Important Announcement Regarding Character Assassination

As a courtesy, I am letting everyone know that I banned Justincaselawgic this morning at 11:14 am following an unpleasant exchange of comments on the thread titled:

13 Questions in Search for an Answer

In an effort to discredit me, he posted and confronted me with an affidavit that I had signed several years ago in support of an argument in a post conviction habeas petition alleging that I had provided ineffective assistance of counsel in a death penalty case that I tried and lost. The client’s name is Darrold Stenson.

After I signed the affidavit, Mr. Stenson’s lawyers discovered important exculpatory evidence that I had requested but not received before trial. The prosecutor denied that the evidence existed when, in fact, he knew that it did.

Had he acknowledged that the evidence existed and turned it over to me, I would have assessed and tried the case differently. Instead, however, Mr. Stenson and I disagreed on how to proceed with the case and our conflict eventually led to a breakdown of the attorney-client relationship.

The discovery of this important exculpatory information led defense counsel to request a new trial on the basis of the newly discovered evidence. After a hearing in which I testified in support of the motion together with expert witnesses who testified regarding the significance of the evidence, the Washington State Supreme Court reversed Mr. Stenson’s conviction and death sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial.

An important reason why the evidence was so critically important to the outcome of the trial, was that I had successfully persuaded the trial court to exclude all of the DNA evidence in the case, both RFLP and PCR.

I believe this is the only death penalty case in the United States in which defense counsel achieved such a favorable result for a client.

I am delighted with the result for Mr. Stenson, but angry and disappointed that it took 16 years of his life under sentence of death to straighten it out.

I wrote an article about the case and published it here on May 10, 2012. The article has links to the majority and minority opinions.

Someone in the pro Zimmerman camp has obtained a copy of my affidavit, which was on file in the case, and has been spreading it around the internet together with a false statement that I was disbarred from the practice of law for negligent performance in the Stenson case.

I was not disbarred, suspended or otherwise disciplined by the Washington State Bar Association. No complaint was ever filed against me with the bar association or anywhere else alleging that I had done anything wrong in Stenson’s case or any case in which I was involved and no investigation was ever conducted. I have never been sued for malpractice.

Quite the contrary, I am proud of my career as a criminal defense lawyer.

Here are two of my accomplishments:

I was a co-recipient of the National Law Journal’s prestigious Indigent Defense Award in 2000 awarded to me on behalf of Innocence Project Northwest, an organization that I co-founded at the University of Washington School of Law, for my efforts recruiting 40 lawyers to work for free with law students to free 17 innocent men and women who were wrongfully convicted of sexually abusing their children in the notorious Wenatchee Sex Ring case.

I also was a co-recipient of the 2004 King County Washington (Seattle) Lawyer of the Year Award together with the other 7 lawyers who represented Gary Ridgway, the notorious Green River Killer who pled guilty to killing 48 women in exchange for a life without parole sentence.

I voluntarily surrendered my license to practice law after I retired from the practice of law and went into teaching.

I do not know how, why, or when justincaselawgic obtained a copy of my affidavit, but he admitted that he knew about the Stenson decision. He said he posted the affidavit to prove his accusation that I am a weak-kneed lawyer who will not fight for his clients and pleads them guilty when they are innocent.

Nothing could be further from the truth and my entire career is a testament to the contrary.

He also acknowledged that he knew I would ban him when he posted it.

I regret and apologize for telling him to take the affidavit and shove it up his ass. I lost my temper and that was not appropriate.

I do not regret or apologize for banning him.

I wrote this article to give y’all a heads-up regarding the lengths to which the pro Zimmerman camp will go to lash out at anyone who dares to challenge Zimmerman’s unsupported claim of innocence.

And it’s not limited to me. My wife, whom y’all know as Crane-Station and my daughter have been attacked by publishing personal information about them on the internet.

This fight is getting ugly which is probably a good measure of how close we are getting to the truth.

If you think we have it bad, think of Trayvon’s family.

Namaste

372 Responses to Important Announcement Regarding Character Assassination

  1. everyoneisentitledtotheiropinion says:

    Professor, I feel that George Zimmerman is not to fully blame for his behavior. I feel it started with his parents allowing him to avoid punishment or failing to administer punishment when he started this erratic behavior. What is your opinion about his up bringing that may play a roll in this trial if any? Are the family partial to blame why his is so evil and lies…

    • longtimegeek says:

      So, should GZ’s parents be punished for TM’s death? Or, who do you think should be punished? Please keep in mind that many people remember the Golden Rule no matter how their parents treat them.

    • crazy1946 says:

      everyoneis: Zimmerman at this time has not been to trial, nor has he been convicted. If you wish to place blame on his family, would not the proper time be after the trial and only if he is convicted by a jury? While we all probably hold opinions about his past, the only thing that will really matter until the end of the trial is his actions as an adult, and not those of his family during his childhood. The only exception that I could see would be if there was any act by a family member that contributed to the crime that was committed, immediatly before or after the crime.

      • Frank Wilcox says:

        “Zimmerman at this time has not been to trial, nor has he been convicted. If you wish to place blame on his family, would not the proper time be after the trial and only if he is convicted by a jury? While we all probably hold opinions about his past, the only thing that will really matter until the end of the trial is his actions as an adult, and not those of his family during his childhood. The only exception that I could see would be if there was any act by a family member that contributed to the crime that was committed, immediatly before or after the crime.”

        I agree. I don’t see now attacking is family is appropriate at all.

      • roderick2012 says:

        crazy, people are attacking his family mainly his brother and father because they have attacked Trayvon and his parents in the media.

        Instead of attempting to defend their brother and son they have blamed the entire events of that night on Trayvon and have smeared him by using unsubstantiated and false rumors initiated by white supremacists who hacked Trayvon’s social networking accounts.

      • Frank Wilcox says:

        “roderick2012 says:
        August 16, 2012 at 11:07 am
        crazy, people are attacking his family mainly his brother and father because they have attacked Trayvon and his parents in the media. Instead of attempting to defend their brother and son they have blamed the entire events of that night on Trayvon…”

        They, and many others, believe GZ acted in self-defense. Of course they are going to blame the events of that night on Trayvon.

        “…and have smeared him by using unsubstantiated and false rumors initiated by white supremacists who hacked Trayvon’s social networking accounts.”

        Care to provide evidence to support this statement?

      • Frank Wilcox says:

        “Try this. It took just a simple search. There’s probably more.
        http://gawker.com/5897485/white-supremacist-hacks-trayvon-martins-email-account-leaks-messages-online

        First, that’s not a reliable source. Far more importantly, they mention nothing about anyone in Zimmerman’s family “..have smeared [Trayvon] by using unsubstantiated and false rumors, which is the most outlandish part of her claim- and obviously one she will be unable to back up.

    • ajamazin says:

      Members of his immediate family have stated that George did no wrong.

      George actions were consistent with his family values.

    • Rachael says:

      His parents probably were that way – but at some point, one has to grow up and take responsibility for their actions. You can’t blame it on parents once someone is grown, even if it is a factor in how they behave. Once an adult, the onus is on him. It is sad if that is the case, but it does not absolve him of his responsibilty.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      I am the way I am because my parents…. fill in the blanks because it is a cop-out. There are far too many kids who grew up in toxic conditions and yet managed to avoid murdering anyone. Don’t blame the parents or anything else. Apparently he was seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist (GZ told Singleton and Serino) although no one has seen evidence of that yet. GZs Dad knew nothing about GZs mental disorder.

      • Often once we become adults, we often go and do things WITHOUT telling our parents. I went to therapy for 5 years and never told my parents. And yes, I went BECAUSE of issues I learned from poor parenting from my parents. George could have done the same, decided he had ADHD (many adults do) and started to get meds. It has NOTHING to do with ADULT decisions.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          Very true. But, it ires me when people blame the parents. I grew up in an abusive household and I have 4 brothers and sisters. We may have issues, but none of us ended up in any trouble with the law. This nature versus nurture has been a debate forever. Because GZs parents have little to do with this case, I would just like people to know that they are probably devastated by what has happened. Their wishes for a retirement free of stress after years of working hard will never be realized. Their world has been turned upside down. I don’t mean any offence to anyone and some may consider me abrasive. But, analyzing GZs psychology and attributing the killing to the parents is dead wrong.

          • I grew up in an abusive home and I was an only child.

            I don’t think we know enough about why people turn out the way they do to reach any conclusions about whether Zimmerman’s parents bear some responsibility for how he turned out.

            We do not know if and to what extent genetics plays a role. We know head injuries do. We know physical, sexual, psychological, and emotional abuse play a role, but beyond that we do not know enough to reliably predict human behavior, particularly future dangerousness.

            I don’t blame GZ’s parents for GZ’s acts because I don’t have enough information about them to form an opinion.

            I certainly question their claim that their lives are in danger. I think that is ridiculous and I think their trolling for dollars to live on the run is so crazy that I cannot take their claim seriously. If they are serious and not just trolling for dollars, I think they need professional help.

            I don’t know what to say about George Zimmerman. I think he’s got some brain damage going on but mostly I’m seeing a not very smart narcissist with grandiose thinking that borders on the delusional and an antisocial personality disorder complicated by serious anger management issues.

            I know I don’t believe anything he says about anything that is not independently verified.

            Psychoanalyzing someone from a distance is risky business with a high rate of error, but that’s my opinion FWIW.

          • Cielo says:

            Actually Sandra I’m agreeing with you. My beef is with the assertion that because GZ’s father didn’t know that his son was on medication doesn’t mean anything. Gee GZ’S is a grown up and can do anything without telling dear old dad.

            Sent from my iPod

      • rayvenwolf says:

        @Cielo:According to George he was diagnosed with ADHD as a kid. Of course that could be a lie for all we know.

      • Cielo says:

        Raven wolf – many people don’t consider ADHD a “mental illness” akin to depression or bipolar disorder. It’s an attention problem that is helped by medication. Maybe ‘gasp’ GZ’S told the truth about this one fact, maybe in an effort to deflect blame on the medication. But seriously maybe his father just maybe didn’t see the ADHD as a mental illness.

  2. CherokeeNative says:

    Hang Tough Professor. We all stand in solidarity with the family of Trayvon Martin in their quest to seek justice for the murder of their son.

  3. Brown says:

    Thank you for the heads up. I enjoy reading your blog daily. I hope you continue to delve into this case.
    Thanks
    Brown

  4. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    Sorry Professor still trying to figure this blog operation. Signing in but coming up with multiple emails. Having difficulties…
    Testing….

  5. TruthBTold says:

    Apology accepted Professor. As I commented in the other thread, you generally keep your cool but blatant misrepresentation of a person would frustrate anyone. I am glad that you addressed and corrected what that person was putting forth because without delving further, if a person just read what that individual presented, it may have been cause for pause for some people that didn’t know better. Who knows who that poster really was. To me, it got quite personal and we all know that those GZ supporters are rather rabid aren’t they? Ha! Your wife already mentioned how you guys are being attacked and that is truly unfortunate and scary. They are probably hoping that you shut your site down and go away. We will all continue to stand strong with you and for justice.

    • George Smiley says:

      “… but blatant misrepresentation of a person would frustrate anyone.”
      I completely agree. But how is directly quoting something the professor signed blatant misrepresentation? Second, do you think the professor has blatantly misrepresented some things about people, too?

      “…if a person just read what that individual presented, it may have been cause for pause for some people that didn’t know better…”
      The professor has said things a thousand times worse about Zimmerman. The professor could have calmly responded. It wasn’t necessary to tell him to shove it up his ass. That is just so childish and it demonstrates his propensity towards emotional, not logic-based, behavior.

      “…we all know that those GZ supporters are rather rabid aren’t they? Ha!…” justincaselaw didn’t say anything rabid. He calmly made his points.

      “Your wife already mentioned how you guys are being attacked and that is truly unfortunate and scary.”
      That is an entirely separate incident which is, indeed, very unfortunate and scary. That’s not right.

      “They are probably hoping that you shut your site down and go away.”
      – I can’t speak for those attacking his family. My own goal is to see the professor moderate his rhetoric a bit. (But that has gone nowhere..)

      • TruthBTold says:

        Let’s try this again. I’ve already told you that I am not going to play these games with GZ supporters. Buh bye now.

      • ks says:

        “My own goal is to see the professor moderate his rhetoric a bit”?

        Uh huh, so that’s your “goal” now, eh? Well since you can’t really talk about the case well, I guess you’ve moved on to other targets.

        • TruthBTold says:

          ks wrote,

          “Uh huh, so that’s your “goal” now, eh? Well since you can’t really talk about the case well, I guess you’ve moved on to other targets.”

          LMBO.

      • KA says:

        Would it not be a blatant misrepresentation to say that Prof Leatherman was disciplined and/or disbarred and disseminate that information out to twitter and other social media platforms?

        It seems GS, you missed that point. It is was not a few things this person said on this site, it was the totality of his actions.

      • I am going to ban you for that comment for the following reasons:

        1. I have never “blatantly misrepresented” anyone and to suggest that I have is blatantly dishonest.

        2. It’s not the affidavit itself that is the issue. The issue is his intentional use of the affidavit to portray me in a false light. Because he had read the Supreme Court opinion, he knew the prosecution’s intentional misconduct in concealing exculpatory evidence deprived me of critical evidence that I needed to defend and win Stenson’s case. Yet, he used that affidavit, which I had prepared before current defense counsel discovered the evidence, to support his false allegation that I did not defend my client. I don’t believe it’s possible to be more “blatantly dishonest” than that.

        3. Now you are characterizing his conduct as calm and reasonable when it constitutes a prima facie case for false light defamation. That is not acceptable. No one is going to come into my house and spew falsehoods about me or anyone else. That’s why Justincaselawgic is gone and you’re gone because you doubled down on his intentional misconduct.

        4, You cannot plead ignorance because I explained what happened and provided links to backup my claim. If you did not read the materials, you should have. Willful ignorance is no excuse.

        5. If you hoped I would moderate my behavior, you’re going to be disappointed, so you might as well git while the gittin’ is good.

        Buh Bye, George.

      • heartofhearts says:

        George, this is Professor Frederick Leatherman’s blog. I have been thrown out of a blog for not supporting Zimmerman and told I have a diseased mind! Nice, eh? LOL
        I believe that everyone here has been very civil and when a person goes beyond the discussion on the table, it is time to say goodbye.
        I applaud Prof. Leatherman for his honesty and passion in this case and others. I have learned a great deal and plan on continuing to read his blog long after this case.

  6. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    Dear Professor, I feel that George Zimmerman is not to fully blame for his behavior. His parents allowing him to avoid punishment or failing to administer punishment when he started this erratic behavior is mind blowing. There must be a pattern…

    What is your opinion about his up bringing that may play a roll in this trial if any?

    Do you feel the family is partial to blame why his is so evil and lies yet along thinks he is going to walk……

    Just watching th SH interview he acted extremely superior… Mind-blwoing…

  7. Raven13 says:

    We commend You on Your work on trayvon martin case Please do not let the crazies shut You up Professor i hope You will continue To Opine on the Zimmerman case

  8. julia says:

    I am speechless. The lengths that some of Zimmerman’s supporters are going to to defend a man they know nothing about is astounding. You must be getting very close to the truth Professor.

    • TruthBTold says:

      @ julia,

      It is astounding. I mean I am passionate about certain things, what I believe, etc., but this is not even passion it’s just plain craziness. I don’t get why they are so concerned with what we are doing over here. Strange.

      • julia says:

        I have zero desire to seek out a pro Zimmerman site and wreak havoc. I prefer to be in the company of like minded people. Thankfully the professor has provided a place for us to exchange our thoughts,(and frustrations). I pray that it remains a place of safety for him and for us all.

      • Frank Wilcox says:

        I haven’t seen any havoc wreaked here.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        Most don’t care a hoot about Zimmerman. It is the political agenda and what this case result may be.

    • Cielo says:

      I agree with many people here. I am flabbergasted at this act of Internet assault. We talk. We argue and discuss. But truth is the goal. Hang in there sir. We all support you 1000 percent.

    • George Smiley says:

      justincaselaw said absolutely nothing about the professor’s family or friends, just to be clear. He quoted from an affidavit in support of a claim he had made about the professor.

      • ks says:

        Oh stop it. Just to be clear, he misrepresented the affidavit, which was irrelevant to the GZ case, to take a cheap shot at our host.

  9. Concerned Citizen says:

    It is a loud testament to the highly moral character of Professor Leatherman that he would write such an affidavit in support of a man who was facing the death penalty.

    Professor Leatherman clearly put the concern for his former client’s life over any concern for personal or professional ill effects writing such an affidavit might cause for himself.

    Kudos to Professor Leatherman. We need more like him

  10. Trix says:

    You do not owe any apologies to anyone Professor. I would have sent the bastard packing as well. Yes, the lengths these Zidjits go to is unbelievable but that’s okay, we have the TRUTH on our side. Trayvon’s death will not be in vain.

    • George Smiley says:

      If the truth is on your side, why are you so quick to ban people who challenge your viewpoints?

      • ks says:

        That’s dishonest spin. The poster in question wasn’t banned for “challenging viewpoints”. That just a lame and grandiose way of dressing up what was obvious bs. It was a false and irrelevant charcter atatck that had nothing to do with the topic.

        The other couple of people who’ve been banned were the ones, sort of like you, who used abusive troll tactics in an attempt to derial the discussion.

      • Would you put up with some faceless person trying to assassinate your character? I wouldn’t for a second.

      • crazy1946 says:

        George Smiley, Actually the Professor has been more than fair to many of you that have come to create dissent and stir the pot for questionable reasons. He has ignored more nonsense posts than most moderators would have, so for you to say he is quick to ban people is less than honest, IMO!

      • ajamazin says:

        George Smiley writes”

        “If the truth is on your side, why are you so quick to ban people who challenge your viewpoints?”

        justincaselawgic was not banned for challenging anyone’s viewpoints and he was not banned in haste.

        justincaselawgic was totally and persistently off topic and was engaging in personal attacks.

        He was making personal attacks about Leatherman’s involvement in the Stenton Case and other posters on the Zimmerman: 13 Questions Searching For An Answer

        I inserted my own thoughts into one such exchange:

        August 15, 2012 at 10:36 am
        “You have made this personal and it is disrupting discussion of the Zimmerman case.

        You need to take your petty bickering elsewhere.”

        I stand by my statement.
        Troll-like behavior should not be tolerated.

  11. KA says:

    I relate to you Prof Leatherman. I was personally threatened on another forum as well as my location published to “scare” me about my intolerance of racial slurs and my support for this family. Law enforcement was involved. There are others on forums that have similar and worse stories of various threatening and destructive offenses committed by GZ supporter. This small, focused group of supporters will stop at nothing to silence critics of GZ and his team as they blast that “GZ” is the one in danger. I have seen, multiple times, the opposite is true.

    This case has become a mantra for those who consider themselves superior to a portion of our society. Those that hold to unfair and unjustified stereotypes, and those that believe killing someone is a right the constitution gives you when clearly your life is not in danger. What they will do to protect that belief is astounding and social degenerative.

    When I read your blog, which I look forward to, I feel like I am sitting in a post graduate case law class at a top tier school. I appreciate the knowledge and analysis you give. Your heart to disseminate knowledge and compassion in this case is unmatched. In the end, the inaccuracies, rumors, and lies in their posts will be seen for what they are….a strong need to protect a person who killed an unarmed black child unjustly to appease their own ingrained delusions.

    • TruthBTold says:

      @KA,

      I am sorry that happened to you. That is pure insanity. Glad you got law enforcement involved. Can’t take a chance in trying to discern between who is trying to scare you from who will attempt to inflict harm. If you guys are engaging these people in different forums, be careful.

    • George Smiley says:

      What was it you said about Zimmerman’s concerns for him and his family’s safety? — If you don’t think Zimmerman has anything to worry about, then obviously the professor doesn’t. Walk it off.

      Of course, I’m being sarcastic. The professor has every right to be upset about his family being dragged into people’s beefs with him. And I feel nothing but contempt for people who threaten other people, on either side of the issue.

      • KA says:

        They published my kids school location, their names, and blatantly invited violence by saying “I put them at risk” and said it would be someone’s civic duty to shoot me. Law enforcement calling is the right thing to do when threatened, including GZ’s situation. If he is advising the police of credible threats and insisting follow up, then he is doing the right thing.

        In my case though, I have not hired security detail nor do I live in a “safehouse”, nor has a single person from the internet given me a donation, nor have I been on national TV talking about it. Do I think someone has threatened him at some point in the past? Yes. Do I think his security detail and “safehouse” completely overboard? Yes as well.

        His lack of ability to work is also overstated I believe. I have worked remotely for corporations for over 8 years now. There are jobs that are designed to do at home that would pay what he has made previously or more. If he did a suitable job for his previous mortgage company, they could easily hire him to do the same work remotely. There are outsource companies such as Convergys that hire remote technical and/or customer service support. No one would know who he is. He could also go to school on line and finish his degree. There is no need to “live like a hermit” and not contribute to your own well being.

        There is no security risk for him in these options. His teams’ though process is traditional and outdated in saying he “cannot work”. Many, many Americans who work remotely for Fortune 500 corporations. All he needs is broadband and a computer. I am quite sure he is equipped.

      • KA says:

        Just FYI, I was not on a “pro ZImmerman” site causing “trouble”..I was on a Trayvon Martin support site objecting to the nonstop racial slurs from “trolls”.

        • TruthBTold says:

          @KA,

          I didn’t think you were out causing trouble on that site and I don’t think ks meant that towards you. I think he or she was speaking about GZ supporters that visit this site stirring up stuff.

      • KA says:

        No issue Truth…it was directed at GS….just throwing that out there before he came back with that assumption.

    • Read this and your other comment, good Lord! Scary. Beyond it. Good on you for getting law enforcement involved. This cyber bully psycho stalking stuff goes way too far.

      Very sorry this happened to you.

      • KA says:

        I was scared at the moment but…as you can tell, it was not very successful at shutting me up. It was several months ago. No issue now, but I do not buy the story GZ is currently in anymore danger than anyone else in his position.

        The majority of the threats and violence I have seen following this case since inception, has not been from the Trayvon supporters, but from the other side. Curiously, I have never seen TM’s parents wear a bullet proof vest, nor ask for donations for private security teams.

  12. Raven13 says:

    Please do not stop all the work You do opning About this case Justice For Trayvon is near and the Evil bastards are scared!!!

  13. What has this to do with the Zimmerman case? Just curious.

    The only place the Zimmerman case is getting ugly is on message boards and it really is easy to see how internet types are somewhat crazy. The general public isn’t even interested anymore.

    This was self defense.

  14. ks says:

    Wow, I just read the exchange in question and it’s obvious what happened. Former poster Justincaselawgic’s arguments were getting destroyed so he/she took a desperate cheap shot at our host here. It’s clear that he/she was blatantly misrepresenting the affidavit and decision in the Stenson case to one) divert attention away from the intellectual butt kicking he/she was getting and two) try and discredit our host. It was an epic fail on both counts.

  15. FactsFirst says:

    What drew me to this blog is the Professor’s bravery… I knew that he was putting himself, his family, and his reputation at risk… But I also saw a man who stood for justice not, “JUST US”….. I applaud Professor and anyone who’s willing to stand for what’s right.. @Professor, You will be in my thoughts and prayers…

    • La Luna says:

      Well said, FactsFirst; much respect for the Professor and his family! I have previously read, with interest, about his work and the history of the cases he cites. I am sorry to learn his good character is being misrepresented, but trust his truth will always prevail.

  16. Denise Mock says:

    I enjoy reading your blog everyday. Stay strong!

  17. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    Dear Professor, KEEP UP THE FIGHT FOR JUSTICE!

  18. George Smiley says:

    I don’t know exactly what was said, but I am very much against the professor’s family and/or friends being included in any way re: criticism of the professor- or his beliefs.

    However, I believe criticism of the professor himself is fair game. It seems to me that the professor became enraged when a debating opponent provided evidence to back up a claim he had made.

    It seems to me that if you are going to tout your abilities and credentials as an attorney in support of your arguments, that you should be able to handle criticism of them. You apparently could not.

    My biggest criticism of the professor (and certain others here) has been what I consider blatant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

    It is very hard to take some of the outrage seriously around here. You can’t call Zimmerman supporters “racists” and “stupid”, and then claim the moral high ground when you are criticized, too.

    It’s also pretty clear that none of Zimmerman’s friends or family members have been considered off-limits to the professor or his followers. So I don’t see how you can claim the moral high ground on that either.

    Well, you can do these things, but t just makes you extremely hypocritical in my mind. And I guess you can ban me too for speaking it.

    • George Smiley says:

      One final irony is the professor’s propensity to mock Zimmerman’s concerns about his safety and that of his family. Do you really think you have to deal with a thousandth of what he has had to? Yet I have sympathy for both of you.

      I also respect your right to complain about the way you feel you’ve been treated. That’s your right. I say that knowing full well that you have no sympathy for Zimmerman, and that you would refer to his voicing of his concerns to be “whining”.

      That’s because I’m not a hypocrite.

      • boar_d_laze says:

        George,

        You wrote:

        “One final irony is the professor’s propensity to mock Zimmerman’s concerns about his safety and that of his family. Do you really think you have to deal with a thousandth of what he has had to?”

        That comment was gratuitous, conclusively showing the rest of your post to be insincere.

        Despite your denial, you are certainly a hypocrite.

      • ks says:

        Funny. You’re not nearly as clever as you think you are. Your “left handed” compliment is a typically empty one. What’s ironic is that GZ’s safety concerns are largely his paranoia. The judge didn’t buy it and there hasn’t been any attempt to harm him or any member of his family whatsoever. That you try a false equivalency between that and the professor’s concern about people posting aracter attacks IN HIS BLOG is just stupid.

      • julia says:

        George,

        There have been times when you’ve made some compelling statements that I’ve found thought provoking. Unfortunately, you have a tendency to come off as heavy handed and rude. Today you have made some arguments that are truly nonsensical. I question why you remain on this site at all, when you are clearly not happy with the host and find many of the guests offensive. Perhaps your time would be better spent on a Zimmerman site where you can converse with like minded people. I am in no way suggesting you be banned. I am however going to be presumptuous and say that today your holier than thou attitude has not made you many friends here, and I suspect your future contributions may be met with animosity.

  19. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    Zimmerman is GUILTY! Where is the hammer???

  20. I regret and apologize for telling him to take the affidavit and shove it up his ass. I lost my temper and that was not appropriate

    If someone was trying to assassinate my character, I’d have told them the same thing. :) Just saying…

    • George Smiley says:

      So you wouldn’t object if George Zimmerman, his family, his friends, his attorneys, Witness 6, those who believe GZ acted in self-defense, and those who contributed to his fund were to all come here and tell the professor to take his rhetoric and shove it up his ass? Because he has attacked the character of every single one of them.

      • Here is what I think. Honestly, if some creep came to my blog trying to assassinate my character before my followers, I wouldn’t have been as nice as the Professor. Got it? Bye now!

      • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

        George, that’s rich coming from you a person who believes in stereotypes and who has attacked Trayvon’s character as well as the professor’s.

        The professor did not attack Z’s family’s character, but I did and what I said was the truth.

      • ks says:

        Yet another weak attempt at a false equivalency. The actual equivalency would be if PFL went to their blogs/websites and falsely impunged their character though I would love if GZ and his family and friends came here to “defend” themselves.

      • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

        Btw, I forgot and I am suspicious of O’Mara knowledge about the donations and a few other things. The professor defended O’Mara regarding my suspicions. Although, I did not try to go any further regarding it, I am still watching O’Mara closely.

      • Dawn says:

        You believe that it is acceptable to go into someone’s “home” and insult him, and to do so with a false misrepresentation of a factual situation. You wonder why GZ supporters are accused of racism when they readily accept his multiple narrations as truthful, a man with a history of aggression and arrest for said aggression, a man who writes of “ho’s” and “Mexicans” on his Myspace page (while in his early 20s), and who had created another site using the name “datniggytb” that was taken down quickly after the sh*t hit the fan – and who just as readily accept the notion of a skinny 11th grader with no violent background becoming a raging homicidal maniac, a high school junior now a “thug” because he flips the bird in a photo and likes a smoke now and again.

        You believe that the only credible arguments to be made on Zimmerman’s behalf are his own statements, ignoring unimpeachable forensic evidence that controverts those statements, as well as the gross deceptions and inconsistencies easily discerned in those statements. You believe in relying upon one W6 account of events, while discounting his recantation (something you share with O’Mara). You have indicated no desire to examine the evidence presented to you, and to attempt to support your arguments by refuting that evidence in any manner, much less in one that utilizes critical thinking.

        You, sir, are a troll.

      • Granny said:

        The professor did not attack Z’s family’s character, but I did and what I said was the truth.

        bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha

      • crazy1946 says:

        George Smiley: In one of your early posts you suggested you would be banned from this site. What is the deal, do y’all have a contest going to see how long it takes to get banned? You attack the words and thoughts of others here in this forum, you attack the owner of the site, in a manner that would typically cause one to be banned from most sites. Be honest why do you want so badly to be banned? Is it a status symbol to be able to brag you were banned from this site? Why??????

    • Tzar says:

      yup, the professor was gentle in my opinion

  21. Cheryl Mingo says:

    Thank you for ALL of your input on the Trayvon Martin case… I believe you are correct that the closer we get to the FULL truth of the matter the more sever and intense the attacks will be and that is unfortunate for everyone…even for the on lookers waiting for Justice in this case. Ppl should … operative word… should respect the boundaries of personal business of others outside of this case that do not have and direct influence on this case..

    • Frank Wilcox says:

      “Ppl should … operative word… should respect the boundaries of personal business of others outside of this case that do not have and direct influence on this case..”
      I totally agree with that. People should keep it about what happened that night, and refrain from character assassination.

  22. boar_d_laze says:

    By way of context, procuring an affidavit of “ineffective assistance” by trial counsel is SOP for an appeal — especially for cap murder.

    Professor, you’re being treated shabbily. I’d apologize for the behavior of my fellow human beings, but the species of your tormentors remains unproven.

  23. Mr Leatherman~~Welcome to the the blogsphere! It seems that you have just been initiated. I could relate horror stories to you of what a blogger and I had to endure for almost 3 years. Why? Because our blogs were popular. We were getting death threats on a daily basis via anonymous emails along with phone calls. We had our email hacked. They found my deceased daughter’s obituary on line and posted it on the internet. They used her name in their blog to ridicule me. I will leave it at that. One thing I will say. THEY did not win.

    • Unbelievable and surreal. So sorry this happened. Unfortunately, it’s getting to the point where I am not even surprised.

      And that’s sad.

      • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

        This is why I do not fool with Facebook or Twitter. People should be ashame of what they do but I guess George Zimmerman produce these type of zbots. They are so afraid of others opinions; even though I think Professor is spot on! Don’t stop keep up the good work…

        • Yeah, you know, I have a Facebook page, but I hardly ever visit. I do send links over there, and from time to time I ‘like’ things but at one point I deleted the page. Some dear friends from hs years asked me to come back- I did, but reluctantly.

          Joined Twitter during Egypt revolution, thought it was wonderful, never dreamed it would descend into an orgy of hate. Unfortunately I am seeing a lot of it, not just this example, but it seems to be a tool this election season, for a lot of hateful stuff. Sad.

    • I’m sorry to hear about what happened to you.

      Some people really lack a fundamental sense of decency. They spew hatred and bigotry and think they are clever and funny.

      I think they are pathetic fools.

    • Tzar says:

      what the hell is wrong with people?!!!!! SMH
      who does petty shit like this?

  24. Pooh says:

    Shocked to hear about this attack on you and gentle Crane Station. Some real kind of a war, I guess.

    So while you’re at it, why not go ahead and ban George Smiley, who is contributing nothing and posts his useless bile way too often. Just recently on another thread I had a conciliatory thought towards the admitted racist Mr. Smiley. But I vote that his time is up.

  25. Justkiddin* says:

    Professor I appreciate the honesty but really you do not need to explain. It says a lot about a person who blindly believes in a liar. Who continues to believe in said liar after they are found out to be a habitual liar a habitual liar who for no reason gunned down a minor child. On that note I will add I totally agree with you telling Justincase to shove it in his/her ass. I would have done the same. It is not acceptable to drag children into any fight, whether our children are grown or minors. Again just goes to show you some people have no respect for other people’s children. Case and point Trayvon Martin. jmo

    • TruthBTold says:

      @Justkiddin*,

      I agree with you but to clarify, the poster that got banned did not bring in Professor Leatherman and his wife’s children. These individuals, from my understanding, are from Twitter and stuff like that.

      • Justkiddin* says:

        TruthBTold thank you for correcting me! In my rush to tell them to stick it in their ass I completely screwed up the comment. LOL I have no clue about Twitter. If my grandchildren did not turn on my computer I would be lost.

      • Correct, it was Twitter. I only looked at the first page of Twitter after typing Frederick Leatherman into the search box. I was amazed. They were claiming stuff like “failed lawyer with charges pending,” claiming that “his wife is in prison.” One of the stalkers went to the trouble of searching for or paying for my mugshot from several years ago…but then what was creepy was bringing Fred’s daughter into it. It even dragged into politics, of all things, and I have no doubt some stalker is trying to figure out what party we are or some such nonsense (I am registered Green and did not vote in 2008).

        I reported and blocked one person, and I did not read beyond one page, because I felt like I needed to shower and check for my wallet, the stuff was so sleazy.

        Makes me wonder, if they are going to all the time and trouble to stalk the family of an internet blogger, can you imagine what kind of disgusting bullshit they are trying with Judge Lester?

        Sorry to digress, TruthBTold! /endrant

        • TruthBTold says:

          @Crane,

          No need to worry. Your “rant” was relevant:). Yeah, they definitely get down and dirty. How is it relevant to the issue is the million dollar question. While I do appreciate and love advanced technology, it definitely has some serious drawbacks. The fact that someone possibly paid for personal info on you is taking it to a whole other level. My goodness.

      • You are correct.

        Justincaselawgic did not mention my wife or my daughter. Anonymous individuals using internet names on twitter mentioned them.

        I do not know if there is a connection.

    • George Smiley~~how about climbing up on the fence with me and sit a spell. We can have a little chat about …”you should respect a blog owner. It is afterall his house and we are all his guests. It is fine to disagree with a blog owner but it can be done in a tactful say… a few words can do wonders… here they are…” With all do respect, I disagree with …blab, blab, blab…

      Before you hop up on the fence with me, how about fixing the typo in my last comment… A added one * the too many. TIA

  26. GrannyStandingforTruth says:

    Professor, I didn’t see the person’s comments you’re referring to because I was babysitting my two year old great-grandbaby this morning, and she is a hand full. Her mother has finally come to pick her up, Thank you Lord.

    Nevertheless, I am not going to stop coming here to discuss this case and I stand behind you and your wife 100%. Nor do I look at you any different than I did since the first day I began coming here. From what I’ve observed of you so far, you’re a person that stands up for what is right and pretty straightforward. You’re knowledgeable about different ethnic cultures, racism, human behaviour, and the law. I appreciate your website and many of the posters on here because I love gaining knowledge.

    I have my own personal substitutes for cuss words and in the case of all those who have attacked you I have this to say, PLUCK EM’.

    • julia says:

      Granny~I had my almost two year old grandson. They are indeed a handful. Glad you’re back. I enjoy your participation.

  27. GrannyStandingforTruth says:

    In the beginning, when Angela Cory first charged Zimmerman with second degree murder, those who support Zimmerman were accusing her of falsely charging Z and blaming their usual scapegoats Sharpton and Jackson for Z’s predicament. In other words, they have misplaced blame for Z’s actions and shifted them to people who are just doing their job or who did not pull the trigger and kill Trayvon. They wanted Angela’s head and job. Thank God she’s a strong woman and a smart one too.

    Yet, they have the nerve to accuse people of attacking Zimmerman, family, and friends. It was Zimmerman, family, and friends who couldn’t wait to get on national television and give Zimmerman’s testimony before a trial even took place. However, because their flimsy story did not convince people like they assumed it would and people questioned it, we’re all somehow smearing them now. Puleezze! In the first place, they should have kept their mouth shut, but I guess they never heard of “loose lips sink ships.” Even poor people have that much sense.

    As for Z needing money, well, he went through $250,000 or $300,000 in a couple of days. To some people that is a whole year’s salary, to those who are have a low-income that’s a twenty year salary, and to those less fortunate that a forty something years. I’m sorry to hear that he thinks that under his circumstances that he should be entitled to live the life of Riley while under the charges of murder, but most people get a public defender and make do with the best they have.

    • Justkiddin* says:

      Granny tell it! Ruffles the feathers that him and his wife are talking about a good life when TM will never take another breath. As far the money is concerned who cares if he is broke? IIRC his sorry behind was broke before the shooting. How is today any different? Who needs 30,000 for living expenses? Many families have had to cut back, but because he murders a child who in his mind is a criminal he should live the rest of his life off the backs of others.

  28. ajamazin says:

    Apparently, justincaselawgic had other issues:

    justincaselawgic says:

    August 15, 2012 at 11:14 am

    “Leatherman,

    It is obviously your right to ban whomever you please. I expected this would occur, considering your allowance of ajamazin to remain after her personal insults. ”

    I was unaware that I had offended justincaselawgic .

    However, I do apologize.

  29. Thanks to all of you for your kind words of encouragement.

    I am not afraid and I am not complaining.

    I will continue what I am doing with even more determination.

    I just wanted y’all to know what’s happening so that there are no misunderstandings.

    I believe transparency is important and that is why I left the comments as they were for anyone interested in reviewing how it went down.

    I probably will not wait as long to ban others who bring nothing but empty conclusions with nothing to back them up.

    I do have one regret, however, I interrupted Sling Trebouche as she was in the process of politely destroying justincaselawgic’s argument. Please accept my apology, Sling. :)

    I also find no fault in ajamazin’s treatment of justincaselawgic because the freakin’ dude asked for it and I should have banned him long ago. :)

    I’m still getting used to wearing the black robe up here, so please bear with me as I grow into the role.

    I am committed to maintaining this blog as sacred space, a safe place where we can share ideas, teach and learn from each other and work together to assure that justice is done in the Trayvon Martin case.

    When I say Namaste to you, that is the sacred part of me recognizing and greeting the sacred part of you.

    Namaste.

    Carry on.

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      Dear Professor, parden this question again. I asked early and really would like your thoughts.

      As a professor of law when you observe Zimmerman’s actions does it appear his parents being what they are gave him the arrogance to continue to bully people over the years and walk free.

      His family arrogance just rubs me the wrong way. His Father Judge Zimmerman clearly lied about Trayvons scream being Georges. Your thoughts…

      • Everyone~~hope you don’t mind me not typing out your full name. With these blingers, goodness know what I may call you. LOL I am the Queen of Typos.

        If it’s okay, I would love to add my penny’s worth. I do not fault Robert and/or Gladys Zimmerman. My heart goes out to them. I cannot even imagine what it would be like to have your son/stepson be charged with murder. Robert Z took the stand and said it was his son screaming. Does he really believe that? I am not sure. I know he wants to believe it so much that he probably can’t even surmise that his own ‘flesh and blood’ may be holding a gun on an innocent youth and then discharging that firearm. No, I cannot condemn the parents. The real guilty one who should be condemned is hiding out in Seminole County.

    • verafish says:

      Wear the robe, Frederick. This is *your* space and we’re your (very grateful) guests.

    • Patricia says:

      Professor, cyberatttacks with selective quotes – or outright lies – simply show that the opposition fears your success in bringing the truth forward.

      Not only that, but you are encouraging those who follow your blog and participate therein to develop and use their analytical power to search out the truth.

      In this case, Zimmerman’s own blatant lies fly in the face of physical evidence and logic, which is hugely discomforting to his fan base. So they are frantically flailing at your reputation, which is growing nationally in the media.

      Imagine their frustration!

      Zimmbots don’t know what the hell to do about this Leatherman-powered tsunami of truth and logic that is inexorably rolling forward on an international basis that shows their idol to be, simply and clearly, a totally self-centered, lying child-executioner.

      Their deep frustration is that their idol GZ (whom they always knew had feet of clay) turns out to have feet of merde – which is gradually consuming his whole being.

      Those cyberattacks – and expect more to come – are in reality, GOLD MEDALS that prove your effectiveness. You are the grand winner in the OLYMPICS categories of TRUTH-SEEKING, ANALYSIS and LOGIC.

  30. wisenupoet says:

    The black robe fits you well.. great blog.. keep up the good work sir…

    • Dave says:

      The black cap that you donned for the recent unpleasantless was also fitting. These attacks just go to show how important your work has become. Many thanks!

  31. wisenupoet says:

    I have two words that truly describes you: Freedom Riders….
    Never give up sir…

  32. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    mainstreamfair, interesting view… I just look back at how my parents raised me. You treat people the way you want to be treated. If you show you are a liar or a bigot as a parent that is and influence on the child. Geroge has attacked police officers, employee at car max who filed a grevience; he developed this vigilante cop attitude from somewhere. He is such a loser… But I do agree the real guilty one who should be condemned is hiding out in Seminole County…

    • Everyone~~ It is nature or nurture that makes some people turn out to be criminals etc or are they preprogrammed at the time of conception? There are some wonderful, law abiding parents who have a child turn out to be nothing like them at all. Lots of unknowns eh?

  33. whonoze says:

    “Someone in the pro Zimmerman camp has …been spreading … a false statement that I was disbarred from the practice of law for negligent performance in the Stenson case.”

    Is this not libel? Of course if anonymous users post a comment in an open forum, the forum owner should not be held responsible. But a blog itself is form of publication, and any blog owner who would transmit a statement like “Fred Leatherman was disbarred tor negligence in a death-penalty defense,” can and ought to be sued.

    I have no idea why there isn’t more libel litigation – why Sandra Fluke did not sue Rush Limbaugh for a bunch of his millions of dollars. You simply cannot make harmful false assertions of fact about people.

    • Welllookielookie. says:

      whonoze,

      Can blog owner’s be sued if they use proxy names all over the blog world? If so, wonder if it wouldn’t be a good idea to just expose EVERYONE and THEIR past. How they “kill” OFF, call it “just having fun” “blame” others”! Then “poor ME ME ME whines all their pain away, never try to make amends of any kind, just like the great George Zimmerman! What a deceiver the great deceiver be! In sheep wool!

      I wonder if Professor Leatherman has a corner here for ALL that history. If so, we appoint the good Professor, judge. lol

    • masonblue says:

      Yes, it is libel and I am waiting to see what happens before I decide whether to sue.

      I have to figure out their real identities first.

      • A poster on the GZLC site who has been very “vocal” against you is the profile on this link. He seems to be a very smart legal mind, but repeats quite a bit from TalkLeft on the forum. I read that forum daily to see what the other side has to say.

        http://www.facebook.com/?sk=welcome#!/aj.noiter.1

      • Hmmmm. His name is in the link. When I repost, the same link shows up. If you go on Facebook, just put AJ Noiter in the search box. He is a regular on the GZLC page and has posted links about you for several weeks now.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        There are other regulars at GZLC besides the one mentioned who also spread lies about you and your family. I’ve witnessed people on the fence or not supporting GZ demand links and proof, but noone at GZLC could or would offer that, of course – they tend to disappear or start personal attacks and then claim that TM supporters do that (and trolls on both sides do). The GZLC crowd often brag about operating only on facts and evidence while ignoring plenty of facts and evidence, and pat themselves on the back for being loving and kind just like GZ, while castigating anyone who opposes them as racists, idiots, haters, and other names, mostly projecting their own venom and weaknesses. They also tend to parrot one another in the extreme, often without checking facts before they do so. I must say there are also some awfully hateful people spreading inaccuracies and spewing venom on pro-TM sites as well. People feel safe to express deep anger or blow off steam behind a computer. Most seem harmless and sadly uninformed, but a few seem like they just might get themselves in a pickle down the road.

        Have courage!

      • hinkster4ever says:

        Here is why people should be careful what they post online…

        http://www.ajc.com/news/ga-man-awarded-404-809868.html

        The topic is about a young teenaged boy who went to the store and bought snacks and never arrived home with them. This is America and our young people are being murdered. And in public forums we are not being allowed to voice our concern, nor reach out to the family and friends with love and concern….for fear of being attacked. Maybe some should read the above article of one such woman who attacked on a blog…..

        It’s easier than some think to find out who they are Professor…..this woman posted under many names, even talking to herself….you go through their internet service providers.

      • Leelee says:

        Professor I took the liberty of sending you an email with regards to one of the banned posters.

  34. I have just banned George Smiley.

    This is my basis for the decision:

    “I am going to ban you for that comment [his comment responding to TruthBTold's comment @4:02 pm today] for the following reasons:

    1. I have never “blatantly misrepresented” anyone and to suggest that I have is blatantly dishonest.

    2. It’s not the affidavit itself that is the issue. The issue is his intentional use of the affidavit to portray me in a false light. Because he had read the Supreme Court opinion, he knew the prosecution’s intentional misconduct in concealing exculpatory evidence deprived me of critical evidence that I needed to defend and win Stenson’s case. Yet, he used that affidavit, which I had prepared before current defense counsel discovered the evidence, to support his false allegation that I did not defend my client. I don’t believe it’s possible to be more “blatantly dishonest” than that.

    3. Now you are characterizing his conduct as calm and reasonable when it constitutes a prima facie case for false light defamation. That is not acceptable. No one is going to come into my house and spew falsehoods about me or anyone else. That’s why Justincaselawgic is gone and you’re gone because you doubled down on his intentional misconduct.

    4, You cannot plead ignorance because I explained what happened and provided links to backup my claim. If you did not read the materials, you should have. Willful ignorance is no excuse.

    5. If you hoped I would moderate my behavior, you’re going to be disappointed, so you might as well git while the gittin’ is good.

    Buh Bye, George.”

    • whonoze says:

      Do not ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for trolls.

      • masonblue says:

        That made me laugh.

        Good one!

      • Frank Wilcox says:

        I have trouble seeing how he was being a troll, per se. Trolls tend to contrive their statements with the sole purpose of disruption or shock value. If that were truly his intention, there would be far more effective means of doing so. It seems to me the beliefs he was expressing were authentic.

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      Thank you Professor, it took way to long…..

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      To: George Smiley

      Tell your buddy George Zimmerman the law will find him…and administer proper punishment.. 25 to life sounds good!! Justice for Trayvon..

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      Thank you. I am a debater from away back and tend to take little personally. But bullying and disrespect is not the name of the game. I thank you for allowing opinion on this site because it allows one to get to know a little bit about where the commenter is coming from. I have learned so much already – except I don’t know what a troll is. I have only just retired and now have the time to expand my horizons after a very demanding career. This case interests me in more ways than one. I am sorry you have attracted those who I call – haters. Your banning them is your right and I respect your decisions. Reporting personal threats or misrepresentations is the right thing to do. My final thought, it is my understanding that there have been no reports of threats upon GZ or his family. They have received alot of hate mail. But no threats have been reported to law enforcement. I would supply where I read it, but I cannot remember where it was. I would have paid more attention but I did not know I would want to use it. I admire your strength of character — To Thine Own Self Be True.

      • masonblue says:

        Thanks, Sandra.

        Appreciate the kind words.

      • whonoze says:

        ‘Troll” derives not from the mythical creatures, but from a metaphor of fishing by trolling: moving slowly in a boat while dragging a spinning lure behind to attract fish. Internet trolling is going into a ‘virtual community’ and trying to bait users there just to piss them off — ‘fishing’ for reactions as prank, disruption, sabotage. A ‘troll’ is one who trolls in this fashion.

        Commenters who go into hostile territory in search of actual debate, and attempt to argue their position sincerely are often mistaken for trolls. The tendency of all short-term text exchanges to generate flame wars can turn someone who starts out with good intentions into a troll. Trolls say the same things over and over again, don’t cite credible sources, don’t respond to the substance of critique, just go back to the same unsubstantiated assertions. Any one or five of George Smiley’s posts would perhaps not be trolling. By the 15th iteration of the same BS, you basically know he’s TRYING to get banned.

        NLME, host of the magnifico blog bcclist.com says “Debating George Zimmerman Supporters Is Worthless” (http://tinyurl.com/cyrhph6), and it’s hard to disagree.

        On a related note: I cannot fathom why anyone participates in Twitter.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          whonoze – Thank you so much for the troll explanation. I keep hearing the term on YouTube and thought it was someone with an opposing view. Now that you have explained it so well, you have made my day. I agree that it is best to ignore the allure of the lure. Thanks again.

    • Frank Wilcox says:

      1. I have never “blatantly misrepresented” anyone and to suggest that I have is blatantly dishonest. —

      It appears to me that you blatantly misrepresented George Zimmerman as a racist in your last post when you stated as fact that he referred to Trayvon as a “fucking coon”.

      That has absolutely not been established as a fact by any stretch of the word. When he asked you for a link to a single audio expert that stated this as a fact you provided none.

      George Smiley asked, “…do you think the professor has blatantly misrepresented some things about people, too?”. The answer is yes.

      “2. It’s not the affidavit itself that is the issue. The issue is his intentional use of the affidavit to portray me in a false light. Because he had read the Supreme Court opinion, he knew the prosecution’s intentional misconduct in concealing exculpatory evidence deprived me of critical evidence that I needed to defend and win Stenson’s case. Yet, he used that affidavit, which I had prepared before current defense counsel discovered the evidence, to support his false allegation that I did not defend my client. I don’t believe it’s possible to be more “blatantly dishonest” than that.”

      I have read the… very, very long ruling on your client’s efforts to appeal based on insufficient counsel. Your counsel was found to be legally sufficient by 8 of the 9 judges, and the last judge stated they understood your reasoning.

      But it would not be a complete misrepresentation to make the statement that you did not aggressively defend your client during the guilt phase of the trial. This is by your own admission. You wanted to save his life, your client wanted to be acquitted. You and your co-counsel concluded that was highly unlikely to happen.

      Your reasoning for this was at least arguably sound given the evidence you had at the time, but there can be a good faith philosophical difference of opinion as to whether your approach was the best one for your client.

      as expressed in the minority opinion in that ruling.

      I’m not presenting an opinion on whether your approach was right or wrong, my only point is that one could argue, as the dissenting judge did, that your approach may not have been fair to your client.

      You may not like that criticism- but that doesn’t mean that anyone who makes it, and offers evidence for it, is blatantly mis-characterizing what happened. He had an arguable case, and you banned him for making it in my opinion.

      “3. Now you are characterizing his conduct as calm and reasonable when it constitutes a prima facie case for false light defamation. That is not acceptable. No one is going to come into my house and spew falsehoods about me or anyone else. That’s why Justincaselawgic is gone and you’re gone because you doubled down on his intentional misconduct.”

      But he didn’t spew falsehoods professor. I read the affidavit- that is what you said. And, per above, I don’t think his presenting that particular evidence in support of his claims was unreasonable.

      And it has nothing to do with the exculpatory evidence that was unknown to you at the time, but a question of whether- even based only on what you knew then- whether you should have made an effort to more aggressively defend your client during the guilt phase, as he had wanted you to.

      I’m not putting my foot in that debate, merely stating that I think it should be subject to debate. And further, that George Smiley- who I happen to admire- said nothing worth banning him over, either. Merely made criticisms you didn’t like and arguments you disagreed with.

      “5. If you hoped I would moderate my behavior, you’re going to be disappointed, so you might as well git while the gittin’ is good.”

      Oh Professor.. such obstinance. :-( I haven’t known you very long but, as I read the ruling, I could fully appreciate how unpleasant your client must have found dealing with you. But I believe you had his best interests at heart nonetheless.

      • crazy1946 says:

        Mr. Wilcox, So you have decided to join the contest to see how long it takes to be banned? What does one have to gain? Is there some sort of perverse pleasure that you guys feel by twisting the words the Professor has used to mean the oposite of his intent? I can’t imagine what the point is of joining a blog or a group that you do not agree with for what seems to be the sole purpose of causing problems for the owner or the membership. Perhaps it is my age that causes me to not understand the thrill that comes from that.. Just what do you gain?

      • CherokeeNative says:

        What? Are you guys just sitting out there waiting in line for when one is banned another takes his/her place? Suggestion, google “Pro-Zimmerman blogs” and go have fun with people of like minds. You are not enlightening us – to the contrary – we are more resolved that we are getting closer to the truth as the trolls get more restless and rude.

      • boar_d_laze says:

        With due and complete lack of respect,

        It would be a good idea to get a grasp of what an affidavit of ineffective assistance means in the real world of appellate courts and attorneys, especially in cap murders.

        It’s not uncommon for an attorney who has done nothing wrong or nothing ineffective to file an affidavit in hopes that the reviewing court will find that it will be one bit of a basis for overturning a verdict.

        Appellate courts don’t find ineffective assistance very often because the standard is VERY high — nearly impossible if the attorney showed up seemingly sober and remained awake through more than half of the trial. Strategies, no matter how boneheaded, are not considered ineffective assistance in all but a few backwater jurisdictions.

        It’s rare, but occasionally you do find a judge who will either go along or has enough of a wild hair up his ass to need to dip an oar into the water.

        While you may have read the decision, you weren’t equipped to understand it.

      • Frank Wilcox says:

        boar_d_laze,

        You devoted quite a few paragraphs to informing me of things already well known to me, and unrelated to the point made. I do appreciate the effort though.

    • julia says:

      Your house…your choice. I think we all gave him more than enough opportunities to participate fairly…and kudos to KS for going in for the team more than once yesterday and sparring with that flying monkey!

  35. Prof~~I invited him up on the fence, I was going to push him off. This fence is real high. Well, you took away my fun. lol

  36. Leelee says:

    Thank you Professor, they both needed to get the boot, reading their posts was painful.

  37. Zhickel says:

    Fellow Fred Followers, lend me your ears!

    I believe the best thing we can do for gun-slinging, right-wing, racist trolls is – starve them of the oxygen they need to survive.

    The pattern is established; use a nickname (or variant thereof) of an established old-time musician, sportsman (no sports women, have you noticed) or personality. Very similar to the behaviour and naming conventions found on the more aggressive right-wing political sites.

    Yep, I’ve been guilty of some mild snipes but from now on, refuse to acknowledge these people.

    There is NO LAW that says you must abandon your dignity and engage with them.

    Do not give them a platform from which to spout their nonsense. Don’t even acknowledge their presence. If they continue their baiting, let them talk to an empty room until Fred bans them.

    To Fred and Crane, best wishes. You are good people and deserve to have your private lives and your families left in peace.

    • Zhickel ~~your comment brought back memories of when I was raising my children. I just wish we had video cameras back then.
      Those of us who have been around those ‘terrible twos’ that bring on the temper tantrums will know what I mean. Set up a video camera where your child generally spends most of their time. Once your child has a trantrum, a full blown one, look at him/her and don’t say a word but calmly leave the room and stay in another room for about five minutes. Return to the room where your child is, I can guarantee you that the little darling will start howling and screaming again at soon as you come into sight. Repeat this a few more times. When you play back the video you will note how wide-eyed and calm the little one is once you leave the room. It is a home movie to die for. Make sure you and your child get to watch the video together.

      Sometimes ignorance is bliss and silence is golden.

      • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

        mainstreamfair, I had to deal with one of those “terrible two’s” today…my great-granddaughter. My headache was going away, until you mentioned “terrible two’s” and now I’m having a relapse. :)

        Yes, silence is golden, sometimes.

    • masonblue says:

      Thanks, Zhickel.

      Good advice.

    • Frank Wilcox says:

      “I believe the best thing we can do for gun-slinging, right-wing, racist trolls is – starve them of the oxygen they need to survive.”

      So silly. I voted for Obama (will be twice in a few months.) Definitely not right-wing. But not ultra-liberal either.

      “The pattern is established; use a nickname (or variant thereof) of an established old-time musician, sportsman (no sports women, have you noticed) or personality. Very similar to the behaviour and naming conventions found on the more aggressive right-wing political sites.”
      Nothing to do with right-wing political sites, but you get credit for picking up on a pattern, even if you don’t accurately characterize it. Arch Stanton, George Smiley, and Frank Wilcox were none of those things.

      “Yep, I’ve been guilty of some mild snipes but from now on, refuse to acknowledge these people.”
      This is one of those things that sounds good in principle, but never, ever works. It’s just way too hard.

      “There is NO LAW that says you must abandon your dignity and engage with them.”
      It’s a law of human nature. I make a point and people then have a tendency to want to express agreement or disagreement.

      “Do not give them a platform from which to spout their nonsense. Don’t even acknowledge their presence. If they continue their baiting, let them talk to an empty room until Fred bans them.”

      Unless someone drops the N-word or says something TRULY offensive, which I have never come close to doing.. you should probably just try to be friendly and fair and let people make their points in peace.

  38. Dennis says:

    This reminds me of the Amanda Knox case in Italy. A highly decorated retired FBI agent named Steve Moore was very critical of the CSI team handling the investigation and believed Knox and Sollecito were innocent. You wouldn’t believe how many people attacked him regarding his knowledge of forensics, which most of them had no knowledge of. Thankfully, due to the help of Moore and a scientist in the Innocence Project, they were able to assist their defense team to get them acquitted.

  39. Dennis says:

    Frederick, I as well as others wonder what a life sentence means in Florida. I believe in Florida a life sentence literally means “life”, until you die in prison. In other states I believe life can mean 25 years. Would you be so kind as to correct me on this. Thank you.

    • Dennis~~I am going to guess that life is 23 and one-half years in Florida. I do believe there is also life with no chance of parole plus natural life.

      • Vicky says:

        The amount of actual time served by an individual sentenced to life varies from state to state and is dependent upon at which point an individual is eligible for parole. I believe in Florida, life is life unless commuted to years, and then it is 40 years…at least i think that is what i read at some point.
        Then the individual is at the mercy of the parole board. Federal courts have their own eligibility standards as well. Length of time considered life when translated to years and parole eligibility can also be changed based upon the composition of the legislatures following any given election cycle. Even then, some changes in sentensing guidelines grandfather earlier sentences and others do not.
        Basically, the short answer to your question, is that it depends.

      • boar_d_laze says:

        In Florida, life is life.

  40. Dennis~~this is what google said…A life sentence in the State of Florida means that the convict will never be free, but in other states it is 25 years. I think second-degree murder is around 25 years.

  41. TruthBTold says:

    Bumping over so Professor can see. It was a busy day today.

    Professor,

    I understand the differences between the types of evidence and how strong circumstantial evidence can be. However, on the flip side and this has nothing to do with this case I am referring to the criminal justice system in general, an innocent person can be convicted on circumstantial evidence as well. Or is it more so individuals being convicted due the actions of criminal justice professionals (e.g. prosecutorial misconduct, shoddy police work, etc.)? Or does the two go hand-in-hand? Thanks in advance.

  42. aussie says:

    A few people need to post on the internet with their real names, to make their content verifiable. This includes the Professor and Crane-Stanton. As anons, anyone could believe they are making up their expertise on a topic. This leaves them wide open to personal attacks, and that is a risk anyone in their position is taking, be they aware of it initially or not.

    Anyone who is just commenting is better off never revealing enough personal details for their families to be traceable. This is particularly important in America, where so much personal information is so widely available on the internet. And on the internet, where so many jump to conclusions on a similarity of names without trying to verify they are actually referring to the same person.

    That said, it is totally wrong for anyone to drag in the families of someone they are arguing with, when they can’t win the argument. I’m not saying to tolerate it, but don’t be too surprised.

    I am afraid the door to this kind of behaviour was somewhat opened by the thread that led to wild speculations of criminal conspiracies by named persons, including witnesses. It is one thing to say GZ is a liar, as there is evidence. Another to say X or A helped him in a murderous hunt: how is that not an attack on them? how are their convictions or financial circumstances relevant?

    As for George Smiley, he was here before and he will be back. He has better language skills than most pro-Z trolls, and shows signs of being able to think. He may do more of it, if not put on the defensive all the time. On my experience with internet trolls, he is a not beyond rehabilitation. He won’t take instruction; he’s the kind who needs to feel he discovered the truth for himself.

    • Zhickel says:

      Aussie, I’ve been meaning to ask for a while – are you in Oz or an expat in the USA? Feel free to tell me to go to hell if you like. I’m just curious.

      I have my opinion about the entity known as G Smiley, T Jones and other names; yes, fairly erudite and literate. Enjoys being a big fish in a small pond.

      I don’t think Fred made a mistake by opening up discussion on the more way-out theories of the Martin/Zimmerman case. In these days it’s no less or more appropriate than the discussions that try to prove Travyon Martin was a drug addled, thieving gangster.

      If someone goes to the trouble to set up a blog, post regularly, respond to contributors …they are entitled to set the standard with regards to what is posted on their blog. They are under no compulsion to rehabilitate, to accept comments that personally offends them or simply go against the general tenor and nature of the blog.

      Do you remember the old ‘Public Bar Defence’? An arsehole gets barred from an Aussie pub in the old days and cries ‘Unfair’! It’s a public bar. Yes, it may be, but it’s also private property. With the number of specialist, political and partisan blogs around these days, there is absolutely no reason for a troll to purposely bait or introduce discord into a gathering of like minded people.

      To do so clearly means they intend to make trouble.

      And remember, 95% of the user generated content on the internet is by 5% of the users. Fred is not required to make his blog opinion-neutral. He has every right to discriminate over what is posted here.

      • TruthBTold says:

        @Zhickel,

        Good post. I mean really. Also to Aussie, Frederick Leatherman is his real name and Crane-Station’s name is out there as well. Doesn’t appear that they are hiding their identities.

      • TruthBTold says:

        Also, when I initially started posting I did my due diligence and verified that Fred Leatherman is who he says he is, a criminal defense attorney (former now). There are legal documents with his name attached out there. He also provided information.

      • aussie says:

        That’s what I’m saying, guys. For certain types of posting, the person’s real identity being known adds tons of authenticity to what they’re saying. They do. however, run the risk of being outed on personal issues, if someone wants to start “playing the man”. I was just suggesting people who don’t NEED to give their real names should not do so, for their own security.

        I also know the conspiracy theories have to be gotten out of the way. But if I were some of the people involved, I would have been more than a little upset to see myself described as being the beater for a human hunt. So I hope they ARE out of the way and we can go back to facts.

        Even these speculations were more sensible than digging into criminal or financial records of witnesses, when there is zero evidence these may be relevant (eg that there’s blackmail or similar involved). This, to my mind, is no different than the sites that tried to dig up criminal records or welfare cheating for Trayvon’s parents.

        @Zhikel, I’m in Sydney. HA! I dare anyone to use that personal identifying information to find me among 3.5 million people. I have a lot of US friends I chat with, and when one mentioned this case in passing, I was quietly embarrassed I didn’t know enough about it to offer an opinion. The rest, as they say, is history ;)

      • verafish says:

        Zhickel said “If someone goes to the trouble to set up a blog, post regularly, respond to contributors …they are entitled to set the standard with regards to what is posted on their blog. They are under no compulsion to rehabilitate, to accept comments that personally offends them or simply go against the general tenor and nature of the blog.” APPLAUSE!! And worth repeating (which I just did).

        I was astonished when Frederick invited the rest of us to help construct Rules of Conduct on this blog. That is the kind of hospitable generosity that really doesn’t have to be offered. I monitor a tech support forum and my employer sets the terms of use. Period.

        If Frederick doesn’t like the color of my shirt today, it is his right to warn, or even ban me.

        I’ve also learned through long years of participating on other comment boards that the regular participants go a long way toward policing comments or “guiding” certain acceptable behaviors. (Yes, you have the power to simply chase some people away by ganging up on ‘em. I’ll own it.)

      • Zhickel says:

        Aussie, I’m in Melbourne, in the process of moving out of town to Wonthaggi.

        I’d followed the case for a while because I’m fascinated by the cultural and political differences between USA and Oz. One day I googled for a map of the shooting scene, the better to picture what happened. That’s how I first came upon BCC List.

      • aussie says:

        Yeah, bcclist is what saved me; I was about to give up after several days of hateful horrible troll sites, bad enough I work with (ie against) trolls all day without having to read them in my spare time as well. First time I looked at the map while listening to the NEN tape, I could see it was a mystery worth delving into. That tape sounded so off, and it still does. I’m learning a lot here about the legal differences. All in all I feel we’re well off where we both are.

    • Vicky says:

      I personally don’t think it is acceptable for anyone to engage in personal attacks against someone because you disagree with their opinion. Respectfully attack the opinion, not the person. And to take the time to “investigate” a Blogger and then misrepresent the information uncovered is inexcusable and a sign of weakness. Going after their family members is beyond out of bounds. However, it does not really surprise me that a die hard GZ supporter would abandon ethical conduct, given the person they have chosen to champion.

      Sadly, some individuals who support George Zimmerman have completely lost sight of what should be their focus, that being the presumption of innocence, which is admirable if they are ever selected to serve on a jury. However, people exchanging ideas and opinions on the Internet are not members of a jury, hearing only that which is presented in a court of law. The discussions taking place are based upon information that has been released through the discovery process. And none of us know at this point what will or won’t be used by either side in legal proceedings. So why should it matter if conclusions are drawn based upon personal opinion or consensus? And why should anyone take offense if the consensus of this blog is that GZ is guilty?
      I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone confident in their own opinion would become so threatened by the opinions, theories, interpretations, etc. of another that they would sink to the level of making overt or covert threats against them/their families or to search high and low to dig up information to be used as a means of intimidation. The only reason I can think of is that they have lost confidence in their ability to defend their conclusions, and lack the maturity or intellectual integrity to admit defeat.

      • TruthBTold says:

        Preach Vicky.

      • Welllookielookie. says:

        “I personally don’t think it is acceptable for anyone to engage in personal attacks against someone because you disagree with their opinion. Respectfully attack the opinion, NOT THE PERSON?” right on girl! RIGHT ON! We must not do such a thing. Terrible to attack someone just to make another life miserable. What if the someone is dying of cancer or something horrible. Of course it is the way of cheap bullies, and they can’t begin to imagine themselves having done anything damaging.

      • Zhickel says:

        Vicky, good post. I hear you and agree with most of your comments.

        Experience has taught me that to attack the opinion generally serves no purpose as, by the time the opinion is consolidated in writing, in some sort of internet post, it is well beyond modification.

        You end up travelling in ever-decreasing, concentric circles; the running being ruled by the person who made the first contentious assertation and their stamina in making continuous rebuttals.

        I don’t believe anyone’s mind has ever been changed, on a topic of importance, by an internet discussion!

      • julia says:

        well said

      • Tzar says:

        what blows me away is who these people are willing to lie for? the guy has a bad track record everywhere you look and they are going to town for him.

    • Frank Wilcox says:

      “I am afraid the door to this kind of behaviour was somewhat opened by the thread that led to wild speculations of criminal conspiracies by named persons, including witnesses. It is one thing to say GZ is a liar, as there is evidence. Another to say X or A helped him in a murderous hunt: how is that not an attack on them? how are their convictions or financial circumstances relevant?”

      I agree, and respect your saying so. The events of that night should be the focus, imo. It’s tempting to get caught up in rhetoric and enthusiasm. Both sides need to self-regulate at times.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        I am one who is guilty of creating my own conspiracy theory solely based one things that seemed wrong about the facts unfolding and the behind-the-scenes happening. I talked about 2 of GZs friends participating in certain aspects of the tragic event and the investigation after ward. Yes, much of what I wrote could not be proved. But, the possibility was disproved either. I wrote it to get the juices flowing and who knows, something could have been discovered through a brain-storming activity. In hindsight, I may have been wrong to name GZs friends. I am willing to accept responsibility and any consequences of having done so. If his friends chose to pursue the matter, I think they would have to prove that what I said was wrong and that would be an interesting discovery for me. It was a scenario in a conspiracy theory setting.

  43. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    The Zbots seem to attack without being able to support their arguments. Professor always backs this opinions with documents. Why can’t others just have respect and don’t stab at someone because they are disproving your created facts.

    • Xena says:

      Everyone …
      Their arguments are supported — by Zim’s words. LOL! Some are actually inconsistent with Zim’s words. After his taped re-enactment, some still argue that he was on his way back to his vehicle after the dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that.”

      Even in their renditions, what rakes against my spirit are their outright lies, such as Trayvon’s knuckles were cut.

  44. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    CORRECTION we need spell check. LOL! The Zbots seem to attack without being able to support their arguments. Professor always backs his opinions/facts with some form of documentation. Why can’t others just have respect and don’t stab at someone because they are disproving their created facts?

    Everyone Is Entitled To Their Opinion.

    Its just our Professor thoughts are spot on! Sorry Zbots….

  45. Xena says:

    Professor, I have lurked on your website for weeks. It’s generally after a hundred or so comments, so I have not contributed. The same is true now, but I feel compelled to support you against the intentional liar who would attempt to defame your reputation.

    While contributing to Yahoo comments on an article about Zimmerman, a Zimmerman supporter saw my profile and postured being a “paralegal” as “nothing more” than a legal assistant and that I was probably working for free. Actually, I would not be ashamed if that applied.

    Don’t know if any comments have shared this already, but I would like to encourage you with something a lawyer told me once about how he knows when the opposing party knows they have no case; i.e.;
    When the facts are against you, argue the law.
    When the law is against you, argue the facts.
    When the facts and the law are against you, make personal attacks.

    You professor, were personally attacked because that person knows the facts and law are not to Zimmerman’s favor.

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      Zimmerman payday is here! And all his associates who continue to lie for him. As our Professor suggested in the previous post, “we don’t truly know what the evidence is the prosecution holds. We have only seen some..” They have something and I believe it will be explosive.. NAILS IN A COFFIN…

      Be encouraged Professor….

      • Xena says:

        Everyone…
        I agree about the prosecution. The inclusion of the vid of the M&I Bank Atm showing Mark Osterman at that bank at about 6:38 p.m. has me puzzled. If I remember correctly, O’Mara has been successful in not having Zim’s phone records released. There is a theory that someone gave Zim a head’s up about a “suspicious” person.

        LLMpapa on Youtube has a good vid about Investigator’s Gilbreath’s testimony at Zim’s first bond hearing when asked what evidence the State has to prove their case.
        “We have Mr. Zimmerman’s statements. We have the shell casing, and we had Mr. Martin’s body.”

        Now I understand that the Zimbots would not construe what Gilbreath stated because their main focus is Zim’s purported injuries. Which leads to something else the State no doubt has, which are the materials used to wipe blood off Zimmerman, since the First Aid Kits are included in evidence.

        We may very well come to find out that the blood on Zim’s head (other than the dried blood coming from purportedly fresh injuries) came from Trayvon that Zim acquired on his hands (no blood on the gun trigger) as he turned Trayvon’s body over to represent that Trayvon was on top of him and fell face forward.

        The location of the shell casing interprets where the gun was fired. And of course, Zim’s story about spreading Trayvon’s arms out at his sides does not agree with the actual position.

        I am VERY confident that the State knows its case and am also very proud that they have not fallen for O’Mara’s ambushes at the bond hearings.

      • Thanks, I am encouraged by all the supportive and kind words.

    • Thanks, Xena.

      I’m familiar with that statement. There’s a lot of truth to it.

      Yes, some people can’t handle the truth.

  46. Artavia Anderson says:

    I love your blog Professor, I have followed the case closely. Coming here does helps me if I missed something. You have done a wonderful job at breaking down this case. I thank God for you and I’m praying that no harm ever comes to you or your family. Keep up the great work..Justice for Trayvon Martin!

    • Thanks for the encouragement and the prayers, Artavia.

      I’ll keep doing what I’m doing.

      • Digger says:

        Good for you Professor, good for you!

      • thejbmission says:

        Yes Professor Leatherman! Please don’t allow them to win. You have a great blog here and an incredible crew of very insightful readers.
        I’m so sorry for what the Haters are trying to do to you. The nerve of some people! Especially the cowards commenting under pseudo names and proxies. Grrr..Demeaning you while hiding in their own closet. We don’t get to Google their name.
        Well hang in there! They’re just jealous that you have attracted intelligent followers.
        Keep up the good work!

  47. logi says:

    What does this guys case have to do with GZ ? remember….
    Haters gonna hate, that’s their job (Katt Williams)

    • Xena says:

      Logli, you took the words out of my mouth. I was pondering this thinking that the only reason that person would go to the trouble of getting and presenting the affidavit, would be in attempt to demean the Professor and taint his credibility.

      Based on my observations, most Zimbots don’t know the difference between a “motion hearing” and a “trial,” and have never read a case decision. That makes it all the more dangerous when people who are ignorant of the law try to interpret it for the sole purpose of denigrating an officer of the court.

      But I would guess that the same person who presented that affidavit and theory to impugn the professor’s credibility, will not address that Zim failed Introduction to Criminal Justice.

  48. logi says:

    Back to business…
    In the reenactment video GZ says the reason he spread Trayvons arms apart was because he thought something was in his hand when he was hitting him. Why does he want to draw attention to this? I do feel some of his statements are calculated, poorly calculated but calculated all the same. I mention this because we know Trayvons phone was found near his body as GZ knows as well, but how could Trayvon be holding something in his hand while banging GZ head with both hands and smothering with both hands as well? In the video murder reenactment GZ had not yet added the part about being repeatedly punched in the face and the last act before being shot according to GZ was the smothering which was open handed. Is he trying to justify telling the medic he was struck with a blunt object ? Why bring attention to it when he wants to claim the injuries were from head slamming?

  49. Zhickel says:

    The way I read it logi is that from the moment GZ frisked Trayvon’s dead or dying body and found no weapon, two words flashed in his mind’s eye; Self Defence.

    Despite his protestations of not being aware of the SYG law, he knew damn well he needed to pile on the life-threatening circumstances to have any chance of beating this.

    So that’s what I believe he did. Glibly invented every possible circumstance that could result in his death and hope that when called to explain inconsistencies he could dismiss them by being stunned, choking, breathless or all three at once.

    • longtimegeek says:

      How many opportunities did GZ have to learn about SYG and self defense? Community college, concealed weapons permit training, and neighborhood watch training?

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      Thank you and good morning. I have just finished watching the latest YouTube video by stateoftheinternet. He comes up with a few very good points. I agree with him that, when GZ is making statements shorting after the killing, he is role-reversing. There is always some truth to a lie. Gotta go back to the first interview. Give the video a watch. He is pretty good and has calmed down quite a bit in the last wee while.

    • Pooh says:

      Nah. GZ is acting in his own movie. He says he spreads TM’s arms out because that’s what cops do on tv. There isn’t any evidence that he actually did spread TM’s arms out, at least not enough to get TM’s hands out from under his body.

  50. mcave77 says:

    Wow!! I’m sorry this happened to you but I’m not surprised. I saw people making comments about the affadavit on the George Zimmerman Facebook Page. I didn’t think they would take it this far but they have done the same to witness 9. They said hateful things about her and posted her images, history, legal documents, etc. on some blogs not even worth mentioning by name.

    I am very sorry that they did this to you:( This case is filled with emotions. I debate people on a daily basis and try my best to reveal blatant lies about Trayvon Martin and his family. I have noticed fake facebook and twitter accounts set up for TM and other members of his family in an attempt to spread despicable rumors about them. It is very sad and I report them on a daily basis. This is my way of fighting for Trayvon when no one else did that night he screamed for help.

    I check this blog on a daily basis and I appreciate the time and accuracy in your postings. I remember you posting about how you were having a ball and now this…I am so sorry you have to go through this. If GZ had the truth on his side then his supporters would not have to go to great lengths to attempt to destroy the credibility of those that don’t support them. They only attempt character assassination because they have nothing else.

    • Rachael says:

      I’m really sorry too, and shocked as well. I have been posting on a few other sites where people get pretty stupid, but I figured it’s “kid stuff.” I guess I am pretty naive. What was described here is certainly not kid stuff and I have a very difficult time imagining adults would do such a thing. It is beyond bullying, but I am glad you are going to stand up to it. I totally agree with Xena with regard to what she said about when the facts and the law are against you, make personal attacks and I know I have seen my share of personal attacks – but this is so beyond that and it just blows my mind.

      I’m really sorry this happened to you, sorry it happens to anyone and I am so glad this blog is here.

  51. crazy1946 says:

    I am out and about today, and not able to do a real search (I’m on my stupid smart phone!), so would it be too much to ask for someone to look and see if there is any truth to what I read on another site, the statement was made that witness #4 and witness #7 interviews have yet to be released? The reason that I ask is there was an “alleged” rumor that a video of the altercation had possibly been made by one of these witnessess and had not been released yet? It sounds a little far fetched to me, however at this stage in this murder investigation, nothing can simply be dismissed as false until it is exposed to the light of day!

    • TruthSeeker12 says:

      If I am not mistaken, witness 4 and 7 are Chad and Brandi Green so I doubt they have a recording. Witness 10 and 31 have been released to the defense but not to the public. I have no idea who they are but I have not heard that there was a video made. Serino threatened GZ that TM may have recorded the whole altercation with his phone but I believe that he was bluffing to try to get GZ to admit he was lying.

      • crazy1946 says:

        Truthseeker, Thanks for looking that up for me! I found it pretty strange, however like I said, at this stage nothing would really be much of a surprise! Like you, I find it hard to believe that TM would (could?) have made a video, especially with a cell phone and low light, at the same time he was talking to his friend, I suppose it is possible, but is it realistic? I will say one thing, for some reason the state has been very quiet recently, I do suspect they have some sort of bomb to drop on the defense and are just waiting for the right time to drop it! Possibly we can expect to see some action after this lastest motion is denied by the apeal court? It occurs to me that if Zimmerman is getting so poor because of his need for security, that Judge lester could (should) help him on reducing that cost……………

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          crazy1946 I agree a video taken with Trayvons phone would be nice if taken at the short period of time behind the houses. Highly unlikely though.Maybe this is what set GZ off. But, there may be snaps of GZ prior to that – as Trayvon was being followed. There may be someone that has a security camera at their residence that recorded the incident – a camera that GZ hopes to God has – one that he doesn’t know about as he says.

      • whonoze says:

        You are mistaken. Witnesses 1-22 are numbered in alphabetical order by surname. Cheryl Brown, Austin McLendon’s mother, is W4. Brandi Green is W7. Chad Green is not on the list, unless his formal surname is not “Green”, but falls between ‘Johnson’ and ‘La___”‘, inclusive, in which case he could be W10, whose name has to fit into that slot.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        TruthSeeker12 – One of the witnesses may have taken their camera phones out to record the incident as their way of helping without having to go out and get caught up in the fight or endangering their own safety. Most people do not want to get physically involved and that is why there were so many 9-1-1 calls. It is not beyond belief that a witness has something bombshelling concrete to offer.

  52. whonoze says:

    In general I agree with aussie that some wild conspiracy theories were floating here. I wondered if I should say anything at the time, and decided not to for two reasons: 1) it not my blog, 2) I thought Prof. Fred was pretty clear about identifying a thread devoted to wild speculation on sleepless nights as being, well, wildly speculative.

    There is a certain echo in the zeal and self-righteousness of Team Z and Team M. I say that without drawing a moral equivalency, but I’m not sure folks interested in justice ought to engage in certain kinds of discourse even to modest degrees. The attacks on Mark O’Mara are eerily similar to the attacks on Benjamin Crump on the Zimmietard sites. The rush to judgement that anyone who offers evidence that supports Zimmerman in any way must be up to no good has is eerily similar to the attacks on The Teacher, Mary and Selma, the funeral director, and so on.

    A major problem, it seems to me, is simply a kind of laziness in writing that is enabled by the nature of web-forums. Thoughts go from brain to finger to post button without editing or reflection. And we tend to think in definitive language, use words like “JohnW6 is a lying piece of shit” inside our own minds, even when we know up in our frontal lobes that this is merely our conclusion, not a verified fact. And that leaks out into the posts.

    We should not censor or self-censor discussions of witnesses and even wild hypotheses. We should do a better job of framing them with clear qualifiers, attribution, labeling speculation as such.

    I suspect Mark Osterman saw Trayvon Martin enter The Retreat and mentioned that to George Zimmerman. I don’t know that, I could well be proven wrong, and if he did do that there’s nothing necessarily sinister about telling a friend that you saw a stranger walking through his neighborhood. I also suspect Mark Osterman engaged in obstruction of justice, though I could only guess at his motives for doing so, or to what degree he may have done so, even if my suspicion is correct. Which it may not be. I have no problem naming names in the context of clearly marked and contingent speculation.

    To go a bit deeper into the issue, it seems to me there are various categories into which speculation about the events of the case can fall: plausible hypotheses supported by some physical evidence or valid argument; questionable hypotheses neither well supported nor well counter-evidenced; hypotheses that are implausible given known evidence processed via valid argument, and finally statements of fact, (e.g. “Mark Osterman tipped George Zimmerman.” which are unjustified no matter how plausible they may be.

    As far as the ‘rules of civil debate and discussion’ are concerned, the expression of any opinion, clearly stated as an opinion and framed in contingent language, ought to be permissible, up to a point. That point is reached where the substance of the utterance recedes and what language philosophers call its ‘performative’ dimension asserts itself in an uncivil way (what it does, not what it says). For example, prefacing a repeated string of posts designed to be inflammatory with “It’s just my opinion, but I think….” is not good enough.

    It’s certainly ‘in bounds’ for the blog host to request commenters to attempt to stick to more the plausible end of the opinion scale, or for participants in the discussion to suggest that the discussion would be more productive if people kept some of their more outre speculations to themselves.

    What is extraordinarily common in Internet discussions, and is absolutely NOT Kosher, is making mis-statements of fact, and when called out on them, saying, “Well everyone’s entitled to their opinion, and that’s just my opinion.” If it’s your opinion, you have to say so in the first place, and use the proper language for framing opinions.

    Of course, in some instances, one can assume a statement’s status as ‘opinion’ can be inferred from context. the attentive reader will note I have not been peppering the last few paragraphs with “IMHO”s. In part that’s because I’m making obvious propositions of policy, and not propositions of fact. And also, It’s not just my opinion, it’s the rules of English grammar, and accepted principles of argumentation employed by virtually every debate judge, and public speaking or expository writing teacher in the world.

    *end rant*

    • whonoze~~Bravo! Your rant was very informative and darn good advice. I have alway encouraged people when they state something as a fact to support it with a reliable source. Sadly some opinons can be taken as factual. Those JMO’s, IMHO and MOO’s can come in handy. Thanks for your comment.

    • boar_d_laze says:

      Yes. Well put. It’s a shame you felt compelled to state what shouldn’t need saying, but there it was.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      whonoze – re: your rant. Well put and I am in total agreement. Personally, I know I certainly went overboard. The subject was conspiracy – impossible to prove thus far without all the evidence or the resources to dig deeper. But, I thought some of the discussion was interesting and the discussion was lively. I called it a free-for-all at the time and I think it got a few things off people’s chests, gave others a moment to open their minds (get out of the rut) and may there are other possibilities. After all, the only one who knows what actually happened after the NEN call was GZ. Thank you for your rant.

    • julia says:

      Well said and I agree with much of it.

    • roderick2012 says:

      Wow!!
      I would agree with your rant except that since Zimmerman and Trayvon are the only ones who know exactly what occurred that night and Trayvon is dead and it’s obvious that Zimmerman has misrepresented the events of that night then this situation is ripe for speculation since no one will ever truly know the circumstances that brought those two together than night although we have some objective evidence that tells us what occurred before, during and after.
      I resent your attempt at false equivalency by comparing O’Mara with Mr. Crump. Although Crump could rightly be categorized as an ambulance chasing lawyer the fact is that if it had not been for him pressing for answers and getting this story out to the news media Trayvon’s murder would have been swept under the rug. OTOH O’Mara who began his representation of Zimmerman with an apology to the Martin family is now saying that the defense strategy may include smearing Trayvon. Yeah O’Mara is a stand-up guy. O’Mara knows that many of the known facts of the case are against his client so he will crap on the memory of a dead 17 year-old.
      Let me give you some history about Sanford and its police department. In 2010 the son of the Sanford PD lieutenant punched a homeless black man outside a bar and officers on the scene released the little twirp without charges. Fortunately a video of the incident materialized online and he eventually surrendered. In 2006 two private security guards—the son of a Sanford police officer and a volunteer for the department shot a black teen in the back and killed him although they claimed he was attacking them.
      Add to the fact that Trayvon’s parents were told by the same police department that Zimmerman didn’t have a police record and former police chief felt it was his duty to announce that Zimmerman was claiming SYG and that was the reason he was arrested it was clear from the beginning that the Sanford police department was biased toward Zimmerman.
      Furthermore the connection between recently retired State Attorney Norm Wolfinger and Daddy Zimmerman is that they served in Vietnam together and Zimmerman is the god father to Wolfinger’s son Robert.

      • Frank Wilcox says:

        “..OTOH O’Mara who began his representation of Zimmerman with an apology to the Martin family is now saying that the defense strategy may include smearing Trayvon. Yeah O’Mara is a stand-up guy. O’Mara knows that many of the known facts of the case are against his client so he will crap on the memory of a dead 17 year-old.”
        I don’t recall him saying his defense strategy may include “smearing Trayvon”. Obviously, if the prosecution is going to introduce character evidence about one of the parties in this encounter, then O’Mara will introduce character evidence of the other party in the encounter. This is to be expected. Do you expect him to concede that Trayvon was an angel sent from heaven while his client is made to look like a monster?

        “..Let me give you some history about Sanford and its police department. In 2010 the son of the Sanford PD lieutenant punched a homeless black man outside a bar and officers on the scene released the little twirp without charges. Fortunately a video of the incident materialized online and he eventually surrendered.”
        Yes, Zimmerman was quite active in pursuing justice for this man.

        “In 2006 two private security guards—the son of a Sanford police officer and a volunteer for the department shot a black teen in the back and killed him although they claimed he was attacking them.”
        What’s that have to do with Zimmerman?

        “Add to the fact that Trayvon’s parents were told by the same police department that Zimmerman didn’t have a police record..”
        Zimmerman didn’t have a criminal record.

        “..and former police chief felt it was his duty to announce that Zimmerman was claiming SYG and that was the reason he was arrested..”
        They were speaking the truth. SYG legislation added protections that, among other things, shielded people from being arrested unless there is probable cause that unlawful force was used. There wasn’t. Arguably, Dee Dee created new evidence that helped to establish probably cause (though I don’t think there has ever been probable cause.)

        “..it was clear from the beginning that the Sanford police department was biased toward Zimmerman.”
        No, the evidence was biased toward Zimmerman.

        “Furthermore the connection between recently retired State Attorney Norm Wolfinger and Daddy Zimmerman is that they served in Vietnam together and Zimmerman is the god father to Wolfinger’s son Robert…”

        Hehe. John McCain served in Vietnam, too.. Was he involved as well? That is silly. As far as Zimmerman being the god father to Wolfinger’s son, that is entirely made up and I challenge you to come up with any evidence at all to support it.

        • Zimmerman has been arrested 4 times, but managed to get diversion for the assault charge, and I don’t know HOW he managed to get out of the rest. But he did brag about it on his FB, how he got away without any jail time. He DID have to take anger management classes 9didn’t seem to have worked) AND do community service hours. I’m inclined to believe that ALL of that is documented in a criminal case file on George Zimmerman. It’s public knowledge at the point.

      • ziibiqwa says:

        @roderick 2012….re your comment “Although Crump could rightly be categorized as an ambulance chaser….”…..unless you can provide evidence that Mr. Crump is a sleazy/unethical/bottom feeding member of the law profession your comment can be categorized as sleazy/unethical/bottom feeding character assassination.

      • Frank Wilcox says:

        “Zimmerman has been arrested 4 times, but managed to get diversion for the assault charge, and I don’t know HOW he managed to get out of the rest.”
        Before this event, he had been arrested once, charged with a misdemeanor, and then it was thrown out. Unless you are speciously including “arrests” after this case began, I’d like you to cite the other 3 arrests you refer to.

        “But he did brag about it on his FB, how he got away without any jail time. He DID have to take anger management classes 9didn’t seem to have worked) AND do community service hours. I’m inclined to believe that ALL of that is documented in a criminal case file on George Zimmerman. It’s public knowledge at the point.”
        As I said, Zimmerman does not have a criminal record.

      • roderick2012 says:

        Frank Wilcox says: I don’t recall him saying his defense strategy may include “smearing Trayvon”. Obviously, if the prosecution is going to introduce character evidence about one of the parties in this encounter, then O’Mara will introduce character evidence of the other party in the encounter. This is to be expected. Do you expect him to concede that Trayvon was an angel sent from heaven while his client is made to look like a monster?

        LOL. The problem is that Zimmerman actuallly committed violent acts in front of witnesses and was arrested. Trayvon OTOH was suspended for things that many teenagers do—graffiti and being caught with an empty plastic bag with drug residue (not even drugs)

        ” Yes, Zimmerman was quite active in pursuing justice for this man.”

        That’s interesting because no one involved with the incident could recall Zimmerman. I guess it’s just another lie like the one Zimmerman told his friends about earning his Associates degree in criminal justice and allowing them to throw him a graduation party and even made a speech in which he told them that he hoped to become a judge one day.

        ” What’s that have to do with Zimmerman?”

        It gives the impression that this police department doesn’t value the lives of young black men and it protects anyone perceived to be a friend of the departement. Remember the cops allowed Zimmerman to patrol with them on several occasions. It’s not unheard of that people bond and maybe they weren’t completely objective the night they arrested Zimmerman. It would have been nice if the police had taken a blood sample from Zimmerman to determine if he were under the influence of alcohol that night. Did his relationship with the police department influence them that night?

        “Zimmerman didn’t have a criminal record.”

        Zimmerman had been arrested. That’s a record.

        ” They were speaking the truth. SYG legislation added protections that, among other things, shielded people from being arrested unless there is probable cause that unlawful force was used. There wasn’t. Arguably, Dee Dee created new evidence that helped to establish probably cause (though I don’t think there has ever been probable cause.)”

        Don’t you think that any statement regarding Zimmerman’s defense should have been handled by Zimmerman or his attorney and not the chief of police who is suppose to seem impartial?

        “No, the evidence was biased toward Zimmerman.”

        Except witnesses stating that they were ‘corrected’ by officers who told them that it was Zimmerman who was screaming for help.

        “Hehe. John McCain served in Vietnam, too.. Was he involved as well? That is silly. As far as Zimmerman being the god father to Wolfinger’s son, that is entirely made up and I challenge you to come up with any evidence at all to support it.

        Wolfinger and Daddy Zimmerman grew up together in PA. After the rumor that Wolfinger drove to the Sanford police department and put the kobosh on this investigation citing insufficient evidence even though the shooting had only occurred a few hours before Wolfinger first stated he recused himself due to ‘conflicts’ and would not run for re-election in 2014 and then he decided to retire.

        You do the math.

    • Frank Wilcox says:

      I respect a lot of your points.

  53. Justkiddin* says:

    Oh how I wish Trayvon had made a video recording but quite honestly from the God awful cries for help, I doubt taping his death had even crossed his mind. Z should get life just for the fear that poor boy felt the last 2 minutes of his life. How can a grown man scare the hell out of kid like that and then shoot him dead? I do not wish anything bad on Z but I will be damned if I wish him good.

  54. Mike S says:

    Professor, I’ve been in that situation before myself in the past. On a technical news site years ago I had a strange man claiming I was a fake and I didn’t work for the company I claimed to work for, and went on a long campaign against me. In the end it turned out that guy was in fact the shill for a company who’s product I had dinged in the past. He was caught by the editor of the news site himself because he had put his business email address on the registration form when he signed up with his fake name.

    More recently there’s an extreme right-wing conservative who’s invaded a local message board 6 years ago and won’t go away, and who when his arguments fall flat tries things like getting people fired from their jobs. One of the comments here caught my eye when they mentioned someone told him he had a “diseased mind” – this guy says the same thing to people in routine conversations. Is there some kind of extremist code phrase book out there these guys share?

    In any case, it’s a horrible thing to go through Professor, all I can say is stick in there, and like many people I admire how you strain to keep the discourse objective and based on the facts. Emotion can sometime cloud anyone’s judgement, but I think you clearly work to keep things on an even keel, and it shows.

  55. SearchingMind says:

    Professor, I have been shooting myself in the head over and over again trying to find out who “justincaselaw” really is. A couple of individuals came to my mind all of whom are of the same caliber as you. “justincaselaw” is, like you sir, most probably a lawyer and/or a professor at a University. Some of them have also seen it fit to call for the dismissal of the case against Zimmerman, call the Prosecutor Angela Corey a felon/perjurer and tried to humiliate and discredit her in national television, etc. Look closely professor, you will find ‘justincaselaw’ in your “midst” (the fraternity of lawyers/jurists).

  56. crazy1946 says:

    diaryof, I find this link fits his methods better. It certainly fits his actions much better! Note the name’s that you find in this video before you dismiss it….

  57. roderick2012 says:

    Sandra E. Graham says: It seems GZ is ALWAYS in fear for his life.

    It’s called projection.

    You see the people who support GA are the same paranoid racist who believe that others who don’t look like them feel about them the way they actually feel about others who don’t look like them.

    That is why they are so obsessed with owning a gun. They fear that what they want to do to others will be done to them.

    They live a miserable fearful existance.

    • lynp says:

      “Name calling and personal insults is the end result when all good arguments and reasoning has failed”. Parphrasing Mgt. Thatcher. Don’t own a gun, not obsessed with owning a gun, support the 2nd Amendment as does the Supreme Court, not fearful at all, not a racist, lived in the heart of DC for 30 years, worked for Civil Rights when many here were in diapers and actually live a contented cheerfull existance. I have a life and not consumed with this tragic event. Folk can beat the drum for anti-Zimmerman as much as they want but sidewalk psychoanalyzing people who names are not even known is a hoot and sad.

      • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

        Did Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall ever come to your families house to meet and sit down for dinner during the Civil Rights Movement?

        BTW, I wasn’t in diapers.

      • Frank Wilcox says:

        Well said. Unfortunately, the tone that has been set on this blog is one that shows little tolerance for views that are not in line with their own.

        Witnesses are called “liars”, GZ’s family and friends possible “co-conspirators”, GZ’s supporters are “stupid” and “racists”, and those with a minority opinion on the site will eventually be banned, (based on some subjective interpretation of selectively enforced “rules”), and then dismissed as a “troll”.

        The name-calling is due to an inability within them to assume good faith about any person that challenges their version of reality. And it comes from the top-down here, as the last three posts make clear.

        But what actually bothers me is the hypocrisy- the insincerity in pretending to have virtues that aren’t actually possessed. I recognize that my accusations of hypocrisy do not apply to several people here, and they know who they are.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      The comment I made was : GZ seems to ALWAYS be in fear for his life. I made NO comment about projection or anything after that. Yet, it shows up as part of the one sentence entered. I know nothing about projection and have given no assessment of those who support GZ. I ca not because I do not know any.

    • roderick2012 says:

      lynp says:You seem very defensive even though I didn’t address you directly and due to the length of your response it seems as if I struck a nerve.

      I have no idea why you decided to list all of the biographical information about yourself because if I were visiting DC and passed you on the street I wouldn’t know you from Adam.

      Furthermore I find it ironic that you attempt to insult me and others who post regularly on this case implying that we don’t have lives and then you go on accusing me of psychoanalyzing strangers.

      I will admit that I spend more time on this case than I should but everytime I attempt to ignore it I can’t. Maybe it’s because there is a part of me that believes in justice. Maybe it’s partly because I am a middle-aged African American male who lives in South Florida and it bothers me that there is a law on the books which allows someone to wrecklessly initiate a confrontation and shoot and kill an unarmed teenager and walk away as if they were cited for jaywalking until people from around the world banded together and said HELL NO!!
      Maybe it’s the part of me which likes a mystery and I enjoy reading the theories and scenerios posted by others.

      Anyway I have read enough from the Zimmermer supporters to know that they are the typical racists because they start out attempting to actually discuss the case but eventually their statements descend into racial stereotypes and racially charged language like ‘ black mobs’ or ‘lynch mobs’ or Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Much of the rhetoric from the Zimmerman supporters isn’t much different than that of many southern whites during the 1960s.

      What really disturbs me is that some of the Zimmerman supporters constantly mention the spector of race riots so they can have an excuse to randomly shoot blacks. If that doesn’t bother you then you don’t have a soul.

      • ajamazin says:

        roderick2012.

        Well said!

        >________________________________ > From: Frederick Leatherman Law Blog >To: aja_young@ymail.com >Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 12:05 PM >Subject: [New comment] Important Announcement Regarding Character Assassination > > > WordPress.com >roderick2012 commented: “lynp says:You seem very defensive even though I didn’t address you directly and due to the length of your response it seems as if I struck a nerve. I have no idea why you decided to list all of the biographical information about yourself because if I w” >

  58. Vicky says:

    I have a question/observation about something that has been bothering me for a couple of days. I also wonder if it answers the question about those lost two minutes.
    When GZ hung up with the dispatcher, he had established that his truck was parked just around the corner from the club house. By what I have read, it took the first officer on the scene a bit of time to locate the scene. Wouldn’t the dispatcher have relayed the location of the truck to the responding officer, and would he not have spotted the truck there and parked his patrol car at that location?
    However, if GZ moved his truck, say to an area closer to the back enterance, the officer would not have a reference point. My question is, where did the patrol officer park his vehicle? Or did that all change when the 911 calls started coming in, and he went to one of those addresses instead?
    I hope I’m making sense. LOL I am just wondering is GZ’s truck was actually parked at the location he claims, and if so, did the patrol officer see it there when he turned left past the mailboxes.

    • Dave says:

      As I recall, the first officer on the scene went to the front door of one of the witnesses who called 911 and then went around to the back. One thing I’d like to know is whether he had his flashers and siren going. Anybody?

    • I don’t believe he ever provided a location for his truck. He kept telling Sean the dispatcher that he didn’t recall the name of the street he was on or see a house number even though he was walking directly toward the front doors and garage doors of townhouses on TTL with the addresses in plain view.

      He finally said, “Have him call me when he gets here,” or words to that effect.

      During the walk-through the next day, he indicated that the first officer to respond arrived at the scene coming from RVC via the cut-through sidewalk.

      I don’t believe the police ever looked for his truck and we only have GZ’s word for where he parked it.

      • Prof~~aren’t the house numbers displayed on the back entrances of them too? I thought that was pointed out in one of the videos I watched.

      • crazy1946 says:

        Shortly after joining this site, I asked if anyone knew where the vehicle of Zimmerman was parked. It was said then that one of the responding officers called in two tag numbers of vehicles parked near the mail box, and one tag came back to Zimmerman. If I was home, I would try to find that post and tell you who furnished that information. They did however, as best as I can recall, state that the information came from the information dump that the state released.

        • Brown says:

          Thanks to Aussie.

          from the tape at 2.30 — “tag 816KLP tell me if it’s registered anywhere ‘tween the lakes”…. reply just one word “Zimmerman”. and ATTS68, I think maybe with “honda” mentioned

    • longtimegeek says:

      There are many theories about GZ truck locations and movements. There’s an animated one at the following link. It’s probably a good place to start, since it gives you a good visual of the gated community.

      By the way, TTL is the main road entering the gated community. I’m a direction feeb, but even I would know the main road that I would be driving into.

      • longtimegeek says:

        I forgot to mention that it’s long and in three parts.

      • longtimegeek~~that is the best animation I have watched thus far. Chilling. Thank you so much.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          The 3-Part Video is darn good considering the date it was made. Well done. Too bad you don’t have time to do parts of it over again with what is known now. There are some who really appreciate the visuals using the timeline in GZs NEN call and your having the speculative or common sense approach. Thanks for bringing it to the fore.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          Sorry – the comment I just made about the 3-part video was meant for whonoze.

      • whonoze says:

        That’s mine. It’s outdated. It made sense to me at the time, which was before any of the discovery dumps. I don’t really have time to do it over.

        My current hypotheses:

        TM was at the mailboxes inside The Retreat by 6;54.
        GZ could not have spotted him at the shortcut.
        TM walked past GZ’s truck and ran down the sidewalk, not TTL

        I still think TM got a good distance to the South of the T, close to the Green home, but GZ somehow managed to get even farther South, so Trayvon turned North back toward the T to move away from GZ. I’m not sure what routes they took. My current guess is that GZ went South on RVC trying to cut-off “the asshole” who he was assuming was headed toward the back gate, then, not seeing him there, he headed back up the sidewalk. I’m guessing he spotted TM and pursued him up the sidewalk to John’s backyard. It could have been a more accidental meeting near there as I had originally sketched out, but I doubt it now…

        • I think the logical thing to have done would have been ye olde head-him-off-at-the-pass routine. Like you say, drive directly to the rear entrance which could be reached via RVC or TTL and work back from there.

          But what about W11 who says she heard a fight start in her backyard and head south where TM’s body and all of the debris, minus the keychain/flashlight/bob, were found pretty close together. That sounds like the fight was headed S toward Brandi Green’s house, which is consistent with TM trying to get away from GZ. Apparently, he didn’t get very far.

          I’m curious as to why you think the fight started farther south because I’m thinking TM ran around the corner of W11’s house and concealed himself behind one of those white privacy screens, probably behind John’s house, and paused to catch his breath there while he talked some more to Dee Dee. But all of a sudden GZ showed up and the fight was on.

          He tried to get away but he couldn’t.

          Did GZ drag TM kicking and screaming toward the T?

          Did TM break away and run S/B?

          Did GZ tackle him to prevent him from getting away?

      • nan11 says:

        @longtimegeek: Thanks for that link. I watched all three parts. :cool:

      • nan11 says:

        @whonoze: Thanks for that update. I did notice the date you made it, and was suprised.

        I’ll watch it again, taking your new points into consideration.

      • longtimegeek says:

        We should thank whonoze for this video and others!

      • longtimegeek says:

        Oh, he’s here! Thanks, whonoze!

      • longtimegeek says:

        Here’s a link to other theories. There are many speculations, so you have to go from page to page.

        http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeandodge/

      • longtimegeek says:

        I’m sure I’ve seen other theories, but I can’t remember exactly where anymore. There was one where GZ was driving back and forth all over the place. It started to make me think that we shouldn’t necessarily be thinking linearly. GZ could have been all over the place by truck and foot. TM could have been all over the place by foot. During that fateful minute, GZ and TM could have flip flopped being on top of each other. Etc.

    • longtimegeek says:

      Here’s whonoze’s latest video, in case anyone missed it.

  59. Dave ~~I doubt if the patrol vehicles responding to a possible burglary would have their sirens on but once they learned there had been a gun shot, surely they would sound the siren. I can’t recall hearing any sirens on any of the 911 calls. Anyone?

  60. MichelleO says:

    WOW! The crazies all recognize one another in Zimmerman and his family, who are a bunch of wackos, according to testimony of one of the cousins.

    • lynp says:

      Robert Zimmerman Senior is a 22 year Army Vet serving in Viet Nam, the Pentagon and a local Magistrate in Virginia. That is how “wacko” Senior is while Gladys worked for the courts for years. Can’t always believe what we hear particularly when it flyes in the face of the facts.

      • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

        Extreme family dysfunction has NOTHING to do with jobs or positions. Abusive, dysfunctional homes cut cross socio-economic lines. Sure, they SEEMED normal, but who knows what happens behind closed doors? So, no, no one is flying in the face of any KNOWN facts about their private lives. All that is known is what they did for a living.

        ________________________________

      • ajamazin says:

        lynp writes:

        “Robert Zimmerman Senior is a 22 year Army Vet serving in Viet Nam, the Pentagon,……”

        Robert J. Zimmerman Sr. was in military intel and spent 12 of the 22 years working at the Pentagon.

        That was his “official cover” as a CIA operative.

        Why do you accept without question what you are told by the
        MSM?

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          ajamazin – Your comments are always thought-provoking and I appreciate your ability to make some to dig deeper. If the information is there – you find it and most would not go so far as to do the research themselves, my lazy self included. But, the background details you have found gives a better perspective on the big picture here in this case – all of the activity prior to the eventual arrest of GZ. Thx

  61. boar_d_laze says:

    Wait. What? Robert Zimmerman Sr., is Piper Peraibo?

  62. FactsFirst says:

    I have a few questions that just keeps nagging away at me…
    1. If GZ dropped his keychain/light (#1) at the “T” and his flashlight (#5) next to Trayvon, how is it after all that running/tussling, Trayvon didn’t drop the huge can of Ice Tea?
    2. When TM left 7-11, on the video the clerk put the Ice Tea in a 7-11 bag… The bag was found at the scene (#2), but the ice tea was found in Trayvon’s pocket w/o the bag.. The bag was was located somewhere else.. Did Trayvon have enough time to take the Tea out the bag while running and put it back in his pocket?
    3. The skittles were found in an “inside pocket” with blood evidence on them… Here’s my issue with that, I’ve never seen a foot-of-the-loom hoodie with inside pockets and it didn’t look like the shirt or hoodie had inside pockets in the evidence photos..
    4. The bullet casing was not in any of the evidence photos *with* the 5,6, and 7th markers, (5= flashlight. 6= TM body, 7= TM cellphone, and 8= bullet casing) Why is that????
    5. The confiscation of Zimmerman’s gun. Zimmerman said officer Smith took his gun at the scene.. Then, Officer Mcoy observed it on the front seat of Smith’scar, but then after arriving at the police station, Officer Smith said he confiscated GZ’s cell phone, gun and holster?? WTF is really going on?.
    last, but not least,
    6. One of the witnesses said he grabbed a flaslight out of his garage after the shooting and went out side to find GZ standing over TM… Is he the same guy who took pictures of GZ injuries?? Because I ran across a statement dated 3/21/2012 (only 24 days after the shooting) saying Serino received a email from Officer Micheal Wagner with two photo attachments taken on 2/26/2012 that he said he took with his personal cell phone… Maybe im reading to much in to this but, SOMETHING SMELLS FISHY… I’m just saying… Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am new to this so I’m going to make mistakes.. My apologies in advance..

    • FactsFirst~~If you read Officer Smiths report, notice how he did not put things in chronological order. He said he took possession of the gun and holster at the crime scene. If you read his report re back at PD, he has Z using the washroom and then taking the gun and putting it in the gun box. He also mentions Sanford Fire Rescue being present. To my knowledge SFR was not back at SPD. This created a lot of confusion. I cannot remember if the word ‘confiscated’ being used but I could be wrong.

      There are no doubt others here who will do better than I can with your other questions.

    • whonoze says:

      3. We’re not talking English majors here. “Inside pocket” probably means the Skittles were inside the pocket of the hoodie. Or it could mean a pants pocket. The bullet shredded the kid’s ventricle. Blood could have found it’s way to any of his pcokets.
      6. Yes, same guy. No, nothing fishy with the pictures, JonW13 was the first person to arrive on the scene. He had a flashlight. He took the photo of the back of GZ’s head. Wagner took the photo of GZ’s face that was represented by the pointless b&w image in the ,pdf of the document dump.

      But if you have the general impression a lot of the police work stinks, your nose is working fine. Are the cops hiding something? Probably. How major is whatever they’re hiding? Probably not that much. I suspect someone ‘coached’ JohnW6 on his ‘MMA beatdown’ story, and the most likely candidate would be Ofc. Ayala priming him with leading questions.

    • Leelee says:

      It will be very interesting to find out who Zimmerman was on the phone with as seen in the picture that JonW13 took that night. Funny how in all of Zimmerman’s statements never once does he mention that he made a phone call. Wonder if the call was made before or after Officers arrived on scene.

      • Leelee says:

        News reports say that he cell phone camera shows that the photo was taken at 7:19

        In the picture it looks like he is holding the phone himself, so that would mean he was not yet handcuffed and was on the phone just before Off. Smith arrived.

  63. ajamazin says:

    ATTORNEYS REINSTATED FROM INELIGIBLE LIST
    The New Jersey Lawyers’ Fund For Client Protection declares that the following New
    Jersey attorneys, having fully satisfied the requirements of the annual assessment, are
    hereby removed from the list of those declared ineligible by Order of the New Jersey
    Supreme Court dated September 20, 2011 and effective upon publication on September
    26, 2011.

    Tarantino, Leonard J. ’91 Ber of

    http://www.justincaselaw.com/

    • This sort of ineligibility or temporary suspension is for a failure to pay dues or some type of financial assessment that can be cured by paying the dues or assessment. It is not unusual and it is not based on actual misconduct or some sort of ethical violation, so I view it as a de minimus infraction that is relatively meaningless.

      The lawyer paid what he owed and was declared eligible, so let’s leave it alone.

    • Dave says:

      I’d recommend going easy on Mr. Tarrantino for now. Except for the name of his website I don’t think we have any evidence linking him to the troll. I doubt that the troll is a lawyer–he just isnt that sharp. More likely a first year law student or something. (Does University of Phoenix have a law school?)

    • whonoze says:

      I’m thinking ‘justincaselaw’ is too idiosyncratic a handle to be a coincidence. LinkedIn shows that Mr. Tarrantino just hung out his own shingle last year, after spending 14 years with a larger firm. The newness of the “justincaselaw” mskes it even more likely that justincaselawgic is either associated with Mr. Tarrantino, or spoofing the Tarrantino firm identity. But what is the “gic”at the end? Initials possibly? But of a person, a job title, a phrase??? A pun on ‘law gic” / “logic” maybe? Mr. Tarrantino’s website says he only has two employees: a secretary and a paralegal, neither of whom could I find names for. The listing for his new firm has eight recommendations on SuperPages.Com, all of which have the look of being faked.

      Hmm, his name’s Tarrantino. He practices in New Jersey. Should we dig further? Fuhgeddaboudit!

  64. verafish says:

    Frederick, I’m going to go all “internet security” paranoid on your behalf.

    Given what just occurred with justincaselawgic, IMO you should tighten the security settings on your FaceBook page. One poster here provided you a link to the FB page of A J Noiter at which time you mentioned your own FB profile. I was easily able to search FB myself and locate your profile and learn a bit about you. And Crane-Station, too.

    If your name is being thrown around the GZ supporter sites – not just this blog, but your personal information – you should take a moment to make some changes in your FB privacy settings. You can lock it down so that NO ONE will even be able to find your profile but, of course, your family and friends will still have access.

    Yes, I know this won’t prevent people finding legal documents with your name on them – they’re out there – but there’s no harm in protecting your personal privacy a little bit more where you can.

    That is all.

    • Thanks, I might do this. I actually left FB for a while, I really do not care for it much, nor do I visit much, but I’d just as soon people not go digging around for information on my family.

      As for my legal documents, well, they are all on my website for the world to see, at my website, tagged Frog Gravy legal case!

      Anyway, thanks!

      • verafish says:

        All the better then!

        And you’re welcome.

        I went to the GZLC FB page today and read a bit, too. Learned that it was *not* A J Noiter who first brought up Frederick’s name but someone by the name of Bryan Cobb. Just keep that in your hip pocket, I s’pose.

        As a side note, verrrry little of what is discussed on that FB wall has to do with the actual legal case. It seems they spend a great deal of time arguing about suspected trolls on the site or bickering amongst themselves and gossiping. lol. It doesn’t appear there is much in the way of influence nor legitimacy. Gnats.

        • Exactly, it’s like the schoolyard, for real. Best to ignore. I do draw the line sometimes, but generally really try to ignore gossipers.

          • Sandra E. Graham says:

            Observation: It is starting to look like people have chosen a side – guilty or not guilty. They have each circled the wagons and are now checking the allegiance of the membership. They don’t want dissension in the ranks. I am not just talking about the not guilty side, the GZ supporters either. I hope this sight prefers to stay the course by leaving the snipes at home.

    • Vickie Votaw says:

      Verafish, how can you hide your profile on fb from a search? I need to know , Ty, in advance. Sorry to get off subject

      • verafish says:

        I’m on a Mac so it may be different. When you’re on your own home page/profile, click on the little arrow next to the word “Home”. There, you’ll see Privacy settings. Click on it. You may have to dig around in there, but you’ll see where you can choose “Friends” rather than “Public” (in several places) so that you can block *anyone* from even finding you on FB.

        You may be best served to use the Help documentation in FB to learn what settings have what impact. Windows version may be slightly different than Mac.

        Good luck!

    • verafish says:

      @Sandra, from what I’ve read here in the last two months, we’re pretty good at accepting varying conclusions about details. It doesn’t mean any one of us is “for” or “against”. Don’t you think?

      More often than not, when someone who has not read the document dumps posts here, (relying solely on the media or GZ’s version of events) I want to tell them to get up to speed and *then* come back and discuss. ;-)

      Plus, being familiar with all the comments on all of the articles here gives us a kind of head start. We know what has been hashed and re-hashed, already.

      (I sure wish that wordpress had a “like” button functionality)

  65. Vicky says:

    Professor Leatherman.. George did provide a general location for his truck. And shortly thereafter, exited the truck when Trayvon began “skipping” away.

    Zimmerman: Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]

    911 dispatcher: Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]

    Zimmerman: Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address. [3:25]

    Based on his statements, he never made it back to his truck.I guess I was just wondering if a truck parked at that location would have been readily noticed..or the lack of one if the deputy came from that direction..or if the dispatcher relayed that information to the unit dispatched to the Retreat during GZ’s call.

  66. ajamazin says:

    One more thing that makes no sense:

    “As of March 21, 2012, nearly a month had past since self-appointed neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teen in Sanford, Fla.

    Martin’s death had inspired a national debate about race and justice.

    But at the high school Martin attended in Miami, his death had not been announced publicly until March 21, 2012, when the school held a moment of silence for the slain student.

    The chief communications director for the Miami-Dade County school district, John Schuster, said there is a reason the school did not announce Trayvon’s death on campus.

    “Shortly after Trayvon’s death, his parents asked the school’s principal for privacy in the matter,” Schuster said.

    But the school did make an announcement anyway after StateImpact Florida started asking around.

    Schuster said crisis counselors usually “move from classroom to classroom, announce [a student’s] death, and offer services to students.” But because he said the family requested privacy, “counselors could not proceed in the usual manner.””

    Only after StateImpact Florida started asking around did the school make a statement to the student body.

    “The school’s principal held a moment of silence and in an email told teachers to refer students who looked like they were grieving to counselors.

    In other emails the school principal asked teachers to refrain from speaking to the media about Martin because he was a minor, and asked teachers to refrain from lengthy conversations about Martin.”

  67. Xena says:

    During his re-enactment, Zim almost gave away that Shellie was with him. He stated “Like I said, my wife” then stopped himself saying that he was on his way to get groceries. In his interview with Hannity, he used the plural “we,” saying “We always go to get groceries on Sunday evenings …”

    It is logically reasonable that Zim was more concerned with having a resident call his wife “…and tell her I shot somebody” because Shellie needed to get herself and the vehicle out of the vicinity.

  68. ajamazin says:

    I think this was an intentional distortion of the Martin’s family’s wishes.

    Clearly, the Martin’s were requesting that Florida law be followed as to Trayvon’s personal history.

    It was not.

  69. Interesting. The latest post among those in support of Mr. Zimmerman. They are now claiming that the phone in question does not belong to Trayvon:

    http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/is-that-trayvons-cell-phone/

    • Cielo says:

      And wondering whose phone it is means… What? If he was using it then that is the phone whose calls get traced. Big deal.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        During the interview wiith Singleton, Singleton leaves the room to get GZs phone to look up the number of the Management Company so that LE can find out about the security cameras. Had the phone at the scene been GZs, I don’t think Singleton would have grabbed it out of an evidence bag from the scene. Can’t say for sure. But, I doubt if that phone was used by anyone but Trayvon that night. Does the person provide any back-up to the claim.

      • crazy1946 says:

        If you will follow the link in the story abut the phone, you will find the person making the claim is someone named “odessagirl”, now if you go a little deeper you will discover that is the wife of Osterman, who is making that claim and also says that before the trial starts she will realease a bomb that will blow the case up! There has been some speculation that Osterman was more involved in this case than has been told to the police, do you suspect, or is it possible she will (in a book she is supposed to be writing) hang her (soon to be ex?) husband out to dry?
        I have a question that is bothering me, has anyone else noticed that in the photo’s showing the alleged broken nose and black eyes that Zimmerman suffered, he shows no redness to the eyes, and take a moment and look at the photo’s of him at the bond hearings, his eyes apear similar in apearance as they do in the injury photo’s! Why?
        Question #2: Didn’t we have a poster on this site a while back using the name odessagirl? I have been on several other sites, and I might be confused, but it seems to me that it was on here that I had seen the name?

        • “Question #2: Didn’t we have a poster on this site a while back using the name odessagirl? I have been on several other sites, and I might be confused, but it seems to me that it was on here that I had seen the name?”

          I don’t recall.

          What makes you think that Odessagirl is Osterman’s wife?

        • Patricia says:

          If OdessaGirl is Osterman’s wife, maybe she just got sick & tired of having George and Shellie as houseguests.

    • whonoze says:

      No no no. You’ve got it all wrong. See the post above: Robert Zimmerman is in the CIA! The whole thing is a Black Op.

      Ever notice how those photos of Trayvon look like two different people, the tall kid with the longer face we see at 7-11, and the shorter kid with the rounder face. The autopsy says Trayvon is 5’11’. His parents said he was 6’3″ and he’s like a foot taller than DeeDee, so unless she’s an elf… TRAYVON IS NOT DEAD. It’s all a cover story. They’re all in on it together. Trayvon snuck inside George’s truck just before Shellie drove off, just after the ‘shooting.’. The wrestling was just GZ dragging the corpse of the ‘fake’ Trayvon into position (just executed in Taafe’s garage and delivered by Osterman).

      Zimmerman is a registered Democrat! He’s an Obama lover! You really think he’s going to shoot a guy who looks like he could be Obama’s kid! No! They’re all WORKING for Obama! Trayvon is in Treadstone, being conditioned to be an elite assasin who cannot be traced because everyone in The World “knows” he’s dead. Whatta think ‘no_limit_nigga’ really means. He’ll kill anyone Obama says with his MMA head-bashing skills, and we all know Obama takes his orders from Rev. Wright who takes his orders from Al Sharpton, who takes his orders from Bill Ayers, who takes his orders from Raul Castro who takes his orders from the Trilateral Commision which takes its orders from the Rothchilds!!

      No citizen willing to defend his faith in God by using his God given right to use weapons is safe. Look what Obama did to Osama! Zimmerman has already suckered in Sean Hannity, and the next time he gets on, he’s gonna sneak out and unlock the back door to Trayvon-the-black-death-machine can wipe out all of Fox News. But they screwed up with the cell phone. The cell phone EXPLAINS EVERYTHING. The phone. The god damn phone. THE PHONE…My head is ringing. Answer my head. It’s THE ANSWER.

      urrghhh…. acckk… lizards coming out of my keyboard… they’re fasyer than my Smith and Wesson… where is my attorney? I never should have accepted that mushroom casserole from Michelle Bachmann. Omigod, she’s in on it too….

      (For HST. Where are you when we need you…)

  70. ed nelson says:

    Proffesor Fred, I have got many good important insights from reading this blogg that you have made.

    Your blogg is real good, and it is what should be followed by those who have any good thing or good purpose…

    We as Americans, have enjoyed that thing called common law, and other stuff, and we enjoyed to be in a place that where… that there was this old time reverence to… Magna Carte… and all that old stuff, and all that ole stuff…. like… well in the real ole days… there wasn’t any law, but there was some kind of… some kind of… just that, it was understood… you do this, and you don’t do this!

    Understood understood… before these queer lawyers came to do what they do… !

    • whonoze says:

      I’m putting my answer to your earlier questions here, as I’m thinking you might have a better chance of seeing the reply, if it’s a Reply to one of your posts.

      “But what about W11 who says she heard a fight start in her backyard and head south where TM’s body and all of the debris, minus the keychain/flashlight/bob, were found pretty close together. That sounds like the fight was headed S toward Brandi Green’s house, which is consistent with TM trying to get away from GZ. Apparently, he didn’t get very far.”

      A. I think Jennifer and Jeremy may not be telling the whole truth.
      B. GZ could have pursued TM at the way to the top of the T. The verbal confrontation could have occured there, leading to a shoving match that escalated into ‘wrestling’, and covered the ground back to John’s as it went. I can’t imagine that TM ever got away physically from GZ, as I would have to think he could out-run him. I also do not think GZ had TM at gunpoint from the beginning, because you don’t wrestle with a guy with an automatic pistol. I don’t believe John was making any significant fabrications in his 911 call, and his description of ‘wrestling’ is consistent with what other eyewitnesses saw.

      “I’m thinking TM ran around the corner of W11′s house and concealed himself behind one of those white privacy screens, probably behind John’s house, and paused to catch his breath there while he talked some more to Dee Dee. But all of a sudden GZ showed up and the fight was on.”
      A. Those fences are not a good hiding place. TM would likely have expected GZ might follow him down the sidewalk, and had he been behind one of those fences, he would have easy to spot, and also cornered.
      B. If it all happened just around the T, there’s no way to account for the time that passed between the end of GZ’s NEN call and any probable start-time of the confrontation. This is the most common problem in anti-Zimmerman scenarios, and I don’t know why folks can’t look at the clock, look at a map an figure out that it can’t have been that simple and direct. The pro-Zim folks make their claim that TM went home, then “doubled-back” to attack GZ primarily on the basis that TM had time to do so. They claim that’s the ONLY possible explanation for the time lapse. That’s a logical fallacy, of course, but that time did pass, and both TM and GZ had to be doing something. It’s way too long for GZ just to be walking back and forth on the sidewalk between TTL and RVC.
      C. DeeDee says that after eluding GZ, TM suddenly reported “He’s behind me again.” Which implies that TM was already walking. She reports that he then walks further before confronting GZ with “What you following me for?” That does not seem at all consistent with GZ discovering TM hiding behind one of those fences. Wouldn’t TM have said something like, “Shit, he spotted me!” not “He’s behind me again!”
      D. DeeDee also says that both GZ and TM sounded winded in their verbal confrontation. TM most likely only began running just before he reached the T. If he went only as far as John’s, and then hid, he wouldn’t have been winded at all. GZ is winded after jogging/running after Trayvon during the middle part of the NEN call, but it only takes him 10-15 seconds to catch his breath and begin talking to Sean in a normal manner. So if either man was at all winded at the point of confrontation they had to cover more ground — which also would fit the clock time.

  71. aussie says:

    That is old news, Diaryof…. but an interesting one.

    “The source for that claim is an internet user known as OdessaGirl. You can find her claims at http://disqus.com/OdessaGirl/ once there, click Activity then load all of her comments.”

    It is well worth going to check out Odessagirl’s postings. She claims to be a close family friend/relative of GZ, and therefore to have all kinds of inside knowledge of the case. Some of it quite strange and contrary to published evidence.

    With regard to TM’s phone, she once posted that his phone had actually been left behind in Miami — the kind of “knowledge” that would not be available to anyone no matter how “inside” they are.

    The latest rumour about Osterman writing a book also comes from her.

    She is not a troll. She is calm and confident in her posts and consistent in her claims, and has one or two supporters. She seems to totally genuinely beleive everything she says. Except what she says seems to be happening in another dimension.

    • She is not a troll. She is calm and confident in her posts and consistent in her claims, and has one or two supporters. She seems to totally genuinely beleive everything she says. Except what she says seems to be happening in another dimension.

      LOL

      I’ve seen Odessagirl at Click Orlando.

  72. Frank Wilcox says:

    [Comment deleted for inappropriate content]

    • lynp says:

      OUCH!!!!!!!!!

    • Frank,

      I banned justincaselawgic for intentionally using an affidavit that I submitted in a death penalty case several years ago to create a false impression about me.

      That was a cheap shot, a mean-spirited and dishonest thing to do that has no place in civilized discourse.

      You are now attacking another person who comments regularly here using the thoroughly discredited justincaselawgic to make your point.

      He has no credibility.

      That is not acceptable, so I’m editing out your personal attack and warning you to knock it off or I will ban you.

    • Frank Wilcox says:

      I did not quote a single word from caseinlawgic, nor did my point rely in the least on his credibility.

      Since you believe I took ajamazin’s words out of context, then I will provide the entire context of what she said, which people can see for themselves further up this thread:

      Lily Wellington says:
      August 15, 2012 at 4:33 pm
      “What has this to do with the Zimmerman case? Just curious.

      The only place the Zimmerman case is getting ugly is on message boards and it really is easy to see how internet types are somewhat crazy. The general public isn’t even interested anymore.

      This was self defense.”

      ajamazin says:
      August 15, 2012 at 8:56 pm
      “Why do you remind me of gum stuck on a shoe?”

      –My point is that ajamazin does not appear to have the moral authority to lecture poster’s on manners and civility.

  73. lynp says:

    People disagree on this case and lots of other things. It does not make anyone a Troll but just folk who hold a different opinion. I was totally unimpressed with anything Odessgirl wrote about the tragedy. I am always suspicious of people who are “in the know”. How can they be?

    • gbrbsb says:

      Same here.

      After reading many pages of OG’s (Odessagirl’s) comments it seems to me he/she is too much of a pamphlet for the pro zimmerman groups to find her/him at all credible. In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it were GZ or someone close, (the use of some words is a real giveaway the person is hispanic) trying to get his “final” story out (the one that irons out all his discrepanicies with “logical” explanations and “understandable” excuses) possibly to keep donations flowing. Diwataman has a whole page with the title “Is that Trayvon’s Cell Phone?”, dedicated to OG’s comments going along with OG’s comment that exhibit 7 is not Trayvon’s phone… needless to say Diwataman finds OG credible.

  74. Bonnie says:

    I agree that Zimmerman has some serious anger issues.
    I think it probably has a lot to do with his Mother.
    He cut off her electricity when he got upset with her and
    took the key so she couldn’t turn get it back on.
    He’s angry, revengeful , and downright mean !

    Shellie stated in the first hearing she had never seen Zimmerman angry in the five years she has been married to him !
    I believe that like I believe she didn’t know about all the money they had !! LOL

    There is a lot of truth that a man treats his wife the way he treats his Mom.
    I don’t see Shellie sticking around.

    • lynp says:

      Who cares if Shellie does or does not stick around? It is not like either one of them is going to be elected Prom King or Queen or have lots of choices out there in the real world. These are simple folk. Actually, I see little anger issues in George. Nor does George look or act like a drunk and have no doubt that he was ever in AA. I don’t know about Joe Oliver but clearly neighter talk the AA Lingo in their speech which most AAers tend to do.

      • “Nor does George look or act like a drunk and have no doubt that he was ever in AA.”

        Not that it’s relevant whether he ever was in AA, but why are you so certain that he never was.

        I don’t care whether he was because it’s a good program and alcoholism is a disease, not a condition that any person would choose.

        I just don’t understand your certainty.

      • Ms Cielo Perdomo says:

        There are numerous programs styled after AA that ALSO have mentors. There’s Children of Alcoholics, Spouses of Alcoholics, and others that have nothing to do with alcohol but use the AA format. Not saying that GZ was/is a member of any of these. Just bringing to the table that many self-help groups utilize mentors and other techniques used in AA. And it has been mentioned that MO and “maybe” FT have acted in a mentor role for GZ.

        ________________________________

  75. lynp says:

    Because Professor, I have 18 years soberity in AA. I know drunks very well including the kids who have 10 years soberity and 28 years old. Slow George is not one in my estimation, experience, knowledge and education. Lots of folk don’t drink alcohol who are neither drunks or were drunks.

  76. ajamazin says:

    Conspiracy Theories

    Obama’s current head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and confidante, Cass Sunstein has defined a conspiracy theory as “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.”

    He has called for the use of state power to crush conspiracy allegations of state wrongdoing.

    Cass Sunstein also supports the use of paid government and corporate commenters to infiltrate online chat rooms, blogs, twitter, and social media,

  77. @rnsone says:

    Just read some tweets from this guy,and man they’re out there.I even went to his links,and they prove nothing.

  78. Joe Butera says:

    For that poster to refer to AJ N. as intelligent? That guy twists and bends everything. My recommendation is to complete ignore him, ans he does not have anything of value to offer anyone.

  79. I see no reason to reconsider my decision.

    If you can’t handle what I say or how I run the site, you have an easy alternative: Leave.

    If you keep it up with the personal insults, I’ll ban you.

  80. KateW says:

    Oh My goodness Professor! I missed that altercation! You were right to ban that individual, and threats against you or your family should not be tolerated what so ever. It doesn’t surprise me that they view you as a threat because my friends would often quote you on social media. They don’t like the truth and what I think they really don’t like is that your supporters are pretty keen on many of these issues and are quick to find information, about this case in particular.

    Write more later. Be right back.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,065 other followers

%d bloggers like this: