Will the defendant testify or not testify?

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Good afternoon:

I write regarding whether the defendant should testify.

I advised my clients not to testify, unless there was some specific reason why I believed they had to testify. That reason typically would involve testifying about something that the jury would not otherwise know unless the client testifies. This is a common occurrence is self-defense cases and why most lawyers will say that a client must testify in such a case.

As Assistant State Attorney Richard Mantei said yesterday, the use of deadly force in self-defense is unlawful unless the defendant reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering serious injury when he used deadly force. The reasonableness requirement means that the defendant’s conduct must be evaluated objectively by comparing his conduct to the conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation.

The jury of 6 women, 5 of whom are mothers, will decide whether the defendant acted reasonably.

The defendant is the only person who can tell them whether he believed he was in such danger when he shot Trayvon Martin. According to various witnesses who have testified, he described a situation to them that, if true, probably would objectively constitute such a danger. For the past year, his lawyer, Mark O’Mara has been aggressively selling the defendant’s story on national television and waiving the two bloody cell phone photographs of the back of the defendant’s head and his face as proof that the defendant acted reasonably. I think the national media has uncritically accepted O’Mara’s sales job and shamelessly promoted it.

The critical question, however, is whether the 6 women, 5 of whom are mothers, believe what the defendant told others. They are not required to believe anything he said. I doubt they will believe him, given his many contradictory statements, implausible claims, and the forensic evidence, particularly the DNA evidence, which proves that Trayvon Martin did not hit him 20-30 times in the face, grab his head and repeatedly slam it into a concrete sidewalk, or attempt to smother him by placing his hands over the defendant’s nose and mouth.

I believe the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant provoked the encounter with Trayvon Martin by following him in a vehicle and then on foot after Trayvon attempted to elude him. He hunted him down and attempted to restrain him contrary to a request by the police dispatcher not to follow him and he never identified himself or explained why he was restraining him. Under these circumstances, Trayvon Martin was entitled to use reasonable force to defend himself, escalating to deadly force when the defendant pulled out his gun. Therefore, Trayvon Martin used lawful force to defend himself and the defendant’s use of force was unlawful.

If he were my client, I would tell him that this is my assessment.

If he responded with, “What about my mother identifying me as the person who screamed?” I would say she did not do so unequivocally. Sybrina Fulton did and she was credible.

I would tell him that he gets to make the call regarding whether to testify. Given my assessment that the jury is going to convict him, I would also tell him that his only chance to avoid conviction would be to testify and persuade those 6 women, 5 of them mothers, that they should not convict him.

I would explain the following information.

The burden of proof in all criminal cases in this country is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime charged. The defendant is presumed innocent throughout the trial and the jury must find him “not guilty” unless the prosecution overcomes the presumption of innocence by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The term “beyond a reasonable doubt” is generally defined as such a doubt as would exist in the mind of a reasonable person after fully and fairly considering all of the evidence or lack of evidence. The prosecution is not required to prove guilt beyond all doubt, just beyond a reasonable doubt. Generally, a reasonable doubt is a doubt for which a reason exists, as opposed to a speculative doubt or a mere suspicion. The Florida instruction states that a person is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt if they have an abiding belief in the truth of the charge. An abiding belief is a long lasting belief. The idea is that a juror is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt if they are sure that they will not change their mind sometime in the future due to some doubt they have about the strength of the evidence.

The definition of reasonable doubt is circular, which frustrates jurors who expect and want reasonable doubt quantified. For example, preponderance of the evidence, which is the burden of proof in a civil case, is defined as proving that a proposition is more likely so than not so or supported by more than 50% of the evidence. There is no equivalent percentage of certainty used to define reasonable doubt. I believe most trial lawyers and judges would agree that it’s possible that different juries hearing the same case could reach different conclusions. This is why attorney voir dire during jury selection and the use of cause and peremptory challenges to select a jury are so critically important.

Our legal system guards and protects the sanctity of the jury room and juror deliberations. A jury is never required to explain or justify its verdict. As a result, a jury actually gets to decide what constitutes reasonable doubt, even though they are never told that they have this power. The jury is a reflection of the community and it acts as the conscience of the community when it decides whether the prosecution has proved the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would tell him that if he can express his humanity and touch their hearts, he has a chance at manslaughter.

I would also tell him that he must tell the truth without any bullshit like he uttered on the Hannity Show.

He must admit when he lied, to whom he lied, and why he lied.

He must convince them that he acted out of fright, not anger.

I think he’s going to testify for all the wrong reasons because he has always been able to lie his way out of trouble.

Ain’t going to work this time.

I have one final reason for believing he will testify. His lawyers did not voir dire the prospective jurors on his right to remain silent and not testify. I always did that in my cases to make sure the jurors understood that they could not use his silence against him by presuming he had something to hide.

964 Responses to Will the defendant testify or not testify?

  1. Malamiyya says:

    could be first

  2. Rachael says:

    first?

  3. Big Willie says:

    I’m going in the same direction…

  4. Beverly says:

    Thank you for the information. I think you have also just delineated why he will be found guilty….But one never knows, I guess. Any idea how long the defs. case may last? They are all big talkers.

  5. operacarla says:

    Thanks so much for the clear information!

  6. Two sides to a story says:

    Quatro!

  7. Rachael says:

    it will be an interesting next couple of days.

  8. Two sides to a story says:

    “His lawyers did not voir dire the prospective jurors on his right to remain silent and not testify.”

    Why this oversight? It seems particularly important for a client who might fall apart on cross.

    I’m no legal beagle but I’m guessing Fogen won’t testify because he thinks like his supporters and many of those are still certain he’ll walk no matter what he does because they think the state has no case. I get the impression that he thinks he doesn’t need to prove anything further.

    But I hope you’re right, because it sure will be interesting if Fogen testifies. He’s certainly had plenty of practice telling his stories.

    • colin black says:

      hE HAD A SHITTKICKING GRIN ON AFTER WATCHING THAT hAnratty interview

      That alone tells me his attatchment to reality an what actuall unfolding is tenuious to say the least.

      It take bravery to get in the box .
      Arriass had bravery as she is a vicious narrsasitic maniac whom has the sight taste an smell of blood.

      Up close an personal cane even look into her victims eyes as she slowly totures him.

      Foggagge is a lilly lvered coward an hasn’t the bravery to go toe to toe with an adult

      Even if the only weapons are words.#

      Whom evedoes the cross on him will have the ammo facts times figures lengths os difference .
      Several differing lies an ommisions

      An embelleshments an mind reading power developed by both he an the Victim to try an justify.
      An explain the non following adreess hunting street name searching for.

      THAT HAPPENED TO BE HIS OWN STREET,

      So why didn’t he say Sean Im just heading over to my own stree blah blah blah have the officers meet me there 60 ft from the back entrance?

      There just so much he could explain away in the end he would end up.

      A stuttering muttering full with ah chant remember this
      I chant reach the non emergency cahl

      IM sure he was seven feet tall an Im ever so tubby an small.

      Am sorry I cahnt recall If a even shot him at tall.

      An I cahnt recall no recoil as that would just spoil my tale of woe trouble an toil.

      All he will be left is utter empty meaningless HOLLOW POINTS.

    • Malisha says:

      I actually think he will not testify because I remember how totally freaked he was when he had to simply admit that he knew he had the right to a pretrial SYG hearing but was waiving it. I think he is well and truly scared of X-examination and if I were him, I would be too!

      • concernedczen says:

        I agree. Also O’Mara wanted him to “testify” for Judge Lester but for Bernie not to be able to cross him.

        I think there is no way in hell he’s going to take the stand and face cross examination on all of his lies.

        • Nellie Nell says:

          Wouldn’t surprise me if West got on his knees and begged the judge to allow GZ to get in the box without having BDLR to question him.

          And if he does get in the box to be questioned, the objections will come before BDLR can open his mouth.

          • LSimon3321 says:

            Do you recall during the pretrial hearings a year ago that MOM kept “threatening” to have GZ speak for himself? He said stuff like my client is anxious to have a SYG hrg and/or get this trial started but needs more time to gather information. BDLR blurted, his in special way, GOOD! I recall GZ and MOM holding their breath and hoping the judge would not hold them to it. She didn’t. I enjoyed watching them squirm whenever they were foolish enough to make that false statement. There is no defense for what GZ did. I have to admit that I think MOM did the best he could but I hope not good enough to convince this jury. I thought I recalled that a couple of the jurors selected were of the opinion that if TM had not been expelled from school, he would not have been there to get in trouble and killed.

      • LeaNder says:

        Bill Shaeffer on wftv argued that since the prosecution introduced all of Fogen’s statements, they actively prevented that he had to testify or take the stand.

        I hope that defense witheld part of their argument to be able to challenge even further the defense self-defense presentation. At least it feels this would have been a wise and strategic decision to not hand the defense everything they have.

        Almost on my way back home, hoping everyone is fine.

        • LSimon3321 says:

          I hope they are saving some and not just overlooking anything. I can think of a few things they did not state because they can’t direct or redirect on things unsaid. For one thing, no one but him (and accomplice if there was one) can testify as to what he was doing after he got off the phone with NEN and until he found TM. He told Det. Singleton in one of the interviews that after he got off the phone, he walked towards TM..

  9. bydesign2010 says:

    Although considering how arrogant he and his team is I can’t be so certain that he will. I still think it’s unlikely because of cross. He will be eviscerated on cross.

  10. RobertSF says:

    If he responded with, “What about my mother identifying me as the person who screamed?” I would say she did not do so unequivocally. Sybrina Fulton did and she was credible.

    I actually never thought the testimony of either mom would carry much weight because the jury would realize that of course each mom would say it was her son. And the fact that one mom would be wrong wouldn’t necessarily mean the mom was lying. Both moms want the screams to be their son’s badly enough that they can’t hear anything but.

    • Judy75201 says:

      I agree. Once the experts were denied, I don’t think either testimony holds much weight.

      • Tzar says:

        they don’t need to shold any weight
        they are simply not necessary
        it is a kid screaming
        It is not someone holding an ace up their sleeve like a gun
        end of story

        • Judy75201 says:

          This is painfully obvious to me. I hope to the jury, as well.

          • Simon S says:

            As a pretty objective observer who didn’t know many details of this case until watching the trial, I have to disagree. The screams seem more likely in my mind to have come from the person being punched. I was also persuaded by Mr Good, who testified that it was Mr Martin who was underneath and who was screaming. I found him to be pretty credible as a witness. If I were a juror my overall impression so far woud be that, while Mr Martin did some things to contribute to what happened that night and may have exaggerated or lied about other aspects of the events, the state has not convinced me or provided enough concrete evidence to say for certain that the killing was not in self defense. Mr Martin very well may have instigated the altercation and most definitely could have done more to avoid it, but with the state having rested its case, it is hard for me to imagine a jury looking at the evidence provided so far and convicting. I’m perplexed as to why so many people on this site seem so convinced Mr Martin will be found guilty. If you all started off with a clear and impartial opinion of the case before it began and now feel so differently than I do, maybe I will be wrong about the outcome. But I suspect a lot of people here may have felt strongly before the trial even began. Either way this will be fascinating to watch to its conclusion.

          • Simon S says:

            Sorry, in my post below I accidentally wrote Mr Martin when I meant to be referring to Mr Zimmerman.

          • Nellie Nell says:

            Clearly obvious to me too. I can hear “Get off! Get off!” with the ‘off’ being dragged out a very long time. The grown man that chased a kid down would not be screaming to “get off” with a pistol on his hip. That just does not make sense.

            John Good was far from credible to me which we will see once he is called by the defense where he will be cross examined by BDLR. He has already “clarified” his story and his “common sense” is not a fact of what happened.

            Sorry, I could not reply to Simon S below.

          • Malisha says:

            Simon S, accidentally substituting “Martin” for “defendant” is a “tell” for why you believe a rational jury could conclude that Fogen killed in self-defense. For whatever reason, you believe that all of Martin’s conduct needs to be defended, while for whatever reason, you also feel that ANY of the defendant’s conduct that cannot be absolutely KNOWN WITHOUT ANY DOUBT should be overlooked … just a little peccadillo. First, if a kid punches a guy who has been following him and scaring him and then refuses to identify himself, the KID is acting in self-defense, not the stalker. Second, people do NOT ordinarily scream like that when punched in the nose. Half the time you get a grunt-like sound and the other half the time you can get a short, forceful shout sound. The long drawn-out scream that was punctuated by the gunshot could NOT have been from the nose punch anyway because according to Fogen’s description of the nose punch, it preceded a minute’s worth of head-banging and face-punching and smothering, AFTER which came the gunshot that cut off the long drawn-out death shriek.

            If the jury starts out impartial it has to see that since the injuries were very minor, any hitting by Martin to Fogen would have been way below the threshhold of life-threatening and Fogen’s shot would necessarily have been … unneccessary. He killed either in rage at the resistance Martin was giving him to being “taken in” or assaulted, or he killed because his plan to take Martin in did not go well.

            Nowhere is it promised that if you assault someone, you are entitled to kill them without receiving even a scratch for your efforts. Even an African American kid you think is “up to no good.”

          • Trained Observer says:

            Simon S — Just so ya know, your “Mr. Martin” was a 17-year-old kid carrying candy home from the store who got blown away by George Zimmerman, a household name coast to coast ( and beyond) for more than a year. Try to keep a grip on that thought.

          • gblock says:

            Simon, a lot of the followers of this blog have been following this case for many months.

            At the very least it should be clear from the evidence that the injuries to Zimmerman were minor and the head-banging never happened. This is based on the testimony of Dr. Rao and the PA, So at the very least, you need to be asking yourself – why did Zimmerman claim that he couldn’t defend himself from Trayvon, other than by using his gun?

            There is also a lot of evidence that Zimmerman felt that young black males were “punks” who didn’t belong in the neighborhood, that he was a wannabe cop who had a hankering to detain and round up a black “punk” for the police, and that when he saw Trayvon, he went off in pursuit of that goal, and that this led to him confronting and eventually killing Trayvon. That is the claim of the prosecution, and they have presented evidence to that effect. Some of it should be clearly there, some of it has been presented to the jury without real explanation, and some of it has not been presented to the jury, to the best of my knowledge. And there are additional clues, like the fact that Z’s “going to get an address for the dispatcher” story does not make sense and there is reason to believe that he continued to search for Trayvon at that point. Much of this will certainly be explained to the jury later in the trial.

          • cielo62 says:

            Gblock- well said. Plus the lack of DNA on Trayvon indicates that 1. Zimmerman did NOT have a broken bleeding nose and 2. Trayvon never touched GZ. Critical thinking would remove your scenario with just a few moments reflection. GZs blood also flowed down into his moist ache. DOWN. His head was over Trayvon. He was on top with baby scratches that never touched the ground, never smeared the blood, never left a smudge of grass or gravel. Based on the cop shop pictures, GZs jacket was quite dry as we’re his pants and shoes. Someone shimmying for his life should have wet muddy butt on his pants but GZ did not. Only the tips of his boots had water and grass. The back if the pants and shoes were dry. Get your facts straight with the known evidence before spouting some really improbable defense story.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            OMG… I just realized something the jurors will have to puzzle over.

            gz is putting on witnesses to say that it’s him screaming at the top of his lungs for dear life… But there’s no evidence that he’s under any kind of attack, because Trayvon has no evidence of it on himself.

            That means that gz’s witnesses are either lying or extremely stupid. Because, everyone that gets on the stand now and says they’re sure that’s gz screaming, is putting gz behind bars.

            When the claimed attack was disproved the reason for screaming was also disproved. So the jurors are being asked to believe that gz was screaming like that, without a reason for doing so???

            That is, unless he was doing that yelling to make it appear he was being attacked, while he pulled out his gun and fired. With no good reason for doing so. This is the “puzzle” Bernie wants the jury to be left with. They will be so tempted to solve the puzzle, they’ll forget all about issues of race.

    • ay2z says:

      Except, the jury can decide who might be more or less biases, they may both even believe in what they say.

      But equivocating by Gladzy Z, and her lack of any public statement about her response when she heard the 911 call, nothing to Piers Morgan, unless she equivocated or hesitated or worse, indicated to the studio crew and host, ‘maybe’.

      Yesterday, GladyZ felt the need to attach a description to her answer, of ‘why’, that the scream was this and showed that. There would be no need for that, if there were no doubt. But this mother had to present more than just her answer, she had to ‘support it’.

      A familial listener does not need to support who they know. Describing the voice doesn’t add value to the identification.

    • Mary says:

      i don’t think for a second that sybrina fulton wanted it to be her son’s screams. not for a minute. think about that carefully.

      the only mother who wanted, desperately,for it to be her son’s screams is gladys zimmerman.

      further, i think their testimonies did countfor a great deal. almost in a ‘judgment of solomon’ sort of way, where solomon tricks it out the women who in fact the mother of the disputed baby really is.
      if the jury didn’t think sybrina fulton was utterly correct in her assessment of whose voice that was, then they needed to see gladys on the stand, uncomfortably so, doing what she had to do as a mother: sell out another mother for her own child.

      it was painfully obvious what was going on there.

      • dianetrotter says:

        Sabrina – Realizing it was the death cries of your son and you were not there to cradle him or protect him, imagining every painful moment he went through. No mother wants her soon to go through that and ultimately died as a result of it..

        • Mary says:

          but also on a purely practical point, the only mother desperate for it to be her son’s screams is the mother whose son faces 20 to life upon conviction.

          beyond the appalling inhumanity and condescension of the question,o’mara asked sybrina fulton the ultimately stupid and illogical question.

          • Trained Observer says:

            Mary, stupid and illogical pretty much captures O’Mara and his partner. I agree with your point about the only mother desperate to believe it’s her son’s screams is Fogen’s mom who fears he’ll spend the better part of his life improsoned for murder.

            If anything, it’s Sybrina Fulton who desperately wishes the death shried was not her son, and that this is a nightmare that she can awake from.

      • MedicineBear says:

        I totally agree. It was obvious that Gladys was tormented by the position she was in. You could tell she knew those screams were from another mother’s child. She is obviously a deeply religious soul and did not want to BEAR FALSE WITNESS nor did she want to STEAL the agonized cries of Sybrina’s child.

        But neither did she want to publicly throw her own disturbed child under the bus. That’s why she didn’t directly answer the questions.

        My heart goes out to her — this was like “Sophie’s Choice” in the movie by the same name.

        • Malisha says:

          Ouch Ouch. I don’t think Gladys is nearly as innocent and noble as you present her, and I don’t think the prosecution of your son for murder HE COMMITTED is at all comparable to having your children torn away to be killed while you’re on your way to a concentration camp. Ouch again.

          As to her religious scruple? Isn’t she the one who gave out a public statement that Trayvon Martin had “savagely attacked and beaten” her innocent son? How’s that for false witness?

          • anita says:

            I completely agree. Gladys was very hateful in that public letter.

          • ladystclaire says:

            @Malisha, I applaud you and your comment concerning Gladys Zimmerman. IMO, she is not due any sympathy of any kind because she did her part, in demonizing her son’s child VICTIM. There is no way between here and hell, that I’m going to feel any kind of sorrow for this woman!

            This woman knows in her heart of hearts, that her son/nephew or what ever he is, she knows he’s a liar as well as someone with anger managment problems. She also knows about his criminal past and, yet she slanders another mother’s deceased child, who is deceased at the hands of her child.

            NO, she will NOT get any sympathy from me. My heart will always go out to SYBRINA (cupcake) Fulton.

          • Trained Observer says:

            I have no respect for either of the Zimmerman parents, given the statements they’ve online at their begsite and the book Pops published. Had Fogen grown up in a different household with different values, he might not be the murdering, lying loser that he is became.

          • Gladys Zimmerman is a bald face liar and the love of God is far from her. She knows those blood curdlings screams are coming from the child her son murdered. May she pay dearly when she stands before her God.

        • greenwarrior4 says:

          Sophie’s Choice was about a situation where the Nazis were exterminating Jews. The analogy, to me, trivializes the holocaust. I do not see the similarity.

      • Nellie Nell says:

        Sybrina made it clear, “I heard my son.”

        That made MOM look like an idiot by asking such a stupid question of a grieving mother who has to put up with his lying. He knows damn well that is not his client.

        When will BDLR pick up on the ‘kid’ screaming thing. The uncle is the 2ndfamily member to mention the killers screams as a child. It makes me want to scream myself!

    • Ian S says:

      I think it’s beyond all doubt that Trayvon was the one screaming. The screaming ended with the shot being fired which is exactly what you’d expect as he sees what’s about to happen and then is silenced by the trauma of the bullet shredding his heart. If it had been GZ screaming, he would almost certainly have stopped screaming as he raised his gun and concentrated first on the aim and then the shot itself.

      • groans says:

        Or else (if it had been CAC screaming, and he was reasonably “forced” to shoot Trayvon to save his own life), CAC would have continued screaming and yelling – something like:

        “Oh, God! Oh, my God! [sobbing] Oh, shit! WHY didn’t you just STOP when I was begging you to JUST STOP??!! Are you OK? Can you hear me? Oh, God! Can you hear me? Tell me you can hear me!! SOMEONE!! PLEEAASE!! HELP ME!! PLEASE CALL AN AMBULANCE! We need an ambulance!!”

        • Mary Lou says:

          BINGO! Instead, he calmly asks Manalo: “Am I bleeding?” Coward with a gun. Ugh.

        • LSimon3321 says:

          GZ described “finishing off” after the shot when he stated that he flipped TM over onto his stomach, got on his back, stretched his arms out and told him to “be quiet; don’t move.” He should have been telling ppl to call the ambulance. Instead he told ppl he didn’t need them to call 911 but his wife instead.

        • Nellie Nell says:

          Makes a lot of sense. Yet he walked away and left tha child face down in the wet grass, stopped people from calling for help and then got on his phone.

          The fact that you would take aim at the kids heart is truly disturbing. Most people in a struggle would just shoot, but to aim to make sure you do not shoot your own arm says that you had time to think before pulling the trigger. Anyone staring down the barrel of a gun would instinctively stop in their tracks. No doubt, Trayvon would have done the same. Trayvon seen hate in GZ eyes and realized that he would be killed so he begged his killer. Those begs fell on deaf ears.

          • MedicineBear says:

            You need to understand that although there is a very rational, responsible contingent of concealed weapon carriers (CCWs), there are many at the extreme paranoid end of the spectrum (CACs).

            CACS spend much time buddying around with other CACs talking about guns, target shooting at human-shaped targets (where the “bullseye” is the heart), and MUCH discussion (and mental rehearsal) about SELF DEFENSE. Let me assure you, they are well aware of pre-rehearsed CYA “justification” if they ever draw their weapon or fire it.

            Here are just a few well-rehearsed dogmas for CCWs:

            *There are criminal legal consequences for exposing, showing, brandishing, threatening, pointing, drawing your gun (you can see fogen’s rehearsed CYA statements about this point when he says his shirt rode up and his gun was “accidentally” exposed).

            *If you draw your gun, there had better be no other option (like retreating from the conflict) — you cannot draw a deadly weapon to “scare off” an opponent nor to stop the opponent.

            *If you resort to drawing your gun and using deadly force, you had better be able to justify that you thought your life was in imminent grave danger and you were meeting deadly force with deadly force.

            Unfortunately, the fringe paranoid CACs think there’s ALWAYS “bad guys” (“thugs,” “assholes,” “punks,” “coons”) out to get them and not only must they arm themselves with guns for “self-protection,” they also ARM THEMSELVES WITH WHAT TO SAY AND HOW TO ACT to claim self-defense. You can see that the CAC element could condense all the above down to: DEAD OPPONENTS CAN’T TESTIFY AGAINST YOUR CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE.

            It’s obvious that fogen is guilty as sin when you hear him tick off the self-defense points to “justify” his killing — those were the first words out of his mouth. He fabricated stories to be consistent with self-defense (just as this culture pre-rehearses). They are practiced in gaming the system to kill without even having to give up their gun afterwards.

            This mentality would kill (as fogen did) to keep the LIVE kid from getting him in trouble (trouble that would take his CCW license away).

            Remember the woman who shot the gun into the ceiling to scare off her attacker USED DEADLY FORCE (fired the deadly weapon) “without it being necessary” (i.e.”didn’t fear for her life”). Not knowing how to game the system (like CAC), she got 25 or 30 years or something. Had she been rehearsed in SYG nitty-gritty, she would have known to kill the guy threatening her, ticked off all the self-defense “bullet” points (e.g. thought he was going to kill me, I had no choice, I couldn’t get away, he used xxxx as a deadly weapon, I feared for my life, I feared I’d be in diapers from brain damage, I had to defend myself, etc. etc. etc.), claimed self defense and walked away scot free.

      • Rachael says:

        And he even use my very own words for that. We don’t need experts it just takes a little common sense. Screening, gunshot then silence. Just some common sense.

    • kllypyn says:

      Mrs Zimmerman knows that wasn’t here son. screaming. So does everyone else in that nut ball family.

    • Jun says:

      I believe your assessment is slightly incorrect

      Sybrina wished and hoped none of this unnecessary occurrence happened and that Trayvon was alive, and she would not have to identify screams

      Gladys on the other hand, wants it to be her son so bad, but I think she knows she is lying, and I think she knows others feel so too, hence her trying to sell it, sell the story of “terror and anguish” when it was unnecessary

      The ace up the sleeve is Fogen upon hearing it, stated, “it does not sound like me”, and 3 on scene witnesses who testified and answered that “it sounded like the screams of that of a young boy or a kid” and the rest testified that the screams just ended right at the gun shot, which points it to being Trayvon, as well as the recording, which sounds like a fucking kid to me

      If the jury was to be objective, they would have to look at the motive you proposed, and then judge via the answers they testified, and the motives otherwise

      Looking at the totality, Gladys has every motive to lie and they could say the same regarding Sybrina, however, Sybrina’s testimony is supported by witnesses and others whom have no agenda or connection to the either party, which makes Sybrina more credible and also her demeanor shows Sybrina is actually hurt and shaken in her voice, while Gladys just sounds like she rehearsed the whole thing with Omara

      You also have to look at what the witnesses testified in totality with the forensics…

      Fogen targeted and profiled, aggravated stalked, confronted and then attacked Trayvon

      Fogen was armed and had various tools such as car and flashlights

      Fogen had a 50 pound advantage and MMA training

      A struggle ensued, whereby Fogen with the obvious advantage had Trayvon pinned under his mercy, and shot the boy while he was on top of Trayvon (as via Jean Sardyka, Manalo’s wife, Mona, Selene)

      Considering Fogen instigated and started the whole altercation, an unnecessary one at that, through negligent action, it led to a young boy’s death

      Fogen committed aggravated stalking along with murder 2

      and at the time he took the shot, he was in no danger of anything, since he had the boy pinned under him at his mercy, and throughout the encounter, Fogen was in no danger of anything because the whole time Trayvon was trying to elude him

      There’s no dna or trace on Trayvon to show he attacked the Fogen in any way, so that leaves suspicion that Fogen staged the crime scene to try to hide his crime

      Considering that, Sybrina is the one that is credible

      That’s my take on it anyways

      • LSimon3321 says:

        Don’t forget that GZ Freudian slipped a couple of times during his police interviews by saying such things as “he yelled for help and I shot him.”

        • LSimon3321 says:

          I hope if GZ gets up to testify on his own behalf that this little gem is used. Who makes that type of error? I realize that he “corrected” it after Serino asked “Who yelled for help?”

    • smokeegyrl says:

      I don’t believe that is the case… Sybrina said she heard her sons screams before while Fogen’s mom said she never heard him scream before… so there is a difference there. I think Sybrina carries very much weight there.

  11. PerfectlyImperfect says:

    I think GZ cannot wait to tell the jury his perspective, so I believe he will testify. He’s one of those people who can’t keep his mouth shut. He told anyone who would listen his lie of a tale. Now he has a captive audience. There is no way he will sit there quietly and not take his chance to affect justice.

    • Xena says:

      @PerfectlyImperfect.

      I think GZ cannot wait to tell the jury his perspective, so I believe he will testify.

      At times while Mantei was at the podium telling the court about GZ’s lies, GZ was busy writing. He has explanations to explain his lies that explain his lies. Seeing that he thinks he knows what will impress the court more than his lawyers, he will want to take the stand. However, there is another GZ — the one who does not want to be questioned. GZ is unsure of himself unless he is telling lies.

      • PerfectlyImperfect says:

        Lol @ “GZ is unsure of himself unless he is telling lies.” ITA.

        • ay2z says:

          Yes, and he is not that good at it.

          • Xena says:

            Speaking of GZ’s lies, here’s a recap of Mantei’s argument from yesterday.

            There are two people involved here. One of them is dead and one of them is a liar.

          • Rachael says:

            They all can’t possibly be true, and I admit probably none of them are true. LOL

            I am so sorry the jury had to miss that. But I’m sure that’s just a preview for the closing argument.

          • ay2z says:

            Damn!! Nice job, girl!

          • Xena says:

            I just caught on to something. The prosecution had Trayvon’s mom and brother testify. They both speak rather softly and the jury can actually compare their voices to the one on the tape. Trayvon might sound like his brother.

            OTOH, the DUfense gave the jury Mama Zim and Uncle Meza, when GZ doesn’t sound anything like them. LOL!!

          • KA says:

            I think using Trayvon’s brother was a great move. Jahvaris is soft spoken, graduating college next year, quiet spirit, and obviously very sad and shocked at losing his brother saying “I did not want it to be him”. It is clear picture of what Trayvon would grow to be like.. a college bound, smart, and soft spoken young man who loves his family.

            There is no way someone looking at Jahvaris on that stand would think he would violently attack someone at random. The State was actually playing to potential racial stereotypes that may be implanted in their brains about Trayvon or other black youth….

            Personally, I do not care if you look like the worst criminal or “stereotypical street thug”, no one deserves to be restrained and executed in the streets, but I understand what the State was doing to overcome any racial bias and assumption that the Defense was emphasizing. Actually, the whole concept that Trayvon violently attacked him at all is playing to a racial bias.

            On Sybrina’s testimony, the person in the recording is in terrible pain. No one wants that to be the last sounds of their child. OF COURSE Sybrina did not want that to be her child.

            That tape proves nothing to her. She knows her son’s death was illegally at the hands of another. She didn’t have to listen to that tape to know that. That tape brings pain…nothing else.

          • O’Mara’s attempt on cross to get her to admit that she wanted Trayvon to be the person shrieking because that would establish that Trayvon was not the attacker, is one of the most insulting things he possibly could have said to Sybrina. Later, he attempted to defend what he said to the press claiming that it was a legitimate and appropriately sensitive question to ask.

            Apparently he thinks all black mothers fear that their sons are thugs up to no good.

            He’s a racist prick.

          • groans says:

            Great video synopsis, Xena!

          • Xena says:

            @groans. Just did this one of GZ sweating — because I felt like it. :-)

          • greenwarrior4 says:

            LOL for the sweating clip, Xena!

          • groans says:

            Xena – Thanks! Great “sweating” video, too!! :lol:

            I noticed all his sweating Friday morning, too. I haven’t seen every minute of the trial but, so far, the only forehead hanky wiping I’ve seen has been by Osterman and the killer!

            Hmmmmm……..

      • Mary says:

        the unsure george who needs to tell lies? blame that one on his cold authoritarian parents. they’re at the core of this.

        • PerfectlyImperfect says:

          Some people come from terrible backgrounds and end up being wonderful people. George is responsible for George. I’m sure his parents have an influence on who he has become, but he is the one who decided to shoot TM. So far as I know, his mother and father have avoided killing anyone.

          • Rachael says:

            I feel like his brother is killing me every time he is on TV but I agree. His brother and sister (to my knowledge) have never killed anyone.

          • Mary says:

            i’m not exonerating him by any means. but i do think his issues with authority, always wanting to appeal to authority, always wanting to be accepted by authority, as well as his anger, are right there in his upbringing.

          • KA says:

            Didn’t MO bring up in his book that GZ told him he was abused by his mother?

            That has got to make Ms. Z proud…

          • groans says:

            His whole family has worked on “killing” Trayvon’s memory and/or hiding assets from court.

            His parents participated in the former, as well as in spreading CAC’s lies – even though they “weren’t there” – and hypocritically criticized anyone who challenged the lies by asserting, “they weren’t there.”

            There is no doubt in my mind that his dad cajoled and pressured Wolfinger not to prosecute any crime against his son. His dad also went – uninvited – to the police station to “explain” why CAC was in the “right” and should not be charged. Right before trial, his dad wrote a so-called “book” asserting the righteousness of CAC.

            His mother wrote a bitter online essay saying that the “American justice system has failed” because it charged CAC with a crime.

            These acts are far beyond normal “parenting” – particularly since their son is a full-grown, long-since adult! Yes, “George is responsible for George.”

            But they’re NOT allowing CAC to be responsible for CAC. They’re acting like accessories after the fact – not legally, but morally – actively and desperately trying to help their son get away with murder.

            They are aggressively continuing – to this day – to shape what their son will become. And, by all appearances, they hope to shape their son into someone who gets away with murder.

        • groans says:

          Noticed MOM didn’t ask Gladys if HER son has a tattoo of HER name on HIS wrist!

      • Sophia33 says:

        He thinks he can talk himself out of anything.

        • Xena says:

          @Sophia33.

          He thinks he can talk himself out of anything.

          Yep, because in GZ’s world, if you dare disagree, argue, or disbelieve, he cuts off your electricity or finds another way of enacting spite. He only gets close to folks who are afraid of him.

          • Sophia33 says:

            Exactly! That’s why this innocent choir boy image that he is trying to portray makes me want to vomit.

          • Xena says:

            @Sophia33.

            That’s why this innocent choir boy image that he is trying to portray makes me want to vomit.

            I loved that ASA Guy started opening statement with the profanity used by GZ in his NEN call. From there, all the “yes sir,” “no sir” reveals that GZ is a phony. The tie-in with how long he’s studied criminal justice and wanted to be a cop puts a cherry on top. GZ can change faces at will.

          • LSimon3321 says:

            He looks every bit of Cartman from Southpark. Respect by Authoritaah. Which makes me think of FT stating once that if TM had responded to GZ in a respectful manner, this could have been avoided. That implies there was a conversation/argument before the fight.

          • Xena says:

            @LSimon3321.

            Which makes me think of FT stating once that if TM had responded to GZ in a respectful manner, this could have been avoided.

            That’s the superiority dysfunction that Taafee and GZ have.

            That implies there was a conversation/argument before the fight.

            Absolutely, and Mantei was sure to point that out in his argument against the judgment for acquittal.

      • MedicineBear says:

        Xena~ Outstanding video work! You are a truly gifted righteous Angel of Justice and we are very grateful.

    • pat deadder says:

      Perfectly Now he has a captive audience. So did you see the big smile on fogen’s face after the Hannity interview was played in court He was so proud of himself..If he wants to testify Omara won’t resist he’ll just be able to blame fogen if he gets convicted.Omara won’t give him facts like Mr Leatherman would.To me fogen looks too confident for some reason, is it the drugs,the lack of truthfulness from his attorneys ,or is he just delusional,or reading the treehouse trash.He still seems to think he can con people.I’m worried about the Hispanic juror after reading comments here.So imho he will testify with his sad little eyes and soft little voice and yes sirs and no sirs bullshit.Please God let justice prevail.When I was a kid my Mother used to say better to let ten guilty go free than to hang an innocent one.I just can’t have that philosophy now.

      • lurker says:

        He was also wiping away tears when his mother was testifying.

        I wonder what that’s about. Regret that she has to lie for him? Confusion to at last see evidence that she cares what happens to him?

        • DruDo says:

          I think his tears were only for himself and the fact he once again has disappointed his mommy.

        • Malisha says:

          That was a show for the jury, plain and simple. He meant to broadcast, “Because of the Pba-lack mob maliciously prosecuting me, my sainted mother now has to tolerate this horrifying experience, oh poor poor mommy, oh boo hoo.”

      • LSimon3321 says:

        I’m thinking his confidence comes from knowing that at least 1 of those jurors stated plainly she leaned towards his account.

    • Sophia33 says:

      I have not disagreed with you. I think his ego will have him testify.

      • Mary Lou says:

        If he does, I hope he has stocked up on Clinical Strength anti-perspirant! On one hand, he’s the epitome of a coward (and he cannot take his gun to the stand with him!). On the other, he’s self-righteous to a fault. IMO, it’s a coin toss whether he testifies.

        To not testify leaves the jurors wondering why he does not defend himself in court. But he’s not smart enough to pull it off.

    • Malisha says:

      But when he was shooting off his mouth, he knew that he had a guarantee not to be charged. NOW, not so much…

    • MedicineBear says:

      You make an excellent point — it brought to my mind that, way back (before being charged), he called Angela Corey’s office TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF to the Special Prosecutor. I’m thinking you’re onto something!

      • Trained Observer says:

        It amuses me to think he’s likely yet to get a word with Angela Corey. Her only response to his overtures has been to send down the capias for Murder 2, and to show up in court on occasion.

  12. Deborah Moore says:

    Thank you so much, Fred.
    There had been some speculation whether the Defense would even put on a case. We now know that they are. Is this part of the reason you think GZ will testify? In for a penny…Dog on a bone.
    All in.
    Will continue to watch, listen read and think.

    • ay2z says:

      The defense case included the topic of the amount of media about their client, in the form of the flat and inappropriate joke.

      That had a purpose, falling flat or not, it worked to gain enough media attention to be talked about and the jury can’t help bur remember that West did it, and asked them to not hold it against his client.

      • Deborah Moore says:

        The media certainly has ratcheted up on this case. The world is watching.
        I’m not sure how much the flat joke contributed, though.

        • ay2z says:

          The joke seems to play into the underlying (and not so underlying) theme of racism as central to the arrest. If not for the media, if not for Natalie Jackson, Ben Crump, President Obama, the need-to-be-placated masses, the protestors, the media, the family of the victim, the Florida governor, the FDLE, the media, the SAO, the SA, Bernie, Huey, Dewey, Winkin, Blinkin and Nod, this would never be happening.

    • abbyj1 says:

      Thank you, Fred. Very clear and compelling analysis of why/when the defendant should take the stand, and I appreciate the details of “reasonable doubt.” Super blog. Just great.

      I have money on it that GZ will want to take the stand. He’s comfortable lying and, as Edgy says, GZ’s “deluded” that he can pull it off. One of GZ’s most serious character flaws (among so many) is his conviction that he’s so much cleverer than everyone else–that no one can resist believing him. He’s never been able to keep his mouth shut. I’ll be surprised if he doesn’t go for it. The prosecution will be waiting.

    • pat deadder says:

      Why did JN ask Omara if he wanted her to include in her jury instructions the right to remain silent cannot be held against his client and he said yes to include that.

      • bettykath says:

        It’s called keeping your options open. The final say belongs fogen and I think his ego will trump MOM.

        • Mary Lou says:

          I have read elsewhere that GZ’s daddy is the one calling the shots from behind the scenes. Anyone suspect this is true, and if so, how that may impact the decision?

          • Malisha says:

            Everytime Magistrate Fogenpop has advised, it has been a virtual DISASTER for his son. So I hope his advice is taken.

          • Dee says:

            I think so as well. He is a retired judge, and you know they watch over each other. I truly believe that they are just going through this motion in order to appease the country, because they know they wanted this guy to go to court. I say this because it is a lot of stuff it looked as though the prosecutors could have done to prove this case a little more than what they were doing, just like the blood on Zimmerman head. The pattern of blood flow shows that he was on the top because gravity doesn’t lie. The blood was flowing down the front of his face toward his cheeks.

            This means as he was bleeding, he was facing down. Just as he would have been when he was on top of Trayvon. They could have brought in someone who could have given them a visual enactment of this, by using a skull and some liquid as blood to show the jury the pattern of the blood flow should have been going down the back of his neck. And was not flowing the way he said he was at the time of injury. If he was bleeding on the ground, the blood would have pooled in the middle of his head, and as he stood up, gravity would have pulled it down his neck, not to the sides of his head toward his cheeks.

            Meaning Zimmerman couldn’t have been on the bottom after he got hurt, he had to have gotten on Tryvon at the point these cuts started to bleed. This other woman who heard Trayvon screaming said that it was a little boy on TV put was not in court. Something is just not right about this case.

  13. Judy75201 says:

    This is the best article ever! Love how you expounded on reasonable doubt and the fluidity of it.

    • Mary Lou says:

      Ditto, I may print this out to refer later. I have always felt the explanation of reasonable doubt to jurors is nebulous. This description helped. And in this case, takes me well past the threshold to “guilty” based on what I have heard and seen so far.

  14. acemayo says:

    when you get a order from the court to stay so many feet from a person that because people find a way to be within a feet or two
    of the person thier are not to be around, so gz just alway happen
    to be in the same area, if someone pull a gun on me I wolud go
    down fighting,

  15. I think Mantei called him out yesterday. I bet fogen is seething about being called a liar.

  16. jun says:

    Although jurors are not supposed to use a defendant’s silence against them, they do

    I watched a trial for the comic book murders and the jury stated that one of the reasons they did not believe him was that the defendant seemed to cowardice to face up and explain himself away and would rather hide

    They also looked at the defendant’s demeanor

  17. EdgySF says:

    Wow….Zimmerman on the stand would be a zoo.

    He is so deluded, I believe he will go on.

    Maybe he thinks if he can kill someone, then he certainly has the stones to lie about it under oath.

    He might think he can handle cross, but I don’t.

    He killed someone alright…but he had many unfair advantages. He cheated. He can’t cheat on the stand. The whole world is watching.

    • J4TMinATL says:

      If he takes stand, what will state NOT be able to bring up on cross?

    • Xena says:

      If GZ takes the stand, there will be direct, cross, re-direct, re-re-cross, re-re-direct, re-re-re-cross, re-re-re-direct and on and on until Judge Nelson calls it. West will re-re-direct repeating the same questions asked on direct, and the jury will see the defense like a bunch of kids thinking whomever gets in the last word is the one who should be believed.

  18. sadlyyes says:

    to all you wonderful peeps,i have a farm and rescue dogs cats,and other critters.we took 11 furry inmates from death row locally,but just read this story,mebbe we can send this place some love,ill try to find out more.

    http://www.sbsun.com/sbcountywatchcolonies/ci_23605594/time-running-out-rescued-dogs-at-devore-shelter

    • sadlyyes says:

      these people running this operation,have no Paypal acct.it seems how stupid.I will call Monday and offer some assistance. but paypal is ELEMENTARY my dear Watson!

      • cielo62 says:

        and paypal doesnt charge for charities . please do keep us informed. my fostering days are over and yet i still have 10 cats, 2 dogs and 3 birds, all but 2 are rescues.

        • sadlyyes says:

          good on ya!
          ,i had somebody helping me feed,but she departed for better paying work,cant say as i blame her,but hopefully i find a vet student,to help…. boyfriend is busy with work. some of the dogs 2 labs are big eaters,and steal from the others …so far no more fights,since i first got them all,last fall…They seem pretty happy now.They have a life,and a pack,and for now not neglected or abused,so i am content.some of the neighbors have been nasty,even though they are pretty far away.Oh well,one day at a time!

          • cielo62 says:

            sadlyyes~ the hardest part with doing animal rescue (aside from always being broke) is the never ending CHORES! I did fostering/keeping/rescue etc for over 10 years. I’ve seen so many good cats come and go, and it NEVER gets any easier. I have a memorial with each and every cat I have ever had named on it. I pray you continue to have the strength. That’s all we can do, one day at a time. I do still do transport, and even drove to Iowa (where there is NOTHING TO DO) to rescue a cat and bring it to it’s new forever home. One does what one can. Stay strong!

            ________________________________

    • parrot says:

      That was a painful read. I love animals. Have two unwanted dogs of my own, a dachshund and a jack russell. Let us know what you find out.

      • parrot says:

        Heehee. I meant the dogs were unwanted by their previous owners.

        Awww. There, there puppies. Mommy wants and loves you.

      • sadlyyes says:

        OMG! one of the dogs i took is an 8 yr,old JR.she is vicious to the other dogs,and nutty as a fruit cake,ran away 3X and cost me 200$ leash law,thank goodness she has settled in. after several escapes about 20 they have all settled in(x s fingers)but Holly would definately been in the land fill,as those pricks at the unSheltering shelter told me.guess ya gotta be a hardass to work there,i guess.Anyway,seems they all are happy…for good behavior,they get donut holes,tee hee,yes every day.

        • parrot says:

          My JR ‘s started to trust people.

          He still has issues, though. Every once in a while he marks the bedding he shares with the dachshund. Territorial?

          The pictures of those dogs in San Bernadine tugged at my heart.

  19. Puck says:

    I was going to post this in the previous thread, but since everyone will migrate to this one, I’ll write it here, since I’m sure this issue will come up again:

    Many are flipping out that the State didn’t show or prove or talk about this or that bit that we’ve figured out, and that that means it’s all over. For example, the direction of the blood flow from Z’s head, or the misalignment of the hoodie/sweatshirt bulletholes and the chest wounds.

    In its case-in-chief, the State’s lawers call witnesses and introduce evidence. They don’t wander around pontificating to the jury and presenting what they think happened and how, say, blood can’t defy gravity, or that the Z blood on the bottom of Trayvon’s sweatshirt “proves” Z was holding onto him, therefore the stretched fabric and so the misalignment. THAT IS PART OF THE CLOSING when everything is brought together. And closing isn’t going to be a half hour like the opening.

    I’ll say it yet another time: the State still has three more tweakable strategies ready to deploy during the defense’s case-in-chief, the State’s rebuttal, and their closing (remember, the State goes last). So first, they have by no means rested their case, and second, they have a measure of control over where this goes. Consider statements from the prosecution throughout, and Mantei’s amazing delivery yesterday (I really hope he does the closing): they know and even anticipate what the defense is going to say about whichever aspect or issue, and have prepared themselves to either shoot these down as they occur or pre-empt them completely. The pre-emption has happened more obviously in the State’s calling witnesses one would think would be defense witesses, playing GZ’s ridiculous interviews and walk-through, and so on — but it has also been woven throughout on a more subtle, even insidious, manner.

    The admission of the clubhouse videos and phone records. The deliberate questions to witnesses about seemingly small stuff: e.g. asking Raymondo about the button being on top of the sweatshirt bulletholes, or asking Rao to point out the two little pricks on the end of the fat prick’s nose. We’ve been given a bare-bones preview of the State’s case and closing not only in Mantei’s fantastic “lecture” (in the academic sense) to JN yesterday (who was following him with rapt attention, as would a student who was really getting it, and I know from experience what that looks like — I even saw it from the professors on my examining committee when I defended my thesis), but also in those little things and little questions that have been brought up and/or pointed out so far. I can see where this is going, and I’m really not worried. It’s a much nicer space to be in than fretting and carrying on and bashing the State for not doing things you think they should have done not realizing that the case-in-chief is not the time to do this.

    • ks says:

      Very well said. I agree.

    • bettykath says:

      Another nugget was asked of Trayvon’s mother: was he right handed or left handed. That question was asked for a reason. The reason will be made clear in the closing.

      • Puck says:

        Exactly. We have to think back to all those seemingly little (to those who are watching and commenting on the trial without the vast wealth of knowledge we’ve been soaking in for the past year and a bit) questions and mentions and understand that these came out in court for very good reasons.

      • KA says:

        I suspect because the single “blow” that knocked down GZ was only made with a left hand….NOT Trayvon’s dominant hand. If he was going to attack someone unknown in the dark, would he use his weakest hand?

        The bump is obviously in the wrong spot.

        As SM said early, this is a game of chess….the defense is blind to it.

        Besides, the prosecutors can be stealth, they do not require on daily donations….MOM needs to keep unreasonable supporters happy and needs the media to “know” he is just dominating this case…that is why he is on 10 news programs and hold press meetings.

        In chess, being obvious (which is the only way the defense can do it) is the best way to lose.

        • mrsdoubtfire says:

          “If he was going to attack someone unknown in the dark, would he use his weakest hand?”
          >
          No he wouldnt unless his dominant hand was being restrained in some way. I think this is how the State will couch it as opposed to denying the possibility Trayvon might have punched Z on the nose after Z illegally tried to detain him and our hero presented him to the cops.

          • Momma says:

            How insightful of you! Why didn’t I think of that. Thanks, so much!

          • chi1224 says:

            To add to this- Fogen has no defense wounds on his hands. If he was being ground and pound by Trayvon are we to believe he would no fight back? If he was being beat up are we to believe he would not fight back. What was he doing with his hands??? — Obvious answer- one was holding onto Trayvon, and the other was holding the gun.

          • BillT says:

            not only that, IF he was going to attack he had a very good thing he could use for that first hit, a full can of soda in a bag that could be swung and deliver a very solid shot….that he did NOT use the only thing he had that could be a “weapon” speaks to the truth.

        • J4TMinATL says:

          Plus left handed punch would hit GZ right side of nose…

          • KA says:

            or a right handed punch would hit the left side of the nose…

            Maybe a question for Vince the forensic expert on wounds.

            Would someone get two bleeding pin prick looking injuries from a “sucker punch” or would that be a different injury?

            Could recoil from the gun hit the right side of the nose if it was held with one [right] hand in front of the face?

            Does it look like the 2 pin pricks are bleeding in this picture? What do you think would cause that? A punch in the nose?

            Would sidewalk debris or grass appear in the wounds if those were sustained by a hit against the concrete and then “shimmed” in grass?

            Which way is that blood flow running in this picture of this injury?

            Does it look like the blood pattern of someone rolling in grass being smothered? Do you see any blood smeared?

            Do you see grass which was testified by law enforcement in their report on the jacket?

            Would grass stick to running, wet blood before sticking to a waterproof jacket?

            Would you assess that the injuries to the nose (from the pin pricks) or the back of the head (absent of any ground debris) happened early in the fight before a rolling scuffle in the grass and sidewalk, or would the wounds on this picture appear to have happened late in the scuffle?

            I hope the State is ready to use him fully to their advantage.

        • lurker says:

          If I’m not mistaken, weren’t the knuckle abrasions on the left hand?

      • SearchingMind says:

        HA! You folks are very clever and should have become prosecutors, honestly. Remember also the question regarding tattoo-positions. IMO, that’s a rebuttal evidence re admissibility of the “fight video” – should O’Mara dare bring up that stuff again.

        • KA says:

          Yes, I think it establishes three things:

          1) Trayvon was dedicated to his family. He wore tattoos and a pin that were each memorials and important to members of his family. He obviously was not a “hardened” violent criminal that did not value life.
          2) I agree on the rebuttal part as well
          3) It establishes that she knew her son very very well. She was an engaged and loving parent that knew everything about him, including his voice/scream. His tattoos were all women in his family, I would say he was a “mama’s boy” (exactly as Rachel said in her disposition.

    • My Forehead Tho says:

      *applauds*

      That was nicely done, Puck.

    • Rachael says:

      I agree Puck, and that’s what I’ve been saying too – but you say it better.

    • Nef05 says:

      “Many” are not “flipping out”. “Some” have voiced concerns, as is their right to do, in this space provided for it. Nor, have they said, it’s all over. Rather they’ve expressed their wish that things could have gone differently, as is ALSO their right, in this space provided for it.

      The case in chief is about evidence, and contrary to what you’ve posted, the misalignment of the bullet holes to the bullet wound IS forensic evidence, and was subject to it’s own article by the Professor, when this evidence was released, complete with measurements and followed up by LLMPapa.

      Clearly, even the professor knows the case in chief is more than just presenting evidence or he would not have posted about the summary witness OR the fact that he didn’t agree with the fact they didn’t use one.

      So first, they have by no means rested their case, and second, they have a measure of control over where this goes. Consider statements from the prosecution throughout, and Mantei’s amazing delivery yesterday (I really hope he does the closing): they know and even anticipate what the defense is going to say about whichever aspect or issue, and have prepared themselves to either shoot these down as they occur or pre-empt them completely.

      So, first they HAVE rested their case, and while they can shoot the defense down, they can no longer “pre-empt” them, since by definition, that means going first, and in the defense case in chief, THEY go first with direct exam and the prosecution has to go second with cross. The time to “pre-empt” them is past.

      “anticipate what the defense is going to say about whichever aspect or issue, and have prepared themselves to either shoot these down as they occur or pre-empt them completely” Anticipate = future, what the defense is GOING to = future, have prepared themselves to = future, either shoot them down OR pre-empt them – future.

      I can see where this is going, and I’m really not worried. It’s a much nicer space to be in than fretting and carrying on and bashing the State for not doing things you think they should have done not realizing that the case-in-chief is not the time to do this.

      Good for you. But, expressing our concerns in an environment we believed we were freely able to express out doubts in, and not have them subject to hyperbolic extremes, invalidated or dismissed, then to have them subject to that exact response; is offensive. None of us are fogen supporters.

      The Professor has been so generous as too provide ALL of us with a space to comment on the trial and legal issues in particular, as long as it’s done respectfully to others. It’s not an echo chamber. It’s supposed to be an area of debate and discussion regarding those matters where people can express their opinions, fears, trepidations, and matters they feel are a genuine subject for debate in a legal sense. NOT to have their opinions invalidated because you don’t feel they’re valuable, as erudite as you are, or what you agree with. Some people even choose to vent here (empathizing w/Sybrina, crying during the teacher’s testimony, being moved unbearably by Trayvon’s 18th birthday and the anniversary of his murder). If YOU don’t think their opinions are valuable, scroll past them. But, pontificating in some major all-inclusive, generalized post about how many “don’t realise what the case in chief is not the time to do this” when the professor has CLEARLY stated otherwise, is presumptuous.

      “In its case-in-chief, the State’s lawers call witnesses and introduce evidence. They don’t wander around pontificating to the jury and presenting what they think happened and how, say, blood can’t defy gravity, or that the Z blood on the bottom of Trayvon’s sweatshirt “proves” Z was holding onto him, therefore the stretched fabric and so the misalignment. THAT IS PART OF THE CLOSING when everything is brought together… carrying on and bashing the State for not doing things you think they should have done not realizing that the case-in-chief is not the time to do this.”


      Second, the prosecution always ends its case-in-chief with what we call a wind-up or summary witness who ties everything together with the aid of charts, graphs and timelines that bring the evidence into focus. I am anticipating that FDLE Detective Gilbreath will be the witness and Bernie de la Rionda will ask the questions that steers him through the maze and haze.

      Frederick Leatherman says:
      July 5, 2013 at 2:20 pm
      State’s going to rest without a windup witness.

      I disagree with that move.

      • Puck says:

        What an unpleasant reply. I KNOW THE STATE HAS RESTED ITS CASE FFS, what I meant was THEY’RE NOT DONE YET as “some” seem to think.

        Re: the bulletholes versus the chest wound: the measurements of each have been discussed in testimony. PUTTING THEM TOGETHER is the state’s job.

        “The prosecution always ends its case-in-chief with what we call a wind-up for summary witness” — what I said was that the LAWYERS don’t make impassioned tie-it-all-together orations during the case-in-chief. And yes, many people here, from what they post, don’t (or didn’t) understand that such things are for closing, and are upset that these things haven’t been shown…. yet.

        I never commented as to the value of anyone’s opinions. I said

        You misunderstood the tone and intent of my post, and you misread parts of it. I wrote that to encourage people who are down on the state’s case-in-chief, to remind that that three more rounds are coming, and that this is by no means the end of the state’s arguments. All of the replies have been positive except yours, so clearly THEY got it. That’s worth noting.

        • Nef05 says:

          Your post was “unpleasant”.

          1. The tie it all together witness is at the end of the case in chief, not closing.
          2. Then you should have said “not done yet”, as “rest”
          has a specific legal meaning. Funny how you say others don’t understand, then use an inaccurate term to describe your meaning, but they’re supposed to understand it because you said it?
          3. You didn’t comment on it, you implied it by using words like “bashing the state” and “flipping out”. You know it as well as I do.

          4. You wrote them to TELL them to stop flipping out, bashing the state and take YOUR word for it that what the professor already stated was a case in chief final move, was somehow a closing argument move. I don’t care what they saw. With decades of close reading and a psych background, I read your post like a book. Figures a person who read me get very excited at the prospect of your paper, somehow doesn’t realize that the difference is in what you WROTE. Did you even bother to check? Red it through the eyes of someone like me, who criticized the prosecution and didn’t appreciate being told that their opinion was nothing more than “flipping” and “bashing”, and was ridiculous because it was only ever scheduled for closing arguments, not matter what the professor said.

      • Puck says:

        Wow, you really have it in for me today, don’t you? Once again, as Tzar clearly understood by what I first wrote, and as I clarified in my first reply, by the state not having rested I didn’t mean literally, I meant in the sense that they have more prepared, and that they will continue to make and prove their case over the next three stages of the trial.

        When I said many were fretting, that wasn’t denigrating any particular group: it was a statement of fact. And I didn’t intend that to be mean, but rather to express my understanding of and empathy with those who are worried, in order to proceed in offering something that might assuage at least any acute panic. Yet you depict me as Stalin.

        The fact that everyone who commented on my post — except you — readily understood what I meant speaks volumes.

        • Nef05 says:

          You didn’t SAY “fretting”. You SAID “flipping” and “Bashing”.

          Trying to clean that up is absurd. We all understand English.

          Boy bye!

          • Puck says:

            Please read what was intended to be my final reply and my admission that I can see that my choice of words in spots was wrong. “Flipping out” and “bashing” are hyperbolic terms, and looking back I should have used more benign ones. And I did say “fretting” near the end. That’s not cleaning up; it’s concession that I shouldn’t have used those words. What else do you want?

            Do I have to tell you a fourth time what the intent of my OP was? Should I ask to be banned?

          • ks says:

            I’m sorry but, imo, the intent and meaning of Puck’s OP was rather clear and not controversial in the least and his subsequent efforts to offer an olive branch to you is classy. Your continued peevish responses are misguided.

            I understand your concern about respecting differing opinions and that’s a good thing but, the notion that the OP you’re complaining about is stifling such opinions seems off. Especially since Puck has written several responses explaining his intent.

    • Manue says:

      Ita, thank you you tell it much better I would do.

    • KittySP says:

      @puck- excellent summation!

    • Nellie Nell says:

      So glad you cleared that up.

      What is the deal with the Hispanic juror? Reading comments about her really makes me nervous. During jury selection, I did not really believe her and had a hunch that she’d formed an opinion. Now I worry about her. What would need to happen during deliberations for her to be excused or is it too late at that point?

      I will try to skip over any comment about her that cause me to be nervous, but it is already in my brain.

      • Puck says:

        I read that she was an RN, and that could explain how she’s been characterized as dispassionate and detached, given how nurses have to deal with so much scary stuff, as well as BS and hostile patients. In all my experiences with nurses, even before and after surgery, they’ve always been very matter-of-fact — dare I say bitchy? Only once or twice have I encountered a nurse who’s tried to comfort me, or just plain be nice to me — and for all I know, those were NAs, though I don’t know if we have those here.

      • cielo62 says:

        Nellie~ Hispanic or not, I don’t think she would be willing to let a child killer go. As far as I could see, the Hispanic Community is NOT behind gz in any way, shape or form. And children are very precious in Hispanic culture.

        ________________________________

        • Xena says:

          @cielo62. I can’t speak for that juror, but she is originally from Chicago, and I know Chicago. The Puerto Rican community there is subject to the same disinterest of law enforcement as the Black community. Many Black Hispanics are mistaken as AA. White LE sees the color of their skin, and AA LE assume they think they are better than AAs because their descendants were not slaves as long as those in America.

          The Puerto Rican community in Chicago operates much like other ethnic communities in the city where they don’t trust the cops, and operate on a revenge basis when wronged. Chances are that the juror looks at Tracy Martin and sees a man who did the right thing by seeking the judicial system to decide, rather than taking several men with him to finish what GZ alleges Trayvon was trying to do.

          • blushedbrown says:

            That’s right Xena we PR’s have our own sense of justice. :twisted: LOL

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            So MOM did a demo of the mounted position with Mr. Kokopelli. Hahaha… I’m sure the jury noted that his legs would be blocking the gun. Worse yet for MOM, just as the martial artists who commented on this case long ago said, the mounted position is only for someone who is highly trained. It is not an easy position to maintain, and it is not a position of superiority. He said that the person on the bottom has the better position in a fight, unless the one on top was highly trained and knew what to do to keep his position.

            Omar didn’t do his homework yet again, so his own witness turned against him.

            Mr. Kokopelli tried to minimize what kind of skills gz had picked up at his gym. But that hardly matters since Trayvon had no training of any kind at all. He was simply a weaker, lighter and terrified youngster. While gz was bigger, stronger, heavier, calm, cool and collected and armed with a deadly weapon.

            I don’t know what Omar is giving the jurors as a reason to believe that gz was screaming. As a general rule, if someone is going to scream like that, they’d need a pretty good reason. Perhaps gz was banging his own head on the concrete, but alas, there wasn’t time for that either.

          • cielo62 says:

            Xena- which is why I suspect she won’t be swayed by GZs antics.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

    • groans says:

      @ Nef05 – Thank you for calling Puck out on some of the nonsense in his comment!

      Puck’s premise was both condescending and hyperbolic:

      Many are flipping out that the State didn’t show or prove or talk about this or that bit that we’ve figured out, and that that means it’s all over.

      Then, Puck’s typical arrogance carried his diatribe from there – oblivious to his/her own silly, incorrect, and even pompous statements.

      Any reasonable person would discount an essay in which the author states, after the State has closed its case in chief:

      We’ve been given a bare-bones preview of the State’s case….

      It is what it is.

      • cielo62 says:

        groans~ admit it: you’ve been down on Puck ever since s/he came on board! At first I thought you were a troll, but I was mistaken. You just don’t like Puck OR the achievement that was recently shared. I found NOTHING abusive or condescending about Puck’s post. Yes, there ARE several rather histrionic people on here that DO freak out over MANY details concerning the actions/ deletions of facts from the prosecution. It gets annoying to think that we can call the shots for the prosecution! This isn’t the CTH!

        ________________________________

    • Trained Observer says:

      tweakable strategies — :)

  20. Dave says:

    At this point, the only witness that the defense could call who might conceivably make a difference is the defendant himself. If they do, he will be sliced, diced, chopped and pureed on cross examination. Then the state can bring out the evidence they’ve been holding back on rebuttal, including an FDLE investigator as summarizing witness.

    If the defense rests its case Monday morning. the state is left with essentially nothing to rebut. The elements of Murder 2 have, I believe, been proven but the prosecution will have to make a heck of a good closing argument to erase all reasonable doubt from the minds of all six jurors. I don’t think for a moment that the killer will be acquitted but a hung jury is possible and a manslaughter conviction is very possible.

    With decisons like this facing them this weekend and preparations to be made for trial next week I cannot understand why they would waste all day Sunday chasing after Ben Crump.

    • Judy75201 says:

      It would surprise me if they ever do actually depose Crump. They never really wanted to; it was just a convenient “we been done wrong” red-herring.

    • KA says:

      They have to keep the donors happy…

      There is no other point to this. Rachel gave them NO CAUSE to suspect Crump or say she was coached (I don’t think Rachel is even “coach-able” in this manner…she will not be anyone’s fool)

      Their issue is Rachel clearly makes GZ the aggressor which eliminates their self defense claim. They have to make it “coaching” or deal with the consequences.

      I fear the defense will call her again and constantly press her on the stand to make her angry. They need her to not stand by the statement that GZ chased and confronted Trayvon.

      • Unabogie says:

        I just cannot imagine them recalling her to the stand. If they did this, they might as well put a big neon sign over her head that says “this witness proves he’s guilty”.

        None of these jurors knows about this crazy Tree Sewer conspiracy or have even heard of Ben Crump. Ben Crump wasn’t there that night and he didn’t shoot an unarmed teenager on his way home from the store. Making him the boogeyman is something the creeps do on the Treeper site, but in the real world, no jury is going to buy that weak crap.

        • KA says:

          I agree, Nothing will happen from the Crump deposition or will be actually testify. There is nothing to get from him.

          However, I just feel like they are not done attempting to humiliate and discredit Rachel. I think they will lie to the judge and say they “discovered” something in the deposition.

          Hopefully, the jurors will not have the stomach for it.

    • Romaine says:

      the Ben Crump Depo should be interesting, I believe O’pimp’n stated durum his interview on fri that the defense would spend 3 to 4 days repp’n their case. I don’t think the client will take the stand; I believe they will present his argument during their closing…jmo

  21. Judy75201 says:

    @Cielo, I want to thank you for causing me to look up “magpie” and discovering a breathtakingly beautiful bird!

    • fauxmccoy says:

      they may look beautiful — but they are nasty. they subsist on swooping down to other birds’ nests and eating the eggs. nasty, nasty, critters.

      • Judy75201 says:

        crap

      • vickie s. votaw says:

        The crow ,which is related to the magpie, can recognize a person for up to 2 years & communicate to family birds the persons status among the crows, friend or foe. I always thought magpies were very close to crows in family but from pics I googled, they may not be such close relatives.

        • sadlyyes says:

          that is why i talk to them,and all the birdies that come to my farm(in winter i put out 2 lbs of seed everyday) yes i know i am nutty!
          but one little girl cardinal,talks back! tee hee

        • anita says:

          i tho’t magpies are in the jay- blue jay family, too. all these birds are nest robbers, still very pretty.

  22. ay2z says:

    Rock and a hard place. What we know about fogen, he has his bullet points, rehearses and can be well prepared, and has no apparent nervousness in media interviews, he’s sure not camera shy nor self-conscious in his presentations. Lots of self confidence.

    • KA says:

      There are a LOT of statements that can be brought out in his cross examination with lots of inconsistencies and lies.

      He would be pulverized.

    • Ms.X says:

      I agree. He is a master liar & manipulator. The defence knows this & consider it to be in his favor. Remember the Indian guy he used to harass while working at CarMax. That guy said he was such a great liar that he was forced to doubt if he had ever endured the harassment. I think the state shouldve called some of the people from the neighborhood who had been harassed &/or those who complained to the HOA.

      I appreciate Puck’s thoughtful & well presented argument but I just don’t agree with it, mainly due to the outcome of the casey anthony trial. Everyone, including the prosecution, thought it was in the bag, then the unthinkable happened. Let me also add that while the 5 caucasian 1 hispanic women may be gz’s peers, they may not necessarily be Trayvon’s peers. Even though he is the victim, the defense has definitely made him a “suspect” inside of the courtroom.

      Like I have posted previously for those who are interested in astrology, uranus conjuncts the midheaven of this trial. Everyone will be shocked by the verdict. I hope the hand of God moves it in our favor so our sons won’t have a clear target over their hearts. I want those who are confident in the state to be right.

      • Judy75201 says:

        Casey and OJ all came down to how effectively the defense created reasonable doubt. CREATED reasonable doubt. I hope that, because of those two cases, jurors are more sophisticated now.

        • ay2z says:

          Both claimed they did not do it. Fogen claimed he did it.

        • mrsdoubtfire says:

          That’s why Z’s lies, omissions and sheer inventions need to be laid out front and centre for this jury. They need to see him or the liar he is. Like it or not the State dropped the ball with Serino and Singelton. Trials are not level playing fields. Defense attorneys can create all sorts of BS . The State are held to a totally different standard. One mis- step on their part could result in a mistrial.

      • Nef05 says:

        Uranus conj Midheaven. Hmmm… Interesting. Expanding on that, may not apply solely to the verdict (imo). Might show up in fogen taking the stand,another juror excused, possibly a surprise rebuttal witness, maybe even an unexpected sentence (eg natural life, instead of 35-life)? Then, we’ve also already had a few surprises – Jenna outed as a twitter follower of Jr. and FB friend of Taaffe, O’Mara opening the door to fogen’s past violent history (remains to be seen if JN will rule it admissible), the way the prosecution rested was a surprise to some – though not all.

        I’m just extrapolating solely from Uranus conj. Midheaven. I’d like to see the position and aspects of Asc/desc and nadir, the vertex, part of fortune, Mars (for obvious reasons), Venus (considering the number of strong women holding key positions in this case), Jupiter (I’d like to see how strong the benevolent aspects are), Neptune (Fantasy/idealism/delusion – regarding aspects to the inner planets), and certainly Mercury (for communication purposes).

        I’m very interested in what you’ve posted, and your theories as to how it may be a road map. Thanks for posting the info. Would you have a link to the chart? Did you get it from astrodienst? If so, I may be able to pull it up.

      • MedicineBear says:

        What chart are you looking at? The chart I ran doesn’t have Uranus conjunct MC — it’s mid 9th house.

        OH — just ran the chart for June 10 (beginning of jury selection) and Uranus indeed conjuncts MC. I think we already DID get the unexpected shock of jury selection in that we have AN ALL FEMALE JURY!

        I’m feeling that the trial itself should have a chart born with the date June 24 (Monday). For some reason, I want to put 8:30 am EDT for the time of the trial beginning — anybody know if there was anything scheduled 830am that first day?

    • racerrodig says:

      So was Scott Peterson……and look at him now. It won’t matter how much self confidence he has….lies are lies are lies.

      • Cercando Luce says:

        How are you, Racer?

      • Nef05 says:

        Hey Racer. Hope all is well. Heard you were injured. Hope it wasn’t serious, and it’s certainly good to see you up and posting!!!

        BTW – was asking earlier – any chance your people may say it’s ok to post the substance of the damning texts/emails, should the prosecution decide not to use them? Or, do you think the feds may keep them lowkey in their ongoing investigation of the civil. rights violation?

    • Romaine says:

      lol Ay2Z, I hope he reads your comment and it pumps him up enough to put his lil balls out front and make me a LIAR…

    • Malisha says:

      He was self-confident whenever he knew beforehand that the questioner was on his side: Singleton (Tim Smith’s message had reached her, or Billy Lee’s message, or Wolfinger’s, or all of the above); Serino (ditto ditto); Erwin (arranged by Osterman, very helpful); Hannity (OMG he was practically nominating Fogen for the Academy Award in a movie called “Protect America”), etc.

      In front of Bernie delaRionda? NOT SO MUCH! :oops:

      • KA says:

        I agree. He chased a kid [with a gun] he knew he could dominate.

        He gladly talked when there were no dissenters.

        He talked to HR about the complaint with the Middle Eastern employee because he knew he could “win the over”.

        Bernie is out for blood. He knows it.

        I actually do not think his inconsistent statements will be the worst of his cross examination, I think his requirement to explain the unexplainable and his thought process for “why” he did things that will be his greatest source of angst. His reasons and explanations will not be aligned with logic and fit what a “reasonable” person would do…some of them have NO logical or conceivable explanation.

        Something minor, but for example “how did you have to wipe blood out of your eyes to see, when you had to ask John if you were even bleeding?”

        Why are their no smears of blood around your eyes?

        Did you crawl back to your truck in slow motion for those 2 – 4 minutes or did you walk at a normal pace?

    • Nellie Nell says:

      Do you have an idea of why the Stress Test 1st interview was not played? I know the test itself is not admissible, but during that interview the killer rubs his snout very hard. I wanted the jury to see that being done to his “broken nose”. I am sick about it.

  23. HereslookingatYou says:

    I just have to ride out with the killer is not going to testify, look back at the Hannity interview the part they redacted…. Hannity….,how do you feel about it now that you have had some time to reflect on what has happened…
    The KILLER…I haven’t had the time to reflect on it, When I was in jail, obviously I was in solitary confinement and I had a lot of time to think and reflect on it…
    he can’t rope a dope this prosecutor…..butttt…
    NUTHIN could be sweeta….than him takin to the boxxx,,
    so I HOPE I’m wrong….

  24. diary73 says:

    Wouldn’t his supporters, “the masses” as he allied them, want to hear from his own mouth what happened that night? I know I would.

    I also wonder how many of them feel really duped by this person. I really wonder how many readers of this blog originally supported this man.

    • ay2z says:

      Ditto for his family too, they would want him to speak out if they actually believe what they say themselves of his railroaded innocent cracker ass butt.

    • KA says:

      I think he has far less supporters than he did. They are falling off like flies everyday. I see less and less of them on TM sites anymore. Some changed sides, some quit caring, and some just do not know anymore.

      However, he has some strong ones at the Treehouse and a few other sites. They will defend him of they saw a video of him chasing, restraining, and shooting Trayvon directly.

      The point for them is to be “right” about the danger of black teens and the “need” to defend themselves from them….

      They are racists, they are dangerous, and they do not care about truth.

    • vickie s. votaw says:

      “I also wonder how many of them feel really duped by this person. I really wonder how many readers of this blog originally supported this man.”

      IMHO , none from here, I’m guessing.

  25. Judy75201 says:

    Jorge the uncle was WAY too prepared to be authentic; and his story is a bit absurd. I thought he came off well, but what he emphasized about his integrity and his story of how he heard little fogen screaming on the TV behind him, the whole stage he set…nope.

    • crazy1946 says:

      The more you tell me that you are honest and trustworthy then the less I am likely to believe that you are….. I think the uncle was well rehearsed, but not convincing…

      • Rachael says:

        I thought he was VERY convincing. He has me convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they are all a family of LIARS!!!!!

        • racerrodig says:

          You know where I stand. His story is way over the top. I just heard the news….from my computer room……blah, blah, lying blah……

          • Rachael says:

            I know. Reminds me of some of the stuff my son would try to make up in 6th grade or something and I would just look at him like, “just how stupid do you really think I am?”

            Personally, I find it rather insulting.

          • KA says:

            The more you have to tell me your qualifications to “trust me”…the more I think of “miraculous diet drugs” infomercials…

        • abbyj says:

          Rachel, HA! You had me going there for a moment. Well summed up.

    • ay2z says:

      Yes, what struck me, is, you are honest because the military demands it?

      His testimony sounded just like what Mark Osterman said about not being essentially capable of lying because of what he implied was his super high personal morality that he “holds soooo dear”.

      Of course you will help your sister’s son when he’s in trouble, you want to, you hear what you want to hear and you see through rose coloured glasses.

      Now if he ever sent a child of his to prison based on his testimony, maybe…. just maybe, he’d have independent credibility.

      • Tee says:

        I am telling you i Iove my nieces to death but if one is crying how the heck would I be able to tell which one it is, they are not my kids. all I have ever said to my sister when one of them was crying was ” one of the girls are crying.” You jus dont know unless you live with them, and GZ is a grown ass man, he don’t even sound the same as he did when he was a child.

        • KittySP says:

          What I find so ridiculous about having the uncle testify to it being “Georgie” screaming after hearing it on the TV…is, “Georgie” didn’t even recognize the voice as his own, while listening to the actual 911 call. So I’m expected to believe his uncle that claims to have distanced himself from the actual case due to his position in law enforcement, but felt compelled to offer testimony as to this one aspect of the case.

    • aussie says:

      C’mon, the guy’s a deputy sheriff?????? has anyone lately heard of some police departments and/or some/most of the people in them not being 100% totally straight?

      What kind of guarantee of truthfulness is that?

      You don’t even know the tape exists or your nephew is in trouble and you right away think “sheesh that’s my nephew, turn it up so we can find out why he’s screaming?”

      I call BS on that (and complaint to Fred: why don’t be have LARGER FONTS for when we need to write “I call BS”?)

      • Rachael says:

        That seems to be a question I’m asked every time I’m called for jury duty. Do I believe something because a police officer says it, would I believe something was true or right or whatever if I heard it from a police officer.

        Anyway like someone else here said upthread I think it was, the more you feel you have to convince me that you are honest and have integrity, the less inclined I am to believe you. I don’t want words, I want action. His action shows me he is willing to lie for his nephew. I don’t call that honesty or integrity. It might be something, but not those.

      • Tee says:

        I was laughing so hard I call BS too.

        • pat deadder says:

          To Tee I was laughing so hard I call bs too.Now we know where fogan gets some of his bs from.His wife just answered I’m watching the news she didn’t Oh my god that sounds like George.What an insult to the jury.s intelligence.

      • abbyj says:

        aussie, didn’t you love that part of his dramatic presentation where he clutched his chest, as if pained, and said, “I knew it in my heeeeart that it was GEORGE. . . . I could FEEL it. . “?

        OMG. Such a drama queen.

        • Nef05 says:

          Exactly, Abby. WAY over the top.

        • MedicineBear says:

          Wow–eerie the way that sounds. Dramatically clutching his heart . . . I knew IN MY HEART that IT WAS GEORGE . . . I could FEEL it.

          Lots of Freudian slips and subconscious subliminal messages being revealed if you listen literally. God’s Plan to have the Truth inadvertently spill out of their mouths?

      • Malisha says:

        I wish they’d recorded ten screamers imitating Trayvon that night and then done an in-court sound “line-up” asking him which one was Fogen. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

        • KA says:

          Perfect…

          Give them the “Pepsi” challenge…

          • KA says:

            I have to say, I cannot always figure out which of my kids answered the phone…

            I get it right about 50% of the time if I am lucky….(then I always call them the wrong name four or five times anyway trying to say what I mean)

      • smokeegyrl says:

        I have a cousin who is a deputy sheriff… (experience) every time a family member would get in trouble.. they would all go to her for help…. she worked in the jail… for phone calls, extra privileges, talk to the judge, so forth and so forth… nobody cared if she lost her job. Finally, she stopped doing it… it got so bad especially with her own nephews and neices… the lies she told… and then their were the ones who where the cops… don’t want to go there on that one… when you have 11 sisters and brothers in that one family… sheesh… glad it wasn’t me.

    • Cercando Luce says:

      Both he and his sister loudly repeated, in their oath to tell the truth, “So help me God!” Emphasizing that made my antennae tingle.

      • aussie says:

        They are asked “do you swear…..” and the correct answer, to accept the oath, is “I DO”. Anything else, they can claim inside they didn’t really take the oath. Sort of like crossing your fingers behind your back makes it not count.
        Anyway, what is truth? in their universe truth is what they want to be truth.

        How far to Sanford is Area 51?

    • Rachael says:

      it was TOTALLY absurd.

    • lady2soothe says:

      M’OM: Why was it that you decided not to find out more about the facts about of what your nephew was going through?

      Uncle Jorge: As a law enforcement officer you are sworn to actually tell the truth I don’t know when this moment was going to arrive that I was going to be sitting here and I wanted to be able to look at everyone the members of the jury and tell thee truth

      BLDE: If I understand this correctly Mr. Mesa you’re saying that you anticipated that you would be hearing this recording and you were going to have to come to court and testify about it?

      Uncle Jorge: No sir, you misunderstood what I said. What I said is, as a law enforcement officer the moment I found out the situation that arise I disconnected myself totally from it.

      BLDR: You disconnected yourself totally from the case not wanting to find anything out?

      Uncle Jorge: I don’t want to (BLDR cut him off mid sentence)
      BLDR: Thank you very much

      I believe this is going to come back to haunt Uncle Jorge

    • MedicineBear says:

      Grandiose delusional story-telling is on the Y-chromosome of this family?

    • Mary Lou says:

      The first time (live) hearing uncle, I thought he sounded authentic. I listened a second time, and, oh yes, very scripted. He hit too many themes: integrity, military service, duty to country blah blah blah. No one thinks like that unless they prepared and rehearsed. And his story was creative vs. “yes, i heard {Z}.” It was too thorough to be authentic.

      But the jury only gets to see this once…

    • BillT says:

      first thing i thought was HOLD ON there, the 911 call wasnt played for a few WEEKS, so this uncle is claiming he didnt even know fogen had been in trouble? IF that is true then clearly the family does NOT communicate with each other and he had no way of being that close to have recognized the voice…..his story was like fogens to me pure nonsense.

    • Leslie says:

      Thank you! The perfection of his delivery was the tip off in itself. But here’s the thing that came to me immediately: this man’s job is to be in court all day, so he knows what works as a good lie. He knew exactly what kind of story to tell in order to sell it… Nobody asked me, I spontaneously heard my nephew screaming…. Really? When nobody else has been reliably confident about who that voice is based on their knowledge of the parties? You just magically discerned the sound of your nephew coming from the TV when you didn’t even know what you were listening to? You are so full of shit.

      As far as the scream goes to me it’s very clear: without even addressing the implausibility of the Zimmerman’s claims of smothering etc., there is no way a man with a gun in his hand pulling the trigger sounds like that when he’s doing so, And the screams themselves are bone chilling because they sound like exactly what they are: a young terrified man looking directly at his death.

  26. abbyj1 says:

    Puck, What a lucid, informative comment. Very good and, yes, more opportunities to come to tie together the state’s case. Thank you.

    I’m wondering if anyone has a link to a video of Mantei’s comments. I was unable to watch it, and I’d like to see it and study it closely. Thanks to anyone who might have that.

    • tashatexas77048 says:

      If the only way Fogen can convince the jury he should be spared is by getting on the stand and being honest then lock his fat ass up today. That won’t happen. He can’t admit to his family, friends and snaggle toothed donors that he’sbeen lying.

      • Ms.X says:

        Tasha, you and me are always right here (pointing back & forth to our foreheads). Its probably the Houston connection.

        Hello from Houston! It was bloody hot today.

      • Christopher Charles says:

        They already know fogen is a lying liar, he doesn’t have to admit anything for them to know he is lying. And fogen knows that “his family, friends and snaggle toothed donors” and defense team are liars. Worry not, Karma is going to get all of them.

    • Mary says:

      someone called croakerqueen123 on youtube has been posting all the days of the trial and jury selection.

      enter the search terms exactly like this:
      george zimmerman trial – day 9 – part

      use the filter for having been loaded this week
      and yesterdays testimonies should pop up. manteis was either in part 3, 4 or 5.

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      Xena has embedded all of the videos on her blog.

      http://blackbutterfly7.wordpress.com/

    • Malamiyya says:

      For Mantei, start around 30 minutes in:

      • Malamiyya says:

        My apologies. Wrong video.

        • Trained Observer says:

          No apology needed, Malamiyya. Interesting, watching again. It drives home a couple of points;

          * Jorge apparently doesn’t know (or pretends not to know) iwhat “sibling” means. When asked about how many brothers and sisters of his own, he starts ticking off Gladazz’s kids.

          * While he may be an officer of the law for the State of Florida, he’s not above rehearsing a comical lying scenario worthy of SNL.

          * He’s crafty at looking puzzled on cue, but when Bernie calls Fogen his son (not once, but twice) he’s quick to catch and correct that.

          • Cercando Luce says:

            Bernie called him “son” once, apologized, then later referred to GZ “playing with your son,” implying that Mr Meza has a son.

      • Malamiyya says:

        Wrong video. I hope I have it right this time:

    • Puck says:

      Mantei starts at around 40:30. Believe me, it is a good study. I watched it again both from a critical perspective and that of my work as a teacher/lecturer, and I found it absolutely compelling.

      Pay attention to his deliberate pauses, his use of his eyes (especially the wide-eyed stare during a pause while speaking — that’s something I do as well), his tone, his cadence. He’s teaching, and JN is totally engrossed by it.

      I think I would have made a great (and probably Mantei-esque) lawyer because in sociology grad school I developed and refined my ability to craft and support arguments, create a narrative with them, explain them clearly and concisely, and then not only speak to (often critical) audiences about them but also literally think on my feet in cases where I’ve been challenged and have had to defend my arguments, while expounding on both these arguments and those that come from my on-the-spot defense, ultimately further strengthening my points. And all this using social and cultural theory (as a lawyer would reference case law) and speaking in academese. If I were to go to law school now, I’d be ahead of the game, but I’m too old.

      • KA says:

        Go to law school in the UK. I am 45 and was just accepted into an LLM program in Glasgow. It is a blended program with distance education and residency. SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than the US and gives international exposure to law (which I needed as I consult on telecom regulation internationally).

        Anyway, I am not going to be a lawyer or solicitor with this, just able to bring business knowledge to the field of telecom and IT data securities law by knowing both sides.

        Two years part time, one year full time.

        • KA says:

          I also got my MA in the UK. I live in the US, but there is a significant cost advantage (it is 1/4 of tuition here) and schools that are accredited in the UK are also considered regionally accredited int he US.

        • Puck says:

          I’m in Canada, actually, so it wouldn’t be expensive, and I live in the most socialist province of them all, where most of my expenses for all three of my degrees were paid for by the government — bursaries, not loans I’d have to pay back. I still have three or so years of eligibility for funding of a graduate-level degree. But I’m pretty happy with sociology.

          • KA says:

            Oh that’s right, you live in Montreal I love that city)….sorry, I had forgot when typing that…

            School here is terrible. I got an MA in Leadership and Innovation int he UK which would have cost about 80K here and I paid about 18K there.

            The law school in Glasgow is about 10 – 12K for the LLM….comparing to 80 – 100K here in the US, that is not bad…

          • Puck says:

            My undergrad and grad were around $3500 a year in tuition and other school fees. Then again, Quebec has the cheapest tuition in the country. And I was in the social sciences, not business or law or medical school. But still…

          • KA says:

            That is amazing….I despise the cost of education here. For 3500 here, you could barely go to an in state Jr college. I wish we had subsidized education. I will not tell what I have paid for our family yo go to college in the past 5 years. It is almost more than I made.

          • Manue says:

            Puck, it’s almost the fees for my son and I was surprised by this I found them very low and was very happy , I found that Montreal a city “students friendly’, much better than here in france where you have to fight to find a place to stay, fees for the studies, transportation (I was appaled when I saw a place welcoming students at the airport, you would never see something like that here.)

      • racerrodig says:

        At the 4:55 mark he says “…I’m not exactly sure what the states case is yet…”

        Is this yahoo kidding ??? Then he sates what the states case is……Note to The Moron Man : You suck as a lawyer.

        By the 6:30 mark, he’s insulted Judge Nelson at least 1/2 a dozen times.

        • Puck says:

          I think that’s just a throwaway line to come off as condescending to the state, but there could also be some truth to it: where is the state going with this?

          As I’ve been pointing out (perhaps annoyingly so) since yesterday: the state has not rested its case. They have three more strategies planned and ready to deploy. It’s all about the long game.

          • Nef05 says:

            GEEZ Puck – the state HAS rested it’s case. It’s the second thing they did (entered the weather report and a chart into evidence first), when the jury came back, after the motion to dismiss was denied. How do you think the defense began it’s case and called Mrs Zimmerman for it’s first witness had not the state rested? The defense cannot begin it’s case in chief until after the prosecution rests.

            Because they have additional opportunities to cross, rebut and close; does not mean they didn’t “rest”.

            To Rest:
            “In a lawsuit, a party is said to “rest,” or “rest her case,” when that party indicates that she has produced all the evidence that she intends to offer at that stage and submits the case either finally, or subject to the right to offer rebutting evidence after her opponent has introduced her evidence.”

            http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rest

          • Tzar says:

            @ Neff
            I think Puck knows that the state has “rested” its case
            I think he means strategically they have means of surreptitiously perpetuating the presentation of their case based on what the defense does, either through rebuttal witnesses or the closing arguments.

          • Puck says:

            THANK YOU.

          • Nef05 says:

            @Tsar – I feel you. I just think that if he’s going to criticize others opinions, based solely on the premise that his own is the be all end all. It should be accurate. “Rest” has a specific meaning. In this context it is not interchangeable. And that was not the only error, and I’m not sure it was one. Blood flow on head and misalignment of holes to wounds, implied as not to be forensic evidence to be admitted, is an error. The Tie-in solely to be conducted through closing, when the professor stated otherwise, is an error. How do you criticize and denigrate other’s posts, when your own is based on a false premise?

            Nevertheless, your point is very well taken. One of the reasons I love it here so much is the acceptance and value of everyone’s contribution. Even my own beef with Uni, was borne out by my evidence from this very board, refuting his assertions, and his subsequent defection to the outhouse.

            But, I didn’t denigrate a whole group, just because they had a different opinion they wanted to express!

          • groans says:

            Puck AGAIN says:

            … the state has not rested its case.

            That’s retarded, Sir!

          • Puck says:

            Will you kindy lay off me? This is just personal attacks now. If you read further you’d know that I meant that in the sense that the defense isn’t done yet and there’s a lot more to come, so take heart, everyone! Most people who replied fully understood what I meant. ENOUGH!

          • cielo62 says:

            Puck- agreed. Groans has crossed the line.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • groans says:

            Nothing personal in my reply, Puck. It’s just that resting a case is resting a case. It’s a fact. There aren’t multiple “meanings” about it. It’s a rather significant milestone, so to speak, in a trial. And it affects what the State may or may not be able to introduce into evidence going forward.

            If you want to communicate that “the defense isn’t done yet and there’s a lot more to come, so take heart, everyone,” then why not just say that – instead of muddying the waters by insisting:

            As I’ve been pointing out (perhaps annoyingly so) since yesterday: the state has not rested its case.

            As for the wording of my reply, obviously I was copying Rachel Jeantel’s memorable (and, IMO, rather effective) rebuke of absurd “meanings” that West tried to get her to buy into during cross examination.

      • abbyj says:

        THANK YOU, Puck! I’m reluctant to use caps, but in this case, I’m so excited that I do have to thank you for providing this and all your comments.

      • groans says:

        @ Puck, re:

        I think I would have made a great … lawyer….

        OK … NOW I understand you and your attitude!

        I wish I had $1 for every person I’ve heard say that!! And they generally fancy themselves oh so smart and clever that law school would be a mere formality that they can’t justify in terms of time or expense, because they just know they’ve already got more than necessary to BE a lawyer – except for some dang piece of paper.

        But when they chat with a lawyer, the lawyer knows they’re full of bull.

        Sociology ain’t lawyering. Believe me (if you can)!

        • cielo62 says:

          Groans- you just illustrated my point. What do you have against Puck? I took the LSAT. I thought I could be a lawyer. My GRE scores were strong but my LSAT was not very good. Never pursued it further. But based on some of the obvious idiots out there who ARE lawyers, I’d think going to law school would be fairly simple for someone with above average intelligence. I certainly feel my mental Antoine’s vastly superior to MOM’s and West. So why the animosity for Puck?

          FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • groans says:

            ????

          • groans says:

            Oh, I see now…. Puck went back to Saturday’s blog to “call in the dogs” against me, and you’re his responsive attack dog.

            I notice that while he was accusing ME of “getting personal,” HE was trying to rally others against me! And talking about some “integrity” that he holds dear? That’s laughable, shameful, and pitiful all at once.

            I have nothing against Puck to the extent he is able to (1) recognize and accept facts without misrepresenting them, and (2) check his arrogance at the door.

            His statement that he thinks he “would have made a great lawyer” revealed a lot to me because, as I said, I’ve heard that SOOOOO many times (as I’m sure the professor has, too)!

            It explains, but doesn’t excuse, his arrogance – including his apparent need to tell us frequently how “supremely” educated he is – as well as his silly insistence (despite corrections) that the State has not yet rested its case. I actually understand him better now.

            As for your opinion that some lawyers are “idiots,” perhaps there’s some truth to that. But the same holds true for all professions – yes, even sociologists!

    • smokeegyrl says:

      I can get it for you.

  27. sadlyyes says:

    im here to offer Jelly,because as Professor L,has proved to me,after listening intently these past few days,that foagy is toasted to crisp perfection.I cant see any mitigation of his horrible,evil,pathological act.So Strawberry,Plum,Apricot or my favorite Blackberry.

  28. abbyj1 says:

    Here I scrolled right past the Mantei video. Ahhh. Found it. Thanks to all.

  29. sadlyyes says:

    Cripes its 9 already,gonna hit the hay early,im really tired.good night all you lovely folks,Prof and Crane have eased my mind about the sociopath getting his just punishment.Those women will not put fogen back on the street to STALK their loved ones…..,g,nite

  30. “He must admit when he lied, to whom he lied, and why he lied.”

    Welp, I think we all know that will never happen. This is the same man who claims he never followed Trayvon or that Trayvon ever ran. If he takes the stand he will have to be truthful because despite how much of a genius and master manipulator he thinks he is, BDRL would rip him to shreds if he isn’t.

    • Mary says:

      i think it would be healing to watch bdlr rip him to shreds. for me, for the nation, for sybrina and tracy.

      i hope he testifies.

      • MedicineBear says:

        Oh chills! Your font to God’s ears!

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Yes. Actually, it’s been gratifying to hear BDLR, Mantei, and Guy argue so far, but it would be that much better to hear one of them go after Fogen.

      • Nellie Nell says:

        Fogen taking the stand would certainly help me to begin the forgiveness process that I will need to do to help with these strong feelings of dislike towards him. I would prefer to not have these feelings towards him for the rest of my life. Gosh, the lives he has had an impact on is vast! tears

    • Malisha says:

      Without any analysis of his lies, his self-defense claim is GONE, is BLASTED to pieces, is ridiculous, in view of the two comments he made on the NEN call:

      “Shit, he’s running.”

      and a minute later,

      [in a discouraged voice] “He ran.”

      This makes it obvious that anything Trayvon Martin did when Fogen caught up to him was done in self-defense, TRAYVON MARTIN’s self-defense. He was trying to run away. Confirmed by the hunter himself in the hunter’s own words.

      Furthermore, that nonsense about “a punch in the nose is justification enough for fear of great bodily harm or death and therefore justifies killing,” will not play. If someone comes at you, and you defend yourself, with just your hands, after you have run away, you do not have to stop and ask, “hey if I punch you, is it gonna scare you really bad or what?” Think of it. Everybody in this country better be ready to submit to anything anybody else in this country wants to do to them if that’s the standard Florida is going to set for the nation. I’m minding my own business. Some guy thinks I’m up to no good. He can come after me and I can’t “scare him” in my effort to escape?

      Folks, get ready for the big “yessir do what you will with me sir” if that happens.

  31. LiveByTheGulf says:

    I noticed a tv person demonstrating that Fogen had his gun on the right side. Sorry if someone has already caught & discussed this.

    In this blog’s archives:
    The evidence will also show that the defendant was a 5’8,” 207 pound 28-year-old Neighborhood Watch Captain, professionally trained fighter and former bouncer, who was armed with a fully loaded 9 mm semiautomatic handgun that he carried in a holster concealed from view inside the right rear waistband of his pants.

    Fogen is left-handed. If the holster were on the back of the right hip, Fogen would use a cross draw to get the gun. Crossdraw [for right-handed person] —a holster worn on your support [weak] side. When drawing your gun, you will use your right hand to draw from a holster you wear on the left side of your body.

    Again from this blog’s archive: Frederick wrote: “The defendant said he pinned Trayvon’s hand against his chest with the upper part of his right arm and then grabbed the gun with his right hand and fired the fatal shot taking care not to shoot his left hand.”

    The gun in the holster would have been positioned for a cross-draw with the left hand.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      It’s already been established that his holster was reversible, made to be worn on either the right or ledt hip, and that Fogen wore it on his right hip and did not crossdraw it. He was a right-handed shooter. He demonstrates in his SPD interview and again in his reenactment how he drew the gun from his right hip with his right hand.

    • Mary says:

      in his interminable harangue on the first day, i believe west noted that although he is left handed, z uses his gun right handed.

      or else he said, he is right handed for everything except writing.

    • KA says:

      I believe the dominant hands in the reenactment video and GZ’ descriptions will prove impossible considering the dominant hands, and other physical issues.

      Mantei said it in the closing, multiple versions (they only have two or three shown right now), physical impossibility, exaggeration of injuries, timing issues, absence of any blood/DNA make the whole self defense story bunk.

      I saw someone say on a TV show that they showed him lying, they proved following, they may have shown he was potentially the aggressor, but they had not disproved that it was not self defense or of a depraved mind.

      I thought that confusing. If GZ claims self defense, and the witnesses never saw the shot, if he is proven that most things were lies, there is no evidence the fight went down the way he said, and he targeted a teen he didn’t know to follow, would that NOT prove depraved mind and make self defense completely improbable, as well as unbelievable?

      • MDH says:

        Calling another person “suspect”, “F’in punk”, “asshole” without any probable cause is evidence of a depraved mind.

        Shooting a boy on the chest, sitting on him while he expires, and not providing any aid and comfort is evidence of a depraved mind.

        Depraved does not mean Jack the Ripper.

        It means you have reduced another human being to an object such that you feel actions you take that could kill “the object” are inconsequential.

        I will give an example.

        Let us say that A was driving down a street at a high rate of speed with lots of kids playing. A was observed to say “F’in street urchins, don’t they know that the street is for cars?”. Later he hits and kills one of the kids in an accident that could have been avoided if he slowed down. A’ statement would be evidence of a depraved mind.

        In short, a depraved mind is exemplified by a callous disregard for the life of others with respect to acts committed by the depraved.

        As it should be.

        If GZ had made any effort to see T as human being or to see how going after T with a loaded gun ready to fire was endangering the lives of others, then none of this would have happened. His depraved mind is the ultimate cause of this tragedy.

        I say others because what if T had been able to knock GZ’s firing arm and the bullet went through one of the windows of the homes and struck sons, wives, husbands or daughters?

        Key term

        Menace to society.

        That is what GZ is and will be, if he is set free.

      • MedicineBear says:

        It’s simple. A creepy guy following a kid walking home has sinister intent. Ill-will. Depraved mind.

      • SearchingMind says:

        “Depraved mind” has an autonomous legal meaning that is independent of moral systems, norms, values and judgments. An Act evinces a depraved mind if:

        (1) a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another,

        (2) is done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent (these elements are alternative not cumulative), and

        (3) is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.”

        Interpretation: depravity of the mind is inferred from a specific criminal act (cutting someone’s throat). It is not found independent of the act or in any “generalized hatred” that the actor allegedly harbors (e.g. these a***holes, effing punks, etc.). Intentionally bashing an infant’s head against the wall without uttering a single word of hatred evinces depraved mind, because the actor a. knows the act will lead to certain death, b. executes that act anyway (by necessity demonstrating ill-will towards the victim), and c. as such indifferent to that human life. Similarly, intentionally bashing a grown man’s head against the wall without uttering a single word of hatred prior- or during the act evinces depraved mind. Likewise is intentionally shooting an infant/a juvenile/a grown man through the heart and without uttering a single word of hatred prior- or during the act, an act that evinces a depraved mind. If the actor cannot prove he acted in self-defense or provide any other legal justification, his goose are cooked.

        “The act” – in and of itself – establishes the “state of mind” and NOT the other way around (from “the act” we infer “the state of mind”)! Many who go on national TV calling themselves lawyers should actually be heading back to law school. O’Mara is one of them – given that he is convinced that “depravity” MUST be found in GZ’s utterances prior and/or after the killing and NOT “in the act” that led to the death of another human being.

        • KA says:

          I also think the case law you posted up thread that Mantei used is perfect and validated.

          Legally, the act of point the gun at the heart and shooting is depraved as seen in this appellate case.

          Really, outside of everything else the State said, that case law is solid as far as definition.

          It made me feel a lot better about a M2 conviction.

        • MDH says:

          Thanks for the clarification. I see that I fell into one of O’Mara’s traps.

          Would JN use what you define above to instruct the jury?

        • MedicineBear says:

          Furthermore, the only deadly force fogen itself asserted that Trayvon had access to was the sidewalk. The gunshot was fired ON THE GRASS where TM was unarmed (not even armed with the alleged sidewalk).

          Florida law states that a person has the right to stand his or her ground if he or she (1) reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm, (2) is not engaged in an unlawful activity and (3) is attacked in any place where he or she has a right to be (FSA § 776.013(3)).

          (1) Applies to Trayvon (followed and attacked by stranger + TM saw the stranger had a gun)
          (1) Does NOT apply to fogen (they were on soft wet ground when fogen says he drew the gun — the only deadly weapon fogen alleges TM used was several feet away — so fogen’s own testimony admits he used deadly force against an unarmed kid)

          (2) Applies to Trayvon (paraphrasing OMara’s words “Just a normal kid walking home from the store”)
          (2) Does NOT apply to fogen — it is unlawful for a licensed CCW to expose a concealed weapon; it is unlawful to shove, bump, touch, or otherwise assault another person; it is unlawful to grab, hold, detain another person

          (3) Applies to Trayvon
          (3) Applies to fogen only if he were not legally infringing on any of Trayvon’s rights.

    • crazy1946 says:

      It has been verified that the Fogdoit used his right hand to shoot. So no, the right side holster was not for a cross draw….. The weapon he used is extremely light and the recoil is strong, I would suggest that if he pulled and shot with his right hand the recoil of the weapon caused the nose damage, the two small cuts on the tip of his nose being caused by the rear sight. To put it simply he hurt his own nose with his right hand while in the process of murdering TM…

    • aussie says:

      Various gun experts here explained you shoot with your dominant EYE not dominant hand, and for many people they’re not the same.

      Main reason is, it is well documented all over (try Youtube) that most EVERYBODY shoots the Kel-Tec right handed. This is because it ejects the (very hot) casing with a fair bit of force TO THE RIGHT. Shooting right handed puts the casing hopefully past your right elbow. Shooting it left handed would put it smack in the middle of your chest.

      The bump/scratch/swelling on GZ nose (right side) if exactly what I’d expect from being hit by something small, bullet shaped and HOT. That “wound” didn’t bleed, it is a BURN. Being a superficial little swelling from a tiny object, it went down quite quickly.

      Listen to the 911 tape. Scream, shot, pause, a short “yeouuwww” in different voice….

    • vickie s. votaw says:

      He writes left handed but does many other thing right handed. I am left handed , I write with my left hand, I iron right handed, if I ever iron anymore.

  32. PYorck says:

    I am not sure if he will testify, but I think one reason why we may want to is that he seems to be a control freak. I am sure he would hate the idea of his fate being completely out of his hands.

    The word ‘sociopath’ comes up a lot when in discussions of GZ. I think there are good reasons for that – and not simply to make him sound more evil. He seems to have serious problems with empathy and understanding how others see him. That’s why his life is full of so many shortsighted and pointless lies. That’s why he doesn’t get that his superficial politeness and Peter-Lorre-in-M demeanor rub many people the wrong way. In his own mind he is a lot more convincing.

    • KA says:

      I think his reaction in court have been obvious of someone with a limited ability to show emotion (except smiling at his own interview)…

      DO you notice he is “flat” at the replaying of the 911 tape? If that was him, he should have a strong reaction.

    • KA says:

      I am also thinking he will not testify. His team has been far too antsy about it before NOT in front of a jury, I suspect they will greatly discourage him now to do it.

      The defense thinks they are winning,

  33. whonoze says:

    Ellohae ewnay oreignfae oggersblay!

  34. mgs710 says:

    Professor, isn’t a self-defense defense similar to an insanity defense in that it is an affirmative defense and that it must be proven with a preponderance of evidence?

  35. bellesouth says:

    You know the arrogance of the lawyers might get him to testify, too. I am sure MOM thinks he can make it all ok.

    • racerrodig says:

      The worst thing for Fogen is The Moron Man telling him it’s your call and I’ll ask questions that you can easily wiggle your way out with, forgetting that the state will rip him apart.

      Don’t forget he’s a mental midget who thinks he a superior being. In short he thinks he can sell ice to Eskimos and he’s flat out wrong.

      • aussie says:

        Maybe GZ can suddenly FALL ILL just before cross-examination is due to start. And his lawyers will generously offer to waive having it.

  36. colin black says:

    Our legal system guards and protects the sanctity of the jury room and juror deliberations. A jury is never required to explain or justify its verdict. As a result, a jury actually gets to decide what constitutes reasonable doubt, even though they are never told that they have this power. The jury is a reflection of the community and it acts as the conscience of the community when it decides whether the prosecution has proved the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
    @

    This to me is where in essence law an order breaks down .

    An becomes a crap shoot.

    Jurours don’t just have the option to follow the law and or instuctions and or evidence

    Bot forenscic an circumstncial.

    Jurys can will an do return perverce verdicts an have donce since the jury system was invented in about 15th century Brittian

    In Fact at one point dureing farmers revolts an non payment of taxes.

    Then a hanging offence or a prison if you were Gentle folk a Lord or such but none the less debtors prison until you paid back taxes

    Wich was a life sentence if you had no money .

    As cholera an disease black death ect plague were rife along whith all the veneral s t d of the day..

    But so many Jury just declared the prisoners not guilty that the system was suspended.

    As you point out jurours are answerable to know one an as in the O J an Caylee murderer they blatantly let guilty people walk fee..

    I feel a similar system of lets call them the great an the good.
    People beyond approach ..

    Never an advertised position but lets say retired proffesinals from all walks of life.

    A Gene pool so to speak of say a few thousand people per county.
    Ex doctors Firemmen E M T . Postmen Nurses Barmen Bank Clerks L E .Doctors Flower sellers Executives ect..

    All people with no priors an even regarded an respected in there work an social environment.

    An thease people should br approached and asked if they wish to serve with in a pool of profesinal jurours.

    Picking couples at retirement age would render hardships null an void as no work an no dependant children.

    And or also maybe widows an widowers.
    Could lead to a few love stotys

    Anyway once chosen theas people could seve say for an initial 18mnth period with an option to extend to 3 years if they wished to .
    An also of course [ay them a wage on top of there pension.

    The occcasinal sequestered Tria;l would not be a fear or inconveinance to thease snow white birds.

    It would be a bonus .like a vacation with no house keeping an room sevice.

    Id sign up if it were possible.

    WOULD YOU……..?.

    • KA says:

      I think in a post long ago, Prof Leatherman said that one type of evidence is not stronger than the other really. All is up to interpretation of the jurors and what they related to and got out of it.

      I think sometimes circumstantial is more powerful because it applies human reasoning and logical sequence. When physical evidence supports it, it becomes like “glue” that holds various types of evidence together.

      • Dennis says:

        I also read that in an article by a person in the legal field that was very upset with the Casey Anthony jury for returning a Not Guilty verdict. He said physical evidence and circumstantial evidence are equivalent in the eyes of the court system. It is the jurors that decide how much weight to give to that evidence by their abilities to connect the dots and tie it to the case.

        He said that the prosecution proved 1st degree murder. The juror that went on the news complained about the fact that they didn’t know how Caylee died. This guy says that although it is nice to have a body and a murder weapon, a cause of death isn’t required for a murder conviction. They must only prove “criminal agency”; that the death was a homicide as opposed to an accident.

      • Dennis says:

        I just found the article after some digging on Google. It is about the brainwashed jury and the dangers of jury sequestering.

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/08/casey-anthony-trail-the-sequestered-jury-fell-prey-to-idiotic-groupthink.html

        • KA says:

          Ah Groupthink….yes, Janus hit the nail on the head about the effects….

          Actually, I have theories that Janus’s theory can explain the corporate contributions of the recession and current global economic conditions.

          Anyway, probably not for this forum…

    • Ms.X says:

      I still would not want to sign up for a jury even under the circumstances you described. The only way I would want to serve is if jurors could ask questions & request evidence, go to the crime scene, watch reenactments. There is no point in hearing evidence performed by prosecution & defense with each side actors. Like I posted in the past, there was a high profile case here (in Galveston, TX) where the defendant was a very wealthy person, Again his name was Robert Durst. Even though he admitted to killing his neighbor and cutting his body into pieces and throwing them in the bay, he was acquited. If you want to know, the rich are the fucking punks that always get away. gz was by no means rich, but he has made a million dollars from murdering Trayvon, Those 5 or 6 new suits and Burberry tie were purchased with the blood money. omara will also make a million from his book deal or consulting on the made for tv movie, osterman has made $ from his book as well as frank taffy from his new gig as a tv commentator on HLN/CNN. gz’s dad is trying to make $ from promoting hate in his book, and countless strangers have made $ reproducing Tray’s image on merchandise. Tray’s parents have made over a million, yet seem to not have spent it on clothes, jewelry or gourmet food, Surely some of it has gone into their foundation to help save our sons who have not yet been killed.I see the parents as being so strong because they are advocating at the same time they are enduring bereavement. I know my aunt died when she was 40 from scleraderma, yet my grandmother never got over it.That was her youngest & she talked about her every day no matter what, The parents deeply suffer from the death of a child.

      I have digressed, but my point of all this is to point out that I think the system is perverted in a perverted society. If justice is done, its usually by luck. There are thousands in prison injustly and more thousands who are guilty and get off on a technicality. When I was growing up I knew kids from affluent families that were able to get them out of trouble, have their records expunged, and let them go on with their lives. The same is not true for poor kids who may have committed similar crimes. This is not just. I don’t really want to involve myself in this system.

      • colin black says:

        Oh I know all about the Durst an there Money own half of Manhattan Island an R Durst not oly offed that old geezer in the boarding house .
        But also His wife body never recovered an never charged

        An another women his former Best friend whom had the goods on him also rnded up with a bullet in her scull .

        So that’s thre frigging murdered the cross dressing murderous demon has gotten a pass on.

        The coulour of injustice an freedom is green dollar grren it makes no diference what ethnicity tyou hail from.

        Dollar green is the ticket to freedom.

      • Aunt Bea says:

        I don’t think I could listen to the testimony on any given day, and not discuss it. That is not natural. Hate to say, but I really wouldn’t care about your dogs, kids or cars during this time period. I think it is absurd to expect the jurors to take in every nuance and subtle point made during testimony and hang on to it until deliberations. Then go back and rehash what they recall amongst 5 others who also are relying on their individual remembered/noted high points. I don’t think jurors will/do/have poured over the evidence/exhibits/testimony the way we have been afforded.
        I think they go to deliberations, having been thoroughly confused by “reasonable”, and just go with their overall thoughts on the case. No one wants to be considered “unreasonable” by what the court considers their peers. Notice how easily discord flares up on all boards/blogs when the equivalent of an eyeroll is expressed? See it in person, and it could get ugly.

        I think they should be able to discuss the case amongst themselves throughout the proceedings. I like the “juror questions” aspect of the AZ proceedings. I, personally, couldn’t make small talk with my fellow jurors during the sequestration period. I think jurors would build alliances during these casual chats as opposed to actually getting to know someone through their thoughts on the “job” before me as a juror. I would appear as standoffish and an odd duck for sure…..there is nothing else I would want to talk about……

        Is this current all-female jury really fair to a male defendant? Sexist I know, but , we are not all alike.
        It really looks like an appeal issue to me, if need be.

        • KA says:

          I am not sure….there have been MANY all male juries for females and males on trial.

          With this being a “unique” situation with an all female jury when women are 51% or so of the worlds population…it shows a little bias in jury selection which may communicate a message that men make a better, more stable juror.

          Of course, being in the corporate world for a long dang time, I know that “better, more stable” image of a “decision maker” is already systemic…

      • Malisha says:

        my point of all this is to point out that I think the system is perverted in a perverted society.

        Exactly.

  37. YQ says:

    @ Professor Leatherman- I agree fully to the article posted above, although I’m not justified by the facts posted here. I just have a hunch that he will and even moreso if the cross on de Mayo shows overwhelming evidence. I hope that we are right…

  38. My Forehead Tho says:

    ~Off Topic~

    There’s this young girl by the name of Talia, you might recognize her in the picture below, who has been battling two cancers and may have begun her transition from this world into the next. Because of this, “#prayfortalia” has been trending worldwide on twitter. All her family asks is that you send your prayers because, according to them, she’s in desperate need of them:

  39. KA says:

    I have to say, I think the defense was thrilled with the Hannity interview and police interview being entered into evidence.

    I saw how opposed MOM was to Judge Nelson asking GZ direct questions and then when he was to explain the little “bail blip” to Lester, MOM was adamant that the State did not get to cross. When Lester told him that is not how that works, he did not let GZ on the stand then. There was no jury there…

    The State wanted a SYG hearing to cross examine GZ, they have said it several times.

    I do not think he will testify because I think MOM thinks he is winning this and that the State has not proved their case. I do not think he is just saying that, I think he believes it.

    • Mary says:

      i think o’mara actually believes it’s pretty hopeless. his despration has been being demonstrated for sometime now.

      a worldly man like o’mara, who has seen a lot in his time, doesn’t buy the load of malarkey george hasbeen selling.

      i would wager o’mara has figured out exactly what happened that night, and knows it doesn’t favor his client.

      • Dennis says:

        I agree. O’Mara always has this “oh shit” look on his face. West has been doing all of the smiling in Fogen’s posse.

      • KA says:

        I have to say, I cannot find a major media outlet analyst saying that GZ has any chance of conviction right now

        All of them give reasons that drastically disregard huge amounts of evidence to the contrary. ABC’s analyst is saying that even if the State is successful at showing GZ is a liar, he still believes the jury will have no choice but acquit.

        It makes me wonder if they are actually watching the same trial…

  40. disappointed says:

    You know I honestly believe he should just shut up! As a mother, a woman and just a decent human being I think he needs to not say another word. He has lied so much and said to much that he can not ever take back or gloss over. What human being fighting for their life who truly believes they have no choice but to fire a hollow point bullet into the heart of another person does not have REGRETS? Who fires a hollow point bullet into a child to later find out by police broke no laws and NOT have any regrets? How do you explain to anyone that God planned this?
    Fogen has accused Trayvon of being up to no good, on drugs or sumpin, suspicious, running, skipping, sucker punching him and worst of all arming himself with a sidewalk, how does he come back from that? No he really needs to shut up. Fogen himself followed by car, on foot, needlessly called NEN on a teen for no reason, struggled with a minor child, pointed, aimed and fired a hollow point bullet into the chest of a kid who RAN because he was scared of this worthless pos.
    The worst part of all this Trayvon said I AM BEGGING YOU, he screamed for his life and Fogen shot him and stole from him. He stole the child’s dying screams. No Fogen needs to sit there and stfu, he has said more than enough. I do not wish to hear another bad word about Trayvon Benjamin Martin from this worthless creepy ass cracker.
    I do hope when he packs for prison he packs enough knuckle bandages to cover his ass, I have a feeling someone is going to make him their bitch. jmo

    • Romaine says:

      aaaahhh if only he could purchase a chastity belt and leave the key with lil she’lie, even then his life will not continue to be spared the pain it has earned…FOGEN has a debt to pay that can never be paid with money, KARMA doesn’t accept credit, requires payment in full..is patient, diligent , and just…I admire KARMA it is imperfectly perfect in its own given time. I marvel at its success, its vengeance is sweet when you least expect it . although you may want to rejoice in it; when you see it taking its course, you refrain from that celebration, yet you are thankful for to be allowed the ability to witness the justice due to its offender.

      • Romaine says:

        excuse my punctuation errors, my grandson is driving me nuts right now….he’s like that lil engine that just won’t stop talking….

      • Christopher Charles says:

        I agree: “KARMA it is imperfectly perfect in its own given time. I marvel at its success, its vengeance is sweet when you least expect it . although you may want to rejoice in it; when you see it taking its course, you refrain from that celebration, yet you are thankful for to be allowed the ability to witness the justice due to its offender.”

    • Two sides to a story says:

      If only he’d get on the stand and confess!

    • Malisha says:

      I believe most if not all prisoners are going to leave him alone. Very much alone. I think even the guards are going to leave him alone and those who don’t will be regarded with suspicion by their brethren. I think Fogen will be a pariah and eventually he will suffer more from being ignored than from anything else. I hope so.

    • sadlyyes says:

      trained soldiers have remorse when killing,most ordinary people would even in self defense…maggotFoagy is not normal

  41. Dennis says:

    Here is an inspiring song to help us get through our waiting for the verdict.

  42. Newmediacounsel says:

    My gut instinct is that he will not testify.

    He’s a liar. A good one.

    He’s been able to survive on this skill for a long time. The lies he told are easy to see through, but people don’t. Why? Because they want to believe him.

    As you have said, most of the press believes him despite the obvious lies that they can’t possibly explain away. Its now a part of common wisdom that the trial is the defense’s to lose. I don’t agree. I think its 60/40 in favor of a conviction. The 40 percent?

    I believe that he and his defense team believe that these lies will produce reasonable doubt.

    The shortness of their case next week certainly adds to my believe.

    I hope that I am wrong. I think the case would be over if he testified.

    Look, it may be a crap shoot as far as him being found not guilty, but this is America, he killed a black boy, those odds are not always as remote as i would like them to be. Hence, the 40 percent if he doesn’t testify. If he does, I put the odds at certain conviction.

    What I have realized in reading some of the pro-Zimmerman lawyers online is that they demonstrate just how powerful racism is. How intractable it is. You have lawyers arguing that chasing behind someone isn’t evidence of an aggressor. Lawyers.

    So, no, I am not going to pretend racism doesn’t give him better odds than he deserves. I will hope, however, that I am wrong. I will also hope he does testify.

    • Dennis says:

      1. Provide evidence that he lied about his reason for leaving the car.
      2. Provide evidence that he tried to restrain the victim.
      3. Provide evidence that the victim did not beat him MMA style or smash his head repeatedly into concrete.

      I think the prosecution did a very good job on all 3 of those major points. Lying to the extent that he did proves his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

      The BellCom/NASA Insider’s quote from the Moon Rising documentary said it best. “We didn’t lie about certain things. We lied about everything.”

      • newmediacounsel says:

        I do not believe Americans are as rational as following the evidence. This case trespassed on a lot of hidden believes that they Whites hold about social spaces.

        • Romaine says:

          I agree, there is a lot of meat in your statement

          • concernedczen says:

            NewMediaCounsel, I agree with everything you said. If he testifies, his chances of being convicted increase exponentially.

            Though I hope and pray that he is foolish enough to testify, rationally I don’t think there’s any chance of that.

        • Puck says:

          I think that the RATL is a gated community contributes significantly to this. A gated community suggests safety, respite, relief from destabilized outside spaces, and neighbors existing as a social group (regardless of whether or not they know each other) by virtue of their shared insularity and ostensible security. It’s the “Retreat” at Twin Lakes — a retreat from those Others out there.

          One of the first things that drew me to this case was in the very early days of news media coverage. A predictably vile comment on a Yahoo! news article (I’ve never read those since) said, “Gated communities were meant to keep nhigers [sic] out.” Since I was still researching my huge Tea Party/Obama-era right wing paper, which dealt with race in sections, that comment caught my attention and I wanted to find out more. Make no mistake: this is about race.

          • aussie says:

            They are of course blatantly touted as secure, starting with the estate names…. and especially socially secure (which means only “your kind of person” there]. Being forced to allow renters at all, then to allow actual sales to blacks, must have hurt the RATL stalwarts, but the recession caught them between a rock and a hard place. Empty units = more HOA taxes for the remaining owners. Back when the units were around $250,000 any blacks who got in were good enough; but with prices down around the $85,000 mark??? well, downmarket prices are going to bring in downmarket people, right?

            It’s not entirely about race. Its about haves and have-nots, but to a large extent that is already (long ago) divided on racial lines because of the historical owner/property relationship. Race means all whites grew up with the idea they are superior. (Even the non-racist ones, only they’ve had added “but this is no longer true”).

            Hardest hit are those are the bottom of the white pile, being overtaken by the top of the black pile, whose “rightful place” is below ALL the whites. This involves real or perceived loss of job and, education opportunities etc for the lower percentile whites, increased costs (taxation) for the better off ones to support the “undeserving” blacks (and others). People’s pockets are hurting and they need someone to blame. Hard to kick banking executives, easy to kick dark-skinned teenagers. Plus you don’t kick someone you can (theoretically) aspire to becoming, eg an exec with $20 million annual bonuses.

            Fear of being overtaken, of being diddled out of “rightful” opportunities, drives a lot of anti-immigration feeling and prejudice, too, and not only against illegals. It’s a shock to discover you have to actually compete, on objective merit, against people you feel shouldn’t be in the race at all (because 60 or 100 years ago they would not have been).

            Dehumanising or demonising the “other” lets you continue to hold the moral high ground, to honestly believe “all men were created equal”…. simply by not counting these as “men”. Porch-monkeys. But the same dual standards are applied to “white trash” and other minorities; it’s not entirely about race. It’s jealousy, low self-esteem, often also unwarranted righteousness. Trying to be superior by force, to overcome being so objectively blatantly inferior.

            White people are honest — so if a white witness changes from “X was on top” to “Y was on top” he is just clarifying his statement.

            Animals (non-humans) are not honest – so a dark girl adding one extra “and” into her statement is proof of impeachment.

          • KA says:

            Aussie, we could right a doctrinal thesis on your post. You hit on some very deep and sobering points.

        • crazy1946 says:

          There seem to be some here that are exhibiting the same basic racism that they condemn when directed toward them. To openly accuse everyone of any particular racial heritage of racism based solely on the color of their skin is simply wrong and racist at its very core…. to make a statement that all white people are this or that is no different than what is said and done by “some but not all” white people. I might suggest if you want to end racism (as many of us do) you first pluck the racism from your own heart and mind…. Now if you wish to trash me for my word denouncing your words of racism then so be it, however don’t expect me to respond in kind because I refuse to sink to that level of hatred…..

          • Two sides to a story says:

            My Buddhist teacher, a Tibetan lama, always said that if you want to rid the world of hatred, then you must pluck hatred from your own heart first.

          • newmediacounsel says:

            You are arguing a straw man. I didn’t say all.

            I said 60/40 are the odds I am placing in favor of convictions. I said that a certain percentage of that 40 percent is related to what may be a racist contingent.

            Your argument is of the type that derails real conversations about race. I say that there’s a chance for this trial to go the wrong way due racism. You say “how dare you generalize” do you see a difference between what I wrote, and how you responded?

          • newmediacounsel says:

            Let me add that this, “Now if you wish to trash me for my word denouncing your words of racism” underscores as well why racism can’t be discussed. Tell me how anyone is supposed to have a conversation with you when you preemptively try to shut them down once you have made a straw man argument about what they said?

            Again, I said this

            “I do not believe Americans are as rational as following the evidence. This case trespassed on a lot of hidden believes that they Whites hold about social spaces.”

            In combination with this:

            ” I think its 60/40 in favor of a conviction. The 40 percent?

            I believe that he and his defense team believe that these lies will produce reasonable doubt.

            The shortness of their case next week certainly adds to my believe.

            I hope that I am wrong. I think the case would be over if he testified.

            Look, it may be a crap shoot as far as him being found not guilty, but this is America, he killed a black boy, those odds are not always as remote as i would like them to be. Hence, the 40 percent if he doesn’t testify.”

            I don’t see the point of distorting a conversation that says racism may be a factor into pretending I said all. If you don’t want to be “trashed” (which really means nothing here) you should try to seek to understand the arguments being made to you rather than react from what seems like defensiveness.

          • crazy1946 says:

            NMC, Go back and read the entire line of comments before you accuse me of a straw man argument.

            “I do not believe Americans are as rational as following the evidence. This case trespassed on a lot of hidden believes that they Whites hold about social spaces.”

            You wrote that, which however is simply an opinion that is not factual, if you had put the word “some” or even “many” it would not be seen as casting blame on an entire race would it? Like I suggested, look inward and examine your own heart and mind before you cast comments that can/could be perceived as racist by another. I was not raised to be a racist, I was raised to treat people as equal regardless of race, I have lived by that teaching for my whole life. I will simply put it like this if you wish to put me down because of the color of my skin, I will call you on it, much as I would wish you to do if I did the same. However if you wish to turn a blind eye toward your own acts that is your choice. Now, I simply will wish you a good afternoon, and cease posting..

          • Newmediacounsel says:

            I don’t need to look inward.

            I need to look at your inability to read comments in the context of the thread that they are written. The thread begins with my thesis. I included an additional comment within the context of that thesis.

            The core of it is taking a comment that was a part of a wider thesis that I had already made to then argue that the comment means something broader than what it means is dishonest..

            That line was written in the context of a longer thread that starts with me saying I believe there’s 60/40 chance for conviction, with there being percentage of 40 percent who may vote one way due to race. That was thesis i wrote in the context of the comment you responded to. I have now said this to you twice, and you still pretending that you don’t see the straw man of claiming I said “all”

            To argue that I said all when clearly the jury is White and Latino, and I said a percentage of 40 percent chance of “not guilty” may be race related is a straw man argument because by definition 40 percent and a percentage of 40 percent isn’t all. He numerically can’t be what you are saying. I didn’t say all. You are adding that. I am surprised I am even having to explain this but I sense that you now feel the need to dig in to claim you are right although there is a context to what I wrote that I have now explained twice.

            My advice to you- take a step back. Think about what I wrote, then comment rather than lecturing me about something that you feel I should be doing.

            I merely stated what is quite obvious to anyone who is honest (and is not a matter of opinion): Race may matter (we can’t know for sure) with the jury’s decision. To claim that this “may” equals “all” is a false statement on your part.

            Again, one of the reasons race cannot be dealt with in America is precisely your type of defensive posturing. Someone says “well race may be a factor” You respond with straw men, and will fight to the end claiming you aren’t engaged in one. You are. That’s not opinion either. My comments have a context and you aren’t factually allowed to change my comments meaning just to deflect from the fact that race may be a factor. you can have you own opinion, but you aren’t entitled to your own facts. I stand by what I wrote whether you agree with the reality that race may be a factor or not.

          • aussie says:

            Part of the problem is, the moment someone says the word “race” people start accusing each other of having accused each other of being racist.

            So it’s near impossible to have a sensible discussion. Everyone’s too busy with defending against (unsaid) accusations, to look at what it actually going on ..

            That is partly why I recast the problem in economic terms. Rich, poor, competition for limited economic goods. In these terms it can be examined in other countries as well, where there is no history of discrimination against blacks. (But plenty against some groups on other grounds, invariably involving ethnic origins).

            Even in countries with a homogeneous population,. some groups get singled out for discrimination. Many countries in Europe are now importing people for this purpose… ie bringing in workers from poor countries to do the work the locals don’t want to do,;at pay rates the locals won’t accept. This creates an underclass who can be looked down on and discriminated against for being an underclass.

            Even where the underclass is accepted as being human, they are considered “not quite as human” as “we” are, because they are foreigners – aliens. They are NOT ONE OF US. The fact that today’s AA people are descended from those who used to be “property” just further proves they’re not “us”.

            But generalising goes both ways. It is a mistake for AA people to assume anyone with a dark skin has had the same cultural experience as they had, or that they would side with AAs (in anything) because of their skin.

            The AA experience is NOT CAUSED BY BEING BLACK. Being dark skinned is just an easily recognisable sign of being a member of the ex-slave “others”. Some non-AA darker people might be lumped into the profiling because of this, but their perception of the discrimination they face is likely to be totally different.

    • KA says:

      I do not think he will either.

      However, I think the State has several tricks up their sleeve with this case. I think they are being stealth, not incompetent.

      I think they will far outsmart MOM and the defense gang and the ending will be a very obvious guilty verdict.

  43. colin black says:

    @MALISH o t

    You said on last thread you found it strange that mice an small malalls couls intimdate or take on dinasaurs ect.

    Not at all Forinstance Elephants are terrified of Elephants .
    A mouse is small nimble agile an fast compared to an Elephant it can move at light speed.

    A mouse or even a smallish rat could run right up an elephants trunk .

    An set up home a bit like a flea on a dog.

    Or as I said a small rat could gnaw an start eating on a sore or scab within the trunk.

    Similarly large dinasaurs could have been infested with small nibble mammals whom feasted of old or new healinf scar tissue m o o

  44. fauxmccoy says:

    conventional wisdom dictates that a defendant on trial with an affirmative defense of self defense must testify, as you eloquently stated in your article, fred.

    this case has been anything but conventional, i would say it has been a circus. as much as i would love to see this defendant answer personally to the charge of murder 2 against him, i would hesitate to speculate on his course of action.

    mantei threw down the gauntlet in calling the defendant a liar. the defense would have to surmise that the state will do so again, at the end of their closing argument. as is usual, the defendant is between a rock and a hard place with nowhere to turn. i would love to see him on the stand and under cross examination for days. i suspect the defendant thinks he is smooth enough to handle it, although we know he is not. o’mara’s reluctance to let his client speak at all since the initial bond hearing is notable, however. o’mara knows he’s got a loser for a client.

    you make a powerful argument fred, but i still think it is anybody’s guess.

    • YQ says:

      No chance that BLDR breaks a confession from Fogen on the stand?

    • Deborah Moore says:

      He does think of himself as slick. Watching all his body language in court. The way he shakes hands with his attorneys, the way he addresses Her Honor, and that smile after viewing the Hannity interview in court.
      He hasn’t see Slick yet, I think. But, he will.

  45. Ty Flair says:

    He will try and make that same move asking O’Mara to tell JN he will take the stand if only O’Mara ask the question and West do the cross,that’s the only way he will take the stand.

    • Romaine says:

      lol, remember that, who was the eff’n punk afraid to get in the box that day…George Michael Zimmerman. I just want to get away, because I am on drugs, up to no good, suspicious sitting in the rain in my truck, stalking a teenager as he walks home minding his own business. chatting on the phone with his BFF..telling the dispatcher he is coming towards me now because i parked my car in his path which leaves him with no other option but to pass my vehicle..oooh get someone here now he is staring at me; because my car is really in his path (on the curb, not fully in the parking space) requiring him to now walk around my truck..because I’m the head cac in charge…

      I live in the heart of the hood, I have always lived in the heart of the hood…I have always worked the grave yard shift. I am a single Black female with 1 son and 1 daughter..my son is the eldest. I have survived coming home alone without fear in Newark, NJ at all hours of the night…why is it that this child could not survive coming home from the 7/11 at 7pm in the evening in a gated community…why is it this child survived in his community unscathed; yet dies in a community his parents thought to be safe, privileged, and environment with a positive atmosphere

      • Deborah Moore says:

        You know what, Romaine? There was something evil waiting for Trayvon. That’s what’s different.
        Bless you and your children and everyone’s children.

        • Romaine says:

          ty and you are right, the evil was George Michael Zimmerman. the liar of all liars, his crime is worse than the kidnapper who participates in the search of a missing victim… knowing he is the killer…this is how I view the CAC

          • Deborah Moore says:

            I totally agree.
            Sitting there in his chair at the table with his attorneys and Knowing without a shadow of a doubt what he did to Trayvon, and would happily do again, it just makes me sick.
            He fits a picture of evil to me.

      • Malisha says:

        Romaine, Hell, I know Newark. I used to go home from work at 2:00 a.m. in Detroit in the summer after the “long hot summer.” I never met up with a creepy ass cracker like Fogen, though!

        • Romaine says:

          the fogen is one of a kind…I think his neighbors may have used him and he may now be taking the fall for them due to his connections…all I can say is if you are George Michael Zimmerman..tell each and every one of them to kiss your afp ass and maintain your freedom…if not, your punk ass needs to fess up and do your time you made a very tragic error when took the life of this child…

        • KA says:

          Honestly, I think the most dangerous place for this is predominantly white “safe” neighborhoods and suburbs. I live in one. I have 4 nonwhite children. Two are Asian, we moved in with them. Outside of stupid crass cultural jokes said to me personally, they do not suffer to much alternative effects. They were allowed to play at the neighbors and neighbors come to the door requesting to play with them….

          Then we adopted a Mexican American. He was like 9 when he came home. Holy cow! Suddenly he is “dangerous”, “scary” and NO ONE comes to the door to ask him to play. A neighborhood lady told him if he was “good”, he could clean her house…It is sad and pathetic.

          We are now in transition with a 11 yr old AA boy. I know the only other AA boy in the neighborhood (adopted from Liberia) is considered “angry”, “bad tempered”, and not everyone will allow their kids to play with him. He is 13 and a darling child. We would rather have him over than any other kid.

          Anyway, this is considered a “desirable” area with a good school district. I bought the house here 3 years ago because it was big and in foreclosure. I should have checked out the neighborhood first (which I did not at all) before the quick 3 weeks closing we had.

          I sent my AA son and Hispanic son to the park the other day. I have to say I thought about Trayvon and got anxious.

          It is probably time to see if my house value is up enough to move to a more diverse area…

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Exactly. And RTL isn’t exactly some amazing gated community either. Like Fogen.

      • Half my childhood was spent in the city. Half in an inner ‘burn. I live in the ‘hood now by choice. In all honesty, there is no safe place for black boys but I was not going to subject my kid to the soul murder of white supremacy in the burbs!

    • Malisha says:

      HA HA HA HA HA and then when she denies, the Outhouse will demand that O’Mara recuse her ass! HA HA HA!! :lol:

  46. colin black says:

    Conventinal wisdom says that if the jurours are impartial fair an understsnd an correlate the facts with the events a conviction is a hundred percent certain..
    The only other optons are a biased raceist jurour hanging the trial.

    Or enough stealth s got in to influence an return an aquitall.

    I somehow doubt that but I do fear a hung jury.

    But I know an fair ury will convict for sure of second degree.

    He has shown no remorse or redeeming qualitys if he had then manslaughter may have been a possibility but his cavalier callous attitude will sink him.

  47. YQ says:

    Could the jurors request the testimony of Fogen?

    • colin black says:

      sure not his testomany as ger in thebox an explain yourself.

      But the testomany he gave all of them to the police.

      The jourours can reqest to view any piece of evidence catalogued numbered into evidence

      That’s partly why its done to keep track.
      They can request to view an an all vt s of hannratty the walk through .

      Both his written an verbal staatements.

      Not only his But Rachels Serrinos Singletons
      Basicly the entire kit an caboodle any thing an every thing entered in to evidence by defence an or the prosecution can be viewed by them.

      Also any instructions given by the judge can be reasked an if clarification needed it will be given.

      • Lynn says:

        Oh, Colin. As I read your reply I just had this vision in my head of the jury requesting ALL of the videos (Hannity, walk-thru, etc) with a case of microwave popcorn just to make GZ squirm in wait since MOM and West made every day seem twice as long to them. LOL.

  48. colin black says:

    July 6, 2013 at 9:53 pm

    He will try and make that same move asking O’Mara to tell JN he will take the stand if only O’Mara ask the question and West do the cross,that’s the only way he will take the stand.
    @

    An he will want one of them man in the box type afairs the bullet proof plexi glass shields.

    • Deborah Moore says:

      Oh, gosh. I just had an image of George as Hannibal Lecter.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        deborah moore says

        Oh, gosh. I just had an image of George as Hannibal Lecter.

        what a coincidence! i often picture him being wheeled in on a handtruck and secured with a straight jacket :)

    • fauxmccoy says:

      colin says

      An he will want one of them man in the box type afairs the bullet proof plexi glass shields.

      you mean kinda like the ‘pope mobile’?? i can see him being that pompous and arrogant.

  49. LiveByTheGulf says:

    Will the jury take into consideration that Fogen opted out of a SYG immunity trial especially if Fogen decides not to testify in this trial? Hope jury members take into account Fogen’s reluctance to be cross-examined?
    The jury has witnessed some grueling cross-examination of by the defense during this trial. The jury may want to see Fogen be subjected to the same kind of grilling by the State to help them sort out remaining questions and inconsistencies. OTOH, Fogen would have been better off with SYG immunity trial versus testifying in this trial.

    • Malisha says:

      That doesn’t go before the jury, though. Fogen has the right to remain silent.

    • Malisha says:

      The judge will tell the jurors, in her instructions, that the defendant had the right to remain silent and that could NOT be held against him.

  50. YQ says:

    I think that Fogen will testify bc the State has been dropping hard facts. GZ will develop a sick sense of pride and duty and try to clean up those “minor” inconsistencies that the State has exposed.

    I suspect that he will keep the story from the Hannity interview. He was going in the same direction. Trayvon came from the bushes as he was walking back and then stole on him. He won’t remember how the struggle moved but he’ll try to go further into detail about the head bashing. He will fall into some traps but more specifically when trying to explain how he got to the gun, and how the trajectory was through and through. The defense is blowing this case and the only reason why the media is covering it 50/50 is because they want to keep us on the tube until the very end. You have to remember that he said he would even profile white kids. He doesn’t discriminate in that aspect. The jurors are going to wonder if Trayvon could’ve been one of their kids. They are going to decide that ultimately he should be off the streets and the system will not be opposed to that. He already mocked the law the last time he got off. He’s got his own webpage, and he would definitely do it again. This Is why he wont be acquitted.

  51. whonoze says:

    Mary opined above that MOM has figured out enough of what really happened on 2/26/12 to know that his client is in some real trouble.

    An argument he made toward the JOA motion may be revealing in that light…

    I have noted my theory of the crime here several times, and recently re-iterated it in a lengthy post on the whonoze blog. In short, I think it started as a wrestling match; GZ got TM’s arm into a hold that produced excruciating pain, leading to the screams; GZ expected TM to submit, but TM struggled on, enraging the CAC; in an attempt to get free, Trayvon somehow managed to land a fairly weak blow to GZ’s nose with his left hand; this stung enough that GZ released TM with his right hand, and TM started to pull away, though GZ still held him by the hoodie with his left hand; enraged to the point of blowing his top at having been hit by this fucking coon, AND fearing that now the asshole will get away, he pulls his Kel-Tec and shoots TM through the heart…

    Now set aside your differing theories for a minute, and consider this statement by MOM (paraphrased here only slightly, as I’m too lazy to wade through the YT vids for the exact wording):

    “I would argue that the punch to the nose alone warrants the response of deadly force.”

    My jaw dropped when he said that. Really? You get to kill someone just because they tag you on the schnoz? But perhaps this is MOM’s fall-back line of Defense. It doesn’t matter who started the wrestling match. It doesn’t matter who was screaming or why. It doesn’t matter why any punches may have been thrown. All that matters is the first blow.. That, in and of itself constitutes an escalation into the territory where the recipient may justifiably fear for his life. So there you have it: he hit me so it’s self defense no matter what else.

    Crazy? Yes. Do I think a jury would buy it? I doubt it. But crazier things have happened in Florida, and crazier crap has already been said during this trial.

    • Deborah Moore says:

      I was wondering what he was doing to that kid to produce those blood curdling screams.
      Do you think that there is evidence that will show twisted muscles and tendons, bruises?

      • Puck says:

        Nothing like that appears in the autopsy report. I can’t see where else that information could come from.

      • aussie says:

        I’ll find it tomorrow, there are a few videos around showing what arm is being twisted sounds like. Or just go to Youtube and search for police brutality arm twist and you’ll find several.

        But no, autopsy didn’t look for bruised tendons. Anyway there’d not be any bruising, as that’s caused by blood loss into damaged tissue, and he didn’t have blood circulating. They would not and did not dissect muscles that looked undamaged externally and on xrays (which of course don’t show soft tissue damage).

      • Malisha says:

        Pointing a gun at him would produce blood curdling screams in any kid I KNOW.

    • Rachael says:

      I don’t know about the jury but I do think that’s what some people already think now.

    • Ty Flair says:

      I do remeber when O’Mara said he had the right to self defense after his client was punch in the nose,I was thinking damn you can kill someone just because you was hit in the nose.

    • My Forehead Tho says:

      West did it also in his hypothetical of imperfect self defense when he crossed Carter, Fogen’s teacher. He basically said even if Fogen touched Trayvon first it wouldn’t matter if the force that Trayvon countered with caused his client to fear for his life.

      It’s on 54:00 in this video

      • boar_d_laze says:

        “Imperfect self defense” can mean a couple of things or both of them in combination; that the defendant used an inappropriate amount of force or misunderstood the situation and believed he was justified in acting in self defense, but was not.

        “Imperfect self defense” isn’t an actual defense in the sense that it can result in acquittal. In essence, it’s an argument for reduced punishment. As far as I know (never practiced there) “imperfect self defense” is not formally available in Florida. However, if the jury decides that Zimmerman was the aggressor — and is therefor guilty of something — the jurors will likely discuss whether Zimmerman acted with intent or panic.

        In this case, a finding of Manslaughter (very possible) is consistent with the idea of “imperfect self defense.”

        The judge instructs the jury on self defense and all other related legal concepts relevant to their decision. Having a witness testify about law which may be important to the jury’s ultimate decision is very tricky. Usually it isn’t allowed.

        In this case, the Prosecution pursued a strategy of “getting ahead” of every issue. It apparently believed that this witness showed Mr. Zimmerman thought he knew enough to construct a story consistent with some form of self-defense; and the Defense was more than happy to discuss self-defense at any time.

        Since the Prosecution’s theory of the case was that Mr. Zimmerman attempted to construct a plausible story of self defense after murdering Mr. Martin, it was important for them to show that he knew how to do that; additionally, it contradicts other statements by Mr. Zimmerman — and Mr. Zimmerman’s credibility is his primary defense.

        In its summation the prosecution may tell the jury that this witness’s remarks are not the law, and that they will hear about that from Judge Nelson. If I were summing up, that’s what I’d do.

        Judge Nelson may tell the jury something along the same lines. In my opinion, she should.

        BDL

      • YQ says:

        Self defense laws in FL suck. Redundant to determine fear based on what the beholder of that fear is stating. There is not much in the world that one can do to justify killing. Fogen was not a cop, was not in the army, he should be in prison already.

    • Jun says:

      Pretty much he is arguing that Trayvon had no right to defend himself against Fogen for anything Fogen does, although Trayvon does

    • MDH says:

      I tend to agree with your scenario. The wrestling-tugging match resulted in GZ pulling so hard that he fell back and the top of his head got scratched on the sidewalk. T was momentarily on top and made a weak strike with his non-dominant hand in an attempt to break free. The enraged GZ pulled his gun and shot T as the tug of war back to the point on the grass where T’s body was found.

      A reasonable society would conclude that in a fight wherein A is bigger, stronger and has a gun, that T has the right to use any force needed to try to escape harm. IOW, GZ should not get any right to self defense in that he was the aggressor. The punch, if there was one, was a defensive act.

      Be that as it may, the minor damage does not constitute an act that put GZ in a situation wherein his only recourse was to kill T.

      Even if it was, the fact that GZ states he was in such control of the situation that he could move his left hand out of the way to get a nice clean shot means that the danger had passed. This is another line of argument that is not talked about to much extent. Just because there was a perception of danger in the past does not warrant shooting at a future point in time.

      For example, if a guy comes at A with an axe and A reasonably pulls his gun, A does not get to shoot the guy if the guy drops his axe and backs away.

      What I am getting at is that there are many levels of argument to find GZ guilty.

      The defense farce of a punch in the nose warrants death is an appeal to what they hope are racists in the jury. It was not to long ago that a black male was expected to be deprived of their fourth amendment rights by any member of “white society” without question. Striking back meant being shot in that the black male needed to be put in his place.

      This last sad paragraph is really what the GZ supporters are all about.

      Seriously, I look at what GZ did from the point having white privilege. If that had been my boy, then, rest assured, most if not all of my white neighbors would have agreed that the creep did not have the right to confront my boy in the first place. In the trial, GZ would have been portrayed as a violent foreign thug wannabe.

      We do not live in an objective post racial society.

      For the record, although I am white, my wife is African. However, I grew up in Detroit in a largely black neighborhood. When I would visit the “all white” better suburbs, I would get an earful of how they think.

      IMO, Trayvon was one of those nice kids who used to come and talk with my father who lived in Detroit alone after my mom passed and I moved to DC.

      It is very sad that this trail makes a mockery out of the humanity of man.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        @MDH

        was just discussing this with my husband whose thoughts are quite similar to my own — we get to bottom line that IF trayvon did strike out with his non-dominant hand (which i think it would be silly for the state to argue against) ….. THEN what happened such that george’s face was that close to the trayvon’s fist??? by the looks and sounds of it, that is all on george as trayvon made every attempt to avoid confrontation according to the defendant’s original NEN call, ms. jeantel’s testimony etc., etc.

        • cielo62 says:

          faux mccoy~ I remember one eye witness saying she say windmill arm motions and then she illustrated. Those were NOT punches, but (forgive me) the way a girl might try to push someone away without hurting the other person. I could see Trayvon just trying to windmill his way OUT of gzs grasp to escape. An accidental bump to the nose might have occurred. Without any DNA present, it would have had to have been a glancing blow at best.

          ________________________________

          • fauxmccoy says:

            @cielo

            that surely could be the case — as mantei says, one person is dead, the other is a liar. we will likely never know. i would hope that my own children would fight for their lives should it ever be necessary and pray to some unknown god that it is not.

            i was attempting to make 2 points
            1. that the defendant has some explaining to do as to how his fat head got so close to the victim
            and
            2. it would be difficult for the state to argue that trayvon ‘never touched’ the defendant because of eye witnesses describing the struggle (as you did above) and that the defendant has obvious but insignificant injuries. we will never know how those injuries came to be, but making a blanket claim to the jury that it was *not* trayvon would open up too much room for ‘reasonable doubt’ to set in.

      • Johnnie says:

        “MDH,” love your post. You state, “Even if it was, the fact that GZ states he was in such control of the situation that he could move his left hand out of the way to get a nice clean shot means that the danger had passed. This is another line of argument that is not talked about to much extent. Just because there was a perception of danger in the past does not warrant shooting at a future point in time.”

        I am not sure why the State is not hammering this to point of ad nauseam just as O’Mara has been doing with that bull about Trayvon being responsible for his own death. I would be in jail today if I was Tracy because when during the hearing for dismissal when O’Mara said Trayvon had his chance to live, I would have jumped over that banister and kicked that MF’er’s ass. He and West are just as sick as their client.

        • MDH says:

          Only a true ass would say that Trayvon was responsible for his own death.

          There was not even probable cause for GZ to get out of his car in the first place.

          if this had not ended in a tragedy, GZ following and having the police investigate Trayvon would have been harassment and possibly a violation of Trayvon’s fourth amendment rights.

          That leads to another sorry ass commentary about post-racial USA.

          People of color’s fourth amendment rights are violated with impunity under the guise of the War on Drugs.

          IMO, GZ is a pathogen spawned by a sick system.

    • Malisha says:

      It’s the four-year-old’s “He Hit Me FIRST” defense.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Many of the Treepers sound exactly like four-year-olds. Well, maybe like three-year-olds!

  52. Tee says:

    I say there isnt a chance in hell that he’ll take the stand. If he does then he’ll have to explain how the nose injury is on right side of his nose. He’s got to explain the two missing minutes, the impossibility of him reaching his gun with trayvon on top of him, his 40 second screams for help with a hand covering his mouth, banging head with no DNA and he’s still alive, his straight front to back shot wit no elbow room, and lastly his perfect vitals after the shooting when he had been in such fear justs moments before.

    • Ty Flair says:

      I would love for him to explain how you was hit at the T and fell but one flashlight is at the T where you claim you was hit and the other flashlight is by Trayvon body.

      • My Forehead Tho says:

        Right.

        And also how he was able to “shimmy” 30+ feet with a teenager with god like strength slamming and punching his head into the ground without getting a single grass or dirt stain on the back of his clothes.

  53. Trained Observer says:

    No defendant with an iota of sense in this situation would get on the stand to testify.

    But no one with an iota of sense spots, stalks and attacks an unarmed 17-year-old based on his color and then decides to put a hollow point through his heart … after carefully taking aim to avoid his own hand, of course.

    I think there’s a good chance Fogen will take the stand, overriding recommendations from MOM, West and anyone else in proximity from his twisted circle of liars, racists and morons.

    After all, he’s been worming his way out of trouble on lesser scrapes with the law for years. This would be his chance to shine, you see, because he’s so very much smarter than anyone else around.

    • MedicineBear says:

      The State should somehow get in that (in Oysterman’s words) any non-felon (over 18) can carry a concealed weapon with a hollow-point bullet in the chamber.

      If fogen is acquitted, this will be him. Coming to a neighborhood near you. “Taking care of” all those kids in your area.

  54. Trained Observer says:

    Can’t help but recall his bail hearing when Fogen unexpectedly got up on the stand and shocked even MOM — or so O’Mara later claimed — with the unanticipated smarmy address to Trayvon Martin’s parents, embroidered with yet another lie … that he thought Trayvon was much older.

    • Rachael says:

      We have all heard it on tape “late teens”

      • My Forehead Tho says:

        Yep and he also referred to Trayvon as “kid” in his NEN call saying, “I don’t want to give my address out because I don’t know where the kid is…”

  55. RastaGirl says:

    Maybe in another life, but I was really wishing that whoever did the autopsy on TM would be able to see something about his throat to confirm that he may have been yelling or screaming at the top of his lungs …. My fairy tale

  56. Simon S says:

    Mr Leatherman,
    In your post you state that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Zimmerman restrained Mr Martin. What evidence would you be referring to when you say this. I have heard the state suggest Mr Zimmerman followed and maybe even confronted Mr Martin, but don’t recall any testimony or commentary from the prosecution saying Mr Zimmerman ever attempted to restrain Mr Martin. So if the state hasn’t offered any evidence, testimony, or even suggested this happened in their remarks, I am wondering where you are getting this idea.
    Thanks,
    S

    • Rachael says:

      I don’t mean to interrupt but GZ says it in his own words, he said for someone not to call the police but instead asked for help to restrain a dead child.

      I know that isn’t what you mean, but just taking that with the fact that GZ got out after him, what do you think was his intent? He had already called the police so he knew they were on their way, instead of asking the police to meet him, he said to call when they get there, does it not make sense to you that his idea was to confront and “restrain” Trayvon until the police got there? I personally do not believe (and this is my personal opinion) that GZ had intended to kill Trayvon. He ONLY intended to restrain him until police got there so he could get there but got a bit carried away with the “position of power” rush that went to his head in doing so.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Yes. It is Fogen’s own words that will ultimately convict him. I’ve said that all along.

      • Girlp says:

        Zimmerman also told Serino that he had Trayvon in a wrist lock since there was no ground pound or head banging that says to me he did restrain Trayvon; which was Zimmermans intention. “They always get away”, but not this time.

    • My Forehead Tho says:

      Rachel Jeantel’s testimony suggest that Fogen grabbed Trayvon because she heard Trayvon say “Get off, get off” after hearing Fogen say “What are you doing around here”.

      That coupled with the fact that Fogen did everything to make sure “this asshole didn’t get away” makes Rachel’s testimony very credible.

    • Jasmine says:

      Besides the fact that the bullet hole does not line up correctly…meaning that BOTH of the hoodies were pulled down and off to the side. Fogen was restraining Trayvon as he shot him.

  57. Leslie says:

    Hi… My name is Leslie, and this is my first time commenting.

    I have always seen the evidence almost exactly as the prosecution has seen it and as Mr. Leatherman sees it. I have been involved in a very long (since the beginning) forum discussion about it that has received 12,000+ posts, but they have all been from a relatively small group of people dissecting it down to the atom.

    I only recently discovered this blog and was happy to see it.

    But here’s my problem: as I say, I see the incident as you do, I see the evidence as you do. But I’ve been listening and interacting with people who are just as, if not more passionate, in their belief that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. This discussion has included 4 or 5 lawyers, all of whom believe he will be acquitted.

    There are people participating who believe just as passionately as Mr. Leatherman that certain testimony and evidence has been great for the prosecution.

    But that’s in contrast to what I see as a huge number of people who see it precisely the opposite. I’ve also had a chance to really see very closely HOW people come to believe Zimmerman and it’s fairly straightforward: they think simplistically. Because the pieces that need to be pulled together to paint the picture are not as garish and plain and crude as “he was going to kill me-see the blood?- so I had to shoot him” AND because so many crucial moments do NOT have any kind of reliable evidence to counter Zimmerman’s account (what happened between the end of the phone call with Jeantel and the first witness to see them/ what happened during actual seconds prior to and immediately after the shot) almost all of the corroborating evidence is evidence which is either too open to interpretation altogether or supports Zimmerman’s account.

    Given this, I’m really kind of confused about how Mr. Leatherman can have such complete certainty, and with all due respect it seems that his (your) perception of what’s happening and how OTHER people (especially the jury) will perceive it is clouded by your bias (A bias I share, remember – I actually predicted a second degree murder charge before it was filed, when everyone else was saying manslaughter.)

    At this point, given the Floridian mindset that cherishes self-defense (presumably, since they elect people who write those crazy laws) I think he’s going to be acquitted. And I’m not happy about it, but it does seem clear to me that the details and nuances that make it clear to US that Zimmerman committed murder, along with the lack of solid evidence to really support that cleanly, the many witness for the prosecution who said things helpful to the defense, and I can’t see any reason in the world why GZ would testify. His story is out there, there’s nothing to gain.

    • masonblue says:

      My answer to the absence of witnesses in the gaps, so to speak, to contradict the defendant’s claims regarding what’s happening in those gaps is a simple question.

      Why is the defendant lying?

      • Leslie says:

        I apologize for being stupid, but I don’t follow your point here?

        • newmediacounsel says:

          I’m not the professor, but I always start with a simple question: Can you believe the defendant because his defense depends on believing him.

          If the defendant is lying about the parts that we can figure out (through witnesses and physical evidence), why should we logically infer he’s not lying bout the parts we cannot?

          For the most part, no one and no video directly witnessed what happened that night. What we are left with is some direct evidence, but mostly circumstantial evidence. What’s kiling the self defense claims are the physical evidence. Denial of the eivdence at this point is not enough to be reasonable. I mentin that because I see that a lot with people. By denial I mean that they are saying to you “well I just don’t believe it.” The question is why? Can they explain it in a way that seems reasonable. Can the explain what evidence leads them to believe what they believe? How do they make ethat consistent with the other evidence- the DNA evidence, The injuries, the location of the body, the landscape, etc which all are very different from both the defendant’s claims and those now being made up for him (and yes there are people online now creating defenses for him).

          The core problem with the people who believe Zimmerman is that having determined he’s a pathological liar (e.g., his response about SYG was a clear lie he told on tv), why do they then believe him about the rest of his story?

          The defendant is entitled to reasonable doubt, but not any doubt that one can come up with. That means- if you are going to give him the benefit of the doubt about his statements, why would any reasonable person do that?

    • Xena says:

      @Leslie.

      ….has received 12,000+ posts, but they have all been from a relatively small group of people dissecting it down to the atom. …But that’s in contrast to what I see as a huge number of people who see it precisely the opposite.

      Let me make sure I understand. Since the beginning of this case, you’ve been participating in a forum with over 12,000 posts but by a small group, who you then posture as being a “huge number of people” who believe GZ is innocent??

      Then, in your opinion, you say

      AND because so many crucial moments do NOT have any kind of reliable evidence to counter Zimmerman’s account …

      Evidently, you did not listen to ASA Mantei’s argument on Friday that Judge Nelson heard, resulting in the court denying GZ judgment of acquittal.

      • Tzar says:

        Xena says:
        July 7, 2013 at 4:12 am
        Evidently, you did not listen to ASA Mantei’s argument on Friday that Judge Nelson heard, resulting in the court denying GZ judgment of acquittal.

        Well We know one lawyer who thinks there is reliable evidence to refute Zimmerman’s account

      • Leslie says:

        Forgive me for being unclear: the huge number of people who believe he’s innocent extends beyond the forum discussion I’ve been participating in. I brought that up specifically to speak of how I’ve come to understand the thought processes of those Who believe Zimmerman should be acquitted.

        And I did listen to the argument, I was pleased that the state seems to have made the same connections that I have made, but that still does not give us solid evidence and witnesses to fill in the blanks. And while his arguments were perfectly adequate for the judge to deny the motion for acquittal, the standards for conviction are much more stringent.

        • KA says:

          Leslie, I think I know what you are saying?

          Why are so many “legal experts”, attorneys in other forums, and people who should be objective think GZ will walk? The arguments presented here are very simple and explainable and it is quite obvious that there are a lot of lies in GZ’s story. I think you are saying, why does not any other “rational” person see it who have seen the same evidence we have?

          I had the same concerns, but I have been able to reconcile it recently. I am a huge supporter of the Martin family and despise the lies GZ has told to “get away” with killing a child (in fact, I would say executing..) and I was still worried. but…

          Searching Minds posted a case that ASA Mantei had used in his response to the acquittal request. It showed that in this FL decision all that is needed to prove “depraved mind” in this law was the pointing of a firearm with the intention to shoot.

          The article I read today from ABC, NPR, and MSNBC all said that the state did not prove the “high threshold” of a “depraved” mind. According to that case law, clearly they have. I suspect none of those analysts have read that case when it was stated in court by Mantei. It is very, very relevant. Judge Nelson knew that case law obviously and never wavered from M2 when she could have. That minimum threshold has been met already and there are piles of other corroborating evidence to add to it. Her decision to continue with M2 was not insignificant. She well knew the applicability of that case law and knows this is a M2 trial.

          I understand what you are saying, but I think we are looking at people who do not know the evidence well, have not done their “homework”, and have not read half of the evidence that will be made available to the jury when they deliberate.

          Additionally, they seem to be judging both sides case right now with only the bulk of the State’s presented. Both sides got cheers and lumps in that one side. The same will happen in the defense case. We are only half way there.

          Also, closing arguments and rebuttal for the State can win or lose something. They have entered a ton of evidence, they just have yet to fully utilize it, but I believe they will.

    • PiranhaMom says:

      @Leslie,

      If Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in self defense, why did he feel the need to INVENT so many conflicting stories of HOW IT PHYSICALLY HAPPENED, describing actions that are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE?

      And why was a 207 lb.Mixed Martial Arts fighter who trained 9 hours a week in a gym for six months UNABLE to physically control a 158 lb. youth? For, say a maximum of five minutes until the police arrived (as it turned out, it was less than three minutes) — police that Zimmerman himself had called?

      What was the rush to shoot this kid?

      Couldn’t be Zimmerman’s superficial “injuries,” could it? — the kind of scrapes you’d get in any backyard wrestling match, two nicks to the back of the head that needed no sutures, no bandages, but if you really wanted to flaunt it, two kid-size “Hello Kitty” bandages would cover them both.

      Why lie about the head bashing when it did not happen and no blood could be found on the concrete? Or on Trayvon Martin?

      Why would Zimmerman claim he was so badly beaten about the face that his eyes were filled by his own blood – when photographic evidence shows it did not happen?

      Why lie about Trayvon supposedly covering his nose and mouth and preventing Zimmerman from breathing – and THEN CLAIM. as Zimmerman did, that he was screaming all the while his nose and mouth were covered? How did he scream that long, drawn-out desperate wail if his mouth was clamped shut by Trayvon?

      Why lie about these injuries that Zimmerman claims he got from Trayvon that made him fear for his life when every one of those injuries would cover Trayvon with Zimmerman’s blood – and it DIDN’T?

      If the truth would exonerate Zimmerman, why didn’t Zimmerman TELL THE TRUTH?

      So … wouldn’t Zimmerman want to explain what REALLY happened?

      I get greater wounds pruning my rose bushes, Lynn. That’s life on the wild side. But I don’t go out with an AK-47 and shoot those suckers to smithereens.

      George Zimmerman packed a semi-automatic pistol with nine hollow-point bullets. Forensic evidence proves Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon Martin by the shirts, carefully placed the muzzle up to Trayvon’s heart, made certain his grabbing hand was out of the line of fire, pulled the trigger for one single shot as police were within siren distance, and turned Trayvon Martin’s heart into dog meat.

      Because “those assholes, they always get away,” and this time, Zimmerman made certain it would not happen. Finally, he could prove he had caught a “suspect” and get the admiration he craved.

      The fact that a young life was obliterated meant nothing to Zimmerman.

      That’s what makes it Murder 2.

      If not, he should tell the jury.

      • Soulcatcher says:

        I remember back when I was a teen we lived on a ranch. I got bucked off my horse several time. One time me horse bucked me off into a bobbed wire fence and I ended up at ER, getting ten stitches above my knee. Did I go get a gun and shoot my horse. No, I got on the bus, went to my school to tryout for a cheerleader. Well, I didn’t make the team, on the bus going home, I cried alittle because I didn’t make the team, not because I had to go back to the ER because I had ripped open all the stiches, and get new ones. So Boo Hoo Foggen over your little nothings that needed no stiches and not even a band-aIde, thinking you going to die, and JR will have to spoon feed your big wimpy ass. I guess you never fell off your bike or skates.

        • Malisha says:

          Bravo Bravo. No you don’t have a right to shoot someone because they punched you in the nose. ESPECIALLY if you scared them and they ran and then when you met up (either because they said “what’s your problem homie?” or because they said, “Why are you following me for?” you did not say, “Hey man, I mean you no harm, I’m not gonna hurt you, I’m just with the neighborhood watch and I wondered if you lived near here.” If you did not say that, seeing that they either thought you were following them OR thought you had a “problem” with them, you KNOW they’re scared and you KNOW they will try to escape you and if you get a punch in the nose, you deserved it for not immediately telling them you were not a danger.

          • Two sides to a story says:

            Exactly. Trained in all that criminal justice but as Serino told him, we develop relationships with the community. Something a sociopath isn’t good at.

      • Rachael says:

        This is a very good post.

        • Malisha says:

          Rachel’s comment was to Soulcatcher.

          • Rachael says:

            Actually it was to PiranhaMom but not because there was anything wrong with Soulcatcher’s post, just that he/she (Soulcatcher) got there first, but my comment was to PiranhaMam – but it can be for Soulcatcher as well. LOL

      • Leslie says:

        First of all, please remember that I know that Zimmerman’s lying, and I see these things pretty much the same way that you do. The problem is that so many other people do not, because they do not think in ways that are nuanced.

        Secondly, as much as you and I can look at those injuries and roll our eyes, the legal fact is that the injuries do not need to be severe to support Zimmerman defending himself. So dwelling on the minor nature of his injuries is pointless. That he has any injuries at all, is more than adequate to support his contention that he was being hurt by Martin. There are other, more fruitful ways to attack his claim of self-defense then to dwell on the minor nature of his injuries.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Leslie — Am not sure what you mean by “Floridian mindset.” It’s a big, long state that, politically, could divide into two or three. The Florida lawmaker who drafted SYG has published an editorial stating it doesn’t apply to Fogen.

      In public places. case talk has escalated since the trial began, and I’ve rarely overheard anyone offering support to Zimmerman. Even racists know which way the wind is blowing.

      My Hispanic tow truck driver the week before last was irritated that the charge wasn’t M1, and the black/white/Hispanic-filled waiting room at my auto dealership (where I’ll be towed in again tomorrow, given that the electronics problem persists) did not register anything but disgust for Zimmerman. You must be hanging out with a strange crowd.

    • Tzar says:

      Leslie says:
      July 7, 2013 at 1:45 am

      AND because so many crucial moments do NOT have any kind of reliable evidence to counter Zimmerman’s account

      uhm…what is it like in your universe?
      because in mine the time line directly and reliable counters and conflicts Zimmerman’s account around the most crucial moment of all and around many other crucial moments.

      • Leslie says:

        What actual evidence do we have of what actually took place from the time Zimmerman got off the phone? What actual evidence do we have of what actually took place after the call with Jeantel ended? What actual evidence do we have of what happened In the seconds directly preceding the gunshot, and what evidence do we have of what happened in the seconds directly following the gunshot? No one living saw Zimmerman pull out his gun. He claims it was seconds before he shot… But it could easily have been minutes before. He could’ve been holding in his hand the whole time, he could’ve pulled it out in the middle of the fight. Absolutely no living person aside from Zimmerman himself, knows the truth about when the gun came out, And that is something which I would love to have evidence for, since I think he pulled it out long before that final moment. I think the sight of that gun is what made Martin screen. But we have no evidence.

        We also do not have reliable complete evidence for what happened immediately following the shot. We only have Zimmerman story. When I have argued to others Zimmerman’s story about spreading Martin’s arms apart proves he is lying about something to hide something he did that was not kosher, because Martin was found with his arms underneath him, I have been told That Martin did not die instantly, and he could easily have pulled his arms back under himself. I think that is ludicrous, but it is certainly not impossible. The unfortunate truth is that we do not have any reliable evidence for those seconds and minutes directly following the shot… We do not didn’t know the moment that Martin lost consciousness or the moment that his heart stopped beating. We do not have any eyewitnesses can tell us exactly what George Zimmerman did in the split seconds following the shop. Or what Martin did, if anything. That is bad for the prosecution.

        • Leslie says:

          I am using iPad dictation, I apologize for the really strange typos.

        • Tzar says:

          What actual evidence do we have of what actually took place from the time Zimmerman got off the phone?

          Plenty, all the discovery files are available for your review
          . Actually just read this blog (link below) for the last 12-16 months or so. Good luck.

          http://frederickleatherman.com/

          • Leslie says:

            Ther is no evidence for the crucial time periods that I specified, nor is there any evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s claim about when he pulled the gun. Nor is there non-Zimmerman evidence about the shooting itself… Theres a lot of evidence-less gaps, unfortunately, and for some of the most critical parts of the incident. Making it much easier to raise reasonable doubt. All versions of what did or could have happened contain some implausible aspect.

            For instance: I was just introduced to some new information and ideas in the last couple of days… Tracy Martin’s girlfriend and Tracy Martin himself both said on video things which lead one to believe that Trayvon Did actually make it back to his fathers house. They both said he was sitting on the porch outside. Well Zimmerman supporters love this because it supports their notion that Martin made a decision to go after Zimmerman when he didn’t have to.

            So there are two scenarios: among those who believe Zimmerman we are supposed to believe that Zimmerman waited around at the T for no good reason for almost 2 minutes. He just stood there. Okay, why? And that while he was standing there Martin came after him. Martin asked him a question, he replied, and Martin punched in the nose. There’s a lot of implausibility there.

            Or try this instead: Martin makes it all the way home, is on his father’s porch when he sees Zimmerman, who spent the two minutes continuing to look for Martin, approach his father’s house. He steps off the porch goes up to Zimmerman and asks why he’s following him. Zimmerman responds “what are you doing here”, Martin perhaps turns away in a “forget you” kind of a gesture Zimmerman reaches out maybe to touch him to stop him, and Martin whom we know is scared, reacts badly. The struggle/fight/pursuit proceeds south to north, which I understand was the testimony of one or two witnesses. They end up where we know they ended up.

            So far, so good. But then someone pointed out to me: Zimmermans keys/flashlight were found at the T itself… So in order for my scenario to work, the pursuit/fight/struggle would had to have gone all the way up to the T and then back again. THAT seems implausible as well, Particularly given the very small timeframe we’re talking about.

            So what is the answer? What plausibly explains all of that? The location of the evidence, the comments by Martin’s father and girlfriend, The time gap, etc. There are aspects of either story which make more sense but together they can’t both be true. If anyone has a good answer for the keys being at the T that matches the rest of the story please tell me. Other than to say the fight went both all the way north and then back again, because that just doesn’t seem very likely.

            Again, I am absolutely certain that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin as murder is defined in Florida law. But I would be more comfortable if I could explain some of these implausible bits and pieces.

          • cielo62 says:

            Leslie- for one thing, quit reading at the conservative treehouse. The only thing rhy get right is the date on their from page. Neither Tracy nor Brandi were there that might!! What stupid person could think they said he was on the porch? Plus, and I’m sure you couldn’t possibly be dense enough to miss the 5+ hours torture that West did in Dee Dee! Oh wow! A young man spent all his extra free time talking in the phone! Dang girl, you just sound ignorant of this case! Read and then ask intelligent questions! The prosecution does NOT have to present a story; they have to show that GZ is lying. HE needs to present a plausible story, which he can’t.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Tzar says:

            Ther is no evidence for the crucial time periods that I specified,

            Turns out just saying so or typing it on an internet blog does not make it so
            weird how that works :)

          • cielo62 says:

            Tzar~ Yes, weird how one has to actually READ and THINK in order to see what happened!

            ________________________________

          • cielo62 says:

            Tzar- LOL! Just the blog link! Delicious!

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

        • cielo62 says:

          Leslie- we don’t NEED to know WHEN GZ pulled his gun, just the fact that he did do to kill Trayvon is all that matters! And numerous eye witnesses and forensic evidence points to GZs actions after the shot. And there are numerous evidence dumps and dozens of threads already posted about what the available evidence indicates. Best source would be LLLMPapas videos on YouTube for w quick rundown. Otherwise what you ask just shows laziness in getting the answers you want on what has been discussed for over a year.

          FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Leslie says:

            I’m not reading conservative pages, and I have been examining evidence for a long time. Instead of becoming abusive towards me, could You simply be more specific about what it is you believe has been adequately proved? Because the fact that Zimmerman killed Martin is not enough to convict him of murder. It must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did so, which means eliminating the reasonable possibility of self-defense. If you know of evidence which does that, I am very interested in seeing it, since I have not as yet. The problem is that almost everything that people like you and I view as damning to Zimmermans case can also be seen as supporting Zimmerman’s case. Very little evidence has only one possible interpretation. A case in point is the screams: I believe with all my heart that it is Trayvon Martin screaming. There is no scenario in which it makes sense to me that that would be Zimmerman. But as we know, there is no clear cut answer about that: both mothers claimed it is their son. The experts won’t say either way. Nobody saw the mouth of the person screaming. Therefore, while it seems crystal-clear to you and to me, it is not. Other people, many other people, find it fantastical to believe that somebody who was observed on top of Zimmerman would simultaneously be screaming for his life. He appeared to have the advantage. Why would someone who has the advantage be screaming? This is a particularly important question in terms of the gun: if we knew when the gun was pulled out, and we knew that it was out long before Zimmerman said, it would be easier to say that the screams were coming from Martin, who was trying to stop Zimmerman from shooting him.

            Which is my point entire: I have no question about Zimmermans guilt. But what I find disturbing and depressing is the fact that it appears just as easy, if not easier, to believe in his innocence, particularly for people who love guns, operate from fear, and don’t like to think too hard about details. Unfortunately that desribes a lot of people in this country and could easily describe the jury.

            Nothing in this case is cut and dried. Nothing.

            With all due respect, it is important to be able to see through the eyes of others, whether you agree with them or not. Dismissing anyone who views things differently than you do as an idiot who just doesn’t understand maybe personally satisfying but it doesn’t address the reality: an enormous number of people DO see things VERY differently, so the only real,hope we have of reaching them is to first understand how that can be. If we dig into the thought process, perhaps we can find an opening to introduce new thinking.

            Which is why I normally spends time on a forum that has the entire spectrum of thought represented. Listening to an echo chamber isn’t really helpful, not least because it can distort your perception of the larger reality.

            In this case, i was very happy to find Mr. leatherman’s blog because he was one of very view authoritative voices who seemed to feel that things were going well for the prosecution. Since at this point, that appears to be a minority view among legal authorities, I wanted to better understand the reasons he felt that way, in hopes of having some ammunition, if you will, to go back to those people I’ve been debating.

          • cielo62 says:

            Leslie- IANAL. You seem to be asking for cliff notes of a debate that has been evolving for over a year. In the case if people who operate from love of guns and fear, there is NOTHING you can to say to them to change that. That is why voir dire is so crucial to ferret out the people incapable of actually listening to the evidence. To me, the scream is heartbreaking but it doesn’t make or break this case. The forensics of zero DNA on Trayvon’s hands in crucial. No possible way to deliver a life threatening beating without grasping some part of that melon head and digging in. The angle if the bullet entry is also crucial. It cannot be done while on one’s back. Sure one manage a shot from that position but NOT that angle. Those two pieces plus Dee Dees account plus even GZs account of Trayvon RUNNING AWAY point to GZ being the aggressor, stalking, following and lying to make up for killing an unarmed teen. The forensics which do not depend on eye witness testimony are the most damning pieces of guilt. It you argue from that, none of that other baloney matters. To continue to support GZ after that is pure unmovable racism.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • KA says:

            So if Trayvon did move and pull his hands under his chest…it would really show a depraved person who sat on his back pushing blood and air out while Trayvon gurgled and yelped in pain and then realized he was incapacitated and “let go” when Trayvon with all his strength pulled his arms in….

            Meanwhile, GZ called his buddy, talked about the gun and bullets he used and had people take pictures of his head while a dead boy gurgled his last…

            Being alive longer, does not help GZ.

            Let’s talk about screams….

            1) they punctuate at the shot exactly (anyone hearing that in their neighborhood would assume the one shot was the one screaming…think if you heard that from your next door neighbor). Additionally, If GZ did not know he “hit” him, and Trayvon sat up and said thug words, GZ would not have stopped screaming. GZ’s own testimony eliminates this scenario.
            2) The screams on the call only get louder and more desperate. GZ claims he was smothered by mouth and nose pinched. He also claims that his bloody nose was going down his throat (which would initiate an involuntary cough and hacking), and really, try maintaining a constant tone at the same volume by putting your hand over your mouth and pinching your nose…really try it…it doesn’t work…
            3) The neighbors heard running around, chasing, an argument, and scuffling before calling 911. The “he hit me and I fell down and the rest is history” does not jive with that story.

            I suspect, the State will be able to bring together multiple points to show that GZ is excluded from the scream logically or show he is lying about every single other thing he told the police.

            Does he want to choose which scenario is correct for the jury?

          • Leslie says:

            Cielo62:
            “The forensics of zero DNA on Trayvon’s hands in crucial. No possible way to deliver a life threatening beating without grasping some part of that melon head and digging in.”

            I wish this were true. But unfortunately it doesn’t matter. Under the law what matters is whether the jury believes that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of serious injury or death, and that does not require that he have any existing injuries at all. So disproving the severity of Zimmerman’s injuries is somewhat helpful to convincing the jury he’s a big liar, but it doesn’t make any kind of meaningful difference to Zimmerman’s self-defense claim.

            As for the angle, my understanding, which is very flawed because I’m not glued to the trial, is that there has already been testimony stating that the wound is entirely consistent with Zimmerman’s claim of the two mens’ positions. Again, I think we are back to “two possible interpretations” of all or most of the evidence.

            I would really love it if there was something irrefutable in the evidence that makes it impossible for Zimmerman to have acted in self-defense. But so far I haven’t seen it.

            I can only hope the jury is made up of people like me, who really do not have any kind of reasonable or indeed, any doubt AT ALL about whether Zimmerman is guilty. But I’m not holding my breath. I am just crossing my fingers that the defense fumbles it and the prosecution does a flawless close.

          • Xena says:

            @Leslie.

            Under the law what matters is whether the jury believes that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of serious injury or death, and that does not require that he have any existing injuries at all.

            According to GZ, he was no longer in any fear of serious injury nor death when he killed Trayvon. That in fact, GZ had removed all threats of injury and death. Based on his story, he had removed his head off the sidewalk thereby preventing further injury to his head.

            Also based on his story, he removed Trayvon’s hand off his nose by using a wrist lock. Also based on his story, when he unholstered his gun to shoot Trayvon, he had Trayvon’s arm pinned.

        • ChrisNY~Laurie says:

          ME said that Trayvon wouldn’t be able to talk or move after the bullet went through his heart and fragments tore into his lung. And don’t forget that his lungs collapsed. There is your proof that Trayvon did not move once hitting the ground.

          • KA says:

            SO here is a scenario in real life…

            Your kid goes to school, he has been complaining to you about a bully that is threatening to punch him and take his new iPOD. Your son knows the name, the class he has with him, where he sits. The next day your son comes home with a busted lip, no iPOD, and a note that it happened immediately before the exact same period that they are in class together.

            Later, they find this “bully” with an iPOD the same color as your sons, but he denies everything and says his mom bought it. His mom says she didn’t and doesn’t know where he got it. What is your logical conclusion?

            Would you believe the “bully” kid that some else the kid doesn’t know did it? Do you believe that your kid faked his injuries and flushed the iPOD? Do you believe that the threats made previously came true?

            If you had to give that case to a group of moms with sons, what would they believe? The outrageous and improbable or the logical explanation?

            SO goes a jury and court….and they have DNA….

        • diary73 says:

          Leslie says:
          July 7, 2013 at 1:53 pm
          “What actual evidence do we have of what actually took place from the time Zimmerman got off the phone? What actual evidence do we have of what actually took place after the call with Jeantel ended? What actual evidence do we have of what happened In the seconds directly preceding the gunshot, and what evidence do we have of what happened in the seconds directly following the gunshot? No one living saw Zimmerman pull out his gun. He claims it was seconds before he shot… But it could easily have been minutes before. He could’ve been holding in his hand the whole time, he could’ve pulled it out in the middle of the fight. Absolutely no living person aside from Zimmerman himself, knows the truth about when the gun came out, And that is something which I would love to have evidence for, since I think he pulled it out long before that final moment. I think the sight of that gun is what made Martin screen. But we have no evidence.”

          Leslie:

          I am not sure what evidence we have that “proves” what happened in those crucial minutes, but there is plenty of evidence that proves what DID NOT happen, all of which counters GZ’s account.

          1. He did not get punched at the tee and decked with a single blow because Trayvon’s body is not at the tee.

          2. GZ did not shoot right after he shimmied his head off the concrete because Trayvon was killed well into the grass not even clost to concrete.

          3. He did not tell Jonathan to help him restrain “this guy” and not call 911 because he had already called the police. He did not encounter Jonathan until he was walking around the tee after he got off his victim.

          4. Trayvon did not bash his head multiple times into the sidewalk.

          5. Trayvon did not punch him in the face multiple times.

          6. GZ amended his story about getting decked at the tee, adding that he tried to get away. If this is the case, his nose should have begun bleeding externally; however, GZ’s blood was not under Trayvon’s fingernails, nor was his facial blood smudged all over his face. The Photoshopped picture showed fresh glistening blood on his lip appearing to have originated from scrapes to his nose, not the inside of his nostrils.

          7. Rachel Jeantel’s account differs from GZ’s account, which contradicts how GZ says the encounter began.

          8. Although I have no proof of this, I am willing to stake a great deal on the fact that Trayvon never referred to GZ as “Homie.”

          9. The way GZ claims that Trayvon straddled him in an MMA mounting position is impossible: neither could Trayvon see GZ’s gun while in that position, nor could GZ retrieve his gun with Trayvon mounted atop him like that.

          I am sure there is more evidence to counter GZ’s story, but this is all I can think of right now.

          • Leslie says:

            Please keep in mind that I am playing devil’s advocate. I am just showing you how easily others view it, and those others could include the jury:

            diary73 says:

            1. He did not get punched at the tee and decked with a single blow because Trayvon’s body is not at the tee.

            A ) The fact that Trayvon’s body is not there does not disprove his claim of the blow. He could have been knocked down there, the struggle/fight continued for a bit, moving south. The fact that his keys and flashlight were there, and the debris field continues down to Martin’s body suggests that is exactly what happened.

            2. GZ did not shoot right after he shimmied his head off the concrete because Trayvon was killed well into the grass not even clost to concrete.

            I agree, but others shrug this off as a minor obsessive detail that doesn’t really change the substance of Zimmerman’s claim.

            3. He did not tell Jonathan to help him restrain “this guy” and not call 911 because he had already called the police. He did not encounter Jonathan until he was walking around the tee after he got off his victim.

            I am a little unclear, are you simply pointing out an inconsistency? (There are so many inconsistencies that could take a lot of space!) Or was there testimony refuting a claim in evidence by Zimmerman?

            4. Trayvon did not bash his head multiple times into the sidewalk.

            I agree, but what is the EVIDENCE that he did not? (By the way, as I said before, even if there is evidence that this didn’t happen, it doesn’t take self-defense away from Zimmerman)

            5. Trayvon did not punch him in the face multiple times.

            Again, what is the EVIDENCE that he did not punch him? We heard testimony from someone (most of this I’m hearing second hand. so I apologize for errors) that he punched him somewhere between one and 12 times, no way to tell. ANd by someone I mean a medical professional. So the evidence would seem to be that he DID punch Zimmerman, it’s only a question of how many times. Again, doesn’t rob Zimmerman of his self-defense claim.

            6. GZ amended his story about getting decked at the tee, adding that he tried to get away. If this is the case, his nose should have begun bleeding externally; however, GZ’s blood was not under Trayvon’s fingernails, nor was his facial blood smudged all over his face. The Photoshopped picture showed fresh glistening blood on his lip appearing to have originated from scrapes to his nose, not the inside of his nostrils.

            This isn’t evidence of anything positively, it’s evidence which undermines Zimmerman’s claim, but doesn’t take away self-defense.

            7. Rachel Jeantel’s account differs from GZ’s account, which contradicts how GZ says the encounter began.

            Doesn’t’ matter. Jeantel does say that Trayvon initiated the encounter. Many people feel that was Trayvon’s error and it points to Trayvon “attacking” GZ. I don’t agree, but I do understand how others can see it like that, it’s not irrational.

            9. The way GZ claims that Trayvon straddled him in an MMA mounting position is impossible: neither could Trayvon see GZ’s gun while in that position, nor could GZ retrieve his gun with Trayvon mounted atop him like that.

            Again, this isn’t evidence of anything. Zimmerman’s recollection of exact body positions isn’t make-or-break for a self-defense claim. It’s just another big “Huh?”

            “I am sure there is more evidence to counter GZ’s story, but this is all I can think of right now.”

            And nothing that you have offered really counts as evidence of something specific that directly refutes important aspects of Zimmerman’s story which makes his claim of self-defense untenable. It’s all mostly pointing out how the evidence doesn’t really line up with Zimmerman’s account, showing that Zimmerman is, at best, really hazy on the details.At worst, a liar coming up with things to make his story sound good. But if that’s the case, what else do we have besides his story? What evidence exists to replace his story with a different story.

            The jury is entitled to make reasonable inferences from the evidence, but they absolutely need evidence of something, they can’t just decide that he’s a liar so they convict. It doesn’t work like that. If they do that, he’ll win on appeal for sure.

          • cielo62 says:

            Leslie- you are not playing devils advocate, but are playing stupid. Points 4 and 5 were disproved by the lack of DNA found on Trayvon’s hands, shirts and hoodie. How would any beat down occur without any touching? The injuries GZ received were very insignificant , as per both the ME and the PA. The positions of the body was based purely on GZs testimony and it makes ALOT of difference. If someone is straddling you with his knees in your armpits, then the other person effectively prevents you for getting your gun, and also prevents the straddler from even seeing that gun. You are engaging in willfully ignoring both evidence presented and the professionals who presented them. That us not devils advocate. That’s being a troll and a pain in the butt.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            " He could have been knocked down there, the struggle/fight continued for a bit, moving south. The fact that his keys and flashlight were there, and the debris field continues down to Martin’s body suggests that is exactly what happened."

            This is not two pieces of evidence, it is one item, a key with a flashlight attached. It is not evidence of an attack at the Tee because after gz killed Trayvon, he walked to the tee and had every opportunity to plant it there then.

            Just about everything you posted is not true or is something that contradicts the best evidence.

            These are things we pondered a very long time ago and dropped when we figured out the answers, from the evidence and testimony in the evidence dumps and tapes.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I fear Fogen might walk at times for all the reasons you state, but even in Florida there are plenty of people who kill and claim self-defense who end up in prison. After all, despite rabid 2nd Amendment support and rallying around SYG and self-defense, the state really can’t tolerate people playing judge, jury, and executioner, particularly of unarmed minors.

      I’m not a Christian, nor do I believe in God, but I have faith most of the time in the God’s Plan (karma) that Fogen invoked on national / international airwaves. He said it, let it be done.

      • disappointed says:

        I said Friday and I will say it again. My 3rd son broke my nose, I had no idea that I could shoot him dead and be justified. Yep it stills sounds stupid today. :/

        • Two sides to a story says:

          I’ve been beaten and raped (two different incidents) and once manhandled by cops and it never occurred to me that I should be able to kill anyone.

  58. Not Angela Lansbury says:

    Hope this is not off-topic, but I have much more confidence in the state’s case since hearing Mantei’s response to Fogen’s judgment of acquittal motion. Nevertheless, here’s some of the evidence I wish the state had introduced before closing:
    – Austin, the kid with the dog who heard the screams and saw Fogen on the ground ALONE (or obscuring sight of Trayvon, to show that their positions changed from when Jon Good saw them);
    – Fogen’s scream exemplar (help me! help me!) to contrast with the screams on the 911 tape;

    Perhaps we’ll see some of that in the state’s rebuttal case. What evidence, if any, do you all wish had been presented?

    • Nef05 says:

      I wish Serino had been asked about the conflict between fogen’s first three statements claiming he was dropped immediately at the T, and his knowledge of where the body and debris field was, at the actual crime scene. I wish Serino had been asked if he saw the conflict between where fogen said he first saw Trayvon, in the first interview – and the place he said he first saw Trayvon, in the subsequent interviews. I wish the fact that he had told Dt. Singleton AND his medical professional that the EMTs told him his nose was “broken” was debunked, by the EMT on the stand, with the report. I wish the testimony had shown that he refused EMT transportation according to the report, rather than allowing the EMT to state for the record “someone?” decided that he wouldn’t go, unless the SPD took him. I wish that it had been made evident that fogen had washed his hands, despite all evidence retention protocol.

      I wish the prosecution had stressed the lie that W13 had seen fogen on top of Trayvon, said he was going to call 911, and fogen said no. Since W13 always said he first saw fogen standing at the T where the key chain flashlight was conveniently found, and never mentions him on top of the body. I wish the conversation bet. Singleton and fogen regarding “authoriteh” as opposed to having to shoot in fear, had been brought out. I wish Jenna’s sworn statement of “what are you doing…, what are you…” which independently corroborates Rachel, had come out, along with her “following” Jr. on Twitter.. and more, including the two things you mentioned.

      • Not Angela Lansbury says:

        Thanks, Nef. Yes, I agree the state could’ve done better with some of the witnesses. Hopefully, the defense resurrects them so the state can take a second crack.

    • Malisha says:

      Well I believe they can enter the exemplar “help me help me” now that uncle and mommy have testified that was Fogen screaming.

      • Not Angela Lansbury says:

        Very good point, Malisha. That testimony was actually what prompted my question. I found myself wishing the state had introduced Fogen’s screams in their own case so they could play it for uncle and mom during cross exam and ask them if they recognized *those* screams as well.

    • Leslie says:

      Can you tell me what Fogen stands for? Zimmerman, obviously, but why?

  59. aussie says:

    He’s been taking notes. For the first time ever,he’s seen all his stories laid out in the space of a few days. He’s seen what the prosecution has picked as discrepancies.

    He could get on the stand, with the advantage of having had two weeks to make up a story. Other times he only had 2 minutes or 2 hours. NOT FAIR. Get up and tell a story that is the same in broad outlines. Say yes back then I said XYZ but then I was in shock or people confused me by suggesting things, putting words in my mouth, or I’d had no sleep (yep his phone records will show that) and was in shock, NO I had PTSD actually (to go with ADD and IBS and the rest of the alphabet he suffers from).

    And so tell a story that explains away or excuses the discrepancies. So he can’t be crossed or impeached on those.

    And that leaves just the important bit — that he did get bashed enough to fear for his life. Well yeah, by then he was shit scared and really terrified. Well no, he had NOT followed and stalked Trayvon. True this didn’t happen at the T. But he’d lost him, he was long gone. And while trying to get that lousy tactical flashlight going he noticed something else, something totally unrelated, that needed checking out. Which up to now he’d forgotten about from the shock of the attack. Like something that looked like a dog (he loves dogs and this one looked like in trouble) or someone’s porch door open when the lights were off so they weren’t home or something, to make him go down the doggie path. Maybe he actually followed a stray looking dog down there. (YEAH the one that boy had that he said he was walking there???)

    So. Totally forgetting about Trayvon, believing him to be long gone, he follows a stray dog down the path. What the heck, he’s already soaked, may as well do his duty some more. And then POUNCE from the bushes. Down there there’s bigger bushes, in the cut-throughs between buildings. He nearly shits himself from the unexpected attack, so that makes him feel it’s worse than it really is. HE sees a flash of something in the hands, too, only later now realises it must have just been the phone, it looked like a weapon.

    HELP HELP HELP but no-one came. One guy offered to call the cops but that didn’t help get this attacker off him, he was sure to be dead by the time they get here. Running out of time, like he told Hannity.

    CRY, BIG tears. Accept kleenex from MOM, not use his sleeve for a change. Thought would never see my beloved Shellie, Mom, Papa etc etc etc ever again. Bury face in hands. Still can’t really believe I survived. Still can’t really believe I was forced to kill somebody for it.

    On cross? the discrepancies he’s already explained away, he hopes that’s the end of those, they won’t be crossed. Well, yeah, didn’t really trust the police to tell them this, after the first one where he made mistakes from shock, didn’t think they’d believe him. Can’t really trust them (remember the ride-along??) that’s one reason he decided better to be a judge not a cop.

    The fight? the minor injuries? well, they FELT REAL BAD and the suddenness of it made them feel even worse. TRIED to fight back but kept trying to grab the arms but kept missing. FINALLY managed to grab one wrist and twist around enough to grab THE gun. Didn’t go to hospital because so relieved to be still alive, thought was going to be okay. Only later at home realised how bad he was. All a slow-motion nightmare after that, knows acted normal but can’t even remember the drive to the station. (Conveniently, so can’t recall any convo with Smith, either).

    More big tears. Big embarrassed grimace. “Maybe I’m a coward, much as I hate to admit it, but I was shit scared. Terrified. Really really sorry to cause all this trouble, just from embarrassment at owning up to not being brave.”

    ~~~ Aussie, scriptwriter to the stars. (ok ok, to the black holes then?)

    And nobody will believe one damn word of it, not even those who’ve not already read this.

    On cross he’ll get angry and bullying, alternating with petulant, that they dare ask about things he’s already explained away. But instead of “can’t remember” he’ll keep saying ” too terrified, was trying not to take it all in.”

    Still nobody will believe a word of it, outside of CTH and similar.

    The tears will be real when they put the handcuffs on. .

    • aussie says:

      oh, forgot. Gosh this writing lies is hard work. When he got jumped he didn’t even realise it was the same guy. He’d totally forgotten about him, was concentrating on the dog. He does have ADD you know. That means poor memory and SHORT ATTENTION SPAN.

    • vickie s. votaw says:

      That is truly scary, Aussie, if he gets on the stand & says that, I’m gonna be sick!

    • My Forehead Tho says:

      LOL

      That might be better than the show his uncle put on yesterday. If Fogen takes the stand, we all know what to expect when confronted with his inconsistencies:

      1. He’ll repeat his original answer as if it makes it more credible the second time

      2. When that doesn’t work, he try introduce more lies to explain those lies

      2. When that doesn’t work, he’ll develop amnesia

  60. DruDo says:

    I can’t sleep because this is weighing so heavily on my mind. I don’t believe he’ll take the stand, either. He’s a coward. I also don’t believe he’ll be acquitted. He said he was not afraid of TM. He said he didn’t believe TM had a weapon. He deliberately got out of his vehicle and followed TM after being advised not to. Trayvon ran from him. Trayvon was doing nothing wrong, other than looking “suspicious” to CAC. Wearing a hoodie in the rain is NOT “suspicious”, especially to mothers. His “justifications” for killing Trayvon are obviously now non-existent. He lied about his “injuries” and that’s now very apparent to anyone with half a brain. Why lie if not to attempt to justify killing a kid? The screams SOUND like a kid, not an adult grown man. He had no REASON to kill Trayvon. He has been shown to be aggressive and violent towards women, law enforcement and and animals. The jury is made up of women, two whom are animal rescuers, five are mothers. If I were on that jury, I’d also be thinking that he fired a gun in the midst of and extremely close to occupied residences and obviously didn’t care. I’d also be thinking he was pissed off and in a hostile mood right off the bat. The jury may surprise a lot of people. Although, I can’t help but think about how easily Casey Anthony walked out of that courtroom free as a bird, so yes, I’m worried. I’m hoping the jury thinks about the plain, simple facts and the seemingly endless minute details will boil down to common sense and logic.

    • Xena says:

      @DruDo.

      Although, I can’t help but think about how easily Casey Anthony walked out of that courtroom free as a bird, so yes, I’m worried.

      Don’t worry.
      Casey said she didn’t kill her daughter. The State had circumstantial, but no direct evidence. As Mantei said in court Friday, GZ’s case is not a “who done it” case.

      • Soulcatcher says:

        Casey said Zanny the Nanny kidnapped her, and went as far as to make up a couple of dozen people who never exsisted. There was so much circumstantial evidence, there should have been no question Casey did it. The problem is as the one jurior stated, she didn’t believe it was their duty to “connect all the dots,” and that the prosecution was required to answer every question about Caylee’s death, including why and how it was committed.

        Yes it was their job to connect the dots, but that would require them to spend time to do so, and they found it easier to believe it was an accident. Had they done their job and connected the dots, instead of thinking they had the right to expect it had to be laid out on a platter for them, and explain everthing, including things that wern’t required from the prosacution, Casey would have been found guilty. They wanted to go home.

        I must have argued for days to an investigative reporter who wrote an article in favor for the jury. I said look at all her lies, and her reponse was a liar doesn’t mean she’s a killer. We came to a truse, and both stood by our beliefs. I said if in the future, what I thought was going to happen, didn’t, I would discuss it further. I won, I did happen.

        • DruDo says:

          Soul, I agree, and also consider this: the U.S. Supreme Court has stated in Holland v. United States that “circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence” Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials. I don’t think juries are thoroughly advised that the circumstances are often as, if not more, valid as direct evidence. There was more than enough circumstantial evidence to convict CA, and, as terrible as this sounds, I believe if CA had been a black woman, there would have been a conviction without hesitation. As far as GZ is concerned, he readily admitted to killing Trayvon, but has lied repeatedly about the circumstances. Hopefully, the jury will use common sense and logic and send him to prison for a very long time.

      • DruDo says:

        Xena, my concern comes from the fact that it’s the same area, only miles apart, where it seems that the mindset of many is that it’s ok to not even arrest the murderer of a young black boy until practically forced to do so by a petition signed by thousands demanding GZ’s arrest. There seems to be an apathetic attitude towards justice for a black person, particularly in that area, regardless of the circumstances. I sincerely hope I’m wrong.

    • Malisha says:

      Casey Anthony did not admit to killing her baby.
      Fogen admits to killing Trayvon Martin.
      Only his motive is at issue.

      • Malisha says:

        And of all the motives in the world, self-defense is the second least likely.

        What’s “least likely” you ask?

        A lover’s quarrel.

  61. Elizabeth says:

    Here is something that just occurred to me (while relistening to an LLMPapa Vid. of Zimmerman Senior at the link LonnieStar provided in previous thread) about the whole needing
    to get an address to give to the police so they can meet him when
    they arrive.
    So after he stopped following Trayvon he walked to the next street
    over of which he did know the name got an address and started to walk back to his vehicle.
    So he could tell them where he is at?
    If he is going to be back at his vehicle which is NOT at the address
    he just got that just doesn’t make sense at all.
    Sorry to rehash again just lurking as usual from the city of amsterdam.

    • Soulcatcher says:

      @Elizabeth, I’ve made that same comment before. It makes no sense. He also says another time, that he’s sujppose to meet with an officer that he called. What officer is that, and why then if your suppose to meet with him there, why are you walking back to your shruck? We all know he got out of his truck when he said oh shit hes running, to get the asshole, he wasn’t going to get away this time. He’s angry, fucking coon (or punk if that’s what you hear).

      • You all have thoughtful comments says:

        Exactly, Soulcatcher, after he supposedly said that he would not follow anymore, it DID indicate to the NEN dispatcher that he would NOT meet the arriving police at his truck.

        It was simply, “Could you have them call me, and I will tell them where I am at?” And the dispatcher told him “Yes.”

        This invalidates his excuse that he was going back to his truck.

        • degraveegmailcom says:

          To me it invalidates he was looking for an addres.
          No, he continued to follow hence ” Oh shit the n…behind me”
          And within 3 minutes TM was blasted straight through the
          heart!
          Does anybody think Defendant would have been found dead
          at the scene if he hadn’t killed trayvon?
          No way! And he heard and saw people around while Trayvon was
          still alive so that should have greatly diminished defendants fear for his life.Very unreasonable to pull out a gun let alone fire it.
          Not opinion, fact.

          • Rachael says:

            I absolutely do NOT believe he would have been found dead or even “injured” further because none of that was happening. GZ says he was calling for help but no one would come. Why weren’t people “actively” helping you George? Because you had a kid at gunpoint. We can hear him screaming, saying “I don’t know.” What were you asking him? Why did people run inside and call 911 instead of helping you GZ? Maybe because you didn’t need any “help?” Maybe because they went to “passively” ask for help because you had a gun on a kid and they were afraid of YOU – afraid you might shoot them?

    • Tzar says:

      he also never gives the address to anyone
      so why was he going to get it again?

      • fauxmccoy says:

        tzar says

        he also never gives the address to anyone
        so why was he going to get it again?

        i believe it was aussie who summed this up succinctly, many months ago and which i can only paraphrase

        so, the defendant gets out of his vehicle to obtain an address, for which he was not asked, at which no ‘action’ was taking place, and which he never relayed to dispatch.

        at that point, one must begin to consider the motives of mr. defendant and ask if this is a self-serving lie.

    • PYorck says:

      There is also the issue that the T is a very important location now, but it wasn’t at the time.

      How was that supposed to go?

      “Officer, here is the house number of a random house way over there on the other side of the block where I lost sight of the vaguely suspicious guy I encountered a quarter mile away.” — “Thanks… I guess.”

      • colin black says:

        Walking over to get a street name an address three streets in the retreat.

        An the street he alleges he walked over to was the one he lived/squatted on?

        Lies I hate liars that insult the listners intelegence from the mouth of an imbicile..

      • Malisha says:

        I made a comment on a previous thread that Fogen was going to find a house number where “the suspect” wasn’t! Great idea! I could have easily given all the cops in the world a house number where “the suspect” wasn’t: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC. Problem solved. Homie.

    • colin black says:

      My third Favourate City in the World After Edinburgh..New Dehli

      Love Centre Strasse an the Hillside Blues coffee shop.

      Named after the old tv show.

      An the shop all you can eat an help yourdelf buffet 5 euro breakfasts.ect used to make up sandwiches for the entire day .Love LOve Love Amsterdam an Rotterdam isn’t to shabby either

      Infact I love the Dutch full stop.

      Bet your none to enamoured with the Brits an there boorish drunken behaviour though.

      • sadlyyes says:

        favorite city Venice,St.Marks sq.Any little sq.South of France,Love Edinb.too,New Delhi,but too spread out,so how abou tPink City Jaipur?Holland has most wunderfull,Indonesian food Rice Table,and pannenkoeken….well when the worlds at peace…it can be a beautiful place….eh?

    • pat deadder says:

      Why didn’t he give the address he got from rvc to the dispatcher if that’s what he went there to get.What bs.

  62. Tee says:

    I believe that the defense think that we Americans are stupid. I must admit that some of us definitely are those that try to justify why it is ok to follow a kid at night, Its never ok to follow a kid, never! These lying azz people know that they themselves would be scared shitless if someone was driving behind them then got out and continued following on foot. Imagine how a kid would feel, imagine how your 17 yr old daughter would feel, boys get scared too. His lying ass won’t come near that witness stand!

  63. Tee says:

    Tell me anyone, why the NEN never got the suppose address that he went to get. You see how that fool looked to his left to say that there was no addresses because this is the back of the homes but wouldnt look right because this fool know that he is standing right in by the front of all them homes with all their addresses facing the street. No police officer called him on it, I call BS on them.

    • Soulcatcher says:

      He looks like a fool to suggest he was going to look for an address in the first place. They never asked him for one. He also says when he tells nen that he doesn’t see him anymore, they asked him if They never asked him that, and the fool even answers.

      • MedicineBear says:

        He totally looks like a fool — but how stoopit does that make the tools who are swallowing this BS?

        I don’t know why there has ever been a serious consideration of his many “address” lies — NONE of them make ANY rational sense!

        1) The NEN dispatcher asked where his shtruck was parked — IT WASN”T PARKED ON RVC where he said he went “for an address”
        2) fogen was STILL ON THE LINE WTH NEN WHEN HE GOT TO RVC (according to his own recorded words in reenactment) and yet didn’t give the address to NEN
        3) fogen “couldn’t remember the street name” of TTL — so he went over to RVC (the street he lives on and COULD remember) “to find a STREETSIGN”!!!

        *sputter*fluffle*sputter* arrrrrrrfggggggh . . . I can’t bear to list any more or I’ll blow a gasket.

        WTF?!! He says he “forgot” the street name of TTL and went over to RVC to find the street sign for TTL?! WHY does this lame-azz flaming nuclear LIE continue to be brought up?

        fogen doesn’t tell good lies, or clever lies, or believable lies — he tells FREDDY KRUEGER LIES. They just won’t die!

      • Malisha says:

        He didn’t realize the NEN call was going to be recorded; he thinks the universe has to fall in line in agreement with his bullshit.

        • DruDo says:

          Malisha, you’re so right. It never ceases to amaze me that some think if it comes out of his mouth…well, gosh, it MUST be true! Although, in reality, even his screwball admirers know darned good and well he’s a liar, but they’re no different than he is, so it suits them.

    • tashatexas77048 says:

      The SPD are the dumbest bunch of S.o.b.’s alive. Allow me to vent for a spell please. What was the purpose of taking him back to the scene to retrace his steps and then fail to have him reenact exactly what happened based on the NEN call? -If they really wanted to know the truth they let him drive and play the NEN call and have him show them exactly what happened based on the recorded tape. They match that to what he told Det. Singleton and then promptly take his birch ass to jail. Case closed!

      • tashatexas77048 says:

        Meant bitchass lol

      • bettykath says:

        What the walk-thru did is give fogen the chance to spin another tale. It seems that fogen didn’t know the nen call was recorded so he spun his tale when some things he had previously said didn’t add up, e.g. “he jumped out of the bushes” but there are no bushes, the suspect said, blah blah, and hit my wittle nose and knocked me down but this is a long way from where Trayvon ended up. SPD did it right. Serino and Singleton both thought he wasn’t telling the truth so they gave him another chance. He told more fibs. It makes the case against him even stronger.

        • tashatexas77048 says:

          I’m saying if they had made him do a real reenactment, they would have seen right away that his timeline didn’t add up and Chief Lee would have been even more hard pressed to explain why Fogen was set free. His location per the NEN call is IMPOSSIBLE to explain away. He jumped out of his car near the mailboxes and a true walk thru with the NEN call would have shown that clearly. It also would have smashed the TM circled his car lie as well made Fogen explain why 1 min and 23 secs after he exits his car hes asked for an address and his response was he didn’t know. They didn’t properly use his own recorded voice against him and that’s inexcusable.

          • DruDo says:

            “It also would have smashed the TM circled his car lie”
            Exactly. It’s beyond ridiculous that TM would have circled his car, then ran. That makes absolutely no sense.

      • Malisha says:

        Their purpose was to AVOID taking his a55 to jail; from the beginning, that was their purpose.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      It was mentioned by BDLR during Serino’s testimony, thank goodness.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Just an excuse to wander. SPD knew the area, knew the clubhouse address, could probably pull the addresses and names of most everyone in RTL. And Fogen damn well knows it too.

  64. Soulcatcher says:

    opps sorry, they ask him if he still wants to meet with an officer

  65. Nef05 says:

    I am dismayed by the lack of tolerance toward fellow posters who may have a different opinions they’d like to express.

    I’m dismayed by the eagerness to form a clique, leaving those who don’t find it necessary to run with the crowd and mealy mouth the same opinion, unwelcome.

    I’m dismayed at the number of statements, in the post I’m replying to, that are factually incorrect.

    I’m further dismayed by those who know those statements are inaccurate, yet cosign the post, anyway.

    I’m dismayed by those who feel that if support is not expressed in “their” acceptable manner, it is not acceptable at all, regardless if the final goal is the same, on the same page as the others.

    I’m dismayed by someone who can dismiss major forensic evidence like blood flow from the head, and misalignment of the shirt holes to bullet wound from those whose perspective is not “acceptable” – but finds no hypocrisy in touting the benefits of small questions regarding the button and the pinpricks as establishing the bare bone of the case, from his own perspective.

    I’m dismayed by the absolute insistence that a “tie-in” is solely a part of the closing argument and that anyone who disagrees doesn’t understand that another time is not the time to do that. This, despite more than one comment by the blog’s owner that that is absolutely not the case.

    I am dismayed by the intolerance and invalidation of the points made by long-time respected posters, besides myself, as well as some newbies – simply from their point of view.

    I ask myself – what is the purpose of this post. It divides, it intimidates those who don’t hold the same cookie-cutter, rainbow and glitter view, it perpetuates a mentality of “us” and “them” even within out own group and even though it holds to a position that is in opposition to that of the blog owner it appears to be acceptable. And, WHY?? This is not what we do. We only do this to trolls. Not people like Whonoze, willisnewton, mrsdoubtfire, type1juve, Medicinebear,Nef, Brandy, Tasha, Drudo, KateW, RobertSF, etc. THESE are not TROLLS!

    It’s not acceptable. We are many, diverse, and individual. And differing points of view, as long as they are respectful, are as valued as we hold out fellow posters to be valued. We are not homogeneous. We ALL have something to offer and it should be valued. We’re not the outhouse, and I’ll be darned if I’ll let us turn into it without fighting for what’s real and valuable – this group of contributors, with ALL their perspectives and opinions.

    Original post:

    http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/07/06/will-the-defendant-testify-or-not-testify/#comment-178218

    • Nef05 says:

      My response:
      ““Many” are not “flipping out”. “Some” have voiced concerns, as is their right to do, in this space provided for it. Nor, have they said, it’s all over. Rather they’ve expressed their wish that things could have gone differently, as is ALSO their right, in this space provided for it.

      The case in chief is about evidence, and contrary to what you’ve posted, the misalignment of the bullet holes to the bullet wound IS forensic evidence, and was subject to it’s own article by the Professor, when this evidence was released, complete with measurements and followed up by LLMPapa.

      Clearly, even the professor knows the case in chief is more than just presenting evidence or he would not have posted about the summary witness OR the fact that he didn’t agree with the fact they didn’t use one.
      So first, they have by no means rested their case, and second, they have a measure of control over where this goes. Consider statements from the prosecution throughout, and Mantei’s amazing delivery yesterday (I really hope he does the closing): they know and even anticipate what the defense is going to say about whichever aspect or issue, and have prepared themselves to either shoot these down as they occur or pre-empt them completely.
      So, first they HAVE rested their case, and while they can shoot the defense down, they can no longer “pre-empt” them, since by definition, that means going first, and in the defense case in chief, THEY go first with direct exam and the prosecution has to go second with cross. The time to “pre-empt” them is past.

      “anticipate what the defense is going to say about whichever aspect or issue, and have prepared themselves to either shoot these down as they occur or pre-empt them completely” Anticipate = future, what the defense is GOING to = future, have prepared themselves to = future, either shoot them down OR pre-empt them – future.

      I can see where this is going, and I’m really not worried. It’s a much nicer space to be in than fretting and carrying on and bashing the State for not doing things you think they should have done not realizing that the case-in-chief is not the time to do this.

      Good for you. But, expressing our concerns in an environment we believed we were freely able to express out doubts in, and not have them subject to hyperbolic extremes, invalidated or dismissed, then to have them subject to that exact response; is offensive. None of us are fogen supporters.

      The Professor has been so generous as too provide ALL of us with a space to comment on the trial and legal issues in particular, as long as it’s done respectfully to others. It’s not an echo chamber. It’s supposed to be an area of debate and discussion regarding those matters where people can express their opinions, fears, trepidations, and matters they feel are a genuine subject for debate in a legal sense. NOT to have their opinions invalidated because you don’t feel they’re valuable, as erudite as you are, or what you agree with. Some people even choose to vent here (empathizing w/Sybrina, crying during the teacher’s testimony, being moved unbearably by Trayvon’s 18th birthday and the anniversary of his murder). If YOU don’t think their opinions are valuable, scroll past them. But, pontificating in some major all-inclusive, generalized post about how many “don’t realise what the case in chief is not the time to do this” when the professor has CLEARLY stated otherwise, is presumptuous.

      “In its case-in-chief, the State’s lawers call witnesses and introduce evidence. They don’t wander around pontificating to the jury and presenting what they think happened and how, say, blood can’t defy gravity, or that the Z blood on the bottom of Trayvon’s sweatshirt “proves” Z was holding onto him, therefore the stretched fabric and so the misalignment. THAT IS PART OF THE CLOSING when everything is brought together… carrying on and bashing the State for not doing things you think they should have done not realizing that the case-in-chief is not the time to do this.”


      Second, the prosecution always ends its case-in-chief with what we call a wind-up or summary witness who ties everything together with the aid of charts, graphs and timelines that bring the evidence into focus. I am anticipating that FDLE Detective Gilbreath will be the witness and Bernie de la Rionda will ask the questions that steers him through the maze and haze.
      Frederick Leatherman says:
      July 5, 2013 at 2:20 pm
      State’s going to rest without a windup witness.

      I disagree with that move.”

      http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/07/06/will-the-defendant-testify-or-not-testify/#comment-178564

    • Trained Observer says:

      Nef — Your dismay noted. Actually, I think there’s quite a bit of tolerance here for assorted theories and variations on finer points based on established facts.

      Where it gets vexing is when some troll or individual just woefully behind and/or uninformed comes parachuting in with irrelevant (at this juncture) distractions in making silly statements like “Shellie is a nurse” or “Trayvon had a gun.”

      Distracting junk like that serves no purpose other than to annoy …

      Far more encouraging, IMO, is how different posters seize and parse on varying aspects of the case to help put together the puzzle of what really happened and how it should be dealt with at trial. Even more inspiring is how the State, knowing more than we do, has built its murder case against Fogen, brick by brick.

      During daily testimony this past two weeks, the diversity of what rang bells with each of us hearing the same info at the same time has been remarkable and key. Similarly, each juror also will react to this same testimony, zeroing into what individually grabs their attention.

      I tune out on the address stuff, although I know many feel Fogen’s tales on that are important. Yet I’m all ears on who called or texted who before and after the shot. It’s a fair assumption Smith failed to approach the murder scene with his gun drawn,as per protocol, because he knew Fogen had offed his suspect. Others on this board are far more into trajectory of the hollow point.

      So Nef, I’m thinking this forthcoming week will allow you to dial back on the dismay and consternation and will enable us all to reap fruits of our collective study, research, debate, and healthy argumentation on this Leatherman blog. Onward.

      • Nef05 says:

        TO – I wasn’t the one attempting to “stifle” debate and healthy argumentation. Would you like quotes?

        I wasn’t the one who showed intolerance for assorted theories, and variations on finer facts. Would you like quotes?

        I don’t have a problem with people who parse and come up with various aspects? Would you like quotes?

        Why on EARTH, am I being “handled” when the person who actually said these things, implied other things, and telling other people what they should think, according to HIS perspective.
        Would you like quotes?

        Let HIM dial back – I was perfectly fine until he started telling people what they should think, how they should post, and implying that HE has the only definitive opinion. But, I should dial back, because I object to such blatant control issues? Really?

        By the way – I was ONE of those who was upset about the prosecution’s presentation. He was talking about ME, among others. Not a single person said jack to him – but I’M wrong.

      • Malisha says:

        TO, the person who said “Trayvon had a gun” meant “Trayvon did not have a gun.” The sense of the sentence and the context of the point they were making — shows this was a typo, not a real mistake. I understood it that way, anyway. I forgot who it was, but they meant FOGEN knew that Trayvon did NOT have a gun.

        • Trained Observer says:

          Malisha, did they? Same person in same post stated Shellie is a nurse … and when told “no” by more than one poster/responder, came back by insisting she’s a “student nurse.”

          (Also wrong, and truly an insult to nurses and student nurses around the world.)

          During most of the stalking, Fogen wouldn’t have known whetherTrayvon was not armed until frisky him late in the fracas . As twisted as Fogen’s mind is, he may have fantasized that he was. None of us knows, so that was not what was being suggested in the post. .

          At any rate, I get suspicious of those who casually drop in misinformation (a la O’Mara and West), which serves to confuse or to allow someone else to say “Well, I read in the Leatherman blog that Shellie was a nurse and Trayvon had a gun.” … Just a distracting, vexing occurence.

          • cielo62 says:

            Malisha~ I thoroughly concur. I can name a few such “word droppers”.

            ________________________________

          • aussie says:

            Some people have not spent their whole past year examining every piece of evidence. They are bound to have a few points they’ve glossed over. Like whether Shellie was a nurse or not. IMMATERIAL little side issues, really.

            You know how often I’ve seen it asked, how was GZ going shopping with no money on him? using this to “prove” he wasn’t going shopping at all. When (1) it does not PROVE it and (b) he did have a wallet which wasn’t taken off him for evidence. But I keep telling people this and they keep saying ‘He had no money how could he be going shopping”. Another side issue, really. But shows how many people here have NOT read every word, not did the math on every log, not mapped the timelines.

            So what?

            They still somehow ended up with the RIGHT STORY. Ended up with ENOUGH facts to see that GZ is not telling the truth. Ended up totally discounting the GZ camp’s lies against Trayvon NOT ONLY because they are blatantly disgusting demonisation, but because the FACTUAL EVIDENCE proves those stories wrong.

            Give people a pass if they don’t know about Shellie’s non-nursing or GZ’s calling the cops on his landlord. Really these minor points don’t matter.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I see nothing wrong with Puck’s post. He / she is a respected poster with some very cogent arguments. The post you point to expresses some valid concerns and is well developed. It doesn’t personally attack anyone.

      I’m more concerned with people who post their wild theories as fact without actually checking the facts and who spend most of their time calling Fogen and his family ugly names. Some of these people will personally attack you if you call them on it, questioning your support.

      I appreciate that these are TM supporters, but come on . . . how much value is there in that behavior? I do appreciate that people need a forum to vent in and that we’ve probably at one time or another flung some ish around in our frustration with Fogen and his defense team.

      • Nef05 says:

        And so are most of us, to whom his comments referred.

        “Many are flipping out that the State didn’t show or prove or talk about this or that bit that we’ve figured out, and that that means it’s all over.:” (flipping out = personal attack)

        It’s invalidating and belittling their concerns they’ve expressed regarding the prosecution’s presentation. There were hardly any trolls this week as you know. Certainly not enough to be called “many”.

        “THAT IS PART OF THE CLOSING when everything is brought together… carrying on and bashing the State for not doing things you think they should have done not realizing that the case-in-chief is not the time to do this.” (bashing the state = personal attack)

        First of all – WRONG! And “who” is he to say that? Let’s not even deal with the Prof saying Th/Fr about a summary witness who would do EXACTLY the tie-in he thinks is solely relegated to the closing. What about those of us who actually read the professor’s articles, have some informed opinions and would like to express them in the section the Professor and C-S provided? Who is he to stifle our informed opinions? Start his own darn blog.

        How much value is there in telling other posters what opinions they should and should not form/express, based on his, which is flawed from jump.

        It was nonsense. He criticized others for mentioning blood flow and bullet hole misalignment, major forensics. Then he was happy to add buttons and pinpricks, as important from HIS perspective to make a “bare bones case” (Because apparently blood flow and bullet hole misalignment wouldn’t make a “bare bones case”, you see.). You may feel it was valid. I have no problem with your opinion, because it’s yours and you’re entitled to express it. I, however, do not feel it was valid. That’s my opinion.

        • Puck says:

          I waffle as to whether to respond or let this go even as I type this. I’m done with being adversarial in my replies to your blistering comments.

          Nef, I’ve always liked you, we’ve had some good if brief exchanges here, and I don’t want that to change. And I will admit that perhaps my choice of words wasn’t the best in places. But the point of my writing the original comment — which, again, most of those who commented understood — was to acknowledge my understanding of the very justified concerns of “many” here, and try and offer a measure of reassurance in my own way, from my own perspective as a sociologist with paritcular expertise in social psychology. Perhaps this perspective makes me come off as a bit dispassionate, aloof, or even snobbish. I’m sure you can think of other adjectives, but I really don’t think you need to reply to this with these to further vilify me. (You also directly implied I was a troll.) You and others speak of how everyone here brings their own unique perspective and opinions and talents to this board. Does that apply to everyone except me? And I am no Unitron.

          My comment on the state not having really rested should be clear now after two or three clarifications. I refer to “resting a case” in the misinterpreted colloquial sense of the state being done. They’re not. I don’t think I need to explain what I meant yet another time.

          But your last comment seems to really amp up my mention of things like the button and the nose pricks as if I were dismissing the blood flow and bullet hole misalignment. I never did that. Yes, perhaps the state could have asked Rao or Bao if to their knowledge blood can defy gravity — a question that would have been objected to and sustained, but would have rung a bell. I, too, was hoping for that. However, the notion that since it (or whatever else) didn’t come up in the case-in-chief means the state lost their chance to make those arguments is what I was trying to dispel by reminding people that there are things that WE (even I) think the state should have brought up that are in fact either improper for a case-in-chief or can still be argued and demonstrated. That’s really the essence of the entire original offending (to you and Sophia33 at least) post: yes, it’s okay to worry that these things might not be explored at all, but we should at least try to have some measure of confidence that since many of these things were indeed mentioned, some along with direct evidence introduced, yet not yet explained, that they will be. And those who commented on my original post — except you — understood that. I want you to understand what I meant too, so that we can get on with watching and discussing the trial within the very safe refuge of this blog, our community, our vibrant collective sanctuary from the cesspit of the pro-GZ virtual community. I am as grateful to have found this place as everyone else.

          • Malisha says:

            I wish the state had put on two more witnesses before resting: Galbreath or someone else from FDLE and definitely a physiologist to point out that it is not possible for a person to DO what Fogen claims he did while being pounded to death.

            But they know their case and their plan and (a) maybe it’s a better one than I can perceive at this time and/or (b) if they really ARE trying to throw the case there is not a damn thing I can do about it or ever could have done about it; that expresses my full realization of my helplessness in the world. Which sometimes makes me wish I had a gun with 7 bullets in it, but only fleetingly and only in the worst moments.

          • Puck says:

            Indeed, I was shocked that Gilbreath or someone else from FDLE wasn’t called. That could be an indication of the state thring to throw the case, but it could also indicate that they didn’t feel that was necessary because what they have for rebuttal and closing does whatever an FDLE witness could have but better.

          • Two sides to a story says:

            I don’t see any problem with anyone giving their general opinion even if it opposes others’ opinions. I don’t see Puck putting out personal attacks and don’t see why anyone else who feels the opposite way that Puck does would even care.

            Don’t see any point in getting too attached to one’s stance because ultimately we’re all here to support Trayvon and we’re all ultimately from various walks of life, etc. We’re bound to hold some different worldviews and to see things differently.

            As long as someone states their differences civilly, it should be enough to counter an opinion civilly if you feel inclined to argue. It shouldn’t be personal.

        • bellesouth says:

          “(flipping out = personal attack)”
          “(bashing the state = personal attack)”
          These are in- the-eyes-of-the-beholder kind of arguments. I have not seen any evidence of Puck admonishing. I thought he was trying to be a bit comforting. So like I said. It’s all in the eyes of the beholder, from here anyway.

          I am interested though. Can the state bring out rebuttal witnesses after the defense has rested? In any case, I agree with Puck that the closing arguments will be a perfect place
          to tie everything together because everything they need to prove their case is in evidence. Mantei could lay it out like he did except he doesn’t have to use case law. He can only use what is in evidence. The facts lead straight to 2nd degree murder, IMO.

          • Two sides to a story says:

            I took it more as a comforting remark than a bashing remark.

          • cielo62 says:

            Two Sides/ as did I. There are several folks I could name who have loud and negative reactions to many things. We all need to hang tight.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

      • whonoze says:

        Nef:

        I think your general concerns about group-think and tolerance here are well taken. I hope we can focus on the big picture, rather than your specific complaints with Puck’s comment, which it seems to me you misinterpreted. If I might attempt a bit of ironic levity: it seems there’s been a series of bad posts in out virtual neighborhood, and the assholes have been getting away with it, and Puck just happened to be walking through the blog at the moment you got as mad as hell and couldn’t take it anymore.

        It’s my feeling that folks here are way too eager to label anyone who departs from the consensus perspectives as trolls or zidiots. Tasha recently got severely trashed for her negativity. I have been pilloried several times for daring to suggest that TM was not a saint, but rather a typical teenage kid with typical teenage ‘issues’.

        I’m 100% behind your larger point that different perspectives and the people who present them should not just be tolerated but valued, as long as those people are offering their views with honesty and respect.

        As for Puck’s post, I honestly took him not to be ripping on commenters who are worried about the case at this point, but attempting to cheer them up — to help them feel better, not worse. Until a certain critical mass of ill-will becomes apparent, we probably ought to assume that post are made with good intentions.

        I don’t really know what Puck means by saying “I am no Unitron.” (Of course, I could say that would be self-evident since only Unitron is Unitron.) But to your point about tolerance, I believe Unitron should not have been banned here. Unitron is not a Tree Nut. He is a contrarian, a skeptic, a devil’s advocate, a gadfly. He’s a stickler for facts, and he pokes sticks into factual errors, poorly supported arguments, and purely emotional declarations. That can be annoying, but it’s actually more helpful than destructive, IMHO

        So, as we used to say in the 60s, man…

        peace,

        wn

        • Nef05 says:

          Peace, Whonoze. Thank you for posting. I didn’t know Uni had been banned. I only knew I saw him a couple months ago in the outhouse, so I figured he went back home.

          Deuces :-)

          • whonoze says:

            Unitron is very guarded about what he actually thinks. Like I said, he plays devils advocate. Just because he critiques a post, doesn’t mean he thinks the idea is wrong, just poorly supported, mistaken in facts, possibly hypocritical, and so on. The only opinion of his own I can recall him ever expressing was utter contempt for the CTH. (That said, he seems to be on decent terms with the TalkLeft forum gang…)

            I think he got bounced here for taking a few too many digs at Prof. Leatherman for things FL wrote that Uni considered hypocritical in light of the Prof.’s previous posts. Uni did seem to have a bug up his ass about Prof. Fred, and things were getting kinda personal…

            I’m pretty sure that wherever Unitron calls home intellectually, only Unitron is in occupancy. He may indeed have gone back there, since I haven’t seen him post anywhere in awhile…

          • Two sides to a story says:

            I liked Unitron’s playing devil’s advocate for a long time until I realized that he does it everywhere and with everyone – that might be useful , but it can also be a sign of a player who feels superior to everyone and likes to stir up shit wherever he or she goes. I can see why Prof banned him / her.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

            unitron seems to play Star Trek’s “Data” role.

        • Judy75201 says:

          I approve of this post.

    • Sophia33 says:

      BRAVO! Nef! Very well said and thank you!

      Having been on the receiving end of this kind of behavior, your post is greatly appreciated.

      I also appreciate the fact that you point out that we are a diverse group of people. I hit on one issue included in that diversity, which is the perspective of race. I am not speaking for every person who has expressed concerns or for every African American person, but simply presenting ONE POSSIBLE perspective.

      Type1juve responded to me when I was being called a troll and mentioned that many of the posters that she/he believes are African American are at times a bit more skeptical. From my vantage point, this skepticism comes out of the experiences that many of us have had with the justice system. I have tried to express that perspective, as I see it, on numerous occasions, even on the night I was repeatedly being called a troll. I pointed to the Aiyana Jones case, which seemed very clear cut, and the hung jury that resulted just two weeks ago.

      Just because you have concerns about the prosecution’s case does NOT mean that you lack support of the prosecution or that you don’t want to see justice for Trayvon Martin. I also have expressed that sentiment numerous times. But there is an element that either does not want to understand that or is unable to understand that.

      I thank you for speaking up. Some of the posters that you listed, I see them fighting it out with the real trolls on HP. They have been doing so since this case began. I know them NOT to be trolls and I know them to be passionate about getting justice for Trayvon. From what I heard about what is going on with TalkLeft, there appears to be an element on here that wants to behave the same way by excluding, or even asking the professor to remove people from this blog, who don’t express their sentiments the same way they feel that they should.

      This kind of behavior would be viewed by many in my academic discipline as intellectually dishonest in an attempt to create a groupthink atmosphere.

      As I have said before, I think the best approach for us would be to have compassion and understanding for the various perspectives of those who desire the same outcome – a guilty verdict for Fogen!

      I know I have done this, by looking at it from the perspective of those attacking by saying that they are speaking about the energy we put out into the universe. As I said last week, thoughts and words do have power. As such, I have tried to focus my energy in my posts to the shared desired outcome of the members of this blog in visualizing the following words being read by the jury foreperson: “We the jury in the above and titled action find George Michael Zimmerman GUILTY of murder in the second degree”.

      That said, I still think that others should be able to express their concerns without being attacked, called names or implying that they should be removed from the blog.

      Again Nef, I think appreciate your post because browbeating people into a groupthink mentality is not conducive to a positive flow of energy either.

      • Nef05 says:

        Absolutely, Sophia. And if you know me from there you know I have no compunction about going “there” with the socks and trolls.

        HERE is a different matter. The Prof and C-S make a huge effort to make it welcoming to everyone. That’s why I dislike seeing people bullied by those who don’t agree with them. I have been trying to be good. I really, really, REALLY have – that kind of thing just drives me nuts.

        I did have a big blowout with a guy about 5 months ago, but he was a troll and ended up posting at the Treehouse – so I don’t feel so bad.

        I have respect for the site, the Prof, C-S – and I listen to both of them, without question. Pretty much Xena, too, because I owe her really big, HUGE! Everyone else I just enjoy reading and responding to.

      • sadlyyes says:

        agreed,when i made a modest proposal,of starting an educational fund for DeeDee,with my OWN money,i was accused of wanting to fufill my personal ambitions….sheesh
        That is why i prefer rescuing animals who appreciate my efforts

      • Malisha says:

        Sophia was addressing Puck. I don’t know why these comments get all higgeldy squiggeldy; I’m not trying to steal thunder.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        I think some of the posters that annoy me with all their unvarnished venom toward Fogen and his family may be posters who like to do battle at sites like HP and bring that to the table here.

        I salute them – it is annoying to read, but they have a special job to do. Like Trent, whom I consider an angel with a potty mouth.

    • MedicineBear says:

      Kool! I’m part of a clique. : )

      • colin black says:

        There is no cliqe nor any mystique when like minds meet.

        No need to be discreet when a pheonmia like foggage forces us to greet…=cry.

        In here there are no elete just orginary folks that greet each day as a blessing a treat.

        People not sheeple whom when injustice they meet will use there words as feet to march .

        An fight for the right for all to walk in the night in the sun in the rain .

        An should never feel pain inflicted an TORTURE languge so profane ..

        Inflicted by an empty insane foggagge so green so sparse an so mean.

        A hollow pointless empty visage that chameleon like reflects an changes the texture of his lies.

        An often takes DEEP SIGHS..to mimick he cares that A CHILD DIED.

        An he lied an tried to make the police accept this CHILD WAS SUSPECT.

        Although suspect of what he new nought no matter how long he thought.

        He used his eyes to look around an environment he had found a predeter on the pound

        Looking for a VICTIM with a chambered live round.

        An TRAYVON WAS FOUND.

        An ended up on the ground dead frorm tha live round .

        Also now under the ground because foggagges mind is unsound.

        This foggagge so vain that despite of the pain he inflicted again an again.

        Took our LORDS NAME IN VAIN to justify his disdain.

        R I P Trayvon Benjim Martin….Times a comeing an there an Auld Scots saying

        Whats for you shall not go by you.

        An Punishment is whats comeing for foggage .

        No penance no redemption both those emotions an endevours to attain them are beyond this self confesed full of excrement constipated anall retentive personalty Ive ever seen or heard.

        This foggagge creature is so annal he doesn’t even want to part with a penny or an emotion or even his own solid waste produce.

        He wants to keep hold off………………………….

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      I think we all experience ups and downs as the trial progresses.

      This is to be expected.

      What is great is that if one of us is down, the rest of us can lift that person up with reassurance, understanding, validation, or an explanation of trial procedure.

      It is helpful to remember that something in the trial or its IMPLICATIONS can pierce to the heart some of our fellow posters because it reawakens a personal sad experience or a concern for the future safety of their very own children.

      There will be personal worries and fears as well as uplifting moments of smiles and calmness.

      Who wouldn’t want to just feel free and easy all the time?

      This state of mind is difficult to have right now when one realizes the far reaching implications that the verdict will have on our society.

      You know, this just reminded me of some lyrics from this song:

      >I might see you smiling
      When it’s plain to me and Jamie
      That your life has brought you places.
      Where your mind can make you happy.

      Where you thoughts don’t drive you crazy
      They just flow free and easy.
      And I know And I know

      I know that we’ve go to
      Meet on the mountain.

      • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      • Sophia33 says:

        “It is helpful to remember that something in the trial or its IMPLICATIONS can pierce to the heart some of our fellow posters because it reawakens a personal sad experience or a concern for the future safety of their very own children.”

        Exactly YAHTC!

    • type1juve says:

      Thank you for this post! Many times I have chosen not to post my opinion for fear of being accused of being a troll. For the record, I am just as committed as anyone here to justice for TM. In fact, maybe more so than others because I do have a dog in this fight. I have 2 children (19 and 26) and I have had to have the “talk” with them. As a mother it pains me to have to do so, but as we see in this case it is necessary. It is my hope that we can all continue to discuss this case and treat each other with respect, though we may have differing opinions.

      • Nef05 says:

        I hear you type1juve. Thanks for letting us know how you feel. The Prof and C-S are wonderful people, not in the least judgemental. Go ahead and post those opinions. Funny thing when I do that, I find people I didn’t realise agree with me. Just like now, with me and you. Go ahead and speak your mind.

      • You all have thoughtful comments says:

        I, too, want to hear your opinions, type1juve.

      • Sophia33 says:

        And I thank you for your comments Type1juve. I also thank you for your support.

    • pat deadder says:

      Nef I can’t type your whole comment about disagreements but personally I like different perspectives.I remember months ago I said fogen told Singleton he walked through the dog path and as I understood the dog walk to be south on the T.Only Whonoze defended me.So I have a soft spot for Whonoze.Isn’t that what jurors are supposed to do go back and forth on how they interpret evidence.I once said imho the prosecutors did a very bad job in the Anthony case but if I had come here and read comments my mind might have been changed.Someone seemed to think that was ridiculous that my mind could be changed by other opinions.I like everyone’s contribution as long as no one gets angry about a different one than their own.But don’t want treehouse people here.

      • Nef05 says:

        Nope, don’t want any treehouse people! But, I agree with your whole different perspectives. It can make you look at something in a new way, and say – okay, maybe that happened, or, no – that couldn’t possibly happen. :-)

  66. Sophia33 says:

    “I think he’s going to testify for all the wrong reasons because he has always been able to lie his way out of trouble.”

    In my opinion, right here you hit the nail on the head, Professor. I think that he will testify for this reason also.

  67. Jun says:

    Is it just me or did it seem like Fogen’s uncle was putting it hard in his acting for his testimony?

    He seemed very scripted in his testimony to me and his testimony was like no other officer

    • Rachael says:

      He wasn’t there as an officer, remember ;) But yeah, he needs a new writer – terrible script. He needs a new director too – WAAAAAAyyyyy overacted.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Not just you, Jun.

      Remember how Bernie on two occasions referred to Fogen as Jorge’s son? A simple error? A deliberate attempt to get him riled and off script? Does Bernie know something not generally known ( while not germane to the murder) and was he putting Jorge on notice not to get too carried away in his blather or Zimmerman family skeletons might come shaking out?

      Such a big, extended deal was made about how Jorge was there as an “uncle”, rather than as an Orange County deputy. That could have been established in one question with a “yes” response, but it dragged on and on. Why?

      • pat deadder says:

        Maybe it was Jorge’s wife who was in labor not his sister.And what happened to the other child of the Zimmerman’s.I thought there was an older daughter.God after this trial is over and fogen is where he should be I never want to have that murderer in my mind ever again.

    • Puck says:

      Someone opined that his rat-a-tat-tat about being a sworn officer ex-military yadda yadda yadda (to imply that he would never, ever, ever tell a lie) seemed genuine. I disagree. (That and the following are my opinions based on my observations and expertise in social psychology. It seems I have to now preface what I say with the caveat that it’s my opinion, lest I be accused yet again of Stalinesque — or Jeralynesque — denigration and humiliation of anyone with whom I have a difference of opinion.) That kind of hyperbolic rapid spiel of self-immunization statements seems more like a pre-rehearsed bit by someone who knows they’re going to have to lie.

      Sybrina didn’t say “I’m Trayvon’s mother I first heard him cry when he was born I raised him and nurtured him and treated his cuts and bruises he’s my baby I know him I know his voice why would I lie I’m grief-stricken I don’t want those to be his screams I know they’re his screams that’s my baby and no one else because I’m a mother and no one knows a child’s voice better than his mother and I’ve just sworn to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth and Crump didn’t coach me no matter what the defense says so yes, those screams are of Trayvon Benjamin Martin!” She simply and beautifully and gracefully identified the screams as Travyon’s and that was that. She didn’t need a pre-rehearsed bit to establish her crediblity. Fogen’s uncle, on the other hand, seemed to have thought he needed a big spiel to establish his credibility; I believe it had the opposite effect.

      • Jun says:

        he was laying it on thick, IMO too

        it was like he was monotone reading a script to me

        I swear Omara was telling West “This idiot did not get the script right”

        I thought I was the only one who felt that way

      • whonoze says:

        It was me who opined that Jorge Mesa seemed genuine. And I based that opinion largely on some research I did in the last century during which I interviewed an elderly Mexican-American immigrant who had spent his career working for the railroads. He has served in combat in WW2 and received multiple citations for bravery, only to return to the US and find continued discrimination in the workplace, being denied advancement while less qualified anglos were promoted over him.

        We were working on a documentary film about railroad history, so we were talking to him to get a primary account of how the racial politics of the Empire Builders. He invited us graciously into his home, but we couldn’t get him to say anything about railroads or discrimination until he had showed us his chest full of medals, discursed at length about his patriotism and his pride in his service. He lived in a small Mississippi river town in Iowa, where the railroad had brought many Mexican immigrants to serve as track workers. We discovered that the only remaining active members of the American Legion in that town were Mr. Alvarez and 3 or 4 other Mexican Americans of similar age, who were also veterans of both railroad work and the Armed Services. In short, the most proud and patriotic Americans in this heartland town were the older Hispanic immigrants.

        When Mesa started talking about honor and what not, my mind immediately flashed back 25 years to my interview with Mr. Alvarez… It struck me as a very similar emotion and perspective.

        I actually think MOM was right when he suggested in his last press conference that witnesses form the realities they need to have in order to go on living. I mean, I think the screams ARE Trayvon’s, based on the voice examplars and the circumstances, but even if they weren’t TM I would expect Sybrina Fulton to believe with full honesty that they were. To trot out one of the most well-worn concepts in social psychology, I’d invoke Festingers theory of cognitive dissonance. I don’t for a minute think Jorge Mesa has the kind of purely spontaneous, un-preconditioned response to Z-CAC’s voice he said he did. But I think he truly believes he did. As he processed the events of that moment into his memory, blood turned out to be thicker than empirical reality. Thus, while I question his veracity, I find no grounds to question his integrity. Honorable people can be mistaken, and often are when loved ones are concerned.

        • Puck says:

          Oh, I don’t question his integrity at all, and you’re right about cognitive dissonace. Still, I found (this is my opinion, of course) it to be laid on a little thick.

        • Two sides to a story says:

          I think the Zimmerman family simply wants desperately to believe Fogen’s story and of course, they don’t want to see him spend most or all of his life in jail.

        • MedicineBear says:

          Oh what a deep, rich, thought-provoking, meaty comment you have wrought, whonoze!

          This bit . . .

          “I actually think MOM was right when he suggested in his last press conference that witnesses form the realities they need to have in order to go on living.”

          . . . brought to mind my own theory of John Good’s statement(s) that I formed after seeing him on the stand . . .

          We all remember the emotionally powerful 911 call made by Jayne Surdyka and her heart-rending words:

          “The boy was screaming for help . . . why didn’t someone help him? . . . Why couldn’t I do something to help him?”

          Jayne Surdyka’s words perfectly summed up the anguish and helplessness that I felt when I first heard the boy screaming for help on the Jenna 911 call. Wails for help. A final anguished cry. The gunshot. Silence. And no one had helped this poor boy. Listening to the recording, *I* wished *I* could have answered his pleas, but of course, I was not there. Jayne wished she could have answered the pleas for help, and she was there — but too far away.

          Now compare Jayne Surdyka’s raw, emotionally-transparent testimony with John Good’s. Words to describe JG’s statements and demeanor are: contained, controlled, emotionally repressed, RATIONAL (this word was liberally peppered throughout his testimony). Thing is, JG experienced the same emotions and trauma that Jayne expressed. AND HE WAS RIGHT THERE — CLOSE ENOUGH TO HELP. Consider that. He heard the pleas, he didn’t get involved, and the black kid (surprise!) ended up being the victim who was pleading for help. Pleading for his life. And JG has to live with, not only the trauma of those unanswered pleas, but that HE could have actually saved the victim’s life.

          Which brings us back to the bit about “witnesses form the realities they need to have in order to go on living.”

          Our minds RATIONALIZE much so we may go on living.

          I don’t think JG’s mind let him hear the cries as coming from Trayvon. I don’t think his mind lets him go to the reality that TM was fighting for his life, was pleading for help, had a gun pointed at him, was an innocent victim whom John Good could have saved.

          That’s a lot to live with.

          Note how JG’s “clarifications” reflect the evolution of his first “reality” (that we now know was the mistaken perception that TM didn’t need help) to the adjusted “reality” that JG didn’t see enough to judge who needed help. In both these “realities” JG has RATIONALIZED that he COULDN’T help.

          None of the characters in this whole trial is a cardboard cut-out “Good Guy” or “Bad Guy”. Just very complex human beings.

      • bellesouth says:

        I was impressed how BDLR insinuated that he was shielding himself from the case but definitely knew about the case he was concealing himself from enough to acknowledge that he wasn’t in a vaccum when the t.v. was playing in the other room.

    • DruDo says:

      Nope, not just you, Jun. It seemed to me it was “this is what you say and this is how you say it”. And wearing his uniform when he wasn’t there as an officer seems very disingenuous. Uniforms do not equal credibility, but may influence.

  68. Tzar says:

    George can’t get on the stand
    too many inconsistencies that he simply can’t fix or dismiss

    • Tzar says:

      in no particular order, let’s place the insurmountable inconsistencies here in reply to the post above

      I’ll start

      1. You allege to have gone went across the T to RTC in order to get an address for NEN to meet you, because you claim there was no address near your car, how come you never gave the address to NEN, but yet decided to go wait for them at the car where there is no address to give them?

      • diary73 says:

        You claim that you told cameraman Jon not to call 911 because you already called but that you needed him to help you with “this guy,” but when Jon encountered you, you were already up and walking.

      • diary73 says:

        You claim that, after getting your head bashed on the sidewalk repeatedly, you shimmied your head away from the concrete, exposing your gun. How could his be true if Trayvon’s body was found nowhere near the concrete?

        • Sophia33 says:

          Add on, you claimed that Trayvon was straddling you. If you “shimmied” in the direction that you claim then Trayvon’s knees would have been on the side of your head. This would have made it even harder for him to see your gun. AND it would have made it harder for you to reach it.

        • Puck says:

          If you shimmied on the wet grass, where are the grass stains on both your jacket and shirt? Officer Smith said the back of his jacket was “covered with grass” yet it seemed pretty clean at the police station. Does the back seat upholstery in Smith’s police cruiser also do dry-cleaning?

          • fauxmccoy says:

            puck says:

            Does the back seat upholstery in Smith’s police cruiser also do dry-cleaning?

            in my experience, cop car backseats are miserable plastic benches with a bullet proof shield between front and back seats, leaving no leg room whatsoever.

            do not ask me how i know ;)
            (it was innocent, i assure you, i had witnessed a crime and san jose PD was taking me on a ride to see if i could ID the suspect.)

            my friends who were cops in the bay area tell me that typically, if a suspect pisses off an officer in any way, that they would take the long route to the station, making as many sharp turns and fast stops as possible. on a plastic bench with no seatbelt and a bullet proof plate not far from your own head leaves them with a roughed up suspect with no detectable injuries before they even get to the station.

      • diary73 says:

        If you spread Trayvon’s arms out after getting on top of him, how do his arms get under his body as evident from cameraman Jon’s photo right after the shooting?

        • tashatexas77048 says:

          You claim Martin hit you and knocked you backwards. How did you end up 30 feet down the T unless the truth is his first punch did not incapacitate you? You continued down the T after him because you had the strength and stamina to do so.

          • tashatexas77048 says:

            You claim Martin hit you first at the T. Do you have any explantation for why his cell phone, that he was speaking on when he first encountered you, was found 30 feet down the T, next to his body?

          • tashatexas77048 says:

            Can you explain how a flashlight that you admitted holding in your hand was found 30 feet down the sidewalk if you were first hit at the T?

          • DruDo says:

            You claim your head was bashed into the concrete 20-25 times and you thought you were going to lose consciousness and you were going to die, but yet, you could pull your gun out, aim precisely at Trayvon’s heart and be sure to move your hand out of the way so you didn’t shoot your dumbass self in the hand. And didn’t even have elevated blood pressure. My son made up better stories than that when he was 4 years old.

        • tashatexas77048 says:

          During your NEN call you said Martin started running when your location was “a little bit past the mailboxes.” At that time you immediately jumped out and followed. Can you explain how you, your truck and Trayvon Martin got from “near the mailboxes” to the T where you claim you exited you car, simultaneously and within a fraction of a second?

        • Sophia33 says:

          You claim that you didn’t know you killed Trayvon Martin, then what did you think it meant when his body wasn’t moving on the grass?

      • chronicity says:

        You said that Trayvon circled your car, but on the phone to NEN, even after the dispatcher told you report to him if the kid was doing anything unusual, you never mentioned anything about Trayvon circling you. Why?

      • Trained Observer says:

        * You spot a black teenager with hoodie up against the rain and immediately decide he looks suspicious … like he’s “on drugs or sumpem” and “up to no good.” How did you come up with that conclusion, since records show he was on the phone with a girl?

        * How come you told NEN your “suspect” was in “late teens” and yet you got on the stand at the bond hearing to tell Trayvon’s parents you thought he was older, like your age? (As if making him older would make shooting him AOK.

        • pat deadder says:

          Why didn’t Rachael hear any of your No I don’t have a problem bs.

        • Two sides to a story says:

          You left your truck with a loaded weapon, intent on catching a criminal, but never simply identified yourself or asked Trayvon if he was lost or if you could give him a ride in the rain. Instead you made him feel as if he had to run from the criminal you proved yourself to be.

      • Tzar says:

        The night of the murder you told detective Singleton that you first spotted Trayvon walking east on RTC (west of the TTL entrance), the next day in the reenactment you said you first spotted him in Taffee’s yard, which one is true?

      • Puck says:

        Who did you call at 7:18 p.m.? NEN, or the extension of someone from SPD via the general line?

      • Sophia33 says:

        If you were on the grass, as the placement of the body indicates, then how could Trayvon Martin been causing you great bodily harm (assuming that your lie is true) by pounding your head in wet moist grass?

      • bellesouth says:

        Where is that bush that you said he jumped out of?

    • Sophia33 says:

      I agree he SHOULDN’T get on the stand. But as someone else pointed out, people who are psychopaths or sociopaths don’t see themselves as the rest of us see them. His ego might be such that he actually thinks that he can talk himself out of this. And the arrogance of some of his body language in the proceedings speaks volumes. The giggle after the Hannity interview. The smirks. The nose up in the air at Sybrina Fulton. The lack of compassion for Sybrina Fulton all speak to someone who might be arrogant enough to testify. I think if George doesn’t testify, it will have more to do with his attorneys holding him back from doing it.

      • MedicineBear says:

        “His ego might be such that he actually thinks that he can talk himself out of this.”

        Yes, he’s always had a friendly audience of fellow CACs, enabling family, and racists hiding behind badges of authority.

        I don’t think an intelligent, objective jury of humane, compassionate mothers and animal lovers are going to be friendly to a creep who prejudged (profilled) a kid he didn’t know as one of “these assholes,” who mis-characterized a kid just walking home as a “punk,” who followed by car and foot a kid running from him, who chased the kid into the dark walkway and silenced forever the teenager’s voice with a bullet to the heart.

        I think this jury will recognize this CAC for the murdering depraved CAC that he has revealed himself to be.

        • pat deadder says:

          Why didn’t fogen roll down his window tell Trayvon who he was and offer him a ride to get out of the rain.I did that once it was winter and very cold. A young guy was walking I offered him a ride and I’m an old lady.Jesus what’s wrong with him.

          • MedicineBear says:

            See, it’s just simple common sense! I have faith that the jury has that same intelligent common sense (backed up by direct and circumstantial evidence and their gut instincts).

          • tonydphotog says:

            I read somewhere a while back that he did have his window down, but closed it when Trayvon approached him to find out if there was a problem.

            If you listen to the NEN call, when fogen starts panicking about getting an officer over there quickly, I hear a younger voice saying “problem”.

            Doesn’t Fogen claim Trayvon said, “Do you have a problem”?

            I’m guessing he would use that comment before using “What are you following me for?”

            I believe Trayvon asked Fogen both questions. One by the Clubhouse, and the other on the dog walk.

          • Sophia33 says:

            Is there anything about this man that screams common sense?

          • Two sides to a story says:

            Mr. Zimmerman, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMON SENSE?

      • Tzar says:

        I did not say he shouldn’t, I said he can’t or won’t want to. Far be it from me to advise the mind that bought you such sublime brilliance as, “I haven’t really had the time to reflect on it. When I was in jail, obviously I was in solitary confinement and I had a lot of time to think and reflect.”; no, no, au contraire I suggest he does take the stand and wow the jury the same way he wowed us and himself-as can be surmised by his grinning reaction to viewing the interview in court- while on Hannity.

        • Sophia33 says:

          LOL!
          I do think he wants to testify. I agree with you that I don’t think he can. I think his attorneys are holding him back. But that ego may prevail.

          He wants to share the brilliance that gave us, “It wasn’t my gun, it wasn’t his gun, it was thee gun”.

    • Trained Observer says:

      * If you were on your way to SuperTarget to “get lunches” like you told your pal Osterman (according to his testimony under oath), how come you were packing a gun but didn’t have any money or credit cards that were not maxed out? Were you planning on shop lifting or pulling off a holdup?

      * If you carry your lil ol’ gun everywhere except to work, how come you forgot you had it when Trayvon allegedly made you feel threatened?

      * Why did you know the clubhouse address during previous calls to cops, but suddenly you didn’t even know the names of streets much less where to find an address on the night you killed Trayvon?

      • Soulcatcher says:

        You say Nen needed an address

        You say after you tell Nen you don’t see him anymore, they ask you if you still want them to send an officer.

        You said he was running, and then he wasn’t running, he was skipping, moving quixly away, he wasn’t running, he wasn’t in fear.

        You said he called you homie

        You said you couldn’t remember if he called you homie.

        • Soulcatcher says:

          He says Trayvon approached him at the club house.
          He says he comes back and circles his car when he was parked on ttr.

          He says nen asked if he could see him
          He says nen asked if he could get to a place where he could.
          He said he told nen he came back and circled his car
          not true to the above three

    • Sophia33 says:

      You say you didn’t know if you killed Trayvon Martin, why instead of having pictures taken of yourself didn’t you try to render some aid to him?

      Now let me add a Sophia note to this…last year, a man in his family went to a farm that they visit every year. While his son and daughter were playing in the field a man abducted his daughter. The little boy got away and went for help. When this father got to where his daughter was he saw the abductor with his pants down in the process of raping his daughter. He beat the man to death in a fit of rage. If you listen to that 911 call after the father regained some of his senses he was begging for this man not to die and was pleading for the police to hurry and get there. I think that call is on Youtube. Now, assuming that GZ thought all of these horrible things about Trayvon Martin, why wasn’t he more distraught at the thought of having taken another human life no matter what he thought of that person? Because he is a sociopathic murderer.

  69. Elizabeth says:

    To me it invalidates he was looking for an addres.
    No, he continued to follow hence ” Oh shit the n…behind me”
    And within 3 minutes TM was blasted straight through the
    heart!
    Does anybody think Defendant would have been found dead
    at the scene if he hadn’t killed trayvon?
    No way! And he heard and saw people around while Trayvon was
    still alive so that should have greatly diminished defendants fear for his life.Very unreasonable to pull out a gun let alone fire it.
    Not opinion, fact.

  70. LSimon3321 says:

    I think the judge and the state told the potential jurors about reasonable doubt and both sides and the judge told them about presumption of innocence.

  71. tashatexas77048 says:

    I have been reading a lot of comments here and there and I’ve noticed that many legal analysts do not believe the State has presented enough to get a conviction. I will say, however, that I noticed a little shift in this notion after the DNA evidence was presented. I still say that there were a few glaring errors by the State. I think they mishandled John Good. I think they should have found a way to make it clear that he was a defense witness and they called him to the stand SOLELY to testify that his story had changed. O’Mara shouldn’t have been allowed to introduce his previous statements and spin them as if he was telling the truth the first time. To outsiders, including the jury I’m sure, it looked like the State’s own witness had turned against them. They mishandled Lauer as well. They should have called her after they played his walk thru videos. It seems she knew the Defendant, even knew about his past arrest record. She was the head of the HOA and I’m sure nearly every resident there knew the HOA lady’s address. Therefore he could have asked her if Zimmerman knew where she lived. He could have asked if she knew Zimmerman claimed to have pulled in front of her house looking for an address the night he killed Martin and asked if Zimmerman ever knocked on her door and asked ” what’s the name of this street?”

    Det. Singleton and Det. Serino were detrimental to the State’s case because it seemed they took an “we don’t want to make our own look bad” approach to those two. They redeemed themselves on day two with Serino but the damage had already been done. All of the dramatics BDLR pulled out on day two could have been pulled out on day one with Serino but instead he lets O’Swarmy get to him first and then he was left trying to come from behind.

    I still do not understand the purpose of Dr. Rao claiming the Defendant could have received all of his injuries from one punch to the face without also explaining WHEN that punch likely occurred. Common sense tells us it couldn’t have been at the beginning of the confrontation because little of Zimmerman’s blood is on Martin and its definitely not where it should be if Martin continued to assault Zimmerman. But why leave the jurors with the impression of Martin punching Zimmerman square in the face? That was a big ass fail and just as I said, that defense witness, unlike any other, was given a special mention in O’Mara’s motion for acquittal. That witness will bite the State in the ass for the remainder of the trial.

    That being said, I think the DNA evidence alone will convict Zimmerman.

    • tashatexas77048 says:

      I meant that State’s witness was given a special mention by O’Mara.

      • KA says:

        I do not think the State can impeach their own witnesses.

        However, if they are recalled (which MOM indicated they would) by the defense, I suspect impeachment would be the sole motive of the State.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Good points. Fogen’s own words impeach him. Might be even stronger than any physical evidence.

  72. boar_d_laze says:

    Trials are always something of a crap shoot; and so are trial strategy decisions. You can’t really handicap them in terms of probabilities or even with what happened in every single one of 100 trials which looked exactly like the one you’re conducting

    The TV lawyer/commentators all agree that most good Defense attorneys will keep the defendant off the stand if it’s at all possible.

    However, there’s a reason that people go on TV instead of going in front of a jury. It’s because they don’t have clients. Also, a great many of the TV lawyers are (or were) notoriously bad practitioners. Marsha Clark? Lawyer, please.

    Anyway, bear in mind that almost every criminal defendant who goes to trial is found guilty. So, whatever most criminal defense attorneys do most of the time doesn’t work. It seems clear to me that very few of the people commenting are clear on the law which governs “self-defense.” Quite a few seem more familiar with DUIs than major felonies.

    After almost every case, the attorneys attempt to button-hole the jurors in the hall and interview them about their reasons for reaching the decision they did. One thing that’s consistent in big cases, and/or cases where intent is the primary issue, is that juries REALLY want to hear from the defendant directly. If they don’t, they are more likely to convict.

    In self-defense cases the defendant almost always testifies.

    If Mr. Zimmerman takes the stand, he will at least have the opportunity to tell the jury (true or not) what was going on in his mind at the time leading up to and ending with the killing of Mr. Martin. On the other hand, he’s made a lot of inconsistent statements before trial, and will be exposed to a cross examination which — if done competently — should devastate his credibility.

    Will he testify? If he were my client, I’d advise him to take the chance. But there are good arguments either way and ultimately its his decision.

    If you think you KNOW what’s going to happen next, you’re mistaken.

    BDL

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Sure is a rollercoaster of a trial.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        PS – I’ve always enjoyed your deeply thoughtful posts here and at TalkLeft.

        • Puck says:

          Jeralyn lets someone sensible post on TalkLeft? I’m flabbergasted! ;)

          • Two sides to a story says:

            Well, at least she used to. Lately she’s got an echo chamber going on in there. There might be one or two old hands who disagree with her and get away with it only because they’ve been around so long.

          • Puck says:

            I don’t know what her deal is. Maybe she’s on drugs or sumpin’. Or intoxicated by a secret lust for Zimmerman, or racism, or just enjoying being the evil queen of her bizarre kingdom.

            If liberals were indeed “card-carrying” as they are so derided by conservatives, she should have her “card” destroyed and her “membership” revoked. I’m not saying liberals can’t be on GZ’s side, just that I’m shocked that she appears to have become contitutionally incapable of considering actual evidence. I discussed this at length several times in my Tea Party paper, and came up with a new term to describe that sort of phenomenological state, but I can’t say what it is because it makes me doxable.

    • Rachael says:

      Credibility is kind of everything. That is why West was being such a dickhead. If they can get you to trip up on something, they can say “see, see – he/she lied, they aren’t credible.” Once you get caught in a lie, it can be hard to believe anything and he has introduced a reasonable doubt. That’s why he nitpicks things. He thought Rachel was an easy mark. The reason it took him so long is she wasn’t.

      GZ has enough lie— “inconsistencies” on his own. I know it must have stung quite a bit to hear himself called out loud broadcast to the world that he is a LIAR. It is hard to take anything he says as truth with that many lies. I mean why should I or anyone believe him? If he could like about having graduated, lie about saying he thought Trayvon was just a couple years younger than him to Trayvon’s MOTHER, if he could lie about “he wasn’t running,” lie about not knowing about SYG, why should I believe he wouldn’t lie about self-defense?

      Now if he thinks he can explain all that away, get on the stand and take a chance. I couldn’t believe him any less than I do now.

    • Trained Observer says:

      BBDL — Have stated above that I think Fogen will find it hard to resist doing his old smootheroo for jurors, … like he did for Hannity.

      Another factor: During the past year, MOM surely has learned how to punch Fogen’s buttons.

      On the surface, MOM may be advising Fogen to steer clear of the stand. Yet, if MOM thinks it would put his own potential legal loss in better light, MOM may be manipulating him to get in the box.

      Then MOM could strut out to media mics and say, “we had the case well in hand, but my client insisted on testifying and that muddied the waters.”

      Success in keeping Fogen off the stand, means MOM and Westlicker must face criticism that they did a sub-par job.

      (Never mind that Fogen murdered an unarmed teen and showed no remorse, or that MOM and Westlicker have hit new lows in perpetrating legal sleaze.)_

      • Cercando Luce says:

        O’Mara and West save their own skins, professionally, by getting George into the box. They have been assiduous in reminding the court and public through their legal motions that their client has been involved in his own defense– in order to tell the public that what they are doing is not their fault.

    • HereslookingatYou says:

      The Lawyers often do not think as jurors do, this should be obvious from the Arias trial some of the questions the juror had far out did the Lawyers , each juror will decide what they put the most weight on and I will say it again, if everything in this case was thrown to the side you only have the defendants credibility and he has NONE, you lie , I vote to convict,

    • Susan Moore says:

      I think that the jury would be particularly annoyed if he does not testify, because he has given so many statements already–even to nationwide TV audiences–that they would be annoyed that he was willing to speak to everyone except the jury.

    • SearchingMind says:

      @ boar_d_laze

      Nice to see you again, Boar. I do not think anyone knows for sure whether or not GZ will testify. What we do is – based on the facts know to us so far – make a cost-benefit-analysis of why GZ should or should not testify. Like the Professor, I think GZ will NOT testify. Apart from the reasons mentioned by the Professor, I have this other reasons for my belief:

      a. O’Mara said during the hearing for the Motion for judgment of acquittal: “I do not know exactly what the State’s case is – yet”. Based on O’Mara’s other (in)action re specific matter, I do believe him when he says that he has not yet figured out the State. Now, why would you send a client into a mine field without knowing where the mines lay buried? How do you prepare the client to engage in such a dangerous endeavor if you don’t know that exactly to prepare him against?

      b. The cost of taking the stand by far outweighs its benefits (if any at all). Sure, GZ can tell his story and try to explain away the inconsistencies, but whatever he gains on direct examination will be crushed on cross-examination thereby compounding and irreparably reinforcing the notion that he lied and is still lying about “what happened” in an effort to conceal the truth and escape justice. On KEY issues GZ’s story is simply physically and/or physiologically and/or in time and space impossible.

      If I were GZ’s lawyer, I will tell him the following: “the situation is what it is. You made the decision to talk to the cops, provide them written and oral statements and videotaped reenactments. Someone who calls himself your best friend has also testified to what he claims you told him. And there is also the Hannity interview, I advised you that it was not a good idea. And there is also the NEN-tapes prior to- and on 26-2-2012. We will make the best out of the statements you have already provided to different persons on different occasion. But taking the stand will IMO make the situation worse, not better. If you insist on taking the stand, I will fully support you”.

      TV-lawyers claim that GZ will not take the stand for very wrong reasons. They argue that the State made a mistake by introducing GZ’s statements and entering it into evidence thereby destroying any chance of GZ not being forced to the stand. I disagree. I think it was brilliant for the State to do that. In so doing, the State has painted GZ as a liar to the jury hoping that GZ will take the stand to refute that allegation and in that process deliver his head on a silver platter to them, or be damned if he does not. It’s now up to make the next move. Will GZ take the bait and enter the “box”? We will see ….

      • SearchingMind says:

        Typos second paragraph: “How do you prepare the client to engage in such a dangerous endeavor if you don’t know WHAT (not “that”) exactly to prepare him against?” (was meant)

        Typos last paragraph: It’s now up GZ to make the next move. Will GZ take the bait and enter the “box”? We will see ….(was meant)

    • newmediacounsel says:

      I am curious: At what point can the Prosecution stop using the term “inconsistencies” and start to use the term lies?

      I mean- the statements Zimmerman made can’t all be true. Some of which are clearly lies- eg his claim not to know SYG defense was clearly a lie. I know lying requires intent, but either he’s suffering from severe memory problems, or was lying. The same with certain elements of the case, e.g., his claims that he was jumped-

      I suppose the point of not saying liar is to let the jury come to this conclusion.

      • racerrodig says:

        Mantei called Fogen a liar on Friday. This case is about 2 people…one of them is dead and the other one is a liar….

        That worked for me.

    • KA says:

      I wanted to ask something BDL. I know a year or so ago, you were open minded about guilt/innocence (it seemed at least) when posting here.

      It seems that you now believe that Zimmerman is at least guilty of killing Trayvon unlawfully now.

      I am really interested in your opinion, as an attorney in criminal law, what have you learned over the past year that seemingly swayed your personal opinion?

      I have wanted to ask for a while now. I hope you do not mind.

      • boar_d_laze says:

        When I first started posting at HuffPo, I didn’t know enough to have an opinion about guilt or innocence, but think by the time I got here I believed that Mr. Zimmerman was guilty. If not, it was very shortly thereafter.

        At the time, I thought that the combination of the NEN call; Ms. Jeantel’s memory of what she heard leading up to and at the time of the Martin/Zimmerman confrontation; the disposition of the physical evidence; and Mr. Zimmerman’s complete lack of credibility created by his numerous and contradictory versions of events — along with Florida law concerning when “self defense” is and is not available — were dispositive that Mr. Zimmerman could not claim the justification of “self defense,” and was therefore guilty.

        The NEN call was close to convincing in its own right. But what really decided it for me was the location of the physical evidence showing the “fight” took place too far from the “T” for Mr. Zimmerman’s story that he had discontinued chasing Mr. Martin and was returning to his truck to possibly be true.

        Ms. Jeantel’s evidence was further corroboration of what already seemed fairly obvious. That is, Mr. Zimmerman was still hunting Mr. Martin — as part of a single, continuous course of conduct on Mr. Zimmerman’s part — at the time the confrontation occurred; that Mr. Zimmerman’s conduct was inherently threatening; and that if anyone could claim self defense, it was Mr. Martin.

        Florida law says if you provoke a fight by chasing someone, you cannot then use “self-defense” to excuse yourself for what you did in the fight.

        I am ready to change my opinion in the light of new evidence or legal arguments, but so far have heard nothing sufficient to change my mind.

        BDL

    • Tzar says:

      I think the state’s hands are tied because they are trying to mitigate damage control of pending lawsuits against SPD while prosecuting the person SPD is invested in protecting. And O’Mara plans to leverage this as much as possible. Zimmerman has dirt on SPD that they committed obstruction of justice in his favor while investigating his actions on the night of the murder, but he can’t blurt it out, he can only insinuate and threaten them-remember O’Mara requesting an emergency hearing to sequester SPD officers, that was just a thinly veiled threat to SPD imo, “play ball or this gets ugly for all of us but much quicker for you guys”- into testifying favorably for him in court as this same information would surely convict him.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      @BDL who says

      Also, a great many of the TV lawyers are (or were) notoriously bad practitioners. Marsha Clark? Lawyer, please.

      could not agree more. i am paying no attention to celebrity lawyers as i know their only function is to sell advertising space for some network. i do occasionally walk by the TV if my husband is watching something and catch a glimpse of both marcia baby and mark geragos.

      i wind up inquiring of geragos how his boy scotty peterson is doing these days. oh yeah, he’s on death row in san quentin in my home state of california, which is not exactly a common occurrence these days…. then i start cursing at the TV and have to find another room of the house.

      gerragos may have had his day in the sun but he’s got too much time for TV appearances for me to take seriously. to marcia, i can only say ‘you can’t be a has been when you never was’.

      • racerrodig says:

        I’m thinking my TV is pissed I keep giving it the finger. Yep, whenever Taaffe is on I seem to wind up flipping him the bird or flipping the NFL Network on…….or The Speed Channel, The History Channel or The Biography Channel.

  73. bettykath says:

    I really like the idea of a timeline (link to an example posted elsewhere) but it should have the entire nen call, rachel’s call, and on to the 911 calls and the gun shot. There should be no “breaks” for extended times, especially from the end of the nen call and the gunshot. If they have to put in a break, it should be at the front end and the length of the break should be noted.

    Such a picture would show more graphically the amount of time between the end of the nen call and the end of Rachel’s call that is unaccounted for in gz’s tales. This is a very key point and a picture will help jurors to understand it.

  74. EdgySF says:

    Has the State demonstrated that Fogen’s vitals were normal, and that the first witness on the scene described him as “calm, cool & collected?”

    That’s the physical proof that he was not the screamer. If anyone needs physical evidence, it exists.

    One cannot desperately scream for 45 seconds, be forced to have to shoot someone to death for one’s own life, and then instantly have normal vitals.

    Fogen is a psychopath. At this point, I am absolutely convinced that even the out of touch masses now see him as guilty of manslaughter. If he walks, I will need some serious help.

    I live in the area and am so glad the world is shining a light on us. This totally would have been swept under the rug if it weren’t for the national (international) outrage. I fear that if he walks, nothing will change. But if he’s found guilty, everything will change.

    Gladys should be ashamed of herself.

    So should Stutzman. She was a mouthpiece for the defense, when she should have been an honest broker. If Fogen is legally declared a murderer, maybe she will reevaluate her methodology…and report the truth and not crap.

    • Trained Observer says:

      “If he walks, I will need some serious help.” — EdgySF

      Won’t we all.

    • tashatexas77048 says:

      His demeanor afterwards definitely speaks to the depravity of his mind. Afterall, it is his claim that he only fired the shot because he had to and that means he would feel sorry that Martin had placed him in a position to feel as though he had to pull the trigger. As such, he would feel no malice towards someone he was FORCED to shoot, indeed he would be immediately broken up about it. He understands that that is how he should react if he were FORCED to shoot Martin which is why he lied to police about what happened afterwards. What he told police happened afterwards is what you would expect if someone either thought they had not hit the target and felt remorse. He describes asking for help to restrain Martin ( didn’t know he hit his target) and he told Singleton he didn’t know Martin was dead and looked downward upon hearing the news (remorseful, someone who was forced to fire but didn’t want to.) So the lines he fed police shows you that he knew how he was supposed to respond if he had no malice BUT THE FACTS IN EVIDENCE SHOWS HE ACTUALLY RESPONDED AS WOULD SOMEONE WHO HAS MALICE TOWARDS THEIR VICTIM. ( Didn’t ask for help restraining, put his full weight on a dying child, walked away from and never looked at his body again even as he took the time to pose for photographs.) The fact that he tried to cover up the amount of malice he had actually exhibited towards Martin by lying about asking for help restraining, lying about what he was doing while waiting for police to get there and lying about how long it took police to arrive after the shot was fired is bone chilling proof that he killed Trayvon because he wanted to.

      • Puck says:

        And someone evincing a depraved mind should not be considered “reasonable” in terms of GZ having a reasonable fear for his life. Nothing he did that night was reasonable, really. Why should anyone give him the benefit of the doubt that suddenly, during the struggle, he suddenly became “reasonable” again? That standard is based on how a genuinely reasonable person would feel, think, and act. GZ was clearly acting vastly unreasonably throughout.

        • KA says:

          I thought the testimony from the officer that was doing CPR on Trayvon was powerful and will have an impact.

          He was clearly upset by the death of the boy and trying his damnedest to breath for him and revive him. I think he was a great agent to “humanize” and make real the horror of this teen’s death to a jury of women.

          I think it is strange that we are sticking with the “Trayvon could have lived 1 – 10 minutes” when we have documented proof that he was not alive 4 or 5 minutes after the shot as testified by this officer.

          • Puck says:

            And the State made a point to ask him why he didn’t go back to his patrol car to get a breathing mask — he felt there was no time. All this while Fogen is making a phone call, wandering about, chatting gun caliber with Manolo and asking if he was bleeding, perhaps dropping his key with the little flashlight at the T, perhaps scratching his face and head, perhaps smearing his blood around, but most definitely starting to formulate his bogus story (which quickly became stories, plural).

          • MedicineBear says:

            “I think it is strange that we are sticking with the “Trayvon could have lived 1 – 10 minutes” when we have documented proof that he was not alive 4 or 5 minutes after the shot as testified by this officer.”

            Whether the possible range is 1-3 minutes or 1-10 minutes, this data point makes clear that Trayvon was in agony and unable to speak or move much for at least one minute before expiring.

            During that last minute of agony, CAC frisked him and got on his back (adding to his final suffering) BUT DID NOTHING TO HELP THIS DYING KID.

            More data points showing that fogen ACTED WITH DEPRAVED MIND NOT REGARDING SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE.

            What was fogen doing while the kid’s heart was bleeding out? Arranging his stories and the murder scene to cover his own depraved ass to falsely justify murder.

    • If he walks, I will need some serious help.

      Definitely count me in too.

    • Malisha says:

      People like Rene Stutzman do not reevaluate themselves; they reevaluate only others.

  75. Judy75201 says:

    Remember how fogen always started his narrative on his NEN calls with “There’ve been some burglaries in my neighborhood…”?

    His uncle did the same thing when he testified. He carefully laid the groundwork upon which his story “should” be perceived as unassailable.

    Interesting that they both exhibit the identical manipulative strategy.