Trayvon Martin's Cell Phone Records

The Court has published the cell phone records for Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

There are a few things to know when examining Martin's records. First, the two columns on the right represent minutes and seconds, respectively.

Second, according to this site, the outgoing calls to 1-805-637-6249 represent incoming calls that go to voicemail.

When you travel with your phone, as soon as you roam on a foreign network T-Mobile knows that you are roaming. From then, anytime somebody leaves you a voicemail, they will register it as a roaming call to 805-637-7249 and will charge you at $.99 per minute.


The calls to and from Trayvon Martin's phone show: (note that I’ve rounded off some numbers where the exact moment doesn’t seem critical to any analysis):

(Corrected, See MJW in comments below:) Martin called Rachel at 5:09 pm and they spoke for 80 minutes, ending at 6:29 pm. They disconnected, he called her back at 6:30 and they spoke for 13 minutes, until around 6:43 pm. He also got two calls from a Miami number that went to voice-mail around 6:18-6:19 pm.

Martin entered the 7-11 store around 6:24, exited after his purchase at 6:26, but didn't leave the area and begin walking back to RATL or elsewhere until 6:29.

At 6:41 Rachel calls him and they talk for 3 plus minutes. He calls her back around 6:45 and they talk for 4 minutes 17 seconds, which would be 6:50 or so. But at 6:46, he calls a Miami number, 305-770- 0893 0890 for 1 minute. (Added: The last digit is a 0 not a 3. This number appears to be associated with a member of Rachel's family.)

At 6:50, he calls Rachel for 3.75 minutes. At 6:53, he calls Rachel for 8 seconds (perhaps it went to her voice-mail?) He calls her again at 6:54, but the call lasts only 33 seconds.

Rachel calls Martin back at 6:54, and they talk for almost 18 minutes, to almost 7:12 pm. (Zimmerman’s call to non-emergency began at 7:09:34, but his phone records show he made the call at 7:08. Was he on hold for a minute and a half? Twice he referred to “trying to get through” in his statements to Det. Singleton and Serino.

In between, Chad calls at 7:04 and talks to Martin for 17 seconds. According to Chad's interview with police, Trayvon told him it was raining and he was on his way home. So it seems Martin had call-waiting and put Rachel on hold while he talked to Chad.

Added: Thanks to Diwataman for the shorter version:

5:09-6:30 Outgoing to Rachel
6:30-6:41 Outgoing to Rachel
6:41-6:44 Incoming from Rachel
6:45-6:49 Outgoing to Rachel
6:46-6:48 Outgoing to 305-770-0890
6:49-6:53 Incoming from Rachel
6:53-6:54 Outgoing to Rachel
6:54-6:54 Outgoing to Rachel
6:54-7:11 Incoming from Rachel
7:04 Incoming from Chad

Rachel calls back at 7:12:06 pm, and the call ends 218 seconds later (3 min. 38 seconds) or at 7:15:44. Witness 11,the first 911 caller, got through at 7:16:11. The gunshot was around 7:16:53. So there was about one minute in between the time Martin's phone disconnected and the gunshot.

According to the event reports(here and here) from the Seminole County Communications Center, George Zimmerman connected with the non-emergency number at 7:09:34. The FBI's version of the transcript says the call lasted 4 minutes and 10 seconds, but the last few seconds were dead time, which means that Zimmerman didn't hang up with non-emergency until 7:13:40. Thus, there was just over 2 minutes in between the time Zimmerman hung up with non-emergency and the time Rachel and Martin's final call ended. (We don’t know is how many seconds elapsed between when Rachel says Trayvon’s headset fell off and the end of the call.)

I will leave it to others to do the math and see whether Rachel’s account holds up.

Other aspects of the call log are more interesting to me. Since this is the week the state will introduce GZ’s statements and claim the variations in them amount not only to differences but intentional lies, I think the call logs show the state would be wise to remember that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Memory is a tricky phenomenon. The phone records show that Tracy Martin, Chad Joseph and Brandy Greene all have fallible memories. Are they lying? Or just mistaken? I’ll give them all the benefit of the doubt, but submit that the same benefit should be applied to variations in Zimmerman’s statements.

First up: Brandy Greene’s 14 year old son Chad Joseph, (now 15.) Chad talked to Martin at 7:04 pm and was told it was raining and he was on his way home. Chad told investigators on 4/27/12 that he didn’t hear any commotion or shooting because his bedroom was in the front of the house and he was playing games with his headset on. (Page 39 of the 284 page Second Supplemental Discovery.) But look at the phone records: Chad called Martin's phone 9 times beginning 5 minutes after the shooting. Each call went to voice-mail. The times are:

  • 7:22:40
  • 7:46:24
  • 8:36 and again at 8:37
  • 8:45
  • 10:03
  • 10:23
  • 11:42
  • 12:23 am

In addition, if you watch the Fox news video of the cops arriving that night, you will see that many of the police approached on the Retreat View Circle side and parked on that side. The entrance to that side of the complex is right by the front of his house. Chad may not have been able to see the backyard where the body was, but it's hard to imagine he didn't see the flashing lights right by the front or to the left of his house. If he didn't take his headphones off during his multiple calls to Trayvon,how would he have known if Trayvon answered? And if he did take them off, how did he not hear the sirens or see the flashing lights on the street in front of his house?

Chad also said he went to an NBA football event with Trayvon on Friday night, the night before his own football game, which Trayvon and cousin Stephen attended. He said after the Saturday night game, he left with Trayvon and Stephen and they went back to his house. Stephen slept in the garage, Trayvon slept in the living room. On Sunday morning, he said Stephen left. He said he and Trayvon were watching the NBA game later on Sunday when Trayvon decided to go to the store. When Trayvon didn’t return, he said he waited up until his mother got home before going to bed.

Now look at what Tracy Martin and Brandy Greene told investigators on 3/26/12, 3/27 and 4/2/12. (The 284 page Second Supplemental Discovery. Unredacted versions are in the 30 page 5th Supplemental Discovery.)

On 3/26/12, Tracy Martin was interviewed together with Sybrina Fulton at her residence. Tracy told investigators he had a convention to go to in Orlando on Friday. On Wednesday, he said he dropped Trayvon off with Brandy, whom they had met halfway between Miami and Sanford. On Friday, he got to Orlando and Trayvon stayed with him that night. Trayvon’s cousin Stephen was in also in town, and he and Brandy’s son Chad and Trayvon spent time together. On Sunday, he said they were back at Brandy’s apartment and later, he and Brandy went out to dinner. When they returned, and Chad was alone and said Trayvon had gone to the store and not returned.

Tracy said he called tried to call Trayvon’s phone several times and got voice-mail. Look at the phone records. The only call from Tracy’s phone, 954-410-55*2, is at 12:49 a.m.

Now look at Brandy Greene’s interview the next day, on 3/27/12 (Page 32 of 284 page Second Supplemental Discovery with an unredacted version in the 5th Supplemental Discovery.) Brandy says they all stayed in Orlando at Tracy’s hotel Friday night, and hung out at the hotel during the day Saturday. Chad had a football game Saturday night which his coach drove him to. Brandy, Tracy and Trayvon went to the game, and cousin Stephen met them there. After the game, Tracy gave Trayvon $75 to $100 for the movies and dinner. They didn’t go to the movies, and instead, all three went back to Brandy’s house and spent the night.

Brandy says she and Tracy went back to the hotel after the game Saturday night and spent the night. They arrived home Sunday morning and all three boys were sleeping. Later, Brandy and Tracy went out to eat. She says they got home around 10:30 pm and only Chad was home. They asked where Trayvon was and Chad said he went to the store to get Skittles and never returned. Brandy said Tracy called Trayvon’s cell phone several times but it went to voicemail. Brandy and Tracy went to bed. Around 7:00 am, Brandy told Tracy that Trayvon still hadn’t come home. She said Tracy tried to call Trayvon’s phone but “the calls” went to voice-mail. He then called Stephen who did not know where Trayvon was, and then called the police. According to the Event Reports, Tracy called around 8:45 a.m. on Monday morning, Feb. 27.

Next is Tracy Martin's interview on 4/2 (p 40 of 284 page discovery), which although conducted at Sybrina Fulton’s home, was not a joint interview. He says he dropped Trayvon off with Brandy on Tuesday, not Wednesday, as he told them previously. He again says Brandy met them half-way between Miami and Sanford. Trayvon stayed with her Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. On Friday, Trayvon stayed with him at his hotel. He said the last time he saw Trayvon was Saturday night after Chad’s football game. Cousin Stephen met them at the game and the three kids left together. Tracy gave Trayvon $75 to $100 for movies/dinner.

Tracy says he got back to Brandy’s Sunday night between 10:30 to 11 pm. (He doesn’t mention returning in the morning or during the day, or having seen Trayvon asleep, as Brandy said.) Chad was alone. Tracy called Trayvon’s cell phone (no reference to multiple calls) and got voice-mail. After getting no response, he went to bed. The next morning Brandy told him Trayvon was not there. After calling Stephen, who hadn't seen him, he called the police.

If Tracy and and Brandy had come home on Sunday morning, or anytime during the day on Sunday, and not gone out until dinner time, they would have known Trayvon went to the store before they left, and not had to ask Chad where Trayvon went when they got home. Chad says he stayed up until they got home, which they put at 10:30 to 11:00, but Chad continued to call Trayvon’s phone until 12:23 a.m. Tracy didn’t call Trayvon’s phone until 12:49 am. It sure sounds like Tracy and Brandi didn’t return home until after Chad’s last call, and Tracy made only one call, not several, at 12:49 a.m.

No one has perfect recall after a traumatic event – except maybe someone who has planned out and memorized details. I don’t think the variations in Tracy Martin, Brandy Greene, and Chad Joseph’s accounts affect their overall version of pertinent events any more than the variations in George Zimmerman’s statements as to the order of events, or his recalling statements of the dispatcher through the lens of what he understood the dispatcher to mean rather than by the dispatcher’s exact words, affect the consistency of his version of events. They are variations, not differences. They shouldn’t impact Zimmerman’s credibility. They certainly don’t support an inference Zimmerman intentionally lied.

The only person whose recall seems suspect to me is Ms. Rachel Jeantel. She may not read cursive, but she sure has a knack for memorizing details, from the dates of her depositions, to the chronology of her dropped calls with Trayvon, to the words she used at trial to describe what Trayvon said and when he said it, to her use of the same phrases she used in her 4/2 interview with the prosecutor, like "kinda heard a little" to describe the “get off” she heard after the headset fell. While at trial Rachel said she had not listened to the entirety of her interview with Crump or the prosecutor before testifying, she had listened to some. Her story is so pat it seems suspect to me.

This young woman is far from stupid. She does not strike me as mentally challenged in the slightest. As I wrote when watching her testimony, I thought she came across as petulant, belligerent, and manipulative, with an air of self-entitlement. I think her performance was her way of asserting control over the situation. She certainly doesn’t want to help Zimmerman, but she’s angry as hell at Team Crump for not telling her the media would be present and recording her interview or that Crump would be releasing her tape the entire country at a news conference. She doesn’t want to cause Trayvon’s mother pain. But her needs still come first, from viewing her time as more valuable than others (her annoyance that she had to wait for her deposition to be rescheduled while Trayvon’s brother didn’t, and both depos took 4 hours), to resorting to lies to avoid unpleasant situations such as those that involve dead bodies or crying mothers, to pretending to be a juvenile to enhance her personal privacy.

The one instance she tripped up was one she couldn’t have seen coming. She didn’t realize that she first told Crump that George Zimmerman responded to Trayon confronting him with “What are you talking about” instead of “What are you doing around here?” Why? Because it wasn’t on Crump’s recording – it was only on Matt Gutman’s recording, which only recently came to light, and Rachel doesn’t watch the news. She prepared from the tape or transcript that Crump supplied the state, which was missing that portion, and from her earlier interview with the state, which also only contained the version, “What are you following me for?” That may be why she was so adamant with West that she never said it. She was confident because It wasn’t in the scripts she had used to prepare for trial. Only when West finally presented her with the proof from her deposition transcript, did she cave in. She was outfoxed and she knew it.

There is a big difference in the two versions as I’ve pointed out before, one that Crump noticed and then asked her repeat using only the second version. “What are you talking about?” seems like an attempt to de-escalate the situation. It’s not confrontational in the slightest. “What are you doing around here?” is much better suited to the Crump/state version.

My point is, Rachel Jenteal told essentially the same story three times or more (we haven’t seen her depositions) while Zimmerman, Tracy Martin, Brandy Green, and Chad Joseph and just about ever other witness have all had variations. The one that seems the most suspect is Jeantel's, because it is so pat. No one retells an event exactly the same way every time and with such confidence – except someone who has practiced and memorized it.

< Sunday Open Thread: Non-Zimmerman Topics | Week Two of Testimony in George Zimmerman Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The big problem (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ackbarsays on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 09:57:00 PM EST
    ...with Rachel Jeantel is that her timeline makes no sense whatsoever once you get past the point where Martin ran.  From where Zimmerman was sitting in his truck, it was probably a 10 second walk to the T intersection, and then from there, it would have been no more than 45 seconds to Brandi Green's house.  

    Zimmerman leaves his truck, and after 15 seconds, the dispatcher says "Are you following him?"  Zimmerman responds that he is, and is told "We don't need you to do that."  He says "okay" a few seconds later, and then it becomes quite evident that he indeed stopped following.  The wind noises and movement stopped, and it sounds like Zimmerman is standing still talking to the dispatcher.  At this point, Zimmerman said that he had gone all the way past the T to Retreat View Circle.  Eventually, he hangs up the phone with the dispatcher.

    The problem with Jeantel's timeline is that from the point where Trayvon ran, it was well over 2 minutes until Zimmerman hung up the phone with the dispatcher.  That was TWICE the amount of time Trayvon would have needed to get home.  Her testimony was that Trayvon was behind his father's house when Zimmerman confronted him.  Are we to believe that after Zimmerman hung up with the dispatcher, he ran all the way to Brandi Green's house (about 45 seconds, possibly more for a guy in hiking boots) and then confronted Trayvon and chased him all the way back to the T before the physical confrontation started?  That would assume that Zimmerman would have any idea where to find him in the darkness.  No way.

    The only thing that might match with the timeline would be if Trayvon went home first, and from Brandi's house, he would have been able to see Zimmerman standing at the other end of by the T, because even though Zimmerman couldn't see Trayvon through the darkness, Trayvon could see Zimmerman's little keychain flashlight.  He knew Zimmerman was still looking for him.  If that enraged him, he had just about exactly enough time to run back to the T to confront Zimmerman.  This could explain the witness who thought she heard running from left to right (if you believe her testimony) and it could explain everything else about the problems with the timeline and still match exactly with Zimmerman's version of events.  

    Differential in viewing ability is large (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 08:20:14 AM EST
    Zimmerman is wearing a bright orange jacket and carrying a flashlight, Trayvon is in a dark hoodie and sweats with no light (cell phone in pocket).

    5:09 call (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MJW on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:32:14 AM EST
    Martin talked to Rachel at 5:09 pm for around 11 minutes, ending at 5:20 pm

    The 5:09 call lasted 4,825 seconds, which is 80 minutes and 25 seconds. It's hard to read, but I believe it began at 5:09:16 PM, which would make the end time 6:29:41. The next call is about a minute later, at 6:30:40.

    wow, you have great eyes, thanks (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:54:18 AM EST
    You are correct. To my eye, it looked like 10.42 minutes and 1,825 seconds. When I read your comment, I tried putting it in Photoshop and adjusting the brightness/contrast. Now I see this or this, in which the  4,825 shows pretty clearly. While  I still can't see the "80", 4,825 seconds is roughly 80 minutes so it has to be 80. Also there's another call that is 40 minutes that is 2,433 seconds, so a 4,825 second call would be double that or 80 minutes.   I will correct. thanks again. Let me know if you see any more of these.

    According to the 7-11 video which Diwataman has analyzed to the second:

    6:21:54 Trayvon is seen outside the 7 Eleven traveling from the East to the West to enter 7 Eleven

    6:24:32 Two minutes later Trayvon leaves the store but is not seen outside heading back East for another five minutes

    6:29:23 Last frame of Trayvon outside of 7 Eleven heading back the way he came

    So he was on the phone with Rachel the whole time he was in 711? At one point when he's checking out it sounds like he says "hello."  I had assumed that was Rachel calling him, but the 5:09 call and 6:30 are both outgoing calls to her. So they must have disconnected as he was beginning his return to RATL. (leaves 711 store at 6:24:22,  leaves area at 6:29:23, call disconnects at 6:29:41, calls her back at 6:30:40.

    Does this say anything about what time he entered RATL and the mailbox area? I get the sense the defense has evidence he went to the adjoining complex first. Maybe they can spot him at Lake Edge even though the state said it didn't see him in the video?


    The credit goes elsewhere (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MJW on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 03:54:18 AM EST
    A commenter named "recoverydotgod" at CTH deserves the credit. He or she mentioned that the 5:09 call time was probably incorrect. I remembered that call in the Crump-released version seemed longer, so I double checked. It sure is hard to read the writing over the dark stripes of the paper.

    One minute between the time (none / 0) (#1)
    by MKS on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:38:06 AM EST
    Martin's call was disconnected and the shot being fired.

    Actually, we do know a lot and there were witnesses at almost every step.  And yet it seems, to me at least, that it is still hard to know what happened in that one minute.

    The quick degeneration (3.00 / 2) (#2)
    by jondee on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:31:28 AM EST
    from communication through the medium of language to a situation of irreversible, chaotic, violence..

    Brought to you by the firearms manufacturers of America.


    Correction (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by gadfly on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 03:59:09 PM EST
    The Glock pistol is manufactured in Germany - and of course, neither the weapon, nor its maker, has ever been charged with murder.

    Not a Glock (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Yman on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 04:12:25 PM EST
    His gun was a Kel-Tec PF-9, made right here in the US of A.

    Just a wild guess, but I don't think Jondee was claiming the gun fired itself.


    Glock (none / 0) (#18)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 12:27:59 PM EST

    Glock also manufactures here.

    jondee, leave your politics on (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:12:13 PM EST
    guns out of your comments on this case and don't try to hijack the thread. Future such comments are completely off-topic and will be deleted. You know better than to do this here.

    Thank god he had a gun (none / 0) (#19)
    by MiddleOTheRoad on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 02:50:37 PM EST
    or Zimmerman might be dead instead of Martin. Anyone who's ever been attacked by an angry young man knows how fast a situation can degenerate.

    We might never know exactly what happened that night, but IF Martin came back to kick the butt of who he may have thought was a white guy profiling him, he had the advantage of surprise and height.


    I'm confused. (none / 0) (#5)
    by labrat on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 06:20:47 PM EST
    You list a litany of statements by the Martin's that are at odds with known facts, but give all that a pass as normal variation instead of intentional deception. Why? Because it's not really relevant to the actual facts that prove the case of either side?

    As for RJ - I was struck by 2 things in her testimony. An apparent antipathy toward "the mother" and she seemed to be obsessed with the phrase "from the back". Don't know what to make of it though.  

    In any case - even if one takes her testimony as 100% honest - I really don't think it proves the prosecution's narrative at all. The intent needed to prove murder 2 wasn't shown by anything she testified to. Does asking someone - "what are you doing around here?" justify beating the crap out of someone?

    We also know that Tracy lied (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Nettles18 on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:51:14 PM EST
    to police in how Trayvon got to Sanford.  While in March/April 2012, he told police he drove his son halfway to meet Brandy and Brandy took him the rest of the way on the Tuesday before the shooting. We learned from Trayvon's texts that he actually got to Sanford alone on a bus.

    He texted his Mom he arrived and that Brandy had picked him up.

    Also, some may recall Sybrina told Police that Trayvon lived with her and by at least 2 other accounts, he was temporarily living with Sybrina's brother Ron Fulton. Again, in Trayvon's texts we learned Sybrina sent him to live with his father in December 2011.

    Sybrina also told police she first heard Trayvon's "girlfriend's" name around December 2011.  Rachel testified that she reconnected with Trayvon on Feb. 1, 2012.

    This family demanded an arrest in the case.  From the get-go they told conflicting stories, refused to cooperate with police in regards to giving access to Trayvon's phone and took action to hide who Trayvon really was.

    To demand a trial, they should have been prepared to give an honest, transparent assessment so police could proceed accordingly.  

    It's very clear, finding the truth was never the goal for his parents.


    Seemed more like anger than antipathy (none / 0) (#10)
    by lolaatlarge on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 09:49:08 PM EST
    And to my eyes and ears, it all focuses around what she referred to on the stand as the "mean message" Sabrina Fulton left her (text, IIRC?) when she wouldn't immediately cooperate. She was very animated in her speech and manner when describing it.

    To be fair (none / 0) (#12)
    by lolaatlarge on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 11:55:01 PM EST
    And upon review, she did not describe it. She mentioned it.

    Chad was presented as 12 last year (none / 0) (#7)
    by lily on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 07:41:46 PM EST
    in one year he advanced 3 years in age.

    No, it was 14 years old (none / 0) (#16)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 09:03:29 AM EST
    I distinctly remember that age from last year's coverage.  During the trial, both prosecution and defense referred to him as being 12 years old before Chad revealed on the stand that he was 15.

    Reuters led with 13 year old brother Chad (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by lily on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    On March 7, 2012, in the first national news story on the case, Reuters led with the Skittles angle: "Trayvon Martin was shot dead after he took a break from watching NBA All-Star game television coverage to walk 10 minutes to a convenience store to buy snacks including Skittles candy requested by his 13-year-old brother, Chad." Reuters attributed this information to Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump. "What do the police find in his pocket? Skittles," Crump told Reuters. "A can of Arizona ice tea in his jacket pocket and Skittles in his front pocket for his brother Chad."

    In reality, 12, 13 or 14 is irrelevant, the most relevant lie is describing Chad as his brother. The intention was to make TM action appear noble, yet Brandy Greene is far more honest on Feb 27 telling the news that TM went to the store because he was bored.


    The Difference is Insignificant (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by rcade on Tue Jul 02, 2013 at 03:15:04 PM EST
    He was going to become Trayvon Martin's stepbrother when their engaged parents got married.

    I am not clear on how there's more nobility in buying Skittles for your dad's stepson than for your dad's fiance's son.

    Chad testified that Martin was buying him Skittles that night.


    Tracy Martin (none / 0) (#22)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 08:37:16 AM EST
    did not divorce Alicia Stanley until Dec 2012. Referring to Brandy Green as his fiancee may be acceptable as being polite, but did anybody notice an engagement ring on Brandy's finger? They certainly never acted further on any engagement.

    I like Skittles, but I would never consider them as a snack, they are a mix of chewing gum with a candy shell, not something I think anybody would eat a bag of without serious plumbing issues.

    Claiming "ice tea" instead of watermelon juice drink is less likely a simple mistake, than cover for the use of the watermelon drink when combined with Skittles.


    court ends w/Serino acknowledging GZ as truthful (none / 0) (#9)
    by lily on Mon Jul 01, 2013 at 08:15:54 PM EST
    legal insurrection analysis

    Nevertheless, the "challenge meeting" was held. In the absence of any real contrary evidence with which to challenge Serino, the Investigator pretended to have some ready to spring. They had discovered, he said, video footage of the events that evening. "And what did Zimmerman say when you told him that?" "He said, Thank God," Serino answered.

    The last O'Mara question of the day, the last words the jury heard to take with them into the evening recess, could only be characterized as catastrophic for the State's theory of the case. Looking directly at the man who had been the chief investigator on the case, who had possessed access to ever bit of evidence of any sort, who had interviewed, and re-interviewed, and re-re-interviewed-applying increasing from each interview to the next-O'Mara asked him:

    "Do YOU think George Zimmerman was telling you the truth?"

    Serino succinct answer: "Yes."

    Something to consider on the phone billing (none / 0) (#23)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 08:44:50 AM EST
    I travel, have more than one phone and several sets of sim chips to switch between accounts and carriers. As long as the frequency bands and protocol's are supported, even ONE of them you can use a variety of phones on the same account.

    Specifically if your mom for example was going to take your phone, remove the sim before you surrender it, and you are good to go as soon as you locate another phone.