police four days after the shooting, she told lead Investigator Chris Serino, "I saw two guys running. Couldn't tell you who was in front, who was behind."

O'Rourke was very specific as to the amount of blood and had a list of injuries compared to the fact that other than the GSW, TM did not have any other defensive injuries.

Donald West did that examination and I thought he was very low-keyed but brought out some good points.

I like the forensic accountant, Adam Magill, too.  Didn't matter what the Prosecution countered with he explained it all and reinforced that the amounts transferred were transferred back in the exact same increments.  He kept saying things matched up.

MOM I thought was very good especially by bringing up that all the judge had to go by in stating that the case the state was making was strong was in the Probable Cause and the weaknesses within it. I couldn't believe my ears, though, with the Witness 9/6 confusion.  (I was literally yelling at my laptop.)

BdlR restated information that is not backed up by any witness because the one (W20?) didn't  have her contacts on, saw two chasing each other or just one and the fact that she couldn't identify either.  Whatever her excuse for the day...

I do wish MOM would have addressed this right away in his rebuttal.

The 7-Eleven video, I don't think was necessarily submitted for height or as TM currently looked as much as it was for his demeanor and the fact that he had trace amounts of cannabis in his system.  I think that is the reason for the ME Report being put into evidence and O'Mara was "playing opossum" with that.

All and all, I think it was a good day for GZ but I bet the judge doubles his bond.

The hole to the centre of the chest was a function on the near contact proximity of the wound.  They were grappling.  I would submit that GZ obviously wasn't using the sights.  So it was a snap shot in the dark at close proximity, that was not aimed....so I am not sure what the fact he hit the heart says about the act above and beyond him pulling the trigger in the first place.  

The grappling was protracted and mobile as evidenced by the 911 tapes.  Ask someone who was sucker punched which way they fell and they might respond, "I don't know, ask someone who was not seeing stars at the time.".   They are stunned, in la la land, out on their feet...  I remember getting hit once in college boxing and, though I never went down, had the feeling I had just woken up from a long nap and wondered why I had boxing gloves on.  

What the "mixed witnesses" heard is not an "eye"-witness account.  The confrontation was at a T intersection.  Acoustically, if someone screams in one direction and then another, it could sound like they had moved one direction and then back.  The fight could have indeed moved back and forth.

Shadow puppets  on the drapes without contacts in, a barking dog, and people hearing moving noises in an acoustic baffle (T)  through their closed windows and walls....  Is there room for error there?

Nobody else seems to notice that GZ, in his initial interview with Singleton is FIVE DAYS OFF when he is asked what day it is.   Any first responder knows that is a standard question for level of consciousness.   Add to that sleep deprivation of a statement at 1:30am....  The adrenalin crash....  Is there any room for error?

Jerylyn,

Brickbat: The Scene of the Crime

Jimma Reat called 911 to report that the occupants of a red Jeep had thrown bottles at his vehicle and threatened him and family members traveling with him. The operator told Reat to return to the scene of the incident. Reat at first refused and argued with the operator but relented after the operator threatened to not send police if he didn't go back. Reat went back to the scene to wait on police, where he was shot and killed by the occupants of the Jeep.

- Zimmerman could have expected the fellow running away would be running away.  That the fellow running away was doing so in order to avoid being caught. That the fellow running away was doing so in order to increase distance, not to close it.

Are you afraid that a person running away from you is going to catch you?  If so, why? -

Even without Zimmerman's "waistband" observation, your fear is that the 'suspect' could be armed. And having lost visual contact, to trace, or follow a suspect under conditions of darkness may not be illegal, but it's definitely foolhardy; that's how people get killed. You would have to be hellbent and careless to assume that measure of risk.

TM wasn't just punching or tackling or sitting. The evidence suggests that the sole/prime target of multiple forms of attack was GZ's head. When someone is going for the head, it is a statement that serious intentions were behind the attack, and not some secondary forms of hurt. Each blow to the head potentially could be the last, and O'Mara NEVER should let the state candy-coat the brutishness of Trayvon Martin's behavior. He's got the lopsided injury evidence in his favor ... use it now and at every available opportunity. The state doesn't hesitate to use the term "murder" every chance that it has. And the Martin party has been aggressive about demeaning his client, even after the ill-advised apology. So stop apologizing and take off the gloves ... there's no need to be defensive here. Act like everyone should be offended by Trayvon Martin.

And today should have been the day that GZ's cooperation with the dispatcher was addressed. The nonsense about disobedience should have been debunked once and for all. After all, GZ did not throw his phone away after seeing the runner run; he stayed on the line while attempting to fulfill a request. Speak the truth in court, and let BDLR go berserk again when confronted with it. Let the judge know that the defense is not going to concede the inanity of the state's assertion. Disobedience is the theme of their fairy tale, so it should be confronted head-on with a posture of confidence about the matter. His client's life would be miles better off if MOM went on the attack on a couple of the most crucial matters in this case, and went at it with conviction.

The only people who don't lose in this case are the PR firm and lawyers for the Martin family. They'll get paid whether Zimmerman is convicted or acquitted. Due to the publicity they've generated for themselves (in the name of their clients), they'll command higher public speaking fees when the case is over. Today, they are household names. Who even heard of them outside of Florida before this case?

I don't have cable so I find these links valuable.  The buffering because of old computer and craptastic connections makes me a little loopy, though!  Like I needed the help there. LOL!

One of the local stations will probably have a live feed also.

I don't see how the state can hold both that the statement is relevant and potentially used, that it is to be turned over to defendant (as inculpatory) and that it can be withheld from the public.

A couple of pleas for cash will tide him over and although O'Mara might be taking this case at a discount, we will certainly make up up in future billings, especially if he gets an acquittal which seems likely IMO.

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.

Investigator: "And you're still standing at this point?"

Zimmerman: "No ma'am, I fell to the ground when he punched me the first time.

The ones who made false allegations and demanded special treatment should be the ones liable for the expenses. Like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

Crump should be responsible for cleaning up after the the '600 hundred pound elephant' HE put in the room.

Since Trayvon, a high school junior who wanted to be a pilot, was black and Zimmerman is white, Crump said race is "the 600 pound elephant in the room."

Bond is NOT a punishment.

The point, as we all know is to assure appearance.

Since MOM has control of the Fund, technically, it is no longer necessarily  considered for GZ, no?

So aren't we almost back at the original place at the first bond hearing?

GZ has spent weeks in jail.  The judge must give bond.  Bond is not a punishment.  So would Lester's judgement from the same set of fact leave him at the same or similar bond amount?

Shouldn't the judge balance, "He lied." with, yet another voluntary act of turning himself in when that became apparent.  If he was going to flee, THAT would have been the time for it.

Ther is no statute: "Failure to obey a police dispatcher"

Some people want to parse words about the dispatcher asking to know what direction the guy was going, NOT being a request.  It is instructive to listen to GZ's rendition of the previous NEN call at the same house and how THAT dispatcher specifically DID ask GZ to leave the safe area under the street lamp to go get another look at what the suspicious person was doing.

It seems to me that the state has to disprove Zimmerman's account in this regard. In my opinion, the state's own expert will have to admit that having one's head beat against concrete is likely to cause great bodily injury such as loss of consciousness, concussive injury and complications of edema (swelling) and ICP (intracranial pressure). I think it's important here that any honest medical testimony would have to admit that these complications aren't some remote possibility - like the one-in-a-million fastball to the chest - but are the likely and expected outcome of a continued attack in this manner. In short, the state has to get away from Zimmerman's account of these injuries.

Anyway - to get to the point - it would seem useful for Zimmerman to illustrate the mechanism of injury to show first that his narrative is possible and to demonstrate the ferocity that such an attack would entail.

What are the guidelines generally concerning such demonstrations or forensic recreations? Are they allowed? Is it governed by the rules for scientific testimony (Frye) or are there other rules?

From Florida Law Weekly

Criminal law -- Aggravated battery -- Immunity -- Stand Your Ground Law -- Where victim threw full bottle of beer at defendant from short distance away with sufficient force to shatter next to defendant and cause defendant to take evasive action to avoid being hit, victim prepared to throw or threw second bottle at defendant, and defendant had his back to wall and was surrounded by group of belligerent and aggressive men, defendant was justified in shooting victim to prevent forcible felony of aggravated battery -- No merit to argument that defendant is not entitled to immunity because he shot victim in back where victim did not indicate that he intended to retreat before defendant ducked his head to avoid being hit by second bottle and quickly fired shots.

City of Sanford/Chief Lee was free to "deputize" or give reserve status to his dispatchers to give them that authority.  There are about a thousand reasons he didnt.

Until someone does that, they have no ability to issue a citizen a lawful order.  It is a matter of law.  They can only suggest, regardless of what he asserts.  

Any argument to the contrary is wrong as a matter of law.

Their suggestions are normally the most conservative advice, as a matter of liability.  The advice was about the possibility of danger to the caller.  

But we  are talking criminal, not civil liability at this juncture of the case.

If what GZ did was illegal, would Corey not have charged him? She can't, because GZ didn't do anything legally wrong under criminal statues.

*What Corey  has created is a vaguely supported theory to concoct an element  using civil liability to create new police powers for dispatchers and criminal culpability out of whole cloth.*

Show me a precedent where anyone has been arrested for failing to obey a dispatcher.  If not, this is smoke and mirrors.

If I tell a judge I was acting on the advice of my neighbor who is a paralegal, how would that go over?

Note that the dispatcher NEVER gave him an order|. "we don't need you to do that".  Is NOT an order. Everything the dispatcher said was a suggestion as per SOP.

That dispatcher was well aware of what people here refuse to accept.  He couldn't order GZ to do anything.  He is not allowed to characterize anything as an order because as soon as he does and it goes sideways, the department gets sued.