Six months ago, we knew nothing about the 911 phone calls or what was on them and since they have been released, we hear TM in the background hollering and screaming and saying, “I don’t know, I don’t know, and Help Me Mom!” and GZ interrogating him and so many other things were caught on tape and GZ to his surprise, didn’t realize that he was on tape, and the witnesses who also saw and heard so many things. Did Osterman ever imagine he his photo would be on the ATM machine camera and how that factors in this case?

GZ thought he was not seen and that he committed this crime with no witnesses, but he did have witnesses and TM’s voice, is forever seared in our minds and souls on that 911 tape. He left more than enough evidence.

Yes, it is so painful and hurtful to hear the tape of TM begging and pleading for his life. How can anyone who calls who himself Neighborhood Watchman, protector of the Neighborhood, still shoot a kid anyway, and then lie about what transpired? Did he have accomplices in this crime? Why would he lie about everything and think he could get away with this crime especially now that his lies have proven to be unsubstanciated? It wouldn’t matter if TM was a bad kid, Charles Manson, or Ted Bundy! GZ is not judge and jury! He was not a law enforcement official. He had no right to take the life of anyone who was just walking down the street!

I vaguely remember Zimmerman saying that he was asked by dispatcher to obtain an address but the request is not on tape of the non emergency call. Can this be used by prosecution against Zimmerman.

How much can be “excused” by defense as faulty memory by George because of his ADHD and George didn’t intentionally lie?

For example, I do not believe that the details of GZ’s account of the struggle over the gun are remotely credible. Informally I would infer that he is actively hiding whatever really happened because it is more damaging. However I am not so sure that this line of reasoning would be worth anything in court.

“Is this “looking for an address” story relevant at all?”

Answer: Yes, it’s relevant to prove Zimmerman was hunting for TM, because he obviously wasn’t looking for an address and merely used that as an excuse to stay on the move looking for TM.

If Trayvon was running toward the back entrance, as Zimmerman said in the non-emergency call, why did Zimmerman need a specific address to give the dispatcher? That didn’t make sense to me given Zimmerman wasn’t planning on meeting the police at any particular address and Trayvon was running away. Is this “looking for an address” story relevant at all?

Imagine a wealthy guy who lives alone in a condo in a big city goes out one evening and gets killed in a car crash or just has a heart attack or something and dies. Others in his building learn of it the next day. He has no close relatives and has left all his money to some big-name charity. By the time the landlord and police get around to opening up his apartment to do whatever legally needs to be done, they find that all his possessions (identified on his homeowners’ insurance policy rider and valued at over $1 million) are gone and that his various bank accounts have been emptied and so forth, so the value of the estate is maybe a thousand dollars, total. A small bit of investigation leads them to conclude that a neighbor hired a locksmith to get in, used the paperwork in the apartment to figure out how to access all the bank accounts and other assets, and basically pulled off a huge heist within three days of the death.

They take him in for questioning and he says that he took it all because the deceased verbally told him that he wanted him to do that, and that he wanted him to have everything.

Nobody has ever seen these two together, knows of any relationship between them, or had any reason to believe they knew each other. The guy gets charged with theft, fraud, etc.

The guy hires a good lawyer who makes a motion to dismiss all charges because he can prove 51% that he had permission to take all the money and assets, and no other witness was present when the deceased told him he could, and the deceased, being dead, cannot testify that this is not exactly what happened.

So OK, he walks.

Should he be able to sue the people who suggested he was a thief?