Thursday Night George Zimmerman Thread

At BloggingHeads TV, Glenn Loury and Ann Althouse discuss whether George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin was the right case for to pick as emblematic of racial profiling and race relations. I've been reading Ann's view of the case for months at her blog, so her view is not surprising to me. (While our politics are different, we have similar views of the evidence and legal aspects of the case.)

But I think some people, particularly those who view themselves as liberal, will be surprised by Loury's view. (The clip above is a one minute capsule of his position.)

In addition to agreeing this wasn't the right case to use to highlight problems with racial profiling and racial injustice, he questions whether Zimmerman should have been charged at all and says he would welcome an investigation into whether the prosecution was politically motivated. [More...]

Speaking of the state's attorney's office: They've been served. Former IT Director Ben Kruidbos has has filed a lawsuit against the office for wrongful termination. He was fired after he testified at a pre-trial hearing in Zimmerman's case that the state withheld evidence from the defense.

Ben Kruidbos sued Corey’s office Thursday saying he was illegally fired in June after he testified that prosecutors did not turn over all information to George Zimmerman’s defense team in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

Since our last Zimmerman thread is filling up (I'm down to about 2 threads a week), you can discuss other case news here as well (Just don't retry the case or insist Zimmerman was guilty -- he's been found not guilty. Your contrary views, especially if you didn't watch the entire trial and are getting your information from media or biased websites, are not of interest here. And personal insults and attacks are not allowed here -- of Ann, Loury, me, TalkLeft or commenters.)

< Media Wakes Up to Missing Docket Entries in Tsarnaev Case | Global Travel Alert Due to al Qaeda Threat >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The not turning over of (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 08:29:38 PM EST
    discovery is one of the things that bothers me in the big picture. I know I'm naive, but in one of your old posts that I read the other day (about removing the 1st judge), you quoted ethics rules about prosecutors (not just the judge) being held to a different standard because they represent the state and the people and are paid a salary and not by the case, etc.

    This wasn't you writing your views, but quoting things about how they're there not to win but to get justice only (my paraphrase). I don't think this case was tried that way, and I don't mean outside pressures, but just the need to win, following rules or not. I hope it doesn't represent how most prosecutions are run. If I ever got in trouble, I'd want an ethical person like I consider Oculus to be to try my case.

    I hope this is comment is okay, but I'm interested to see what comes of the complaints O'Mara has filed. I'd like to know if that 4th district has some PD's that have faced similar actions and maybe won't have to in the future. That would be a good thing. (Assuming the violations are true, which I think we know at least the IT one was.) Disregarding the verdict either way, I think those hearings need to be held and I hope it will be taken seriously, as O'Mara seems to say he will, because that's not how justice should operate in my view. (Delete this Jeralyn if I wrote it in a way that reflects what I think you wrote incorrectly - your part was only the part about ethics rules, the rest is my opinion.)

    I have watched hours of the trial (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by RepPress on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:27:37 PM EST
    and it is clear that this was self-defence. People were sold on a narrative which used an outdated photo and a lot of assumptions. People need to be willing to think through what they assume so I am glad there are voices of reason here at Talk Left.

    In contrast, I was banned from Crooks and Liars from simply stating facts like the fact that Al Sharpton has a track record, the Tawana Brawley case shows he will promote a hoax. In this case,  he once again didn't do his homework and has gotten people worked up about the wrong thing.

    Does anyone know more about how it is a black and white photo of Zimmerman's nose injury was used instead of the full color picture?  That seems to tie into the prosecution's politically motivated witch hunt.

    I don't think Sharpton commited a hoax (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:04:02 PM EST
    here.  The media marched in step with him.  I do not fault anyone who got their information from the media for believing Zimmerman was guilty.  The media missed, ignored, or plain got wrong major facts.  I have to wonder if they did not grab each others information without any sort of verification.

    Somebody (none / 0) (#208)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 03:55:11 PM EST
    printed the signs in the protest marches, Athlete and scholar murdered.

    I think a hoax was committed. (none / 0) (#218)
    by Visteo1 on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 07:55:27 PM EST
    I just do not know where to assign the blame.  To be culpable of a hoax, I think you need to know you are committing the hoax...like MSNBC...just an opinion.  Let's name the suspects:  Martin's lawyers and publicists that I have heard about.  Those who joined the fight with social agendas.  The media, who missed, ignored, or  got their facts wrong.  It was and is a feeding frenzy.  .  

    Don't forget (none / 0) (#229)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 03:32:30 PM EST
    The four "journalist" that carried Crump and Julison's attack piece as if it was researched "news" and not a partisan press release.

    The nature of the news distribution gives most of the outlets who did nothing on their own plausible deniability, they just ran with the story from Reuters etc.

    I'd like to see some analysis of the four releases to see if any of the authors adding anything to the story or if it was pure plagiarism.


    Printing a press release isn't plagiarism (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by SuzieTampa on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 07:51:35 PM EST
    To scare you further ... PR people also make up quotes. This is akin to speech writers putting great phrases in the mouths of their bosses.

    If you have a link to a press release by Crump & Julison and a link that shows how journalists printed it word for word, by all means, please put that in media coverage on the forum.

    If you're saying that journalists ran with what Crump & Julison said without presenting other facts and opinions, then I agree. But that's often the problem of our 24/7 news cycle, in which journalists, bloggers, tweeters, etc., want to get news out first. Demanding that journalists be more ethical is unlikely to change anything. But people can try to resist the desire to click on a story that we think is half-baked; not patronize media that we find especially egregious (I canceled my subscription to the NYT, for example); and try to speak truth to power, doing our best not to repeat false information.


    Thats why rather than accuse (none / 0) (#232)
    by Mikado Cat on Tue Aug 06, 2013 at 06:51:41 AM EST
    I say I would like to see some analysis of the four primary sources Crump and Julison used to see if they properly attribute the  "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," or not. I suspect they do a mix, but I haven't had that much luck or time to track down the 3/7/12 3/8/12 stories and I think some of them restrict access to content to subscribers. Maybe more will come out if NBC doesn't settle out of court.

    I have no access to those forums to post, its closed.


    First National Reports, 3/7-8 (none / 0) (#233)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Aug 07, 2013 at 12:54:42 AM EST
    Reuters, 3/7/12


    Orlando Sentinel

    Huffington Post

    CBS This Morning

    The CBS link is just a summary. I haven't been able to find video or a full transcript.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#237)
    by Mikado Cat on Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 09:32:46 PM EST
    I have the Reuters 3/7/12 Barbra Liston article in my file and its the same one.

    Orlando Sentinel mentions Crump, but hasn't strayed that fair from the early even coverage.

    HP Trymaine Lee is going from the same stuff as Liston, but its much longer, more accusing.

    CBS is someplace between OS and Reuters in tone.

    I can see the common source, but each person clearly put their own spin as well. Each time I read those early reports it gives me more questions than answers. I wish I hadn't missed the opportunity to discuss them here.

    I don't have a link, some issue with it I recall, but its in the archives of the paper online and easy to google. First story with any detail I found.

    Boy, 17, shot to death in Sanford during 'altercation,' police say
    7:22 p.m. EST, February 29, 2012|
    By Susan Jacobson, Orlando Sentinel


    Orlando Sentinel, 2/29/12 (none / 0) (#238)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Aug 09, 2013 at 03:56:27 PM EST
    Such a sane (none / 0) (#239)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 09:05:39 AM EST
    article compared with what was soon to follow.

    IT director Kruidbos filed suit against Corey (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by lily on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 02:16:43 AM EST
    for wrongful termination today. We may get answers to questions about missing evidence and who in the state attorney's office directed the deception.
    Kruidbos testified that investigator O'Stein was his contact.

    How often in a murder 2 case do prosecutors avoid calling their own investigators?


    Not sure why anyone ... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 10:14:42 PM EST
    ... particularly those that view themselves as liberal, would be surprised by Lowry's position.

    I was hoping someone would reply (none / 0) (#36)
    by Visteo1 on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    to the comment.  Great article on Loury.   Evidence that...

    Our personalities, interests, beliefs are ever-changing. We are not constants. We are a function of time, our experiences and heredity...and we even have the power to actively change ourselves over time.


    Yman (none / 0) (#135)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 08:27:54 PM EST
    Thank you for that link. I didn't even know who he is, but that's a fascinating read about a man's journey. I don't know where he's traveled, intellectually, since 2002, but that was interesting.

    I always wonder what motivates a person to view things in a way that I think is against their best interests. I'm still not sure what his motivation was, but he's a different kind of person for sure.


    As others have stated (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Nemi on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 07:32:21 AM EST
    this was also the first court case I have ever followed. All the way, step by step.

    What got me interested in the Martin/Zimmerman case in the first place was realizing how the media almost systematically withheld information and didn't report the facts.

    But what got me interested in and made me take time out to follow the actual court case as it unfolded, was Mark O'Mara. The way he handled himself and his dignity was admirable - as it has been ever since.

    I learned a lot in general from following the case but even more in particular from listening to and watching him. His closing statement was truly enlightening and must have had quite an impact on the jurors as it did on me.

    If anyone wants to refresh their memory - or listen for the first time? - it starts at around the 6 min. mark, Mark O'Mara Defense Closing Statement.

    Loury is Definitely in the Minority (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by RickyJim on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 08:48:45 AM EST
    Among black voices currently commenting on the Zimmerman case.  If you check the Huffington Post, say, the prevailing attitude among black bloggers, professors and rank and file is pretty much that the verdict is something to be angry about, an injustice, a prime example of the evils of racial profiling and a continued example of how blacks are badly treated by white Americans.  Certainly, Obama's comments did nothing to change that point of view.  He was one person who might have been able to get the black community to adopt a more logical attitude.  I fear further court victories by Zimmerman will exacerbate their feelings.

    Why (2.00 / 1) (#23)
    by morphic on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 10:27:44 AM EST
    don't blacks just listen to the dispatcher call, in which Zimmerman isn't quite certain what race Martin is at first? You can't racially profile someone unless you know what race they are, unless you think, perhaps with paranoia, Zimmerman actually knew immediately what race Martin was and was being devious. Sometimes a tomato is just a tomato, and not something else.

    I don't think (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 02:27:16 PM EST
    anyone here (or with a brain) thinks that AA's don't have a different perception based on experience, and many of those experiences are scary and unfair.

    The problem is the rhetoric has been extended to this case when there is absolutely no evidence that this was what the case was about.  There IS evidence, however, that GZ did not think Martin was suspicious merely because he was black, that he called the NEN merely because he was black, or that Martin ended up dead merely because he was black. In fact, background evidence suggests the exact opposite - GZ was very comfortable and friendly with members of the AA community and certainly did not hold racist views towards them.

    The problem is people are angry about a societal problem that absolutely should be angry about, but the target of that anger is not who they should be angry at.

    What's the excuse... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by rob411 on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 03:17:28 PM EST
    for the media liberals/moderates? Empathy is nowhere near as intense as a personally felt connection, and shouldn't be strong enough to blind you to the evidence.

    They could have played a role in trying to contextualize the story for people like AngryBlackMan. Zimmerman's non-racism, blacks availing of SYG in Florida, conservative support for Roderick Scott etc. If reality is painful enough, why distort it to make it more painful?


    There is no excuse for the media (3.50 / 2) (#75)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 03:20:44 PM EST
    I feel general disdain for them, but after this story, it sometimes makes feel feel actual hate.

    Not just the mainstream media, but the liberal blogosphere who generall portrays itself and its readers as smarter than most everybody else.


    Prosecution in the court of law ... (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 02:43:00 PM EST
    ... was  politically motivated.

    Prosecution in the court of public opinion was financially motivated.

    Kruidbos (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Cylinder on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 03:15:16 PM EST
    Kruidbos asks for special prosecutor to investigate firing [PDF]

    Accordingly, the undersigned (on behalf of my client) formally and respectfully requests that you commission a State Attorney from another circuit to conduct an investigation as to whether or not the Office of the State Attorney for the 4th Judicial Circuit acted unlawfully in the termination of Mr. Kruidbos.

    Kruidbos v Corey

    Contrary to the provisions of Florida Statutes 92.57, KRUIDBOS was terminated by Defendant on Thursday July 11, 2013 in retaliation for having testified on June 6, 2013, pursuant to a subpoena, before the circuit court in and for Seminole County in State v. Zimmerman, Case No. 2012-001083-CFA. The nature of Plaintiff's testimony related to the suspected violation by the State Attorney's Office of its reciprocal discovery obligations under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and under Florida and federal law. A copy of the subpoena is attached hereto as "Exhibit A". A copy of the letter of termination is attached hereto as "Exhibit B".

    Kruidbos Whistleblower Complaint to OIG

    Contrary to the provisions of Florida Statutes 112.3187, Mr. Kruidbos was the victim of retaliatory action by the SAO on Friday, July 11, 2013 when he was terminated from employment. Mr. Kruidbos was terminated for having testified (pursuant to a subpoena) before the circuit court in and for Seminole County, on June 6, 2013. The nature of his testimony related to the possible knowing violation, by the State of Florida (the SAO), of its reciprocal discovery obligations (under the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and under Florida and federal law) in a criminal prosecution. Such a violation falls within the
    inherent authority of the circuit court to sanction the conduct and actions of parties and attorneys before the court.


    Question for the lawyers (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by txantimedia on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 03:27:51 PM EST
    Would there be some sort of strategic advantage for O'Mara not pursuing his sanctions motion until after the Kruidbos matter has been adjudicated?  (I'm thinking there might be material evinced in that case that would speak directly to the matter of sanctions.)

    Or are the two mutually exclusive?


    I just read the attachments (none / 0) (#157)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 11:24:05 PM EST
    and I'm confused on some of it.

    I thought O'Mara said they only got some of the text information in early June thanks to an IT whistleblower. The termination letter says White, the lawyer, testified on May 28 that he had given information to the defense five weeks previously. Did they figure out more in early June from what they received from White by way of the IT guy and that's what O'Mara meant or did I just remember wrong about him saying early June?

    I also noted that the letter said the defense had their own expert. Was it up to them to take the file and figure it out and if they didn't find what the state's attorney office employee found, that's just too bad? They aren't required to turn over what they found, but just the source file? That seems to be what the letter says.

    It also says some of the stuff turned over had been ruled by the judge as exempt from discovery. Why would anything on the phone be exempt from discovery?

    I'm asking anyone who knows, not you specifically, Cylinder, unless you know.


    Files (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 12:41:46 AM EST
    turned over to defense, but not in a format they could be viewed is my understanding.

    My memory may not be (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by txantimedia on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 07:49:32 AM EST
    that good, but I believe that what happened was the prosecution gave the defense a binary file copy of the phone's contents along with a detailed list of what was contained in that file.  The problem was, the detailed list was grossly incomplete.  The defense didn't realize that the list was incomplete until they were alerted by Kruidbos' attorney, at which point they hired a forensics expert to find out what was really in the file.  Since that was shortly before the trial began, they had very little time to review the evidence and no time to depose any witnesses regarding that evidence.

    Different Perspective (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by ragebot on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 07:38:55 PM EST
    I came to TL recently but have been a long time fan of VC and followed the case there from the beginning.  Kudos to Jeralyn for her even handed (even if at times it may seem heavy handed) effort to remove comments.

    I also live in a condo, with an HOA, in Florida which may give me a perspective a little different than some.

    For those of you who don't know VC is a mostly libertarian, and somewhat conservative site, that has views from the far left to the far right.  It is rare to see a post deleted there and bashing is not uncommon.

    With the disclaimer out of the way here is a Cliff Notes summary of the Zimmerman case with some parts almost directly plagiarized from VC.

    Zimmerman was first described on VC as a registered Democrat active in a local protest against the police treatment of the police officer's son who beat up a homeless black guy.  Zimmerman spoke at a local black church and distributed flyers to raise awareness of the police department not being more sensitive to blacks.  He was a minority by the standards used at VC and the term "white Hispanic" was derided when used to describe him.  Early on a local NAACP official spoke out supporting Zimmerman for his sensitivity in dealing with blacks.

    Once discovery started there was a great deal of discussion of the time line, physical evidence, and Florida law which seemed to support Zimmerman's self defense claim.  Perhaps more importantly the point was made that most DAs would not charge given the known facts since a hung jury seemed the best hoped for outcome for a DA.

    As time passed more of Zimmerman's personal history came out and it seemed obvious he was not just a Democrat, but a somewhat liberal one who took a black girl to his HS prom, mentored black children, was active in liberal causes.  This seemed to be an example of the Democrats once again forming a circular firing squad.

    Once Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder with a possible 30 years to life and Zimmerman admitted he voted for Obama someone commented that while they would like to see someone who voted for Obama get 30 to life realistically he would probably get off.

    No doubt there have been injustices towards black in the past, including the recent past.  But it seems unlikely Zimmerman was responsible for any of them.  The sad thing is so many folks have used this case to try and advance their personal goals while ignoring reality.

    Not sure about this (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 09:03:53 AM EST
    You say:

    As time passed more of Zimmerman's personal history came out and it seemed obvious he was not just a Democrat, but a somewhat liberal one who took a black girl to his HS prom, mentored black children, was active in liberal causes.

    It is not altogether clear but one could infer you are stating it is a "liberal" thing to do to date a black girl.   Maybe she was just really pretty.....Those kinds of things cut across racial lines.  Most teenage boys don't date girls to make a political statement.


    Preponderance (3.50 / 2) (#205)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    of the evidence, in one pan of the scale you have Zimmerman's lifetime of working with and socializing with all races, and in the other pan you have the personal injury lawyer representing the Martin's with no knowledge about Zimmerman saying he is a racist.

    So naturally he is a racist until proven otherwise.


    MKS (none / 0) (#197)
    by ragebot on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 01:37:40 PM EST
    I suggest you read my whole post and not pick out a single phrase.

    To reply to your post I was a teenage boy long ago and to the best of my recollection there was no rhyme or reason why teenage boys (or teenage girls) dated someone.

    But more to the point my post pointed out many reasons to consider Zimmerman a liberal and Zimmerman taking a black girl to the prom was probably the least important one.


    Whats (none / 0) (#159)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 11:58:21 PM EST

    About my first serious dip into the case was on Gather in a Chelsea Hoffman thread.

    Pretty soon though it was clear that blogs all over started "covering" Zimmerman to rack up hits.


    i have no idea what VC is (none / 0) (#165)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 12:40:21 AM EST

    Volokh Conspiracy (none / 0) (#170)
    by cboldt on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 07:16:53 AM EST
    Multi-contributor blogsite, including contributions by Eugene Volokh.

    oh, of course I know Volokh (none / 0) (#212)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 05:19:40 PM EST
    they are on TalkLeft's blogroll (under law blogs.)

    I just never heard them referred to as VC instead of Volokh before.


    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#186)
    by ragebot on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 10:29:08 AM EST
    Just as TalkLeft is sometimes called TL in posts The Volokh Conspiracy is sometimes called VC.  I first met Prof Volokh on the old listserver Cyberia where the EFF guys discussed things like anonymity on the internet and how to use software to encrypt emails and other internet communications.  When the US govt made some of the software illegal lawyers fighting it in court would wear ties to court with the code printed on it to show how silly it is to outlaw encryption programs and those ties were sold at VC.

    I suggest you check out the site and look at the regular conspirators and the guest conspirators that contribute on a weekly basis.  While the site is a lot more free wheeling than yours (and I am happy you tend to delete comments that degrade the signal to noise ratio) there are a lot of first rate legal minds (I rate Prof Volokh as the best 1A guy in the US) who contribute great analysis from all sides.

    And thanks for administrating such a good legal internet site.


    Per wikipedia (none / 0) (#198)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 02:00:04 PM EST
    The Volokh Conspiracy is a blog, founded in 2002,[1] which covers mostly (but not exclusively) United States legal and political issues,[2][3][4] generally from a libertarian or conservative perspective.
    It remains the most-visited academic blog published by law professors[6] and gets an average of approximately 25,000 unique visitors on weekdays.

    This group blog currently has more than twenty contributors, most of whom are law professors and all of whom are male. Each blog entry is signed.

    The Volokh Conspiracy is often cited by the traditional media such as the New York Times[7] and has been credited with a particularly large influence in developing the plaintiffs' ultimately unsuccessful constitutional challenge to Obamacare.[8] link

    Some of Ya'll should be ashamed (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by DebFrmHell on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 09:51:22 PM EST
    Jeralyn has had to drive all over CO to do her job today and when she gets home she is going to find this.  All of you know her terms and yet, when she is not around, you flagrantly push ahead.

    I anticipate that she will be here to clean up this thread and the sooner the better.

    Again IMO.

    Ashamed of what? (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by jayjerome on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 10:18:47 PM EST
    I've been lurking for over an hour, and it all seems energetic, edgy, and confrontational enough to keep it interesting. Vox Populi at its finest.

    thank you Deb (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 12:58:38 AM EST
    ABG apparently thought he'd take advantage of my absence to hijack the thread to his unsupported views of Zimmerman. His comments have been removed, as have responses to them. He's also now banned.

    YMan is in time out . He'll be allowed back in a few days, if he wants to return.

    Comments about other cases and calls for examples of liberal vs conservative criminal cases have been deleted.

    This thread is one of only two here this week on Zimmerman's case. It's for news about his case, not rehashing discredited or speculative theories.


    Jeralyn, thank-you (none / 0) (#185)
    by Visteo1 on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 09:57:31 AM EST
    for returning with the gavel.  I am still upset about where the comments went.  I am only sorry that I did nothing to turn things around.  It was out of control.

    Thats a lot of the problem (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 12:55:16 AM EST
    NONE of the media are directly sourcing material, they carry wire stories and stories sourced by other news organizations.

    Early on in the case I followed the news by Google, and it was like watching a wave as something from AP, Reuters, or Orlando Sentinel moved across the globe.

    Crump and Julison put out the initial story via just 4 journalists, and it was pretty much the same from each so the rest of the media all had the same story, same images, with minor editing for space.

    Nobody bothered to vett anything with direct sources, and that is a total collapse of ethical journalism.

    Mikado, that has been true for a long time (none / 0) (#175)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 08:54:31 AM EST
    and it existed before the Internet, although the Internet makes it worse. The idea behind the Associated Press and United Press International was to allow newspapers to pick up stories from newspapers who had direct sources.

    I'm guessing that every day a story is put out that has some significant facts wrong. This is especially true with breaking news and crime stories. But the rise in independent blogs and alternative media and the explosion of social media means that a case like this can go global much faster.

    I can't think of another case in my adult life like this one, however. Usually when it's this bad and this high-profile, more mainstream media begins to break from the herd.


    This isn't some (none / 0) (#206)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 03:47:48 PM EST
    There are maybe a dozen key points to the case, some of them quite extreme claims, and as far as I can tell the media failed to check any direct sources and got all of the points wrong.

    What is the excuse for media misstating the Florida self defense statute? They don't have google or 776.012 is too much lawyer talk for a journalist to understand?

    Why was no attention paid to the journalists who sourced the story?


    Check my last paragraph (none / 0) (#211)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 05:18:41 PM EST
    I'm agreeing with you that this case in terrible.

    4 Journalists (none / 0) (#240)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Aug 10, 2013 at 08:44:45 PM EST
    Would you name the 4 journalists?

    please don't (none / 0) (#241)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 02:32:50 AM EST
    No allegations that anyone promoted racism please. it's potentially libelous.

    Please discuss the case, not race.


    OK... In response to Zachriel... (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Cashmere on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 07:36:54 AM EST
    1.  Not guilty is not the same as a finding of innocence, but innocence is also not ruled out.  
    2.  If you review the jury instructions, based upon the evidence presented at trial, it is very difficult to see where the jury was wrong about the law and/or facts (evidence presented at trial)..  Wondering what facts you might think they were "wrong" about or what "law" they were wrong about).
    3.  Referencing this case, the Zimmerman case, how is the law at "fault", allowing a huge loophole for self-defense claims?  If you are referring to Stand Your Ground, and that Zimmerman had no duty to retreat, well, the evidence indicates Zimmerman was unable to retreat as he was being pinned and beaten by Trayvon Martin.  Stand Your Ground had very little to do with this case and it was not used by the defense at trial...
    4.  "May" is a cloudy word.  I suppose you are suggesting there was "implicit" racism in the Zimmerman case?  I guess the new "meme" is that many don't really know they are behaving in a racist fashion, but they are, because some African Americans perceive it to be so.  Therefore, this is applied to Zimmerman's case.  For anyone interested in this "meme", please read "It's the Little Things:  Everyday Interactions that Anger, Annoy and Divide the Races" by Lena Williams, written from an African American perspective.  I read it years ago and was literally shocked at some white behaviors that are perceived by blacks that suggest racism.
    5.  Sorry, no law may be sufficient for some self-defense claims?  Don't understand.  Please elaborate.  IMHO, the right to defend one's self is important and should remain.  Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.
    6.  I disagree with you about Zimmerman having moral culpability, but I predict this  relates back to the implicit racism issue.

    that comment was deleted (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 05:39:46 PM EST
    Everyone here needs to stop retrying the case. We have several posts on the meaning of a not guilty verdict.

    Commenting here is not a "right" that comes with reading the blog. It is provided as a means for those who want to discuss the topic of the post to respond with their thoughts and opinions, provided they don't violate our commenting rules.

    There are thousands of sites where readers can post false facts, insult others and voice personal opinions based on discredited scenarios. This is just not one of them.

    I don't care whether commenters view themselves as liberal, conservative. All points of view are allowed, some in moderation. The primary reasons for deletion are (1) insults and personal attacks (2) off topic comments(3) spreading false information (4) chattering and blog-clogging (5) ignoring requests to stop violating the rules

    This thread is not about TalkLeft's comment policy or who reads TalkLeft. It's about the Zimmerman case. If you have a problem with the commenting, send me an email. Insults to TalkLeft or me, and making false claims will certainly get deleted.


    I disagree, CreamCity (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 09:13:58 AM EST
    When I was a guest blogger, "my" blog had some people who were always contrarian and they stated the same stuff over and over. Except for obvious trolls, few people were banned. I would not have been as lenient as the blog owner.

    There are blogs, often associated with mainstream media, that can have hundreds or thousands of comments. What's the use of that? No one can read them all.

    Frankly, people who agree with Jeralyn often repeat the same stuff, too. But I understand that some people, like me, want to give voice to their opinions and talk to like-minded people on issues in which the MSM is doing it wrong.

    I have yet to see Jeralyn limit someone who was stating actual factual information and news that pertained to the topic. People who get banned generally have been warned.

    I never suck up, and I'm not doing it now. I disagree with Jeralyn on a number of issues (because I'm "big government - yay!"). I read and may comment once and a while on these posts, but I also understand that a blog is like someone's home. You can debate with the host, but you should know your limits.  

    Back to Glenn Loury (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 11:27:49 AM EST
    This is why his interview is important: The great majority of black journalists have been saying that GZ is racist and the verdict arises from a culture of racism. The National Association of Black Journalists is meeting in Orlando. The president has tried to make the convention open to different sides of the GZ case. But the honorary president, Roland Martin, has been vociferous in his attacks on GZ. The new president also supports the columnists who describe the case as racist, according to his Twitter account.

    NABJ is also a job fair. I guarantee that people looking for jobs don't want to be the outlier on a prominent case like this. Networking is hugely important in a field where the job market is tight.

    That's why it matters to hear different perspectives from a prominent African American, especially one who has some liberal cred.

    MOM: I'm not done (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by txantimedia on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 03:27:19 PM EST
    I Would Assume it is Only the Start (none / 0) (#216)
    by RickyJim on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 07:20:31 PM EST
    Have any law professionals weighed in on whether a malicious prosecution case has a chance?  My guess is that is what O'Mara had in mind when he deposed members of the SPD about what was the opinion in the department on whether a case should be brought against Zimmerman.  Does anybody if if he also deposed Norman Wolfinger?

    I love it... (none / 0) (#219)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 07:55:51 PM EST
    when he talks like that.  I don't want him to be done with Corey either and I also want some ruling for the Motion for Sanctions.

    Will Judge Debra Nelson ever address this or is it of no consequence since the trial ended with a Not Guilty Verdict?

    The whole thing about how the supplemental discovery were delivered but a filthy taste in my mouth.I don't think I will ever forget BDLR dropping Discovery on the podium before the start of a hearing.  MOM said "I have no idea what is in there."


    Oh for an edit button... 8-) (none / 0) (#220)
    by DebFrmHell on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 07:58:00 PM EST
    that is not a "but" but a "left!"

    Reviewing the entire trial to add (none / 0) (#221)
    by Teresa on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 08:16:33 PM EST
    things to it.

    Since Judge Nelson moved back to civil trials now, I don't suppose a new judge will hear this? I can't imagine Judge Nelson sanctioning them.

    Anyone know if that type of motion can be appealed?


    Sure... (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by bmaz on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 09:24:56 PM EST
    ...it could be appealed once reduced to a final judgment entered by the court.

    While O'Mara (none / 0) (#225)
    by Nemi on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:22:42 AM EST
    specifically names Corey in the video, she isn't mentioned once in the accompanying text.

    Isn't that a bit ... strange?


    Long interview with Don West (5.00 / 3) (#227)
    by SuzieTampa on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 09:57:24 AM EST
    Bay News 9 in Orlando has a long interview with West. There are no revelations, but it does go into the mindset on a long, controversial case. The short article focuses on the ice-cream photo. If you want the full interview, watch the videos, parts 1 & 2.

    Racial Profiling and Self Defense. (4.25 / 4) (#65)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    I don't agree that a person who commits 'racial profiling', thereby forfeits his right to self defense. I consider that proposition to be morally abominable.

    It seems to me that many people are effectively arguing that this is what the law should be. But I haven't seen any of them advocate legislation to that effect. I see them wimping out to an irrelevant demand for SYG repeal.

    All in my opinion.

    Outlawing Racial Profiling (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    I have seen a few suggestions/demands for 'outlawing all forms of racial profiling', but without discussion of what such legislation would look like.

    I've linked to the proposed bill (none / 0) (#162)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 12:29:52 AM EST
    it outlaws racial profiling by law enforcement. Has nothing to do with non-law enforcement.

    The New Loury (4.00 / 1) (#6)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 12:40:45 AM EST
    I haven't listened to the segment. By Jeralyn, it sounds like Loury has changed his tune since March 2012.

    Loury: This kid, Trayvon Martin, is a poster child. . . . If you wanna be against 'stop and frisk', if you wanna be against citizen vigilante-ism, if you wanna be against police brutality and excess, he's a poster child case. No doubt about it.

    Btw, the comment section has some of my earliest work on the Zimmerman case, before I posted on it here. It might be amusing reading for those who have accused me of having an anti-Zimmerman 'agenda'.

    One thing I miss about those early discussions at Bloggingheads, is that they were divided about evenly between the two sides. I couldn't even say which predominated. It made for some spirited discussion.

    Some time ago (4.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 05:55:29 AM EST
    I learned when discussing the Zimmerman case that its more productive to ask the person what their primary sources of information are, than to jump directly to opinion on culpability etc.

    I am not an angry person, but this case is under my skin and when I hear "stalk" or "he should not have gotten out of his truck" my fingers fly and I can be a paragraph in before I rephrase my comment.

    Some things do seem to be slowly sinking in, but at the same time the core of the case is dropping off a lot of peoples radar with most of the Crump/Julison narrative still intact.

    The case, at least the criminal trial is over, but the agenda of making policy off the false narrative is still alive and well. The NEA and NTA intend to make a teaching module around the case to show how bad it is to be a profiling racist who stalks children. San Diego just approved it by the school board.

    Did he actually review the evidance? (3.50 / 2) (#12)
    by redwolf on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 04:14:51 AM EST
    Most people I talk who spew anti Zimmerman hate have no idea what the actual evidence in the trial was.

    There are other forms of denial (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by cboldt on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 05:35:26 AM EST
    There is another group, taking the evidence more or less as it is, that uses "didn't disprove my conjecture" or "didn't prove self defense" as justification for adhering to a conclusion that Zimmerman was in the wrong.

    And there is yet another group that doesn't understand (or doesn't admit understanding) the legal principles involved in justified use of force.  "Shouldn't have gotten out of the car" is in this group, as are the numerous people who think following (no matter what definition one uses for that, ranging from "trying to keep in sight from 100 feet away" to "tracking 3 feet behind him") is provocation, as a matter of use of force law.

    They are all entrenched in their views, and merely reading their remarks is, at least to me, more than sufficient engagement.


    Nebulous, abstract, and obtuse ABG (3.50 / 2) (#114)
    by fishcamp on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 06:50:11 PM EST

    I hope ABG had fun here tonight (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 12:32:14 AM EST
    because his comments which are about him, his views of race, and completely off topic, are being deleted and he is now banned.

    He's been warned a dozen times.


    Those are my strangest ratings evah... (none / 0) (#189)
    by fishcamp on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 11:16:42 AM EST
    "...Contrary views...not of interest..." (2.86 / 7) (#7)
    by foxtrotsky on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 01:31:51 AM EST
    ...[Y]ou can discuss other case news here as well (Just don't retry the case or insist Zimmerman was guilty -- he's been found not guilty. Your contrary views, especially if you didn't watch the entire trial and are getting your information from media or biased websites, are not of interest here.

    Seriously? "Your contrary views...are not of interest here."

    This is an admission that your argument is indefensible, and obviously so.

    Uninformed (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Cylinder on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 02:34:03 AM EST
    You probably want to review her previous work (and the commenting rules) on this case before making these assertions. She's seemed pretty capable of defending her positions in the past. The evidence has already been collected, analyzed, presented and the issues of facts decided by a jury.

    Are your installation rates reasonable? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by DataShade on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 03:05:11 AM EST
    You said nothing but to put words in someone else's mouth.

    Alternatively, you perhaps simply fail to understand that not everyone who makes an argument wishes to also make - and keep! - themselves available to entertain attacks and criticisms from every passerby.

    Certain things are facts, not subject to opinion: that a verdict was reached is one such fact, and that the verdict was not-guilty is another.  The English language has words for people with opinions which are contrary to empirical reality, and none of them are in keeping with the rules for comments here.  


    No, I will stick with... (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by bmaz on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 02:03:22 PM EST
    ...my description of your divisive and contrarian rubbish. The issue is not about your petty politics and attempt to divide discussion along some manufactured political divide, it is about facts and law. And you are injecting rubbish into the equation because contrariness is your only contribution.

    Yman is often annoying (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 09:21:05 AM EST
    and I for one tend to not interact with him....

    But he does bring facts to the table.....more often than other commentators....

    It all depends on what the desired outcome is.  If a freewheeling discussion is invited a la the internet, then Yman and his ilk are needed.  I have had my disagreements with him, but he brings some timely research to the discussion....

    Hugh Hewitt used to have a comment section on his blog but then stopped providing it...If one wants to have a scholarly blog, then perhaps no comments should be allowed at all...


    he brings links (none / 0) (#228)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 02:48:51 PM EST
    to the discussion.

    is this to Yman? (none / 0) (#164)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 12:37:52 AM EST
    He's in time out right now.

    Yes (none / 0) (#188)
    by bmaz on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 10:54:27 AM EST
    Why would someone be surprised (none / 0) (#3)
    by Visteo1 on Thu Aug 01, 2013 at 09:52:00 PM EST
    by Loury's view?  Why was there no grand jury investigation?  That I question.

    Apparently in Florida (none / 0) (#202)
    by txantimedia on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 02:38:37 PM EST
    it's not required that a grand jury consider any case.  Title XLVII Criminal Procedure and Corrections Section 905.16 states
    Duties of grand jury.--The grand jury shall inquire into every offense triable within the county for which any person has been held to answer, if an indictment has not been found or an information or affidavit filed for the offense, and all other indictable offenses triable within the county that are presented to it by the state attorney or her or his designated assistant or otherwise come to its knowledge.
    (Highlighting is mine.)

    If I'm reading this correctly, any DA can simply file an information for an offense and bypass a grand jury.


    Except capital cases (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by cboldt on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 02:45:04 PM EST
    You are correct.  Any Florida State Attorney can charge without resort to a grand jury, except for a charge that carries the death penalty, in which case a grand jury presentment or indictment is necessary.

    Florida Constitution 1968 - Section 15(a).


    Remember the old slogan (none / 0) (#15)
    by Mikado Cat on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 06:00:46 AM EST
    Don't trust anybody over 30?

    We need something to suit the modern world where profit and political power have replaced any notion of ethical journalism.

    There's still plenty of ethical journalism (none / 0) (#191)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 11:42:18 AM EST
    but it's usually lower on the food chain. Personally, I think Jeff Weiner and Rene Stutzman did an excellent job of covering this case for the Orlando Sentinel.

    But people with power and money have to protect their power and money. That's why the NYT is never going to admit wrongdoing on this case, just as it will never admit the fictional aspects of its reporting on the Kitty Genovese case, for example.

    The majority of journalists are middle class at best, and they are reporting the everyday news.


    Jeralyn did the best job (5.00 / 5) (#230)
    by ragebot on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 06:01:36 PM EST
    Of anyone I have seen getting all the evidence in one place where it could be accessed fairly easily.

    I spent a lot of time at The Volokh Conspiracy following the many threads there and found lots of links to important facts, but it was not organized the way Jeralyn did it.

    The plain fact of the matter is the Zimmerman case was not really that difficult.  The physical evidence, the time line, and the self defense law made it a no brainer, even for a 1YL.

    It took a huge effort by Crump, Sharpton, Jackson, and the media they and others sold their stories to obscure the simple analysis the jury used to reach a not guilty verdict.


    Some of their work is good (3.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 03:59:48 PM EST
    Ironically the best piece I saw on Zimmerman was on ABC, but for a significant portion of time Crump owned Orlando Sentinel by feeding them leaks and exclusives. Play nice, or they go to somebody else.

    A major part of the problem (none / 0) (#213)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 05:23:48 PM EST
    was that the authorities and the Zimmermans were not commenting. Thus, Crump had an open field. The Sentinel would have been labeled as racist if they did not cover press conferences given in a murder case.

    Not press conferences (5.00 / 2) (#226)
    by Mikado Cat on Sun Aug 04, 2013 at 08:20:22 AM EST
    Crump gave the Orlando Sentinel and others exclusives, and the story that went out looked a lot like Crump's hand writing.

    This is Obama's technique with the media, press conferences are invitation only, and only those he calls on can ask questions. One hardball question and plan on never being called again or invited back.


    Good grief (none / 0) (#39)
    by bmaz on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 12:41:24 PM EST
    What a load of specious speculation. And from the person who relentlessly deigns him or herself to be the arbiter and chief scolder of inference and speculation. Give it a rest.

    yman's comment was deleted (none / 0) (#161)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 12:12:41 AM EST
    He needs to do some research.

    Just saw this (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 10:37:38 AM EST
    Didn't realize I was in a "timeout", so I posted on another thread earlier this morning.  You're obviously free to do whatever you want, but it would be helpful to know the reason.  My comments on this thread were limited to your point about Loury ("But I think some people, particularly those who view themselves as liberal, will be surprised by Loury's view").  I responded that I'm not sure why someone would be surprised by Loury because he isn't liberal.  I didn't insult him - merely pointed out that he has a very conservative past and even now is moderate on many issues, including race.  He's a very smart guy, but his positions have been all over the place.  I also provided a couple of links that support my position, including a detailed NYT story about him and a detailed biography.

    My response to Bmaz (where I told him I didn't care what his opinion of me was) was after he launched into an ad hominem attack on me, which was deleted after you took down my comment.

    Your blog, your rules - but I have no idea what comment rules were violated by my comments.


    Thank you txantimedia... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cashmere on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 04:05:52 PM EST
    VERY much!

    bmaz...you taught me (none / 0) (#115)
    by fishcamp on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 06:56:23 PM EST
    not to fall for the trickery so don't go there...

    yman's comment was deleted (none / 0) (#160)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 12:07:18 AM EST
    I have just gotten to this thread, and am going to be weeding out unacceptable comments.

    Yman is in time out.


    On AC now (none / 0) (#124)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 07:41:51 PM EST
    Martins met with DOJ this week to get an update.

    I had my back to the TV but it sounded like JJ saying Trayvon Martin wasn't tried with a jury of "his" peers". Surely I heard that wrong.

    Teresa (none / 0) (#128)
    by ragebot on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 07:57:28 PM EST
    Martin was not tried with a jury of his peers.  In fact he was not tried at all, it was Zimmerman who was tried.

    Sorry about the flip comment, but do you recall which channel the report was on.


    Anderson Cooper 360 (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 08:02:40 PM EST
    I corrected JJ's quote just below. I ran it back to make sure I got it right. What I wrote just above was wrong.

    He said "the jury wasn't a jury" of Trayvon's peers.

    I agree with what you said. Like Jayne Weintraub explained to Peirs Morgan one night - it's a jury of the defendant's peers, not the victim's.


    so what was their point? (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 09:07:21 PM EST
    Zimmerman was supposed to be tried by a jury of HIS peers.

    I don't get it either, Teresa (none / 0) (#146)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 09:29:47 PM EST
    I've heard it countless times since the trial (after they dropped the "they're mothers so they'll find him guilty). The good jury became the bad jury.

    They did a lead up to the conversation with Anderson, Sunny and Danny to discuss whether there might be Fed charges and that comment by JJ was part of it.


    I don't know... (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by DebFrmHell on Fri Aug 02, 2013 at 09:42:41 PM EST
    where to start with that kind of absurdity.  Jackson wants 6 jurors and 4 alternates to be made up of 17yr olds?

    Ha (none / 0) (#201)
    by chrisvee on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 02:14:25 PM EST
    Well he's left of most of the current crop of Repubs doesn't that count?

    Not a chance in... (none / 0) (#217)
    by bmaz on Sat Aug 03, 2013 at 07:30:56 PM EST
    ...you know where. The prosecution was totally ill taken, but the presumptions and qualified immunities put this thought out of question.

    Question (none / 0) (#234)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 07, 2013 at 05:07:53 PM EST
    When I have time, I'm still reading Jeralyn's old posts. I haven't gotten to the new (June, I think) bond hearing, so this question is about the 1st one in April.

    O'Mara had just been on the job about a week and I know discovery wasn't applicable yet, but what information did he have? Would he have been given police reports by then? Or able to review the investigation the SPD had done?

    I'm wondering because of that "no lawyer should ask a question unless he knows the answer" saying. Did O'Mara know what info Galbreath had when he was questioning him about what evidence he had?

    This isn't the only question I wonder about, but one he asked was about the voice analysis and if any had been done. Was that probably due to a newspaper having an analysis done and he just took a chance another hadn't been done?

    Context (5.00 / 3) (#235)
    by Cylinder on Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 03:46:06 AM EST
    Regarding the initial bond hearing, O'Mara had at least Zimmerman's statements and the statements from the residents because of the nature of the motion and (as you pointed out) the questioning. To understand it, you have to put it context. This was the period that the media was excoriating Zimmerman - reporting rumor as fact and making up whatever information was needed to cast Zimmerman in the worst possible light. Zimmerman shot Martin in the head. Zimmerman shot Martin in the back. Zimmerman shot Martin twice. Effing coons.

    The state and Zimmerman, through his attorney, agreed to slow walk the discovery demands. I think this was a mistake, in my layperson opinion. The state was getting the press it wanted - no need to change. They certainly had a motive to hide the weakness of the developed evidence. OTOH, O'Mara thought turning off the tap of information would dry up the negative press. That never really happened, O'Mara recovered quickly though and from the second bond hearing he was willing to fight the media battle on behalf of his client.

    So, why Gilbrath instead of Osteen? At the time I was suspicious that the state was trying to hide something. In effect, they were - the weakness of their case. They put Gilbrath up on the stand, acted like he didn't have all the information and that the Arthur hearing was some kind of  novelty,

    The question O'Mara asked of Gilbrath at that hearing was the same question he used near the end of his closing argument - any evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin or used force in any way.


    Thanks, Cylinder (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 08, 2013 at 09:14:59 PM EST
    I wasn't able to watch TV or get on the internet during that time, so I'd forgotten the stuff I read this summer about the early publicity.

    So O'Mara at least knew the witnesses' first statements and I guess knew that some of them changed them some during March.

    I thought it was odd that Galbreath didn't appear to know anything. He hadn't even interviewed anyone and that's who the state brought? It didn't make sense to me.

    Thanks for clearling all that up for me. I'm reading Jeralyn's old posts and I saw some of the publicity from that. I had no idea until your post that there were rumors he shot TM in the head. How could they get that so wrong, knowing the witness statements right off the bat? No wonder from what little evidence I saw in the 1st two weeks of March that I thought he'd be charged and found guilty. I started reading here again during jury selection, and reading in the forum, I could tell things weren't like I remembered them.