Sufficient evidence has been introduced to support a guilty verdict in Zimmerman case

Sunday, July 7, 2013

Good evening:

NBC’s Dan Abrams, whom I generally respect, has announced that he believes the jury will find the the defendant not guilty of both murder 2 and manslaughter. Given the State’s difficult burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, which he believes to be impossible since the defendant has a coherent theory of the case supported by many witnesses as well as the photographs showing the injuries to his head, he said that he does not see any way that the jury can convict him.

In reaching that opinion, I believe Abrams commits the same mistake that so many of his colleagues commit on a daily basis regarding all of the important stories and issues of the day. They assume that there are two sides to every story and each side has both strengths and weaknesses. In other words, they assume the opposing sides are roughly equally legitimate. This assumption is not based on a thorough evidence based review of the respective sides or an objective evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing arguments.

In fact, the assumption of equivalency is a false assumption and an extremely poor substitute for investigative journalism and critical thinking.

Abrams also commits another mistake by failing to acknowledge that the jury will decide how much weight to assign to the evidence. For example, the jury could decide that the defendant is a liar and disregard everything he said that is not independently supported by other credible evidence.

For a long time I have been describing this case a simple case. The jury can reasonably infer based on the evidence introduced at trial that the defendant attempted to locate and physically prevent Trayvon Martin from being yet another fucking punk and asshole who always escapes out the rear entrance of the neighborhood before the police arrive. They could also reasonably conclude that Trayvon uttered the terrified death shriek since he was unarmed and the shriek ended with the gunshot. Finally, they also could conclude that the absence of any of the defendant’s blood or DNA on Trayvon Martin’s hoodie means Trayvon did not attack the defendant.

Anyone who has taken the time to study this case should realize that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a verdict of guilty to murder 2.

Indeed, Judge Nelson so ruled on Friday.

Therefore, Abrams opinion that there is not sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict is flat out wrong.

561 Responses to Sufficient evidence has been introduced to support a guilty verdict in Zimmerman case

  1. Two sides to a story says:

    Uno? Good article. I don’t understand these pundits who don’t think beyond the pictures of Fogen and his initial claim.

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      Investigative journalism is a thing of the past!

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      So far Omar is focused on proving the screams are gz’s. He’s failing miserably but, even were he to succeed, the screams do not validate that an unarmed teenager was dishing out a lethal assault. All he does is create yet another mystery, since Trayvon isn’t beating him up, why in the world would he be screaming? I think most people would suspect that his screams were in preparation to cover up and make the gunshot appear to be self defense, which it wasn’t.

  2. Puck says:

    First!

  3. Rachael says:

    Hola!!

    • Rachael says:

      Since the defendant has a WHAT theory of the case??!!!

      How many brain cells is HE missing?

      • racerrodig says:

        The greatest line on Fri. by The Moron Man was when he said he’s not sure what the states case is during his Motion for Acquittal.

        Yep, that’s Moron O’ Mara alright…..

        • Rachael says:

          That worked well for him, didn’t it. Wonder if he figured it out over the weekend.

        • amsterdam1234 says:

          Yep,
          The defense will have to create and commit to their own narrative, before the state will connect their dots.

          • The defense were the one’s who claim that Zimmerman didn’t know he’d killed the kid. Trayvon’s body lay under a tarp all during the time that the EMT was treating GZ’s minor injuries. Isn’t that the normal emergency treatment for gunshot wounds?

          • amsterdam1234 says:

            GZ was taken to Smith’s patrol car on RVC before the EMT’s got to Trayon.
            GZ knew Trayvon was dead because he sat on top of Trayvon, squeezing the last breath out of him for at least 40 seconds.

  4. Mary says:

    thank god i’ve finally met up with an online group of kindred souls and kindred thinkers in re: this case. i’ve been saying for well over a year that 44 seconds of existential screams by an obviously unarmed and powerless, terrified boy constitutes 44 seconds when zimmerman had a choice. the choice he made exhibited depraved indifference to human life.

    this is not rocket science.

    glad to be here.

  5. tharealkeisha says:

    Presente

  6. Deborah Moore says:

    Here.
    I’ve lost track of Abrams for a while.
    Is he claiming to be an investigative journalist?
    What a laugh.

  7. Mary says:

    also want to say that these ‘pundits’ who fail to take in all the facts of a situation like this are irresponsible and do harm to the society as a whole. they are helping to ‘dumb down’ all of us.

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      I agree with you 100%, Mary.

    • Woow! says:

      People do not think for themselves and take the journalist (I say journalist lightly) word as the truth. Once Americans start to challenge what pundits say, the better is will be for all of us.

      They only get away with what we allow them to.

  8. Simon S says:

    The problem, I think, is that a person could just as easily infer from all the evidence that Mr Zimmerman was perhaps an over zealous neighborhood watch person that put himself in a bad situation and contributed to what occurred, yet still was only guilty of defending himself reasonably. Consider this: for Mr Zimmerman to be guilty of murder 2, the following all would have had to have happened. First, he would have had to follow and eventually confront Mr Martin. After listening to all the evidence so far, I can definitely see GZ following TM, but if GZ intended to stop or restrain TM, it seems implausible that he wouldn’t have his gun out to begin with and the struggle that obviously took place would never have occurred. Further, to believe the the prosecution’s case we would have to accept that after GZ confronted TM without his weapon out, he then allowed TM to somehow inflict the broken nose and cuts to the back of his head before ever using the weapon. Also, if GZ were the person on top during their struggle, how would the cuts to the back of GZ’s head have come about, and why would GZ’s pants and jacket be so much wetter than the front, as the police officer who arrived on scene testified? Also, the evidence that little of Mr Zimmerman’s DNA was found on Mr Martin also supports the contention that TM was on top. After all, with a bloody nose like GZ had in the picture taken immediately after the incident, it seems a lot more of his blood would have ended up on Mr Martin had he been on top. Add to that the fact that the state’s own witnesses had contradicting opinions as to who was on top and I just see no way a jury would reasonably conclude that GZ wasn’t acting in self defense.

    • Beverly says:

      Did you see the Friday legal arguement about self defense? Esp in light of the undisputed fact that Z had been following Trayvon. He could have disengaged at any time; the aggressor cannot reasonable claim self-defense. Sorry you missed that lesson.

    • Trained Observer says:

      At least you got the names right this time around, Simon S. :)

    • tharealkeisha says:

      I take it you don’t know the non broken nose pic is photo shopped. And by the way there were witnesses who heard GZ fall while pursuing Trayvon.

      • Simon S says:

        If that picture really was photoshopped then I’m pretty sure the prosecution would have analyzed that and brought it out during their case. Since they didn’t, I have to assume it was real. I do believe there is evidence to suggest GZ followed TM, but not enough to show who actually physically touched who first. The following alone is not enough to negate self defense if all that GZ did was follow and if it was TZ who struck GZ first. Because the burden of proof falls on the state, I just don’t see how enough was brought out to prove for certain that GZ wasn’t telling the truth about most aspects of what happened. That isn’t to say I believe him completely, just that the state did not present enough for me to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that this wasn’t self defense if I was on the jury.

        • Rachael says:

          What about Trayvon’s right to self-defense? By GZ’s OWN admission, he never bothered on ANY occasion to tell Trayvon who he was and why he was following him – although I can’t see ANY reason to follow him. I do NOT get that at all. He had already called the police so why follow him (unless perhaps so he could restrain him until the police got there so he could get his pat on the head and good boy). But still, he NEVER said who he was, so doesn’t Trayvon have a right to self-defense coming if he comes into contact with someone who is FOLLOWING him in the DARK and in the RAIN? Talk about SUSPICIOUS. Plus GZ said something about going for his phone – did he tell Trayvon that? What would you do if you saw someone FOLLOWING you in the DARK and in the RAIN and then goes for something in their pocket?

          The problem with GZ “wasn’t telling the truth about most aspects of what happened. That isn’t to say I believe him completely…blah, blah, blah” is that he lied about so much else as well. He lied about his education. He lied about not knowing about SYG, he lied about well damnit – you KNOW all the lies he told – he lied about EVERYTHING. Why would I believe that if he would like about that stuff, he would suddenly tell the truth here? Why would everything else be a lie but this and only this be the truth?

          That just doesn’t work for me.

          • Simon S says:

            I definitely would never follow someone that way, but that’s just me. My point is, even if he did follow, it’s not until there was a physical confrontation that a crime was committed. If it was GZ who first touched TM, then he absolutely should be convicted. If it was TM who first struck GZ, then there is a good chance self defense can be claimed. Because the state has no witnesses and cannot prove it wasn’t TM who fought first, even if it was out of fear, it is hard to see GZ being convicted. I’m not saying that is fair because TM is no longer alive to give his side of things. But if a jury has to consider the evidence and potentially lock a man up for life based on what they decide, it’s hard to see the burden of proof being satisfied. If the jury sees GZ as lying in many other instances, it could make a difference. But I am just saying I sure don’t feel so certain as many other people on here that GZ will be found guilty. And I consider myself an impartial person who has listened to pretty much every minute of what the jury has heard. I could absolutely be wrong and don’t feel anywhere near as positive I will be right in my prediction as other on here seem to feel about their own guesses.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

            The phone records back up Rachel’s testimony.

            Trayvon said, “Why are you following me for?”

            Then Trayvon said to follower gz, “Get off, get off”

            gz was the aggressor.

            O’Mara is not even going to be able to get gz to first base, let alone home!

            http://itsnotokaytolook.squarespace.com/storage/post-images/15-three-strikes.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1266774605006

          • Rachael says:

            Perhaps you are not listening to what I’m saying.

            You say: “it’s not until there was a physical confrontation that a crime was committed.”

            What *crime* was that? *IF* there was a physical confrontation at this point and *IF* Trayvon did anything, there is enough evidence FOR ME to say he acted in self-defense – which is NOT a crime.

            Now I totally agree that we only have one side of things and I am one who normally gives one the benefit of the doubt, but not when that person has BAREFACE LIED about everything else.

            Under *normal* circumstances, I would probably agree with you. But these are NOT normal circumstances.

            IN MY OPINION, GZ made his intentions VERY clear in the non emergency call. He also did not sound like the Welcome Wagon bringing coffee and donuts.

            Maybe Trayvon did start it. I don’t know. I wasn’t there, but GZ had NO business being there, any business he did have did not show good will, some of his many, many lies were exposed to the jury and I’m sure more will follow, and like the prosecutor said, only two people know, one is dead, the other a liar.

            Maybe GZ IS telling the truth about just this one little thing. But tell me, when I can’t hear the other side and GZ has shown to be such a liar, why should I believe him? There may not be any witnesses to prove him wrong, but with the witnesses there are and his OWN WORDS, I have more reason to believe they aren’t.

            And that is what it comes down to. If he is believable. Because the jury will be instructed – at least I think they will, that if they don’t believe one part of someone’s testimony, they don’t have to believe any of it – and that goes for GZ. Sure, it is their choice. They can believe that all his other lies were just lies but as far as killing Trayvon in self-defense THAT was true, but I don’t work that way. I’m not stupid. I’ve raised kids. That shit doesn’t work on me. And if that means he may be going away for life, I can’t feel too sorry for him.

            Maybe y’all need to read the story about the Boy Who Called Wolf.

          • ks says:

            Um no Simon S, the it’s “legal to follow somebody” propaganda is a ruse to downplay that GZ following TM in the manner he did made him the aggressor of the event and, as such, he can’t credibly claim self defense.

            The “point of first physical contact” is just another part of the ruse which tries to ignore that TM had a right of self defense AND that TM’s first action toward GZ was NOT aggressive despite GZ’s actions. It was a simple and reasonable question – “why are you following me?”

          • Simon S says:

            Rachael, what I’m saying is that GZ had a right to be in that neighborhood and even to approach TM and ask him what he was doing there without giving up self defense as an argument if it was TM who struck him first. If GZ physically tried to restrain or otherwise touch or threaten TM, then I totally agree with you that TM had every right to his own self defense. Where we differ is that I just don’t think the evidence given so far supports this. I am not saying I completely believe GZ either, but I would not be able to say with conviction that he was the physical aggressor one the two came face to face. Either way I think GZ has messed up his life and probably brought a lot of ugliness on himself that he could have prevented. But I would not be able to convict, especially of murder 2, if I were on that jury.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            simon s says

            what I’m saying is that GZ had a right to be in that neighborhood and even to approach TM and ask him what he was doing there without

            what you are overlooking is the entirety of the situation, including the defendant’s intent. his actions, taken on the whole, constitute assault. if martin chose to defend himself, it was his right to do so and that there is no self defense claim for the aggressor. chasing for no reason is an act of aggression.

            professor leatherman will correct me on the off chance that i am wrong.

          • Simon

            Here’s right to be in that neighborhood did not include chasing after a kid with a loaded gun ready to fire on an unfounded supicion, arguing with that kid, and as I have pointed out from circumstantial and direct evidence we can logical infer attempted to detain that kid

            Remember he said they always get away, we have evidence that again he did try to detain. All of that is outside of his right to do.

            You are being reductive of what happened to the part that makes you seem reasonable,b ut frankly it is not reasonable to look at pieces of evidence outside of the context of the rest of the evidence in a case.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

            gz never identified himself to Trayvon.

            Instead gz followed Trayvon based upon unfounded suspicions from one end of the neighborhood to the other first by car and then on foot.

            We know that gz by using the word “THESE” that he included Trayvon in his derogatory statement “THESE assholes, they always get away”.

            This statement also indicates that gz thought that the police were too slow in responding and so gz was going to take matters into his own hands and “catch” Trayvon.

            gz’s friend, Frank Taaffe, said that gz “was mad as hell and wasn’t going to take it anymore.”

            This rage was also supported by gz calling Trayvon one of the “fucking punks”.

            Chasing Trayvon the minute gz’s said “He ran” and carrying a loaded gun with the bullet in the chamber is NOT simply following.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

          • Simon S says:

            Ultimately it all comes down to whether or not the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ was never in a position where he felt he was in danger of death or great bodily harm if he didn’t fire his weapon. The burden is on the state, so a jury is obligated to go into the trial believing the claim of self defense until the state provides evidence to the contrary. My stance right now is that many of the states witnesses have been weak and the evidence not strong enough to satisfy that burden. And this is before the defense has even made their case. So it does surprise me so many people on here are so confident of a conviction. If I’m wrong I will come here and say so, but at worst I see a hung jury as of right now.

          • Xena says:

            @Simon S.

            Ultimately it all comes down to whether or not the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ was never in a position where he felt he was in danger of death or great bodily harm if he didn’t fire his weapon.

            It goes back before the two came into physical contact. Trevor Dooley also believed that all he had to do was prove that he feared death after James knocked him to the ground, but the jury followed instructions according to Florida self-defense law. If not but for the fact that Dooley left his driveway with a loaded weapon and entered the basketball court where James was sitting, the two would not have come into physical contact.

            Florida prosecutors cut their teeth on self-defense law and they now have experience on how to prosecute such cases.

          • Rachael says:

            Simon, you say –

            “Rachael, what I’m saying is that GZ had a right to be in that neighborhood and even to approach TM and ask him what he was doing there without giving up self defense as an argument if it was TM who struck him first.”

            Where I have a problem with this is, it isn’t like GZ was just walking around and came upon Trayvon and said – mighty rainy tonight – what are you doing out here?

            He had followed Trayvon first in a car and then on foot. Is that illegal? Heck, I don’t know – but if someone did it to me, I would feel violated. It isn’t like when I’m out strolling and pass by someone and they say, “hey, I haven’t seen you out here before, what are you doing here?”

            He followed him. First by car, then on foot. That wouldn’t upset you if someone did that? And then if they asked you what you were doing there, would you feel obliged to tell them? I sure as hell wouldn’t. GZ never said who he was or WHY he was following him and oh never mind.

            Yes, GZ had a right to be in that neighborhood and even approach Trayvon and ask what he was doing there. BUT DON’T YOU GET IT – THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

            GZ was NOT in that neighborhood – he followed Trayvon by car and pursued him through the neighborhood – and WHY? Why would he do that if the police were already on their way?

            IF what you said had happened, I’d give you that, BUT FOR CHRIST’S SAKE MAN – WAKE UP – THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. Even GZ himself says so!!!

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

            gz’s story of Trayvon being mounted on him is a lie.

            If Trayvon had been mounted on him the way he told investigators and his friend Mark Osterman, gz NEVER would have been able to pull out his gun from his holster:

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

            Good post, Rachael.

            And, in addition, this little snip of video shows that gz want to play cop and detain Trayvon:

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

            That’s not the video I wanted.
            I will go find the correct one.

          • Rachael says:

            Simon:

            “Ultimately it all comes down to whether or not the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ was never in a position where he felt he was in danger of death or great bodily harm if he didn’t fire his weapon.”

            Pay attention to the word R E A S O N A B L E here. Reasonable.

            What is “reasonable?”

            Were GZ’s previous calls “reasonable?” Was thinking Trayvon suspicious “reasonable?”

            Was calling the police about someone suspicious, acting like they were on drugs, hands in waistband, checking him out then getting out of his vehicle FOR ANY REASON reasonable?”

            That’s before.

            Then after – is shooting someone, even in self-defense, even you had no reason to lie, but not calling a lawyer “reasonable?”

            Was trying to go to Corey’s office “reasonable?” Was going on Hannity “reasonable?” Was lying about knowledge of SYG “reasonable?”

            Was ANYTHING

          • Rachael says:

            oops, got excited and somehow posted too soon. Anyway, I think that the prosecution guy must have read what I wrote the day before because he practically said word for word what I had written and what I was getting at and will now say. GZ did not act reasonably before or after. In order to say GZ felt reasonably in fear of imminent injury or death, it would require a reasonable person. There was nothing even remotely reasonable about GZ’s behavior – showing up at the reenactment with those stupid bandages – c’mon.

            Now I can’t speak for the jury, but to me, all of his unreasonable behavior, his unreasonable story about being hit and punched 40 times and head bashed against the sidewalk – was not a reasonable story to match his virtually non-existent injuries so again, why would I believe it? It only proved – to me – beyond a reasonable doubt how TOTALLY unreasonable GZ IS.

        • acemayo says:

          Only in America as in it past someone can follower and shot
          because you dont look right

        • pat deadder says:

          Simon I’m concerned about you.Do you think you have a drinking problem.The intials are TM and GZ.I’m a 67 year old lady and I had worse injuries than that wrestling with my cousins on the lawn at my grandmother’s house when we were kids and guess what I didn’t shoot them.Please remember GZ had trained in mma and kick boxing and weighed 50 pounds more than TM.Jesus what kind of a wimp is he.He seems to be afraid of his own shadow, God knows you are entitled to your opinion but I pray for your sake you or anyone of your loved ones never have to go through what Trayvon B Martin did.

          • Rachael says:

            Exactly.

          • Simon S says:

            While its interesting that you had worse injuries than GZ while wrestling as a kid please understand it would be a very different situation if the person causing your injuries is not a relative who you know has no intent to severely injure or kill you. If TM actually caused GZ’s broken nose and the cuts to the back of his head, I believe most likely self defense could fairly be claimed by GZ even if you don’t believe said injuries were significant in your own mind.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

            gz did not cause gz’s injuries as proven by the forensic evidence:

            There was none of gz’s dna/blood on Trayvon’s hands

          • KA says:

            If Trayvon hit him, it was with his left hand (notice GZ’s face)…

            It can be reasonably assumed (circumstantial) that if Trayvon was goign to “sucker punch” him and attack him with enough force to knock him down, he would start with his dominant hand….

            If Trayvon was reacting to being grabbed by his right arm, hitting with his left hand would indicate a reaction to a confrontation like self defense….

            GZs injury on his nose (I think) can be shown to be “something else”, but regardless, it was only able to show up that way if it was hit with a left hand or possibly an elbow…

            Both of those things would logically suggest a reaction, not a confrontation.

          • Rachael says:

            Simon, I just do NOT understand you. You say:

            “While its interesting that you had worse injuries than GZ while wrestling as a kid please understand it would be a very different situation if the person causing your injuries is not a relative who you know has no intent to severely injure or kill you.”

            Trayvon is the victim here. Trayvon is dead. Do you think perhaps if he wasn’t and he could speak he would say that he had no idea the situation or the person chasing after him had no intent to severely injure or kill him? I think so. I would certainly wonder that if someone found me suspicious out walking leisurely in the rain while I was on the phone, I would sure find them suspicious for following me and coming after me in the dark. How would I know he had no intent to severely injure me or kill me – and if that was not his intent, WTF would their intent be? Like I said, it obviously wasn’t to welcome him to the neighborhood with coffee and donuts. So what WAS he doing? What WAS his intent.

            And who ended up with the fatal injury right through the heart that took out a lung too?

            I’m sorry Simon, I just do NOT understand you.

          • Simon S says:

            Rachael, if someone was following me I agree I would be afraid but would try to run rather than confront them. If I had no other choice and they attacked me I would definitely fight and if that is what happened then TM was acting in self defense. But if a person came up to me and questioned me but didn’t touch me, I would talk rather than fight. There is no witness to say what exactly happened so we will never know if GZ raced up to TM, laid hands on him, and caused the altercation, or if TM, because he felt threatened or was just annoyed that GZ was confronting him, struck first. Either way it is a terrible situation and GZ deserves at least some blame. But without a witness to contradict GZ’s claims and with so many of the states witnesses supporting or at least failing to be able to concretely contradict GZ, I don’t see him being convicted.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

          • KA says:

            SImon,

            You are assuming again that Trayvon “confronted”.

            Trayvon did not see him get out of his vehicle, he thought he lost him.

            This is validated by the NEN call when GZ says “he’s running” (present tense) and then 60 seconds later says “he ran” (past tense)….which meant he couldn’t see him anymore (as he also stated)…

            If GZ could not see him, how could Trayvon see him get out of the car? He is a teen, he just probably brushed it off as a guy that was lost and staring at him. Remember Trayvon got irritated at Rachel when he teased him about a “rapist”….and to stop freaking him out…

            If was not until GZ was on foot chasing him down that Trayvon said “there he is again” (I won’t say the exact words).

            Keep in mind, he is on the phone. he was talking making noise

            No stealth ninja is going to talk on the phone while “lying in wait”…
            Considering the actions and records of Trayvon, and then the words of GZ “call me and I will tell you where I am” it is only logical to assume he was still hunting….TWO FLASHLIGHTS?

            He didn’t immediately go back to his car…he had no intention.

            Two neighbors heard a chase and running….one of them had a flashlight…

          • KA says:

            and Simon,

            Please tell me when he questioned him?

            You seem to believe GZ;s story…tell me in that story did he question him?

            According to GZ:

            T – “What’s your problem Homie?”
            G – “I ain’t got no problem” (sounds like a 12 year old response BTW)

            Is that the dialogue of a responsible adult to a 11th grader? Especially one that “mentors” kids (which as someone who does…is laughable)

          • ks says:

            Actually Simon S/unitron,

            Tm DID run from GZ as indicated by RJ AND GZ and when GZ caught up to him he did not attack him, he asked him a question. But what I find interesting is how you continually put the emphasis of “reasonable behavior” on the person who was being followed and trying to get away, TM, and not the follower/agerssor, GZ.

            Funny that.

          • Rachael says:

            WHAT???? Simon, you say:

            “Rachael, if someone was following me I agree I would be afraid but would try to run rather than confront them.”

            What are you talking about? What evidence do YOU have that Trayvon confronted GZ? The ONLY *evidence* you have is that he (GZ) said so – and everything else he has said is a BAREFACED LIE. So why would you believe this?

            Don’t bother answering. I’m done playing with you. Have a great night.

            I’ve already raised a teenager, so my days of hitting my head against a brick wall are over.

          • chills101 says:

            Simon says “ Im not saying i completely believe GZ“ Im sorry but every time you write my spidey senses tingle.

        • tharealkeisha says:

          There is a link of the “real” pic. I wish someone posts it for you.Jeesh.

          • Simon S says:

            If that is true and the picture is doctored then the state is doing a huge disservice to their case by not bringing this out.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

            Actually, with all that blood on gz’s nose, there should have been gz blood/dna on Trayvon’s hands if, according to gz, Trayvon had used his hands to cover gz’s nose and mouth in an attempt to smother gz.

            There was none of gz’s blood/dna on Trayvon’s hands = gz was never smothered and in fear of his life.

            gz is a LIAR.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

          • KA says:

            Those pictures are perfect.

            They do not show ANY spread of blood in a scuffle, the head shows no debris from the ground, and the blood flow has clean lines towards the front.

            If Trayvon caused those injuries, it was late in the scuffle or we would see blood smeared and grass/dirt/gravel in the wounds.

            If the blood was going down his throat like the defense said, he would be gagging involuntarily as well as hacking and coughing as an auto reaction to keep the liquid out of his lungs. That excludes the screaming…

            There is no winning narrative for GZ here.

        • Big Willie says:

          @ Simon S. FYI following someone is a crime! California courts issued me a permanent/lifetime restraining order against an individual who chose to follow me and my husband. Try following someone in California and you’ll find your ass in jail.

          http://www.victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center/stalking-laws/civil-stalking-laws-by-state/california

          • Trained Observer says:

            Hi Big Willie — And that’s exactly where Fogen will find his.

            And BTW I am quite weary over talk about “all the blood” on GZ’s snout and nearby environs that look like ketchup smears on even the most doctored versions of the photos.

          • Eric says:

            Big Willie, it’s a crime here in Florida also. If you “follow” someone to point of causing that person distress, you are guilty of stalking. GZ, out of his own mouth has told that he, GZ, caused Trayvon ditress by curb crawling him. I believe Geoge said oh shit he’s running, he ran.

        • Nellie Nell says:

          For the photo shopped picture that was turned over months after the incident which was taken by an officer on his cell, downloaded to his home computer and then deleted from his cell phone? Ummmmm, the state does not want to put their own on blast. I think his home computer should have been confiscated and analyzed as part of the corruption in the SPD. I think that an non biased investigation into the lack of investigation in this case should have happened instead of just the firing of the Chief.

          Those dogs will have their day as well. God does not like ugly.

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      I guess you haven’t paid attention to the forensics, Simon.

      There was none of gz’s blood/dna on Trayvon’s hands or lower sleeves = no punching, no head slamming, no smothering of gz = gz was NOT in fear for his life and gz intentionally killed Trayvon

      • racerrodig says:

        Is unitron back ?? And where is there any proof that the back of Fogens jacket and pants were wet. The only thing that is documented to be wt are the front tips of his boots.

        • Rachael says:

          I saw him over at the outhouse. They are carrying on about Crump and DD. smh

          • Two sides to a story says:

            Oh, boy. I suppose they think that deposing Crump and putting him on the stand is going to win the defense’s case . . . not.

          • ks says:

            Really? LOL! I guess his true colors finally came out into the open.

        • Simon S says:

          I’m just going off my memory of the police officers testimony that the back of GZ’s jacket and pants were wet and had grass on them. I’m pretty sure that was said but correct me if I’m wrong.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

            They were rolling in the grass according to witnesses.

          • Simon S says:

            Okay, but I also specifically seem to remember one of the first officers on scene saying that GZ having wetness and grass on his back and the back of his pants rather than the front. If nothing else, the state did a terrible job during this testimony because I definitely remember that being said and don’t recall it being disputed by the prosecution.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            prosecution on re-direct of ofc. tim smith (paraphrasing, here)

            q. was there rain and/or grass in back seat of your patrol car after the defendant got out?
            a. no.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

            There was grass and debris on the toes of gz’s shoes which indicates that gz was on top of Trayvon.

            If gz had been on the bottom all of that blood on the back of his head would have been smeared.

          • type1juve says:

            @Simon
            You seem to give GZ the benefit of the doubt here. Why can’t the same be extended to TM? Did he not have the right to defend himself against this predator? Anyone with the nerve to follow a teenager in his vehicle, then chase him down on foot would not have any problem attacking or attempting to restrain said child, IMO.

        • LSimon3321 says:

          It was raining. It would be just as wet from the top as it was from the bottom. The grass stains on the back of his jacket instead of the tips of his boots would have helped to prove he was on the bottom most of the time if at all.

          • lady2soothe says:

            LSimon3321

            “tips of his boots would have helped to prove he was on the bottom”

            If GZ was on the bottom his heels, NOT the tips of his boots would be wet.

            Kneeling/straddling over Trayvon would wet the tips of his boots.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

            There were NO grass stains on the back of gz’s jacket:

        • Girlp says:

          I think we have had a couple of visits of people from people who have disregared Bao and Rao’s testimony . Hope you are feeling better.

        • ks says:

          On second thought racer, good call about unitron being back. Simon S is following the same approach. Seems pretty obvious.

          • cielo62 says:

            KS Racer- I knew that stench smelled familiar!

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

          • Big Willie says:

            I told you all sometime ago we had a frenemy! But noooooo, y’all didn’t wanna believe me.

          • cielo62 says:

            Big Willie- the problem is now we have several, or one with the many heads of the Hydra. Leslie is also being a damn pain in the patootie while pretending to be a devils advocate. Oh well. I guess there’s nothing but gloomy reality over at the treestump.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

        • Nef05 says:

          (Sigh…) Not going there, but you know what I think.

    • the head injuries and nose injuries were all self inflicted…the DNA evidence tells us this…he could have easily hit his own head on the concrete while trying to use his MMA ground game to restrain TM…The recoil from the gun is what most likely cause his nose injury

      • Simon S says:

        While you could be correct in that GZ’s injuries were self inflicted, even the state has so far not suggested that is what happened. They should bring that up in closing or while cross examine a defense witness this week if they feel the forensic evidence is there to support that claim.

        • You all have thoughtful comments says:

          I don’t play the game of “Simon Says”

        • it has been suggested that his wounds could have been self inflicted by testimony…however to the contrary there is nothing to support GZ’s claims….DNA tell us that there was no fight or sucker punch…to believe GZ’s claims one would have to deny reality and physics…you would have to believe that TM decided to run in the same direction as a car that was following was traveling…who does that? I guess TM though he could out run a car….You would also have to believe GZ didnt know the street he was on even though he used that street every time he came and went into the community…also you have to believe knowing the community, he would walk to the back of houses to find an address even though there were plenty of houses facing him and closer…lets say you believe that nonsense…you have to convince your self that this skinny kid, at 5’11 160 pounds man handled a grown man who was 50lbs heavier that was training in MMA…you also believe that TM’s somehow rolled over and put his arms back under his body after being shot in the heart with a hollow point bullet…To believe GZ’s is to believe that TM had super human abilities instead of being just a regular kid walking home from the store

        • Cercando Luce says:

          You asserted above that GZ had a broken nose. GZ told the physician assistant the next morning (2/27/12) that EMS had told him (2/26/12) he had a broken nose, which is not on the EMS report. The PA then included the words “probable broken nose” in her report with the caveat that there was no deviation of septum. GZ then told his interviewers he couldn’t breathe through his nose, explaining it was broken, but he is heard on recording sighing through his nose, and pronouncing his “m” “n” and “ng” perfectly, instead of “b” “d” and “g” as one does when one’s nose is clogged. He built his alibi in plain view, if only, only, only you look at what he does.

          Let’s see if his lawyer’s introduce x-rays of a broken nose.

    • Mary says:

      you need to review the elements required for a finding of murder 2. you’ve got it all wrong. is that intentional?

      further, you need to keep up with the case: there has already been a demonstration of no self-defense whatsoever.

    • KA says:

      I think the struggle changed position continually with one of the parties trying to escape and the other trying to restrain. That push/pull of opposite motion could easily put one or the other on top or bottom at any given moment. I think the aligned holes in the sweatshirt, the difference of range in the skin and the stretch of the fabric, and the bullet hole being under the button shows an effort to restrain and hold regardless of what position they were in. When Mantei said he would have to be an expert marksman, he is saying the victim had to be held still or in control to get that perfect and straight of a shot. A wild hand push and violent motions would not allow that shot to get in. The sweatshirt is in evidence. The shot distance is in evidence. the GZ stories are in evidence. They can be pulled, at will, and explained by the State at any point. They have enough evidence to pick and choose the rest of their strategy…that is why they rested.

      I think it is possible scenario (though not my opinion) that Trayvon may have hit GZ in the nose. I think it will be clear that, if he did, it was reactive verses proactive. The punch GZ sustain would indicate a left handed punch. If Trayvon was sneaking up on him and “sucker punching” him with enough force to knock him down and do damage, he would use his dominant hand to do that. That is common sense. Do not think the State has been asking these seemingly “minor” questions without a purpose. BLDR asked about tattoos, dominant hand, and the button in her direct last Friday. It would be a mistake to think that line of questioning had not relevance and was not meant to be officially part of the record.

      I could go on and on….but the assumptions that Trayvon, who was talking on the phone, coming back from 711 had any other agenda than just talking on the phone and getting to watch the game would be a much farther stretch with no evidence than anything else.

      Actually, the circumstantial, physical, and phone records, evidence supports that he was doing just that.

      Trayvon had one weapon with him he could have used….a large, heavy can to knock GZ out with….

      It was never touched, dented, or used…

    • Tzar says:

      Further, to believe the the prosecution’s case we would have to accept that after GZ confronted TM without his weapon out,

      No I don’t have to accept that at all
      furthermore, I believe he had his weapon out -been saying that for a while, I hear him rack a jacket into the chamber and he had plenty of light @ RTC and time load another round and go hunting- and only one hand available to restrain TM, that’s why he never thew a punch.

      So no, I don’t have to accept that but more importantly I don’t accept the logic or veracity of neither of the premises you proffer

      • Simon S says:

        Ok, so if we say he confronted TM with his weapon out, why in the world would he get close enough to allow himself to be struck and rolling around on the ground? If he walked up intending to kill TM, the events that played out make even less sense. Either way, there is no concrete evidence so far given by the state and no suggestion even made that GZ had his gun out in advance. It could have happened that way but the state has the burden to prove that and so far haven’t even suggested it went down that way.

        • Tzar says:

          Ok, so if we say he confronted TM with his weapon out, why in the world would he get close enough to allow himself to be struck and rolling around on the ground?

          easy
          Because he wanted to detain TM and he can’t claim self-defense if he shoots him in the back

          these are fun
          you got anymore?

          • Simon S says:

            First, are you saying he had his gun out intending to kill TM or to detain him? Either way, you still don’t explain why he would approach GZ instead of waiting for him to turn towards him and shoot him from a distance, or attempt to detain him from a distance. And why, if your theory is correct, has the state not suggested it yet? Could it be because there is no evidence to hold it up?

          • Tzar says:

            Either way, you still don’t explain why he would approach GZ instead of waiting for him to turn towards him and shoot him from a distance,

            Yes I did (see previous answer)

            or attempt to detain him from a distance

            Can’t detain him from a distance, he will just run
            like he”s been doing the whole time Zimmerman has been stalking him
            and there goes Zimmerman’s prize, can’t have that now would we? Remember your bud likes to “catch fugitives”

          • Simon S says:

            But again, if GZ is supposedly so aware of the law then he would know he cannot detain a person. He would know that when the police arrived he would be in the wrong. I do believe GZ followed TM, but I don’t think he did more then that.

          • Tzar says:

            But again, if GZ is supposedly so aware of the law then he would know he cannot detain a person.

            Not sure if you want to argue that “GZ” social and legal knowledge translates to real life behavior
            let’s see
            -assaulted an ATF agent (that’s illegal and he knew that and still did it)
            -Assaulted his girlfriend (that’s illegal and he knew that and still did it)
            -Molested his cousin (that’s illegal and he knew that and still did it)
            -Followed Trayvon (NEN advised him not to do that yet he still did it)
            -Has followed and interrogated other residents (that’s illegal, against the policy of the NW and he knew that and he still did it)
            -harassed and racially discriminated against a co-worker (that’s illegal and he knew that and still did it)

            so you see the fact that “GZ” knew that it is illegal to detain a person is not at all incompatible with the notion that he would still do it.

            like I said this is fun
            got anymore?

          • Tzar says:

            He would know that when the police arrived he would be in the wrong.

            who? his buddy Tim Smith?
            don’t make me laugh

          • Tzar says:

            He would know that when the police arrived he would be in the wrong.

            that would require Zimmerman to believe that he live under the same laws as the average citizen. so, nah nuh uh.

          • Xena says:

            @Simon S.

            He would know that when the police arrived he would be in the wrong.

            And so GZ killed Trayvon so there would be no witness of his attempt to detain/restrain him.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

            George Zimmerman shot to kill that tragic night. He did NOT HAVE TO aim for Trayvon’s heart.

        • KA says:

          He didn’t walk up intending to kill, he walked up intending to restrain and detain for the police to arrive…..then he went too far and Trayvon was terrified and people were coming outside.

          GZ knew the law following and detaining this kid was against the law, he had to kill him to shut him up. I also believe he flipped him over to make sure the bullet didn’t go through so he could say he was on top. GZ took and made an A (one of the only classes he made an A in) criminal investigation….he knew what he was doing…

          According to GZ “he was just an effin asshole anyway…I think GZ realized he had no weapon on him, he knew he was screwed.

          You can kill someone via SYG if they are in the middle of or about to do a felony. I think he thought he could rest on that, but the kid had candy and a drink…crap…

          • Simon S says:

            KA, your logic doesn’t flow for me. He knew it was against the law to detain the kid, but did so anyway knowing what he was doing would be wrong once the police showed up? And then he got nervous and killed TM to cover it? That makes no sense. And if GZ knew so much about the law as the state has suggested, why would he ever try to detain TM knowing doing so was against the law? And again if any of what you say is true the state had better hurry up and suggest it.

          • Simon

            You are making up things about the defendant that you can’t reasonably infer

            his awareness that it was against the law isn’t the point. he thought the kid was a criminal. Therefore, he was doing his duty.

            What you might do isn’t the point. As you said, you aren’t him. You have to look at what he did that night to make a reasonable inference.

            Not what Simon would have done

            I think part o the issue here is you don’t know when to put yourself into the shoes of the defendant and when not

            When it comes to the legal standards, thats when you apply reasonableness

            Not when you are trying to deicde what the circumstantial evidence says, and then saying ‘well that’s not what I would have done”

            Your reason here, in terms of legal analysis, is bad.

            Well i wouldn’t have robbed that bank although the defendant had a gun and was caught with all the money so the defendant didn’t rob the bank. its poor legal reasoning.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

            The keychain marks the location where George should have stayed. The fact that the keychain’s light was still on is an extra gift to the prosecution. It was in use!

            Trayvon’s body was found a good 30+ feet south of that keychain. Trayvon was trying to escape toward home.

            What did George do? George pursued Trayvon. No valid self defense there.

            George should have gone in the opposite direction. Had everything gone north toward the T from the keychain, George might today have some chance at a self defense claim because north would have shown that George was attempting to retreat.

            But….no. George was on the offense. He headed SOUTH of the keychain after Trayvon as Trayvon attempted to get away toward home. He just would not let go of Trayvon……..he would not let Trayvon go home.

            The keychain with its flashlight is solid, physical evidence.

          • KA says:

            Because he thought the kid would comply or that it would be okay because he was “doing something wrong”….

            He did not expect Trayvon to freak out and fight back and deny all knowledge of what he was talking about (there was a argument before the screams).. I think he thought he could talk to him and get him to “confess” and come to the police.

            I also think when Trayvon denied and fought back (maybe even swore at him), he lost his temper…then neighbors came out…he drew his gun to threaten…which was the “real” problem…it was unraveling he shot.

            Detaining became assault became threatening with a firearm, got wrist control, immobilized him, and then did a perfect shot.

            He immediately frisked him a second after the shot as Trayvon gurgled…who the hell does that?

            Keep in mind ALL of this was a time period of about 90 seconds.

          • KittySP says:

            @Simon s – I think we can all agree none of what GZ claims to have happened that night makes sense to the reasonably thinking person. Does it make sense that he lay motionless never using his hands to defend himself except to pull his gun and fire? Does it make sense that Trayvon would continue to allegedly attack him after John good came out and said he was calling the cops? Does it make sense that he killed the kid he illegally attempted to detain knowing full well that the cops were minutes away? No, but he did it anyway. Does it make sense that he claims to continue crying out for help in the hope that the police would hear him, then decides to put a bullet in Trayvons heart instead?

            SA Guy got it right in opening statement…GZ killed Trayvon because he wanted to, not because he had to!

          • Cercando Luce says:

            @Simon
            “why would he ever” pick up a woman he didn’t know and throw her across a room (which got him fired from his off-the-books bouncer job)? For the same reason he killed Trayvon Martin, or hit his former fiancee, or any of a number of irrational things he has done but had no reason to do. There is a pattern to his behavior– cool, soft-spoken, chill, and suddenly violent.

          • chills101 says:

            I don’t post alot but have been reading for over a year. I hope that i dont offend nobody but can we just ignore Simon S. Fishing expeditions expeditions this way ~~~>

          • cielo62 says:

            Chills- I concur. Another troll unhappy their hero has been nailed.

            FROM THE CLUTTERED DESK OF Cielo62

        • fauxmccoy says:

          @simon s

          i hesitate to engage with you at all, but as was clearly pointed out in the JOA arguments on friday, the prosecution does have the burden of proof, but they do not have to prove exactly what did happen, all they have to prove is that what the defendant claimed did NOT happen.

          a self defense case rests entirely on the credibility of the defendant and i am prepared to say he has none.

        • Donna says:

          Simon, I’m going to jump in here and add my two cents. You used the term reasonable. Let’s talk plausability and reason…I believe that GZ had his gun out when he approached Trayvon. Yes, I know that cannot be proven, but, I believe it makes sense.

          Here is why.

          GZ had every reason to have his weapon drawn. How do I know? He said so. By his own admission, he saw a suspicious character in a crime ridden neighborhood. This character looked to be on drugs or something. He was up to no good. He was looking in to houses. He was even checking GZ out, trying to intimidate him by maybe having a weapon.

          When GZ made the decision to get out of his car to follow, he did so with the following truths on his side….he was a trained mma fighter, he knew his own neighborhood, he believed he was acting appropriately, he was using his police knowledge, and most importantly, he was armed with a weapon that was ready to fire.

          He was a criminal law student with a law enforcement career in his mind. He knew the law, and he knew the behavior and terminology that police use. He spoke and tried to act like a police officer. How many police officers do you know who will chase after a suspect without pulling their service weapon in preparation?

          But GZ is not a police officer. He does not have the maturity to be one, either. This is demonstrated in his rush to poor judgement. He did not profile Trayvon correctly. The detective even told him so. He let his own agenda cloud his judgement.

          It is because of this immaturity and zero experience that GZ did not judge Trayvon correctly and approached Trayvon with a loaded weapon. When Trayvon was approached by GZ, with his weapon drawn, Trayvon did the only thing he thought he could do…run. There are witnesses who testitfied that they heard feet on concrete, like running. They heard scuffles first, then the fight. GZ did not anticipate that Trayvon would not do as he says. GZ is so full of his own self that it simply did not occur to him that he could not overpower this kid. He was, after all, the one with the gun.

          I don’t believe GZ followed Trayvon to shoot him. I do believe, and I think the evidence shows, that he followed Trayvon to detain him, by holding him at gun point. And herein lies the crux of the law for GZ. He cannot do that and then claim self defense, even if Trayvon throws the first punch.

          Because self defense and stand your ground means that if you are in danger, imminent life threatening danger, then you have the right to fight back without retreating. Trayvon tried to retreat first, GZ followed. When there were no other options, Trayvon fought back.

          GZ cannot claim self defense when he caused the confrontation.The self defense law says so. You cannot be in the commission of a crime and then claim self defense.

          You have put yourself in Trayvon’s shoes..now put yourself in GZ’s. Why would a grown man get out of his car and follow a suspect who appeared to be on drugs and up to no good, after the suspect checked him out and tried to intimiadate him?
          Why? Would you? I would not. But if I did, you bet your ass I would be armed and ready to shoot.

          As for the state not mentioning it, my guess is they will in closing arguments.

          And one last thing…I disagree with you that the state has the burden. The state HAD the burden to prove there was enough evidence that it is not self defense and they won that hurdle. Now the defense has to convince this jury that GZ acted in self defense. The State doesn’t have to do anything but let this narrative unravel.

      • type1juve says:

        @Tzar
        I think he had his gun out too. Fogen is a coward, no way would he have gone after TM in the dark without his gun out. I believe TM saw it and that’s what precipitated him trying to get away.

        • Xena says:

          @type1juve.

          I think he had his gun out too. Fogen is a coward, no way would he have gone after TM in the dark without his gun out. I believe TM saw it and that’s what precipitated him trying to get away.

          I’m going out on a limb here — it’s what GZ omits that helps us connect the dots. He omits when and what caused him to drop the tactical flashlight. It’s the flashlight that Trayvon saw. GZ had the gun clipped to the flashlight. At some point, GZ turned the flashlight off and had to disengage the gun from the flashlight.

          What two items lack fingerprints even from the owner? The gun and the tactical flashlight.

          Why would GZ lie about spreading Trayvon’s arms out? And, why would there be a spot of GZ’s blood on the bottom hem of Trayvon’s sweatshirt that he wore underneath his hoodie?

          Put those together and the most logical conclusion is that GZ was wiping gunshot residue off the flashlight.

          Is this anything that the state can argue at trial? If GZ gets his butt in the box to testify, prosecutors can certainly ask him when and how he dropped the flashlight and how since he owned it and admitted to having it that night, it lacks his fingerprints.

    • MDH says:

      How does that rather minor mark and swelling on his nose that went down quickly {note that a major contusion from a hard strike by a fist stays swollen for days and the ME testified to this} in combination with two punctuate {pinpricks in laymans terms} wound on the tip of GZ’s nose and one minor abrasion on one finger of T’s left hand correspond to anywhere from 20 to 30
      blows in an MMA beatdown that GZ stated he was subject to?

      If my I am lying on my back bleeding from a scalp wound and from the tip of my nose, then how, pray tell does the blood flow in a manner indicative of a standing position as shown by the picture?

      .

      .

      How do you hold a gun to shoot someone in the heart while that person shot is mounted on you in an MMA position with their hands pressing down on your face?

      For bonus points, tell us all how you could scream at the top of your lungs while this person has your airways blocked by pressing with all of their weight?

      I get rather tired of that broken nose meme. You all act like the word broken {note is was never verified by an X ray} is a major trauma. Fractures, like all other injuries can be major or minor. I have had my nose broke twice from minor bumps playing baseball. Each time, I did not even know it happened.

      If anything. GZ supporters are the biggest bunch of mollycoddles on the planet.

      Waaaaaaa WAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAA, I got a nick on my scalp that need a big bandage {please note the ME supports my sarcasm} and am in fear for life, so I get to shoot the big bad black man dead.

      • You all have thoughtful comments says:

        Just boo boos.

        Bye bye, gz, Bye bye.

      • Rachael says:

        And mama She’lLie will put some big bandaids on your little owies to make them all better.

        gag

        • fauxmccoy says:

          @rachael

          shellie “went into ‘nurse’ mode” how’s that for gag material, eh?

          • Rachael says:

            Oh yeah. I forgot about that. That is beyond gag material. That is outright puke material.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            yessiree bob! an insult to actual RNs everywhere. i cannot help it, i hate the way everyone in the zimmerman family, circle of (jerk) friends, and defense team promote the ‘shellie = nurse’ meme. my mom worked too damn hard for her license and i know you did too.

          • Rachael says:

            Yes, and actually I was going to say the same thing – but I was too busy puking. Yes, it is an insult to nurses everywhere.

            But there is so much of this whole think that is insulting to anyone with any common sense everywhere.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        It’s okay to kill a kid if you put knuckle bandages on your knucklehead.

        • Rachael says:

          She’lLIE must have learned that in *nursing school* I graduated from nursing school 36 years ago. We weren’t taught that back then. Things must have changed.

          I’m still feeling guilty because when I worked in the newborn nursery we taught the parents not to put a baby on it’s back because it could spit up and choke so always put it on it’s stomach. Now, however, they say to do the opposite and that putting them on their stomach can cause SIDS.

          So I guess things chance. Like “new math,” this must be the “new nursing.”

          • fauxmccoy says:

            @rachael

            my mother just stopped renewing her license after 55 years (graduated from jackson memorial in miami florida in 1958).

            i guess at 76 she just did not want the CE units in ‘new nursing’. :P

        • chills101 says:

          Kmsl

      • KA says:

        His nose was so broke he wore sunglasses the next day as seen hanging on his shirt in a police hallway video…

        Um, if you fracture your nose, you can’t wear sunglasses for a long while. It hurts like hell.

    • CherokeeNative says:

      If you are following this case, you would know that there is circumstantial evidence that George did have his gun drawn before the altercation occurred; and there is direct evidence that George did attempt to detain Trayvon in some manner because Rachel testified that she heard Trayvon say, “get off, get off. Moreover, if you understand DNA, you would realize that there would have been some form of George’s DNA on Trayvon’s hands if he had done what George claims he did. Taking the photo of George’s nose at face value, you will see that the blood is not coming out of his nostrils but from the pinprick injuries to the tip of his nose – that blood would not have been draining down George’s throat but down his lip as it is doing in the photo. Also, if you are following this case, you would know that the direct evidence establishes that this was a “rolling” ground struggle with some witnesses seeing George on top and others seeing Trayvon on top. It is completely reasonable to believe that George could have sustained his head injuries from lawn sprinklers, tree branches, etc. There is no direct evidence outside the statements of a proven liar that Trayvon caused those injuries. And even if we accept that Trayvon caused them, there is still the issue of Trayvon’s right to claim self-defense; and, the issue of George’s reasonableness of using a gun in was otherwise nothing but a fista-fuff. Finally, there is direct evidence that George is a liar. If the jury follows the jury instructions, it will be completely within their right to disregard George’s statements in total or in part.

      • CherokeeNative says:

        *in what was otherwise nothing but a fista-cuff. (oops.)

      • Rachael says:

        I agree that you only see the blood coming from the pinprick injury at the tip of his nose. As well, when he was seen by the PA the next day, there was no blood in the nostrils. If someone had a bloody nose the day before, one would expect to see dried blood in the nostrils.

        • KA says:

          I really really hope that is brought out.

          No blood from the nostrils = no broken nose…

          I thought the PA even said there was no swelling of the membrane either.

        • Soulcatcher says:

          It was also Foggen who refused to go to the ER that night, and only did so the next day becasuse he was required by his job to do so. Not consistant with someone who states he was about ready to lose conscinousness. Had the EMT’s thought his injuries were of consern he wout have been transported to the ER. Had he even stated he felt he wanted or needed to go he would have been taken. He knows from his insurance bakground (he owned an insurance company) that is the first thing you do, and yet he chose not to.

          His injuries were so minor, he didn’t even require a band-aide when he left the doctor’s office. What was he in fear of, by his statement, he was in fear that the police would see him with his gun out, and shoot him.

      • pat deadder says:

        And fogen knew the police were on their way.Rachael was on the phone with Trayvon by the time fogen got to the T so where was fogen for those minutes and how did the body get 30 to 40 feet down the dog walk.

      • Simon S says:

        What circumstantial evidence has been presented to suggest that GZ had his gun drawn in advance? I can’t recall any but I may have missed it.

        • Its actually an irrelevant train of thought since that’s not required for a second degree murder charge. You seem to like to engage in “all possibilities have been covered”

          That’s not reasonable doubt.

      • Nef05 says:

        Bleeding nose tip:
        Agreed. However, Dr. Rao said the blood was coming from the nostrils (remember the insistence on “coughing it up”), which distressed me since the pic was clear and available. However, not wanting to cast doubt on her “insignificant” booboos statement, I looked for another viable prosecution plus.

        This:
        O’Mara argues, no DNA on hands from blood going down the throat. Then O’Mara posits the blood is being swallowed, despite Dr. Rao’s coughing it up insistence.

        O’Mara has placed himself in a no win situation.
        Either the screams were muffled and there should have been DNA

        OR

        The blood was going down his throat and he was choking on it (or at least swallowing) and STILL couldn’t scream, PLUS Trayvon’s hands were muffling his mouth.

        O’Mara can’t have it both ways, and either way – it was physically impossible for his client to be the one with the continuous, unmuffled screams.

    • MDH says:

      GZ wanted to be a cop, associated with law enforcement people, and took LE classed.

      It stands to reason that he knew approaching another person with a gun drawn is assault.

      So you gun drawn theory is bunk.

      GZ was bigger and stronger than T. GZ had been a bouncer and did do MMA exercise so it stands to reason that he felt he could detain T or command him to stop.

      • CherokeeNative says:

        My gun theory isn’t as near bunk as your reasoning about his LE wisdom – but you are entitled to your own opinion as I have mine…thing is, the prosecution suspects the same as I do. George was a dunce and doesn’t make the best judgment calls on top of being a coward. I have no reason to believe he would go between those buildings in the dark hunting without his gun drawn.

        • Two sides to a story says:

          I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t. Fogen profiled Trayvon as a criminal. It’s possible he didn’t draw his gun until some point during the confrontation, but Fogen’s declaration that they always get away but not by me might be an indication would creep around in the dark with the flashlight and gun in hand, policeman style.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            @two-sides who says

            Fogen’s declaration that they always get away but not by me might be an indication would creep around in the dark with the flashlight and gun in hand, policeman style.

            i was just discussing this with the hubster earlier today. when we started dating, he was just out of the army, i was undergoing chemo and we were both college students, although i was a returning student and somewhat older. sadly, all the promises the army makes about giving you experience is BS, the only work he could get was as a security guard while we put ourselves through school.

            we discussed extensively though his actions as an unarmed guard in which his most reliable weapon was a 4 cell mag light. many times he had to round corners, enter dark alleys, etc., and he described exactly what you are saying — being super cautious on rounding the corner, going very slow and sweeping the light in very slow, precise patterns to be able to know if anyone else was around.

            i am sure the defendant did the same in those missing 2 minutes, whether he had his (or THE) gun out, we will never know.

            as you probably know by now, i tend to be very careful about arguing facts — i will not put forth anything that i cannot ‘prove’ in some way. although i think it’s possible that the nose injury is from gun recoil, i will never state so definitively. there are many other questions which fall in the same category.

            after listening to evidence of dna/blood stained clothing however, i think we can state with some certainty that the defendant’s jacket was open and his/THE gun easily accessible if not visible before any confrontation started.

            as gun owners, my husband and i consider this to be the height of recklessness.

          • KA says:

            I think with the blood seem on his shirt, it is easily provable that he had his jacket open and his holster showing.

        • MDH says:

          Yes, but he knew that the cops were going to arrive soon. If he got caught with trayvon hands up and his gun drawn, then he would have been guilty of a crime. False arrest and assault.

          George is a coward and stupid.

          I see where I am mixing logic with George so I apologize about the bunk remark.

          To me, the 9-11 call indicated a man nuttier than a fruitcake.

          So why would he not draw a gun to go after the scary super human huge black teen capable of benching 500lbs and delivering 25 MMA strikes with one swipe of his non-dominant hand.

          • Rachael says:

            I think he was desperately hoping to find a weapon on Trayvon and was at such a loss as to what to do because there wasn’t one that he felt he had to make up his silly story in order to claim self-defense. But Trayvon the thug didn’t cooperate and have a knife or a gun or anything on him. Oh yeah – his fists. LMAO – that is one of the outhouse claims. His weapon-like fists – he had “arms” so that made him “armed.” HAHAHAHAHA

            Who had the MMA training?

            Imbeciles.

          • KA says:

            I agree….I think GZ believed he might be in the clear to shoot because he felt something in his pocket/wasteband…which ended being a can of juice…he found out AFTER the shot!

            I think that is what the frisk Selma say was all about.

      • Dave says:

        I don’t believe that he approached Trayvon with his gun drawn. However he had his jacket unzipped (as proven by the blood on his shirt) for ready access to his gun. In addition he certainly had a weapon in his hand (a 6 or 7 inch tactical flashlight) that he dropped at some point during the struggle.

        I believe that the killer approached Trayvon something like this:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce1gIbaEeZ0

    • Cercando Luce says:

      Did you ever wonder why there are blood trails flowing down from the back of Z’s head, all the way into his beard?

    • Malisha says:

      He could very well have had his gun out, as I have been saying for several months. That would not keep Trayvon Martin from running and screaming. The first sighting of the fight was described as two men running with flailing arms. That fits with the scene if Fogen has his gun OUT. He wanted to bring his “suspect” in, not kill him. But he couldn’t, because the “suspect” screamed and ran and they were seen traveling northward as arms flailed. Then a struggle takes place wherein, at times, they are on the ground in sort of a wrestling posture. That can also happen with a gun drawn. When it became clear to Fogen that he was NOT going to get Trayvon to submit, he shot him dead. It is not illogical at all and it matches the physical evidence and the timeline.

      • KA says:

        I think the flailing hands were Trayvon because GZ had a hold of his hood or back of his short….

        He couldn’t slip out of it because the button was attached to both shirts…

        THAT was Trayvon’s panic. He could have knocked his nose with an elbow in the struggle to make it sore and then the recoil created the little marks that bled.

    • newmediacounsel says:

      Your story suffers from needless complexity, and that’s likely why you don’t get how easy murder 2 is here.

      Here’s a simpler version.

      1. Zimmerman believes “They always get away.”

      2. He didn’t want this want to get away.

      3. So he tried to stop him from getting away.

      We have direct evidence of 1 and 2. We can reasonably infer 3 from the circumstantial evidence. 3 is an illegal act. Provocation proven.

      Next up is having provoked, can he claim self defense?

      Only under special circumstances: Namely he was reasonably in fear of his life

      Again. Not as complex as your post claims:

      1. To believe his claim, we would have to believe him. He’s been impeached before he even goes to the stand. So, who will believe him?

      2. No evidence demonstrating his claims. It doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It means there’s no proof of it beyond his testimony- that leaves 1, which I’ve already eliminated.

      That’s the entire case in a nutshell.

    • nocamo33 says:

      If honest to goodness SD, how do you account for ALL of the lies. Lies stem from wrong doing and are designed to coverup said wrongdoing. Scott Peterson was convicted of murder. No eyewitnesses and lots of circumstantial evidence. The only reason a not guilty is even remotely entertained is because the victim looks like Trayvon.

      • Its the changing of the rules to fit the outcome they want

        Of course you are right- circumstantial evidence is enough in other cases, and indeed impeachment is enough, but here magically, due to the race of the victim, its not enough.

        The key part of modern racism is the ability to appear reasonable. Its only when you take a few moments to think about how would it possible to ever convict anyone if we truly followed Simon’s exacting standards?

        The truth is- we couldn’t. The truth is also, however, we don’t follow that level of standard, which moves from reasonable to unreasonable doubt, even as he tries to appear reasonable.

        I personal think others are mistaken to engage him in their theories of what might have happened. The truth is in this case we don’t need to know that.

        Someone in the other thread wrotel This isn’t a whodunit

        The relevant question is whether it can be excused

        Absent a defense that can be reasonably shown to create doubt, the defendant should be convicted

        The key word in all of this throughout is “reasonable”

        Since the start of this case, the problem has been that those seeking to defend Zimmerman aren’t being reasonable. they are creating new standards because of the race of the victim and the emotional value it has to them as wella s issues like gun rights.

    • “it seems implausible that he wouldn’t have his gun out to begin with” – It is not implausible – He was in his own neighborhood – He was taking MMA training – He knew the police were on their way – He displayed no fear from the beginning – the rest of your argument is based on this flaw –

      If jury believes that he confronted Trayvon without having his gun out…There is enough to support Murder 2

      • That’s right. They don’t need to determine whether he had his gun in or out.

        That’s a side argument. The relevant point is was he acting as the aggressor by chasing after the kid, and in chasing the kid, is it reasonable to infer that his belief that “they all get away” is circumstantial evidence that proves his intent to prevent the kid from getting away.

        That’s pretty much all we need to know to find provocation.

        As the prosecution said on Friday, there are only two people who could know what really happened- one is dead and the other is a liar.

        What we can know is that he was chasing after the kid because he felt they all get away, we know that an argument happened, we know that at least one witness can testify she heard the victim say “get off me”, etc

        To say there is not enough evidence is to ignore all of that. We need not even get to the question of ‘how he tried to detain the victim’ the point is that is reasonable to infer that he did based on the evidence we have.

        • KA says:

          The issue is, no GZ supporters believe that Rachel’s testimony can be considered “evidence”. The gloss everything he said over (well, except the CAC part…)

          It is a racial thing.

          • Which is strange because her testimony merely backs rather than stands alone as the sole evidence of the fact that GZ was the aggressor.

            I get its willful denial due to race, but it doesn’t change the fact its annoying to constantly be told I don’t see the thing that right there in front of them.

            I also think its a mistake to engage, by the way, someone like Simon in conjecture. Notice, he’s not responded to anyone who pointed out his conjecture to convict is unnecessary.

            Anyone who gets into the issues about whether the gun was in or out is also missing the point. Its irrelevant to figure out that detail. the relevant point is to determine whether by logical inference we can know who was the aggressor. there is an enormous about of evidence that it was GZ even if we don’t know the details of how he did it.

          • Xena says:

            Simon S is a play on “simon says.” He calls the shots. Just tell him to go jump.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            @newmediacounsel says

            I also think its a mistake to engage, by the way, someone like Simon in conjecture. Notice, he’s not responded to anyone who pointed out his conjecture to convict is unnecessary.

            Anyone who gets into the issues about whether the gun was in or out is also missing the point. Its irrelevant to figure out that detail. the relevant point is to determine whether by logical inference we can know who was the aggressor. there is an enormous about of evidence that it was GZ even if we don’t know the details of how he did it.

            could not agree more!

        • Puck says:

          …and again, if GZ was chasing after Trayvon in order to catch up to detain him, he can be argued to have been in the process of committing the felony of illegal detention, and self-defense is not available in that case. (I hope I’m getting that right from the statutes I read.)

          • To me these are just logical inferences (ultimately we can’t know what he was planning)

            We know the start and we know the end, but not the middle, but we can use the start and end to figure out the middle enough to conclude he did

          • aussie says:

            The realistic truth is

            IF Trayvon turns out to be a known criminal, ideally with fingerprints matching some found at recent break-ins, the cops are not going to say a word to GZ about “illegal to detain someone”. He’d be the hero for catching a criminal.

            According to some, a voice is heard on the tape saying “I don’t know” or ” I don’t know them”.

            He didn’t have Trayvon at gun point. He had him in a twisted arm-lock, to detain him AND torture some answers out of him.

            Only when it became apparent that he’d MADE A MISTAKE, that this was NOT a returning gang member he’d be praised for catching, only then did the horrible truth dawn on him that HE was going to be in deep shit for detaining him.

            He couldn’t just let him go and hope he’ll run for the hills, as the cops were almost there. “I was running out of time”.

            That was the time to destroy evidence of his crime (the illegal detention) by removing the only witness to it (the victim).

          • PiranhaMom says:

            @Aussie -

            Aussi, you have spoken the truth!

            Every word is accurate: “Only when it became apparent that he’d MADE A MISTAKE, that this was NOT a returning gang member he’d be praised for catching, only then did the horrible truth dawn on him that HE was going to be in deep shit for detaining him.

            “He couldn’t just let him go and hope he’ll run for the hills, as the cops were almost there. “I was running out of time”.

            “That was the time to destroy evidence of his crime (the illegal detention) by removing the only witness to it (the victim).”

            I pray that EVERYONE reads this – and sends it on!

    • LeaNder says:

      it seems implausible that he wouldn’t have his gun out to begin with and the struggle that obviously took place would never have occurred.

      simon, If he had his gun out immediately it would have been against the rules of his concealed carry permit. It would also have been an unlawful arrest, since he had no authority to threaten Trayvon with a gun much less to arrest him or restrict his movements.

      And he knew it. Had Trayvon survived and told that was indeed what happened, he would have been in big troubles without a chance for another pretrial diversion process. Since it wouldn’t have been the first time.

    • Sabrina B. says:

      You seem to be skipping the main point that Trayvon also had a right to defend himself. We are talking about the difference between the aggressor and the aggreived. I think his teacher testified to the totality of the circumstances. And when taken on a whole, one can clearly see that Trayvon was not the aggressor. He first ignored, then he fled, and not just randomly, he ran towards where he was staying. Everything that kid did that night, from staing he was going to the store to get snacks, to actually going to the store to get snack, to returning from the store with is snacks shows that he had no ill intent towards anyone that night. His actions during the whole stalking, showed that he had no ill intent towards anyone that night. Someone who is trying to get away and has been trying to get away throughout it all. is not the aggressor. The totality of the circumstances demonstrates that he most likely fought only when he saw there was no other options left.

      • PiranhaMom says:

        @SabrinaB,

        VERY, VERY well put! “The totality of the circumstances” … you have illustrated it exceedingly well. Thank you!

  9. g2-63e57774c065abc26e22a9c7b2ea012a says:

    Dan Abrahms= HIGHLY paid shill,whose father got him the job at NBC,sound familiar,like numbnutz BoyRussert.
    so much NEPOTISM on tv,suits the dumbing down of America

  10. Xena says:

    Watching the John Goodman and Jodi Arias cases, it seems that those covering (attorneys and reporters) always want to bring the anticipation that the defendant might be acquitted. If they supported guilt, then their only viewers/readers/listeners would be those supporting guilt so they can see court in operation.

  11. Trained Observer says:

    Nearly fell out of my chair when reading Dan Abrams piece earlier today. Have always depended on him for legal analysis on major national news stories, and now wonder why.

    It isn’t merely a matter of disagreement. It’s that he (and nearly all the A-list analysts with exception of Jeffrey Toobin) seem positively out to lunch on this case.

    Thank you, professor, for presenting the “two sides” theory. That doesn’t explain Stutzman’s lazy, one-sided approach, but for a pro like Abrams, that must be it. .

    • KA says:

      I did too…but I noticed all the major networks are making the same claim. I think someone there is a perception that any attorney can evaluate any situation on the fly about anything and their word is gold because they have a JD.

      Actually in reality, it never works that way.

      I frequently write regulatory reviews for clients on FCC decisions or build cases for billing disputes. I get called all the time to give an opinion immediately on something around CPNI or data privacy which is something I am apt at, but gosh, I typically do not know a complete answer at the top of my head…besides many of those codes are interpretive and multiple conditions. I have to do hours of research typically to give a thorough and accurate answer…and I know most of those FCC decisions well.

      To understand the law, there is are always “carve outs” it seems (at least in the federal code I work with). In this case of Abrams thinking “depraved mind” has not been addressed or obtained due to his understanding of the legal threshold. The case law that Mantei raised in his response about a gun and pointing it directly at a head or heart being “indifference and depraved” as a definition directly supports that the State HAS established that GZ acted in a depraved mind. Of course, no one talking on TV even looked up those cases. They are just yapping…

      My guess if Abrams and others are going off vague understands of the thresholds needed and not looking specifically at the case law that was presented. Many of them do not even have knowledge of the variances in FL law yet speak like they do.

      • PiranhaMom says:

        If some stranger chased after Dan Abrams in the dark, grabbed him and put a gun to his chest and fired straight into his heart, would Dan’s last thoughts be, “Hmm … is this guy’s mind depraved, or what?”

    • Malisha says:

      The “two sides” is often idiotic. In divorce court they say “it takes two to tango.” Well no it doesn’t, if one party is abusing the other party. That is a leftover from the idiotic “therapy” idea of the 70s that would ask a beaten-up person, “What did you get out of this?” The answer is obvious: BEATEN UP.

      This is no “he says she says” and it can only be seen as that by someone who ignores the obvious inferences from all the facts. Courts are, of course, inferentially illiterate, but jurors are not. If you get a guy calling another guy (previously unknown to him) an asshole, a fucking punk, and admitting he is following that guy, and you learn that he was following with a loaded gun with 7 hollowpoint bullets in the gun, ready to go, ready to kill, and that guy then meets up with the “fucking asshole who cannot get away” [direct quote from Serino], it’s pretty obvious who started the “altercation” between them. And if the armed followER trained in an MMA gymn for nine hours a week for a year and a half, it’s pretty obvious who would have the upper hand in any fight that ensued.

      It’s also obvious that if someone’s chasing you down at night, you better the Hell defend yourself any whichway you can.

      These facts are not equivalent. “Ooooh I got a boo boo” does not equal “I’m dead.”

  12. tharealkeisha says:

    What I find disingenous is Jorge Meza. I have a nephew, whom is the same age as my daughter. My mom with whom I lived with raised him while my sister was in the army. He was basically my son also. Now he is older and bigger his voice is different, very deep. I would not definitively be able to recognize his voice. Also my son, who will be 17, has just gotten a growth spurt his voice is different he isn’t aso short anymore. And I would unequivocallly be able to determine his screams. Mr Meza I claim you do not take your oath very seriously. Shame on you!

  13. roderick2012 says:

    Leatherman sez: Anyone who has taken the time to study this case should realize that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support a verdict of guilty to murder 2.

    But you’re looking at the evidence from the perspective of a former lawyer and law professor and not a juror who has had extensive exposure to evidence and O’Mara’s lies.

    The State’s minimalist approach will not lead to a Murder 2 conviction because these jurors will wonder why the State hasn’t entered all of the evidence that proved that George Zimmerman is a liar and who killed Trayvon because he wanted to not because he felt his life were in danger.

    It seems as if the State hasn’t reviewed any of the evidence since ABC filed Murder 2 charges in April 2012 and it’s obvious that the State didn’t prep any of their witnesses.

    Given the case that the State has presented so far it’s obvious that the State either wants George convicted of manslaughter or acquitted.

    • Erica says:

      these jurors did not say they had extensive exposure during jury selection and if they had some exposure, they said they would put that aside plus they didn’t know then what they know now.

      • roderick2012 says:

        Erica, regardless of whether they had claimed to have had extensive knowledge of the evidence it’s best to err on the side of caution and present as much evidence as possible to discredit the defendant.

        Furthermore this trial will be the biggest trial for Bernie, Guy and the other ADA so why are they going small and not presenting such evidence like the trajectory of the bullet which proves that there is no way that George could have shot Trayvon while on his back.

        There was a blogger who posted an article on how George could not have fired the gun with his elbow on the ground because the elbow doesn’t bend the way it would have had to do what George claimed he did.

        The State has unlimited funds to pay experts but they used their own medical examiners who can’t speak English.

        • Rachael says:

          Is the trial over yet? Personally, if you really believe what you say, then they have the perfect strategy. It isn’t over yet. Keep watching.

    • Xena says:

      @roderick2012. At closing argument, the State tells the jury its direct evidence, and then the circumstantial evidence. It points out what witnesses say and more importantly, what no witness said. It will approach GZ’s statements and interviews and that at no time, did GZ say he was screaming out of fear or pain.

      The State will also point out GZ’s contradictions as major and not minor discrepancies.

      What we witnessed Friday at the JOA hearing is one lawyer grasping for straws going all over the place, and another lawyer following a “flow.”

      The jury will have all the entered evidence to go through when deliberating. The only direct evidence that the defense has one photo of GZ’s nose before it was cleaned and photographed at the police station, and another photo of the back of GZ’s head before it was cleaned and photographed at the police station. And, while this might be considered direct evidence of injuries, it doesn’t explain how those injuries occurred. The jury has forensics and GZ’s medical report in order to draw their own conclusion.

      • roderick2012 says:

        And the State could have presented their theories on all of these but they didn’t.

        Why in the hell did the State enter the evidence that George practiced MMA three hours a day and three days a week but didn’t have an expert testify that at a minimum George’s 50 lb weight advantage would have given him an advantage over Trayvon and how Trayvon’s straddling George was one of the most unstable MMA positions.

        • Rachael says:

          Hon, that has all been put out there. And the jury has taken notes and will have the evidence to look at when they deliberate.

        • KA says:

          The MMA evidence was documented in the physician report, the weight difference is documented, and I am not sure the State wants to talk about any straddling by Trayvon. I do not think they want to get into many specifics of the fight except to say that Trayvon had no blood on his person, there was no blood on the sidewalk, and reasonable logic can lie together multiple pieces of independently strong evidence that show there was a chase and a confrontation by GZ. .

          Injuries could be a tree or they could be a sidewalk, but Trayvon did not touch or cause the blood flows.

          They paint GZ as the one angry, the aggressor, the confronter, and killer all the while Trayvon was talking on the phone and walking from the store…he will get M2.

          I believe the State is using a nontraditional strategy to give the Defense no ammunition for their case. They have entered a LOT of evidence that they have no discussed. I cannot imagine, they are not going to use it.

          I think they hope that the Defense spends all their time on Crump trying to find some irrelevant piece of gossip while they eliminate GZ as the screamer in rebuttal and tie every loose end in closing.

          I remember during the Arias trail (the little I watched) that the defense took SO long with her on the stand and chased so many rabbits that 18 days later the analysts had worried the jurors forgot about the State’s case…

          Having a rebuttal and going last on closing is a huge advantage.

          • roderick2012 says:

            That’s makes no sense.

            The murderer went into detail about the fight.

            The State doesn’t have to go into great detail, but they can discount some of his obvious lies like George was able to trap Trayvon’s left arm/hand under his right armpit and hold it there while he raised his right hand to shoot Trayvon with a contact shot all while on his back?

            GTFOOH!!

    • KA says:

      I don’t think every witness has to be stellar for your case. I thik each witness had a purpose….good or bad.

      Some who thought they were “defense friendly” actually inadvertently said some damning things for the Defense….like Jeane saying she heard “scuffling on the sidewalk, like playing basketball” …that directly conflicts with GZ version of the big punch and ground/pound 40 ft from where it was. He mentions nothing of a chase or a exchange on foot. The closest he gets is stumbling 40 ft (which if that was right, the “Trayvon thug version: could have easily overpowered him WAY before 40 ft.)

      You have to have a lot of racial ideals or think very low of other people to actually believe a GZ story. They are not logical, they are heavily exaggerated, and they are physically impossible.

      • roderick2012 says:

        KA, you’re making a lot of assumptions, and no where did I mention race.

        My point was that there was so much evidence that the State could have used to damage George’s credibility.

        Take for one the supposed trip to Target. Did they present any of the following to make his scenario that he saw Trayvon on his way to Target suspect?
        1) He only had 50 cents on his person when arrested
        2) all of his credit cards were maxed out
        3) he only had $17 in his bank account

        Given the fact that the jury was all female they would be familiar with the cost of grocery and would know that you can get a gallon of milk and maybe a pound of ground beef and a pack of gum for under $20, but hey it’s just me.

        The State is leaving too much to chance. Like killing a vampire the State needs to put a stake through the heart of George’s credibility not just assume that the jury will understand that George lied about multiple events that night and allow the jury to come to their own conclusion which may not be the one the State wants.

        • KA says:

          Sorry when I said “you” I meant “anyone who”….not you personally….sorry I didn’t mean it that way.

        • Rachael says:

          Maybe you are right – but I’m going to wait until the trial is actually over to say that. Just because there are things we have not heard yet doesn’t mean we won’t. Let’s hear what the defense has to say. Let’s see if the defendant testifies. It ain’t over yet.

          • roderick2012 says:

            Why wouldn’t the State put out all of the evidence when they:
            1) Have the burden of proof
            2) When they are in control of the narrative
            3) Those are a lot of maybe’s that the State is relying on to State is depending on

        • Dave says:

          The killer had 40 cents in his jacket pocket , which was taken into evidence. We don’t know how much money was in his wallet, which was not taken into evidence.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      The jurors aren’t aware of all the evidence and the trial is not yet over, ye of little faith.

    • Malisha says:

      I sure hope not but I can’t ignore your observations, racer.

  14. whonoze says:

    Abrams has always been a tool. Runs in the family.

  15. sadlyyes says:

    DannyBoys DaDa

    Floyd Abrams

    Attorneys in the United States

    Floyd Abrams is an American attorney at Cahill Gordon & Reindel. He is an expert on constitutional law, and many arguments in the briefs he has written before the United States Supreme Court have been … Wikipedia

    Born: July 9, 1936 (age 76), New York City, NY

    Books: Speaking Freely, The Right to Know

    Movies: Nothing but the Truth, The First Amendment Project

    Children: Dan Abrams, Ronnie Abrams

    Education: Cornell University, Yale Law School

    who got him the gig at a very early age,like Luke Russert

    • whonoze says:

      Apologies. I thought Dan A. was related to Elliot Abrams…

      • sadlyyes says:

        he started him with none other then Geraldo al capone Rivera,during the OJ case,when he was fresh out of law school and a good looking kid..he is an empty suit,WHO WILL NEVER lose his job,like Luke Russert Willy Geist….children like Trayvon,will never get a gig like these golden children of the rich and famous

        • KA says:

          Even after the “vault” incident….I always wondered what pictures he had on who to actually keep his “investigative reporter” job after that over publicized stunt….

        • Girlp says:

          Thats what I thought he never practiced law.

  16. Drew says:

    It’s always really bothered me: if Zim had the gun, and was able to aim and shoot and kill his alleged assailant, why would he have been screaming like a child? Makes no sense. If I’m getting beaten TO DEATH I bet you I’m not screaming at all, especially if I know that eventually I can get to my gun and kill my attacker.

    • gbrbsb says:

      You have a good point there. Any fight I’ve ever seen personally or watched on YT there’s never any screaming just breathing, grunting and groaning.

      I don’t even think many would scream if a gun were pointing at them either. I was once held at gunpoint in a shop at closing time with the owner and we didn`t scream… screaming can only make it worse, at most you could do if you thought you were going to be shot is do what they want and beg… and pray if your that way inclined.

      I think the only time you would scream is when you have really deep pain. That is why I always thought the screams were from GZ applying a wrist, shoulder or arm lock to Trayvon. There was a YT video of a US policeman restraining a felon I found over a year ago but can’t find now. The detainee’s screams were so piercing, so anguished, of excruciating pain, and now we know GZ was in MMA classes it seems even more probable.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        gbrbsb says

        I don’t even think many would scream if a gun were pointing at them either. I was once held at gunpoint in a shop at closing time with the owner and we didn`t scream… screaming can only make it worse

        that was my experience as well at 17. granted, the person with a loaded gun at my head was my beloved by bi-polar father in the midst of a psychotic episode drenched in paranoia.

        i was completely calm and silent for hours, it was torturous. the last thing in the world that i wanted to do was to spook the one with a loaded gun. i waited, waited, and waited until he took a break and then i made my successful break.

        • Girlp says:

          Zimmerman claims to have had Trayvon in a wrist lock ( Serino called it a wrist lock) that is extremly painful. My brother taught martial arts and demonstrated it to me. It would be extremley painful.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            girlp — yes, i remember serino saying that and i have no doubt that it was that pain that caused initial screaming, sight and feel of a gun pressed against one would cause additional screaming at that point. what other recourse is left?

        • gbrbsb says:

          Faux, sorry to bother you through the reply here, but I’m having a problem with my comments not appearing on the professor’s blog, so could you post or email the professor and ask if it could be something on his side. Or maybe I’ve been banned and I don’t know it !

          I have tried using 3 different browsers, re-booted my system twice, all to no avail. I can hardly ever start a new comment thread and most often replies using the reply button below the comment doesn’t work either. If I use the notification bar to reply to a reply for me then it most often does work which is why I am using this reply to you now. But more curiously, while my posts are not always figuring on the professor’s blog I am able to post on whonoze’s with no problem.

          Could you also tell the professor that the daily afternoon post link is not figuring in the side bar again. Not holding my breath, and I really don’t think so, and I don’t see why it would affect, but its absence may be why I’m having this problem.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            will do

          • gbrbsb says:

            thnx a thou.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            link to current thread – hope this helps in the mean time

            http://tiny.cc/8e8wzw

          • gbrbsb says:

            Faux, so sorry to bother you again, but nothing is working whatever I try. I posted the problem on the WP forum and a member has replied with this:

            Akismet has recently tightened up, and some legit comments are going to spam. Please STOP commenting on that site, because if you’ve been put in that category then every new comment you make reinforces that.

            Instead, go here http://akismet.com/contact/ and report that you’ve been mistakenly put in the Spam category.

            Could you, email the professor (I don’t have his email but I thought you might and there are some, Xena, Malisha who I believe do but I have no means of contacting them either) to see if he is able to remove me from the spam list on his side and if pos retrieve my comments because last time I had a problem it took around a week to resolve… it would happen just now mid trial!

            Thanks a thou for your help… Thanks for posting my problem before but lost track if the professor saw it and I didn’t know then what I do now.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            copied this message and emailed to crane station because her in box is probably not as flooded as fred’s presently. i hope this helps. i do see comments of yours showing up on the new thread, if i am not mistaken, but then again, it just may have been your lovely doggie liking/licking the post. i just know i saw your avatar there.

          • gbrbsb says:

            Faux, Xena,

            After your and Xena’s advice my posts were coming up I posted several times yesterday night and it all worked fine, but today again I can’t post and I didn’t even shut off the computer or change anything from when finally, believing it was working, and after writing a note of gratitude for y’all to post first thing today, I went to sleep.

            IDK but it has to be something on the professors side and I reckon it will be something to do with the spam guard which for some reason is taking my comments as spam. I can’t contact the professor as I have no reply in my notifications from him to be able to answer to. I will send this to Xena also because as professor is a paying member of WP he maybe able to get on to them and see what they can do, or check his spam settings and remove me from the list.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            his email inbox is probably unmanageable at this point due to blog activity. i did send your message to crane station to overcome that hurdle. wish i had more tips. if what you did earlier worked for a while, i would repeat. clear cache, cookies, reboot. also on these long threads, i disable scripts and flash. it helps.

          • gbrbsb says:

            Been there, done it, bought the T-shirt many times yesterday and it didn’t work. Then, after it not working all evening and without doing anything, suddenly last night after you replied saying you had seen my comments I tried it and it was working.

            As I said went to sleep leaving my comments posting perfectly, even from the main thread, because when I can’t post I am sometimes able to post as a reply in notifications to somebody’s reply to me.

            In any case, thanks so much but if you see a comment from the professor could you please try and post him there, because I really think it has to be something to do with his settings and if he can’t fix it he maybe able to contact WP direct who maybe can. (I am going to post on Xena’s to see if my posts are accepted there.)

          • fauxmccoy says:

            well, that is just the problem, fred is hard to track down right now.

          • gbrbsb says:

            My problem exactly… I only meant in case he posted so don’t fret, I am doing enough of that for you all!

          • fauxmccoy says:

            frederickleatherman at yahoo — you can give it a shot.

          • gbrbsb says:

            Professor I am so sorry to bother and I can only hope you see this reply to something you wrote me a while back, because either my posts are being flagged as spam by akisment if you use that or another, or you have banned me without my knowing and for no reason I can think of.

            For two days now I am unable to post on your blog, except if replying to a blogger’s reply, such as I am doing with you here from the notifications page. Last night, for a few hours, I was again able to post normally, so I thought the problem had fixed, but leaving everything on the computer as was, and without turning it off, when I came to post this morning once again I was no longer able to.

            It is very frustrating just at this time of the trial. Anyway if you do actually get this reply, could you look in your spam and see if you can accept any comments of mine to make it work again, or see what is happening. If you reply to this it will appear back here in my notifications so I should be able to reply back to you. Thank you very much for any help on this, I would love to continue on your blog unless I am no longer welcome.

          • Xena says:

            @gbrbsb. Since your comment appeared, you are not in spam.

            A way you know if your comments are going into spam is if they do not appear “Awaiting moderation,” neither appear on the board. Comments awaiting moderation go into a different queue. Depending on how the administrator has set the spam queue, comments directly sent to spam might be deleted within seconds.

            Another thing is, each blog administrator can set how many links are allowed in comments. Word Press recommends that it be set at 2 or 3, because spammers have the tendency to load comments with numerous links. I think the professor has a limit of one link per comment.

            If you’re still having a problem, and if the professor does not see this first, please post again and I’ll email him on your behalf. If you EVER want to get in touch with me, just comment on my blog:

            http://blackbutterfly7.wordpress.com.

          • gbrbsb says:

            Thnx a thou for help Xena

            I could post last night but can’t post again today. I just posted a detailed account of what is happening in a comment on your blog and although it is not appearing on the page, when I tried to post it again it at least came up I had already posted it so as I have never posted there before it may be it’s just being held for your approval.

            I can post perfectly on my own blog, just posted ok on bcclist but when I immediately afterwards tried posting on whonoze’s today that’s not working either… honest think askimet or whatever it’s called is flagging me as spam.

  17. Woow! says:

    I am sick and tired of MOM whining that he does not want pandering to the media and want his client to have a fair trial but yet he is always in front of the cameras skinning and grinning.

    I wish JN or BDLR would call him on that BS.

  18. Erica says:

    All these lawyers and pundits just are not using common sense like an “ordinary joe or jane in this case will do. The Jane Jurors are not lawyers, not journalist, they are just ordinary Janes. Sometimes people over think things. But one Jane Juror has a son that’s a lawyers, lets hope she is not the Foreman/woman.

    • sadlyyes says:

      its worse than that imo,they want the judges son to be inocent because he is one of the privlaged like they are. Justice lets hope she is blind

      • KittySP says:

        Sadly says, “they want the judges son to be inocent because he is one of the privlaged like they are”

        Sadly, that’s where you’re mistaken…GZ is anything but privileged. If he were he wouldn’t try as hard as he does to be something he’s not…accomplished! If he was truly a Privileged child of the elite, this story wouldn’t have made local news, much less rec’d national media attention. How many of the privileged elite children have you heard about that’s unable to obtain a degree, hold down a decent paying job, in debt, doesn’t pay rent, residing in a development that considering current market value of the homes, could have owners potentially renting to someone on Sect. 8. I’ve been saying all along…these pundits, talking heads, want so badly for GZ to be something he’s not…an honorable, upstanding, citizen of the community.

        • sadlyyes says:

          he is the son of privledge,that is why he never spent time in jail for his other felonies

          • Two sides to a story says:

            He’s the son of a magistrate who had a military career prior to that and a clerk of court. That’s not particularly high privilege – higher than some, lower than a lot in the most traditional sense. Fogen didn’t serve time for his felony because he pled guilty and went into a diversion program. I’m sure his parents let him get away without consequences for a lot of small things along the way because it shows in his behavior now, but that wasn’t so much about privilege but about ineffective parenting or perhaps an overly stubborn and even sociopathic child, since he appears to have not much connection to people now. His father speaks in his book about how GZ wasn’t the best student. I bet they have other tales to tell, such as about his sexual exploits with his cousin, that they’re not telling.

          • Malisha says:

            I know a guy in VA (white, magistrate in the federal court) whose son was nabbed for a serious crime. There were two lawyers in town who, at that time (1989) could get you OFF, and get the records DISAPPEARED and could get the arrest record itself DISAPPEARED (even though the kid was arrested together with 2 others). Those two lawyers had the same gig with the same judge in town. That judge was considered a “hanging judge.” These lawyers would ask for $25,000 cash up front (remember, 1989 money). Two to five days later, the judge got $17,000 cash (which he collected at the nightclub that he owned jointly with the prosecutor’s wife) and the lawyers would keep the other $8,000. Thus, for $1,000 to $2,000 per day, the parents who put up the cash would get their kid back with ZERO on his record and did not have to post bail. ANY CRIME so long as it had not hit the press hard with names mentioned.

            The reason I learned of this was that a kid had parents who refused to do this. The lawyer said to them, “You’ll be sorry; the sentence is from 1 to 40 and he’ll get 40.” The kid (20 years old at the time so not a juvenile) got 25-40 and was interviewed in prison. He told this story because he said he could have gotten off if his “sonofabitch father” had “paid off like he was told to.”

          • Dave says:

            In Virginia a magistrate’s appointment is a political plum, basically a gif tof a circuit court judge. Given RZ Sr’s intelligence background and proximity to DC and the FBI, CIA, NSA and military intelligence HQs, he may have been the go-to guy for warrants in national security cases.

  19. Erica says:

    And does anyone know if Forgen has to let the court know if he will be testifying by tomorrow or does he have to inform the court at all?

  20. 2dogsonly says:

    Leaving out all the scientific CSI type evidence, calls, videos, ear witnesses, contradictory explanations what we are left with is:

    1. Man calls police on a lone person saying only that they look a certain way. Person is not currently doing anything criminal, e.g., not fighting, not breaking into a car, not actually engaging in an illegal act.

    2. He admits and is recorded actively pursuing lone person who is not committing an illegal act.

    3. He has a loaded gun with hollow point bullets that he used to kill person even though he knows police are on their way and person is not engaged in illegal act.

    4. Person he shot has no weapon.

    5. Person he shot is visiting his father so belongs exactly where he is killed.

    6. Person killed turns out to be a teen two weeks past his 16th birthday so is a minor.

    Add in DNA, Blood, man’s training in MMA,…

    How, keeping event as simple as this, what again is the man’s explanation or cohesive theory of killing this teen?

    • Trained Observer says:

      21 days past his 17th birthday, but nevertheless he’s still dead.
      And, as you point out, for no justifiable reason.

    • sadlyyes says:

      it is simple,he did NOT follow police protocol,or NW protocol,he hunted an unarmed kid,because all the others got away,he dropped him on the spot,to NEVER run again…that is all

    • racerrodig says:

      Even O’ Mara said on Fri. he not sure what the states case is.

      In the real world we call this “Stupidity”

    • Unabogie says:

      The teen is black.

      Hence, self-defense.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      Fogen is the sort of gun carrier who goes out looking for trouble and finds it. Self-created mess.

    • Dave says:

      By ostentatiously following him by vehicle and later pursuing him by foot into the suburban equivalent of a dark alley he put the stalkee in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury obviating the killer’s claim of self-defense.

  21. My Forehead Tho says:

    While Dan Abrams is entitled to his opinion, that’s all it was. Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard University law professor, was convinced this case would be thrown out due to lack of evidence, and we know how wrong he was.

  22. smokeegyrl says:

    I think some of these people have blinders on when it comes to certain people or things. Just because this case went viral and Civil Rights lawyers got involved and just because the Black Panther movement made a wanted poster out there on Fogen and it is not the fault of Trayvon Martin or his parents. All the parents wanted was for Fogen to be arrested for the murder of their son… and for justice to be done… that’s it! Everyone else took it to where it is now… so be it! BTW here is a picture of O’M I thought he looked familiar to me. http://www.pxleyes.com/images/contests/tim-burton/fullsize/Martians-5053547bce20f.jpg

  23. You all have thoughtful comments says:

    The media are impotent because the jury is sequestered.

  24. @2dogsonly…i’m with you on this one…duuh, why is this so complicated?

    • 2dogsonly says:

      Thank you, dr. Koura Gibson!

      That is why I broke it down to non- descriptive nouns such as “man” & “person”.Could also use “Person A” follows ” Person B”.

      There is the scientific evidence,witness phone call,, bullet trajectory,club house videos, inconsistent ever changing explanatios,SYG courses,Fight Club contract,taped NEN call by .
      “PERSON A” (MAN)

      AND

      The lack of weapon, visiting Father in neighborhood,white tennis shoes, tan pants (not clothing a person would wear while engaging in crime), 7pm on a Sunday evening ( most people home) by

      “PERSON B” who turns out to be a teen just over 16.

      The way this crime occurred is so obvious, that the defense tries redefining “Person A (Man) as a legitimate cop in hopes jury will overlook he is merely a paranoid civilian who murdered a kid,ruined two families, & destroyed his neighborhood.

  25. Puck says:

    This piece http://dothprotesttoomuch.com/2013/07/06/uh-oh-nephew-george-caught-shaking-his-head-at-uncle-george-in-disbelief/ about Uncle Jorge’s testimony really rang true. I watched the video around the indicated 7:02 and Fogen is not happy with this testimony at all. He looks pissed and frustrated, actually.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Could we conclude Fogen does not approve of whoppers that aren’t his own?

      Uncle Jorge’s tale of knowing it was “George” screaming without knowing what was on TV is the biggest hoot since Miss Cleo reigned supreme at the now defunct Psychic Network.

      • Puck says:

        I must have been away from the laptop Friday during the part of his testimony where he turns to his left and mimes typing, so I only saw that just now. He’s putting in so much detail in an effort to fluff up the credibility of those being GZ’s screams, and it’s totally transparent.

    • My Forehead Tho says:

      LOL I can’t believe I didn’t notice this earlier. Fogen looked embarrassed:

      • racerrodig says:

        It’s like Fogens thinking “…..nooooo, don’t say it…..I changed my mind……shittttttt….too late” (deep breath)

      • Dee says:

        Embarrassed about what?

      • KittySP says:

        Of course GZ looks ticked…probably thinking if uncle hadn’t ‘disengaged’ himself from the case, he’d know that GZ didn’t recognize his own voice while listening the ‘actual’ 911 call. How the heck you know it’s him hearing on TV from another room.

      • Two sides to a story says:

        Thanks, I was listening while I worked and peeked here and there – missed Fogen’s reaction! :]

      • Malisha says:

        My son had a dog he used to tease (the dog didn’t realize) by saying to him: “Cry like a baby, pee like a girl.” Well the dog DID. He had a high whiny sound like the death shriek but it was used to mean, “pet me pet me pet me.” And he peed like a bitch. Every time I hear Uncle Jorge say he recognized Fogen’s voice, I think of that. That shriek: the death shriek of a 17-year-old boy with a “baby voice.” NOT the voice of a 28-year-old MMA trained heavyweight who pees like a girl.

      • Jun says:

        Funny how Fogen first heard it and claimed “it does not even sound like him” yet all these yahoos claim it is him screaming

        But any on scene witness testifying that it sounded like a kid is objected by Omara

    • gldgirl63 says:

      i just watched gz uncle….i had to shake my head at his over expression of how he thought that was gz screaming…..this would be funny if it was not so serious……smh……

    • groans says:

      Thanks for the link! Something that stood out to me on Friday was Uncle Jorge’s odd oath (beginning at 46 seconds):

      Q: Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

      A: “Help me, God.”

      Did he swear to tell the truth??

  26. ks says:

    Abrams opinion is remarkable and clearly shows he hasn’t really paid attention to the case and is just playing the narrative game.

    How exactly is GZ’s story coherent when in fact, if you review his actual statements, he has material discrepancies, aka lies, in, and different versions of, his story? What about that the fact the forensics (lack of DNA, superficial injuries) don’t match his story?

    Also “several” witnesses haven’t backed his account and the idea that one can simply focus on the photos of the back of GZ’s head and ignore, all of GZ’s prior and subsequent actions is absurd.

    • tashatexas77048 says:

      Zimmerman supporters and pundits are 0-3 regarding this case. No arrest, wrong. Acquittal during SYG hearing, wrong. Judge will throw case out, wrong.

      It is safe to assume that anyone who sides with Zimmerman after being 0-3 should be immediately written as “dumb as fuck.” I refuse to debate with anyone batting for a team that has already struck out.

      • racerrodig says:

        He’s a flaming coward, has no morals, no conscience, no class, no dignity, is a lying sack of crap, is chronically under / unemployed, is a racist and even before he had the 3 strikes you mentioned, and despite having 2 balls, isn’t smart enough to work the pitch count and get a walk.

        Thank God !!

      • sadlyyes says:

        they are wishing for no justice for Tray,praying for a miracle,another pisspoor Floriduh jury,lets hope those ladies do their job and keep a VIOLENT murderer off the streets for 3 decades

      • ks says:

        Good point!

    • Dee says:

      And if they were truly focusing on the back of Zimmerman head, they would see that the flow of blood does not show that he was on the bottom. It shows that he was on the top when his head started to bleed. Which I am very upset the prosecution did not bring someone in that could show the pattern of the blood flow did not show he was at the bottom. Gravity doesn’t bring blood up toward his cheeks. Gravity would have brought the blood from his head down the back of his neck, it. He was on his back. Which would have shown a pooling in the back of his head, not flowing toward his ears to a point where it even went to his mustache. This shows that Zimmerman was looking down as he head was bleeding.

      • KA says:

        Or grass and dirt stuck in the blood…

        That head with that blood was never pressed against any surface.

        • acemayo says:

          They only see a black male
          A white wanna be
          All Blacks must paid for
          All thier race sins

        • Dee says:

          Thank you, another example of him being on the top, and not the bottom. I cannot understand why this was not brought up, as much as MOM used this picture. I truly believe that these wounds may have already been there and was re-opened doing the scuffle. On the other hand, he did them himself with the butt of his own gun. However, they did not check the clip for DNA, which was crazy not for them to do. Nevertheless, Zimmerman was friends with these cops at this station, that why he didn’t want a lawyer. He knew that they would be on his side.

      • racerrodig says:

        I’m betting the state goes down that road at closing (blood flow) among others so the defense has no time to figure out an escape….I’ve seen this before….and I’ll bet the Professor agrees.

        • CherokeeNative says:

          Although I don’t understand the reasoning for holding back on this, I am hoping this is what will occur.

          • You all have thoughtful comments says:

          • Rachael says:

            So GZ shot his gun, was not sure he hit him. So he was shooting just to shoot? Just to scare him? In most places discharging a firearm in a residential area is not legal. What if the kid walking his dog had come by.

            But then in another version GZ took aim and shot him.

            SMH

            So full of stories. A new one for each day. If he takes the stand, I can’t wait to hear the one he’s cooked up for the jurors.

        • diary73 says:

          Hey racer. Good to hear from you. How are you feeling? Fully recovered?

          -Diary

        • KA says:

          I agree. I think the State wants the defense to relax and feel they “have it in the bag”…..it makes it so much easier for them.

          It is hard to argue with fools, especially those that just spew unlikely nonsense.

          If the defense rested tomorrow and the State could only rebuttal what was presented by the Defense, they would still be able to hammer the circumstantial evidence of the scream by bringing back GZ statements about swallowing blood, being smothered, nose pinched and then how he did not think he “hit” Trayvon and as was up and talking and going to attack again…..

          If those things are all true from GZ mouth, then he effectively eliminated himself as the screamer. If they are not….he has lied about how the whole evening went down and his life was never in the danger he claimed.

          it can only be one or the other…but not both.

        • KittySP says:

          IMO, the whole ‘blood flow’ thing is a matter of common sense…do the really need expert testimony to explain it!? I’m thinking these jurors can come that very simple conclusion just as we did…

          • Nef05 says:

            Possibly, except for one small thing. O’Mara represented the blood on his cheek, going into his beard as a scratch, along with his other booboos, to Dr. Rao. She did not disagree.

      • Puck says:

        I think they can bring this in during the closing. You don’t need an expert to point out something so indisputably clear to everyone, in this case blood being subject to gravity.

        • fauxmccoy says:

          puck says

          I think they can bring this in during the closing. You don’t need an expert to point out something so indisputably clear to everyone, in this case blood being subject to gravity.

          agreed! we are fortunate that dr. rao’s testimony did include the fact that blood flow is subject to gravitational forces. all the closing prosecutor needs to do is restate this evidence while holding bloody pic evidence in hands and rotate photo until blood is flowing downward. that would be far more powerful picture than any expert opining and pontificating away while west cross examines them on the meaning of ‘gravity’.

        • Unabogie says:

          I can picture exactly how to play this.

          Take the photo of Zimmerman and turn it until the head is backwards, like he’s laying on his back.

          “What, do the law of physics change everywhere the defendant goes? Look at this, blood flows up?”

          Then slowly, ever so slowly, turn the photo.

          “In this world, in the world where the laws of physics still apply, this blood was running downward. The defendant was on top, just like Selma Mora said. Just like Jayne Surdyka said. And just like your God given common sense is saying in every one of you.”

    • sadlyyes says:

      he is paid highly to follow the company line,judges son must be inocent,young AA boy is sinister and suspicious (suspect)
      he lost all creds like Gerry alCapone Rivera,shame on him,and DaDa

    • Malisha says:

      coherent?

      How about, “What’s your effin problem, homie?”?

      Coherent? Not so much…

  27. gldgirl63 says:

    wow that is why i like this site so much…..very informative…..i have gotten more info off this site…. than hln and cnn combined…..all those talking heads…appear to be very biased….hard to watch….i love objective comments….and rational thinking……

  28. KA says:

    Hey WooW –

    I had to repost your entry from the other thread….honestly, I can not quit laughing….

    Woow! says:
    July 7, 2013 at 6:08 pm
    JN is presiding over CAC’s libel case

    Detailed Information for Case 2012CA006178

    Case Number: 2012CA006178 Judge: DEBRA S. NELSON
    Date Filed: 12/06/2012 Case Type: OTHER-LIBEL/SLANDER
    Plantiffs: Defendants:
    ZIMMERMAN GEORGE
    ALLEN RON
    BURNSIDE JEFF
    LUCIANO LILIA RODRIGUEZ
    NBC UNIVERSAL MEDIA L L C

  29. Nef05 says:

    OT: in a tangential way.

    I am revving up my research on Jordan Davis’ murder. Apparently, even with first degree charges, Corey (prosecuting personally) is not going to seek the death penalty. (Unless things have changed in the months since I’ve read it.)
    It’s Jacksonville, 4th circuit – if anyone could assist with case number, Judge assigned, docket sounding, evidence dumps, etc or any other public links – they’d be much appreciated. I want to compare/contrast how the Jacksonville office prosecutes a murder two (Trayvon), vs. a murder one – no d/p (Jordan). TIA

    JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — State Attorney Angela Corey said she will personally prosecute the man accused of killing a Jacksonville teen.

    Michael Dunn, 45, appeared in court Tuesday morning. Police say he shot and killed 17-year-old Jordan Davis after a dispute over loud music on Black Friday.

    It happened at the Gate Gas Station on Southside Boulevard.

    Dunn’s next hearing is set for March 19th.

    http://www.firstcoastnews.com/jordandavis/article/298807/611/Corey-to-personally-prosecute-Jordan-Davis-accused-killer

    • Momma says:

      This is the family’s attorney in that case. I have been following him on twitter. https://twitter.com/JohnPhillips

      • Nef05 says:

        Thanks Momma. With this trial in the second half (defense case in chief), I want to start reviewing available evidence, motions, rulings, etc. While they are certainly two separate trials, the whole sovereign citizen (thanks to Malisha, I believe?) mentality inextricably link them, to me.

        Not hijacking the thread – just requesting some research leads to get started. :-)

        • Malisha says:

          Someone else found the sovereign citizen stuff; I just quoted it, probably (sorry) without attribution.

    • KA says:

      I read today he is going for SYG….

      yeah, good luck with that Buddy…

      • Nef05 says:

        Doubt that will work out with no weapon found, and all members inside the car. Where’s he going to say was the threat? Unfathomable!

        • PiranhaMom says:

          @Nef,

          He was terrified.

          Those kids in the car were black.
          And they were breathing.

          That’s some real threat!

          • 2dogsonly says:

            This is Jax. Not Sanford
            5-6 eyewitness, 7/11 camera captured crime
            6 bullet holes in rear of car
            Man got out of car, killed kid and continued shooting as car attempted to back up.

            No hesitation on arrest. Killer fled scene. Police/ swat surrounded his home next day with guns drawn.He fled scene going back to motel and then returning to his home out of town.

            He was Returned to Jax. charged with 1st degree murder immediatly.He had a top notch criminal,attorney and pro def. judge. Family hired another attorney who asked judge to recuse herself. Now has a much tougher judge. Jax.criminal attorneys are dumbstruck by the stupidity of this.

            John Phillips is civilian attorney for murdered teen’s parents but man is broke, going to prison for life.

            It’s an excellent PR move by John Phillips but has no relation to the coverup attempted by the SPD and the Trayvon Martin murder.

            A close case, though, is the Brenton Butler case which won best documentary at Academy Awards in 2002, “Murder On A Sunday Morning”. It’s available on Amazon probably for a few dollars. This was a Black kid walking home with tremendous police corruption involved. Jury returned a not guilty verdict in 45 min. He was represented by the best public defenders you will ever hope to see in action .

            Wiki “Brenton Butler”.. You will love this docu. Very close to skill of Atticus Finch in To Kill A Mockingbird.

            Also, cleaned out police corruption in Jax. 11 years ago.

            Best line ever said by a criminal attorney or any attorney to a corrupt detective getting ready to take the stand :

            Public Defender lights cigarette
            Detective:” Smoking a cancer stick , are you”
            PD: ” Yes, I always enjoy a cigarette before screwing someone”

  30. MDH says:

    The lack of logic on the part of the media troubles me.

    The first thing one does to assess wound damage is to clean up the blood to get a better picture of what real trauma, if any, exists. They act like the phone picture proves everything and the police picture means nothing.

    And then the gravity of the phone picture is put aside :)

    • Dee says:

      I do know why they decided not to go in front of the same Judge he got right now for that stand your ground case. They first wanted to go in front of the judge, then Zimmerman waved that right. He did this when they found out that Judge Nelson was going to be the Judge to his Zimmerman claim of stand your ground defense.

      She just denied a young black guy the stand your ground defense and MOM were not about to take that chance after all of what they had done with lying in court about the money they were hiding all over town in safe deposit boxes. The Judge differently has a problem with MOM and West. They have disrespect Judge Nelson in her own court. Now she’s not playing at all with them period.

  31. diary73 says:

    I am pulling this response to Leslie’s post from the previous thread:

    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.

  32. You all have thoughtful comments says:

    I predict this will be the result if gz takes the stand:

  33. newmediacounsel says:

    Many of the people who are saying what the legal analyst is saying is relying on the notion that following is not provocation, which in the state of Florida, requires an illegal act or the threat that an illegal act is imminent. The mistake that I believe they are making is that they being reductive of what happened, and what can be inferred from the events. We know that Zimmerman didn’t want another one to get away. We know that witnesses heard arguments (so there wasn’t a surprise attack). In fact, we know quite a bit. despite my misgivings about the prosecution laying the circumstantial and direct evidence out clearly to the jury, there’s no way from an evidence stand point that Dan’s statements are true. We know that there was a gun loaded and ready for action. We know that the defendant was not on patrol that night as neighborhood watch. We have evidence that the defendant unlawfully touched the victim – “get off me” We have evidence that the victim was in a phone conversation when all of this was occurring (we have the phone records of that). we know that the victim was heading homes (the direction of the body). We know alot of things. about the provocation eelement.

    They are relying on two points to say provocation isn’t shown (a) They assume that Zimmerman’s statement about who started the fight can be believed. Why? I don’t know given the evidence that the defendant lied repeatedly. There is a lot of evidence that he followed the victim, had the intent of not allowing the victim to get away, so why they would then assume he in fact did let the victim get away- is unclear. They just believe it. (b) They also assume that if the victim protected himself this means that provocation doesn’t exist. Which is false if the jury finds that the threat of unlawful force was imminent even if it had not happened yet.

    I don’t think we need to make things up like I am seeing above. Its not necessary to the case.

    if you believe that Zimmerman sought to detain the victim (and there’s a lot of evidence pointing in that direction) and can reasonably inferred, then the only remaining question is was there a situation in which the defendant, who then had a duty to retreat nevertheless reasonably feared for his life?

    There’s evidence of the size of the victim and the defendant. There’s DNA evidence. There’s expert evidence about the wounds. There’s evidence about where the body was located in relationship to the side walk. There’s evidence about who had a gun versus who was unarmed. There’s from the defendant himself who said he wasn’t scared (he said that on Hanity I believe?) And the list of evidence goes on and on

    Again- from a strategic position- I am not sure the jury understood all of that

    But from a legal position, I have no idea what the legal reporters are talking about

    I think one of the central problems with this case, as I keep saying, is American’s race problem is showing.

    In that sense, “no evidence” really means “a white jury may see only race here’

    • nocamo33 says:

      Agree with most, except the phrase “duty to retreat”. That threw me off.

      • newmediacounsel says:

        He’s relying on traditional self defense, right?

        If so, then that’s not SYG (unless SYG changes that too in Florida). He’s not asserting SYG as far as I can tell, but people keep using SYG analysis.

        if its traditional self defense, and I should be corrected here if I am wrong, in Florida that means if he’s the party provoking he may assert self defense if he retreated (which he did not do) and/or having attacked he is in fear of his life because the other party escalates.

        That’s my understanding of the case. Thus, is not enough to show that the victim fought back because otherwise it would lead to an absurdity: A victim defending himself against an attack can be shot because he was defending himself from an attacker. I’ve been told that’s people’s reading of the law. That while the victim had a right to defend himself, the defendant had the right to shoot even if the victim didn’t escape (the so called “concrete as a deadly weapon”). There’s a reason why the defense is so keen on emphasizing that. Without it, their case is weak as far as claiming fear for one’s life. What else would produce that fear? The defendant made many claims, which cannot all be true. And if they are so exaggerated should , by a reasonable person, be dismissed as all lies. Eg, he was being smothered by the victims hands while the victim was also going for the gun etc.

        As the prosecution stated on Friday- the case law makes it clear that if you believe the defendant is lying, you don’t need to believe anything they say.

        The problem here is that having caught the defendant in several lies the press is sayign they still believe him and believ the jury will. Why? they don’t say. I can guess why: race. But they don’t say so.

        • Puck says:

          And considering both GZ’s height/weight and his MMA training, he most certainly did not exhaust every means to defend himself or withdraw from the situation. If his story of the fight were true:

          i) We would expect that he would have defended himself with his hands before his gun, and used his height/weight advantage (if not his MMA training) to overcome Trayvon and gain control of him, but apparently he just laid there and took it without doing everything; he can’t claim that Trayvon had his arms pinned because he was still able to get to his gun — so what was he doing with his arms?

          ii) We would expect dirt and grass in the heels of his boots as he dug his feet into the ground as part of trying to escape or at least overpower Trayvon; there was none — in fact, the grass was found in the toes of his boots.

          iii) …nor were there any grass/dirt stains on the back of GZ’s jacket and shirt. How can one shimmy along wet grass without causing a stain? And we know grass stains are hard to get out, and don’t just fade as a jacket dries. Timothy Smith testified there was grass all over the back of GZ’s jacket. Where did that go?

          iv) Osterman’s testimony was that Trayvon had his knees up to GZ’s armpits. How, then, did he shimmy down eight inches (I believe that’s Osterman’s number)? Did Trayvon graciously move himself back too along with the shimmying?

          v) And of course, the impossibility of GZ’s being able to get his gun without a second elbow, let alone his being able to fire a perfect front-to-back no-angle shot through Trayvon’s heart (underneath the button, to boot) from that position.

          vi) And all the other stuff we know but I’m too tired to actively recall at the moment.

          ALL OF THIS can be demonstrated and argued in the State’s closing statement; things like the boot photos and Raymondo’s statement about the button have been entered.

        • Rachael says:

          According to MO’M, he didn’t retreat because he was unable to – even though he outweighed the kid by 40-50 pounds and (now we know) was trained in MMA and self-defense.

          And your second-to-the-last paragraph is what I was saying above. GZ has lied about everything, and I mean EVERYTHING. So why would anyone think this would be the ONLY part he’s telling the truth about?

          You are right. They don’t say it, but we all know why. I’d say your guess is totally correct.

          Excuse me, I’m going to be ill.

          • Puck says:

            And along those same lines, he was not acting as would a reasonable person at any point, so why should anyone believe that his claimed fear of imminent great bodily harm or death would suddenly become reasonable?

          • PiranhaMom says:

            The whole fiction of GZ being UNDER Trayvon was to answer the question, “Why did you not follow your duty to retreat?”

            That’s the only pretense he could come up with: “The kid had me pinned to the ground.”

        • whonoze says:

          GZ’s claim will be that he did retreat — staggering back away from the T with those swimming motions — and TM followed him, and got on top of him preventing further attempts from GZ to get away. (Yeah, it’s ridiculous given the relative weights and upper body strength of the two men, but the Defense just ignores that sort of thing…) And GZ will further claim that TM escalated — with the punching and head-banging — since he had injuries and TM did not. (GZ’s probable escalation by placing TM in a painful hold leaving no forensic evidence, other than the ‘disputed’ screams, of course…)

          IMHO, the Defense is going come down to ‘he hit me so i shot him before he could hit me any more’. Of course that wouldn’t fly under any sane system of justice, but the trial is being held in Florida, so it’s hard to say what will happen…

        • Nef05 says:

          The problem here is that having caught the defendant in several lies the press is sayign they still believe him and believ the jury will. Why? they don’t say. I can guess why: race. But they don’t say so.

          I believe that is why. Trayvon was a black male, therefore he is not entitled to self defense. His very being is a threat, and therefore justifiable fear of an “imminent attack”.

          • ks says:

            Bingo!

          • Rachael says:

            :’(

          • You see that a lot from the Internet. The mere fact that there was a fight in their mind means per se reasonable doubt. They aren’t applying the legal standards at all, and its all in my mind just putting “we are using reasoning” veneer on a crap sandwich: Namely they see black, they think “can fight and is deadly”

        • mrsdoubtfire says:

          “The problem here is that having caught the defendant in several lies the press is sayign they still believe him and believ the jury will. Why? they don’t say. I can guess why: race. But they don’t say so.”
          ^

          I’ve yet to hear one legal pundit/talking head that has looked at Z’s statements with any semblance of analysis. lol

          When Z did Hannity it was the “God’s Plan” statement that made the headlines. The fact that he told blatant lies which could not possibly match with the NEN call were and still are of no interest to the mainstream USA media. “skipping”…..really? They have a real time NEN recording. How difficult to put Z’s circling BS to the test? Or why no disussion about the different versions of where he claims he was confronted by TM.

          Contrast that with how they reported on Manalo’s photo. Or how much weight was given to John Good. Zero reporting that I saw on his amended statement where ground and pound became arms going down during a 10 second snapsot of the event..

          The reporting of what’s transpired during the trial is no better.
          Headlines like “Star Witness” caught lying under oath” Or “Prosecution witness helps defense”

          Thank God this Jury is sequestered.

    • Malisha says:

      It also means, “A white jury surely has to affirm that a white guy is still allowed to kill a Black kid if the kid’s family cannot prove he was perfect.”

      • Nef05 says:

        I agree. I believe some juries might, but my gut feeling is this one won’t. Too many moms. The defense may have thought they lucked out with this jury. I believe it will ultimately work against them.

    • Puck says:

      I’m glad you brought up the following (chasing) in order to detain angle. A few days ago, I had an “aha!… wait, duh!” moment: what is the goal when one person chases after another? To catch up to them, at the very least, but given “they always get away,” it is reasonable to infer that GZ wanted to catch up and catch. If that inference is seen as reasonable (I think it is), then one can logically conclude that GZ was in fact in the act of committing the crime of illegal detention as soon as he got out of the truck. A person committing a felony cannot claim self-defense.

      And then Friday, Mantei started going in this direction, and I found myself vigorously nodding in approval. I don’t know if they’ll actually suggest GZ was committing a felony in his pursuit of Trayvon, since this might just confuse the issue, but they will certainly keep pushing the point that it’s reasonable to infer GZ wanted to catch and detain Trayvon, and Trayvon’s seeing that GZ was about to do this gave HIM the right to use force in self-defense. There’s a subtlety in the self-defense law that provides for this reasonable perception of imminent force.

      • That’s the logical inference that’s not being made here

        What was GZ going to do once he caught the victim?

        if we don’t believe his claims about an ambush, and the facts indicate he was lying , so I don’t./ We know he’s lying about the ambush. the argument tells us that much. The lack of physical evidence to match the 3 different claims about the ambush also does so.

        Therefore, what was it that logically speaking comes next in the chain of events

        we essentially have a chain of events here where one element is missing, but all the other elements tells us a lot about the missing element

        We have evidence of what happened both before and after the provocation

        The o nly way you find “not guilty”is to ignore what that evidence surrounding that moment of provocation implies even if you aren’t sure that chasing is sufficent

        I have been less than pleased with the prosecution. I feel like they are operating at 3/4s speed

        People are making a lot of excuses for them, but I think if a not guilty verdict happen, it won’t because there isn’t enough evidence, its because of their lack of imagination of how to explain it to the jury

        The real point is-you k now that the alphabet contains letters X, Y, Z.

        if I wrote X, —-, Z

        You can logically infer the missing l etter.

        • Ms.X says:

          Thank you so much. I’ve said the same: The prosecution is exhibiting a lack of will to win. Even as a mere teacher, we are required to state objectives for information to the students. To define, we have to tell them this is whay I’m telling you, this is why, this is what you are learning, and this is how you will apply the information. I think Maisha posted a probable reason that the prosecution is neglecting to make it plain; They are trying not to iplicate the SPD. Too bad because no one can stop it from happening, not even the proscution by practically throwing the trial.

          Here is a link to a youtube video made by Smokeygirl. It features an audio of gz racking the gun before he goes after Trayvon.

          I wish I could post the video but I don’t know how.

      • Nef05 says:

        I agree with you, with one caveat.

        While Trayvon’s perception of GZ’s purpose is on the mark (and I’ve argued this from day one), I don’t believe the prosecution has to rely on subtleties to assert Trayvon’s right to self defense.

        Fogen’s own statement, that he “reached for his…phone (gun)” is not even a perception of imminent threat. It is an overt act of an imminent threat, and countless Agencies have cleared LEOS for justifiable shootings in exactly that circumstance.

        That being said -Interesting what you said leading to that point, and the hypothesis of criminal activity from the moment he left the car in an attempt to illegally detained “course of conduct?”? Nice. Kindof abstract, but Nice! The professor had an article about the intent of legal actions which lead to illegal actions. It was very interesting.

        • Puck says:

          Legal actions committed in the course of an illegal act become part of that illegal act by virtue of continuity. (Basically.) The issue with how this is being framed in the news media is that everything is being divided into discreet narratives. That’s what’s frustrated me and so many others about how talking heads and ostensibly neutral (yet revealing themselves more and more as pro-GZ) lawyers on DKos are slicing this all into isolated periods of brief action, rather than consider the whole picture. Ultimately, even if chopping all of the acts up into these periods and arguing the statutes based on these is valid, I have faith that the jury will consider the entire chain of events (we like narratives that flow and make sense, not a series of mini-narratives, especially when many contain inconsistencies and impossibilities), and this against everything else that has built a preponderance of evidence that a) GZ did not act in self-defense and b) he chose to shoot to kill, did nothing to help the kid, fucking coons/assholes always get away, etc. which all goes to depraved mind, ill-will, hatred, etc.

          • I don’t have your faith. This same strategy was used in the Rodney King case to achieve jury nullification. Ultimately, the goal is to get the jury so focused on discrete moments that race will do the rest. The reason why I wanted to prosecution to go big picture is that is where you cut off all the gamesmanship that can occur by treating each moment in the chain of events as discrete. I am not so sure that they will be able to do it either in the rebuttal or closing argument because the defense has hammered their strategy (explain away each moment) into the ground, and when you look at the public, whether its the press or the general public, you should realize: they are the jury pool. I hope that I am wrong, but that reality is my concern. I think there is enough evidence to convicted, but it requires people to think it through. To do what I have done to go okay I k now steps, A, B, C, D, E—-, J, K and know that G, H and I are missing, but that doesn’t change the logical inference one should make. Finally, the reason why these news analysts can argue what they are arguing is precisely because the public isn’t trained to understand how to look at evidence or the law. We trusted juries to figure out it, but I am not as convinced as the professor that they will. I don’t think evidence will lose this case. I think strategy will. I hear too many people here explaining away ‘but he will do it …” The problem is it shoudl have already been done. They could have argued what I just did without having to fill in the gaps. When the defense gave its case, they could have rebutted the defense’s attempts to fill in the gaps,

          • You’ve nailed it. As far back as I can remember, the talking heads in Fogen’s support have compartmentalized his actions the night he killed Trayvon, then they conclude (illogically) that he was justified in doing so. Their arguments tend to hit upon one or more of the following, as if Fogen’s actions operated in a vacuum:

            1. It’s not illegal to follow someone in order to give a description to police.
            [This ignores Fogen's intent to nab and detain a person who he unreasonably deemed 'suspicious' and ultimately killed because his imaginary authority was challenged.]

            2. It’s not illegal to walk to the end of the cut-through to find an address.
            [This ignores that it was a blatant lie used to cover that he was in active pursuit of his 'suspect' when an address at Jenna's house was clearly visible before he set out to pursue Trayvon.]

            3. It’s not illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Florida.
            [Of course it's not, but it's highly inadvisable to do so while in a Neighborhood Watch program, unless you are willing to expose yourself and your homeowner's association to all sorts of criminal and civil liability in the event you unreasonably decide to pursue, nab, and detain a person who is killed by your previously concealed weapon which you were advised not to carry while in your NW capacity.]

            4. It’s not illegal to defend yourself when you’re punched in the face and your nose is broken.
            [This factual seclusion totally ignores the big picture of Fogen's surveillance of Trayvon in his car, his leaving the car to engage in a foot pursuit, his obscuring the foot pursuit by professing he was looking for a remote address that he never gave to NEN, and the fact that at some point he and Trayvon are face-to-face then he kills Trayvon with a concealed Kel Tech PF-9. Not to mention that anyone closely following the case would know that the medical testimony is that his nose was not broken. I would venture to say that even if it was broken, Fogen didn't care enough about his nose to get it checked out at the referred EMT. So it makes no sense for anyone to advance an argument that even Fogen himself has abandoned.]

            Fogen never thought that his actions would be reviewed in toto. He thought that if he kept to the blue lie, he would be exonerated and relaxing on some beach about right now. Even with all the evidence stacked against him, he’s still toeing that frail and quivering line.

          • Xena says:

            @Medusausi. Good points of the talking Zidiots. If I may;

            1. It’s not illegal to follow someone in order to give a description to police.

            When the person acknowledges that they know they are being followed by running, anyone following from that point suffers the liability of doing so.

            2. It’s not illegal to walk to the end of the cut-through to find an address.

            When the address serves no purpose, it’s merely a alibi for staying out in the open to follow the person.

            3. It’s not illegal to carry a concealed weapon in Florida.

            But, it is unlawful to carry a concealed weapon when performing an action that forbids the person to be armed; such as when on NW. The same is true for entering government buildings and airports.

            4. It’s not illegal to defend yourself when you’re punched in the face and your nose is broken.

            It’s not against the law to meet force with force, but the person is responsible for removing themselves from the situation before using deadly force when they initiated or provoked the other person. If not but for the fact that GZ got out of his truck to follow, and did follow Trayvon, the two would not have come into physical contact, PERIOD.

            You fleshed it out very well.

        • Puck says:

          And Mantei clearly started going there in his JOA argument, so I think that, more fully fleshed out and referring directly to evidence, will be a major argument in the State’s closing. They might even get to it in rebuttal depending on what the defense puts forth in its case.

  34. fauxmccoy says:

    after watching the JOA arguments and judge nelson’s facial expressions, i wish the defense had taken advice from the nuthouse and requested a bench trial. oh, if only!

    • Deborah Moore says:

      If, then…would we have seen the disrespect from the Defense towards Her Honer, do you think?

      • fauxmccoy says:

        who knows? the defense has been hideous towards both judges and the court in general.

        • Rachael says:

          I really have to wonder why they behave that way. To the JUDGE!!

          Is it because she is a woman? Would they treat a male judge with more respect? I’ll have to go look at some of the old old ones when J. Lester was still around.

          But even so, what lawyer in their right mind treats ANY judge with disdain? Even if they don’t like him/her or agree with him/her. There is a jury watching. Do you think they don’t see it?

          WTF?

          • fauxmccoy says:

            rachael — WTF is right. i don’t get it, never will. it’s like pissing off the RN that’s about to insert your foley cath, eh? my husband as a security guard witnessed just that for a drunk, handcuffed to gurney in the ER who made a lewd comment about the RN who was ‘touching his wee wee’. guess who wound up hurting more?

          • Rachael says:

            I just hope he wasn’t too drunk to remember the next day why he was hurting. LOL

      • Jun says:

        i dont get it

        seriously, what is the point of court and law, if the defense can just act like sleezy slime

    • Sophia33 says:

      JN seems to have a distain for the defense. Can you blame her?

      • fauxmccoy says:

        @sophia

        not in the slightest.

        on a personal note, i want to say that you and i may have gotten off to a bad start here, i am not sure. i know i left you a rather long message once, explaining how we operate here to the best of my ability.

        i do want to say that since that time, i have noticed a real and positive change in your posting. i appreciate it and enjoy interacting with you. not that you need my approval for a damn thing, of course. just wanted you to know my appreciation and although i don’t think i said anything unkind to you, i will gladly apologize if you think so.

      • Nef05 says:

        I agree, Sophia. I have enormous respect for her restraint and composure. I think we can all agree I’d have reamed them a new one by now. It is excellent that I am not in her position. I’m so glad she won’t let them bait her. We’ve thought for quite a while they were trying to get her to say/do something that would give them an excuse for a recusal. She’s not giving them the satisfaction! Good for her!

      • Puck says:

        I have been greatly enjoying your posts lately. I hope you’re on board with my “thing” about the state having three more tweakable strategies to deploy in the next stages of the trial. It’s what keeps me going in terms of my concerns over how they’ve made their case so far.

        Still, there are also aspects of the trial proceedings themselves that I think the jury will consider, such as, if Westingtime kept Rachel on the stand for 5+ hours, then her testimony must be so damaging to the defense for them to take it to that extreme — and they might in fact be more inclined to believe her. And I don’t think her little lies about the funeral and her age are going to lead the jury to disregard her entire testimony. She didn’t waver the whole time. And the jury is seeing and hearing all of this from a position where they can look at GZ’s reactions and expressions at any time. I think by now they’re got him figured out.

  35. Ty Flair says:

    The one who makes my blood boil is that damn Mike Brooks what ever his name is on HLN. He got raciest written all over his face,I hate to hear is damn voice I just turn the damn T.V.

    • KittySP says:

      @Ty Flair – him, that blonde defense attorney, and lawyer that represented Charlie Sheen and OJ in his last court case were he was found, what? Guilty!

  36. Tee says:

    My daughter & I was watching hln last week & they were saying the same thing, its impossible for GZ to be found guilty. My daughter asked me if this was true, I told my daughter not to worry because I dont think they ran that by God! See my God is a good God and I know until he speak nothing “IS”. So all those people who think they know bettef than than almighty I say speak to us after the verdict is read. He’s answering to God for this crime and all the others he got away with. They better look at those 6 women on that jury and asked themselves how did that happen. We know God’s power when the impossible is made possible.THOSE 6 MOTHERS WILL STAND UP!

  37. nocamo33 says:

    Abrams, afraid to “get it wrong,” is following the herd. Besides, it’s only entertainment, right. No harm, no foul.

    • That’s exactly what’s happening.

      They were “certain” this was a SYG case.

      As it turns out, its not, but it hasn’t stopped them from being certain about the ease of the case.

      I still don’t know what the jury will do, but anyone claiming certainty is full of it.

  38. PiranhaMom says:

    It is very clear from Simon’s and Lynn’s and Roderick’s arguments (and those of their ilk) that, in the interest of justice, the US jurisprudence system needs to move technologically forward as follows:

    Every square foot of the US – exterior, interiors; in the waters below and the sky above – must be lit 24 hours per day with cinema Klieg lights, to illuminate all actions of human endeavor, and that high-definition CCTV be installed to film all activity “in the round” from all angles, and that such CCTV must record in high-def sound.

    In addition, motion detectors need be installed to detect earth tremors and other movement. Full weather-reporting systems need to produce accurate records of wind speed, precipitation, fog, smoke and humidity, etc. Perhaps some not-yet-invented technology installed to record odors, to literally “pass the sniff test.”

    Also, all occupants of US territory (including tourists) must have wireless lavaliere microphones installed to record every word, every minute of every day.

    This, for Simon and Lynn and Roderick and their ilk, would be the evidence required at murder trials.

    Lacking that, there could ALWAYS be doubt established, and ANY and ALL doubt is “REASONABLE.”

    Absent such “scientific evidence” at this time, ANY and ALL of us may be hunted, attacked and murdered – as long as our attacker succeeds in killing us dead before we can speak one word of what happened.

    Without such evidence-in-the-round, in sound and living color, according to Simon and Lynn and Roderick, no killer could be found guilty.

    So … it’s Open Hunting Season for all of humanity.

    God Save America …

    • In fact, unless God himself comes down to testify that he saw what happened that night, circumstantial evidence about the crime, direct evidence of the crime and evidence of the defendant lying about elements of the crime, all prove nothing, and its reasonable to doubt the prosecution’s case because why? Reasonable doubt is why. The Professor says the definition of reasonable doubt is circular, and I think these people are making clear the danger of that.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      @Pmom who says

      Absent such “scientific evidence” at this time, ANY and ALL of us may be hunted, attacked and murdered – as long as our attacker succeeds in killing us dead before we can speak one word of what happened.

      how in the hell did we manage to have trials in the 19th century without all this high tech gadgetry???

    • Lynn says:

      Just wanted to state for the record that I believe you were talking about “Leslie” and not Lynn. I think the bastard is guilty as sin. I searched the thread by my name to see where I left of reading late last night and BAM I was being included in this group. lol I went back a thread and saw where my name was mixed with hers mid-paragraph. PLEASE, no one think that I have these opinions!

      Well, onto the trial. First whole day off of work and I’m doing NOTHING but watching the trial. My family has been made aware of the crockpot and it’s contents and to leave me alone for the entire day :)

  39. Girlp says:

    Such a strange thing forAbrams to say, last year he said that you could not kill someone because you are on the losing end of a fight.

  40. Puck says:

    The “pro-Fogen” (or at least vastly underinformed about the details of this case) talking heads on TV are pushing the “The state has presented an inadquate case! GZ will likely be acquitted!” thing not only to create a necessary tension that keeps people watching, but for the benefit of where they can go after if GZ is found guilty.

    If GZ is acquitted, they’ll be all over what did the prosecution do wrong, what convinced the jury, and the usual stuff. If he’s found guilty, it’s a MAJOR SHOCKER they can milk for more than it’s worth. “A shocking verdict in the Zimmerman case!”

    But if he’s acquitted, because of how they’ve framed this, they can’t really say it’s shocking, so they lose out on the potential sensationalism of a guilty verdict. If he’s found guilty, then it’s all about what the defense did wrong, what convinced the jury, but also with the added intrigue (and fodder for more air time) of how the talking head lawyers and Dershowitz et al got it wrong. I believe the news media’s choice of a “side” in a trial is a semi- if not completely deliberate calculation informed by what the actual verdict will likely be (if that can be assessed), and choosing the opposite side in order to improve their chances of a sensational shocker. In many cases they’re throwing their legal analysts under the bus, at least to some extent, but even they can come back with their mea culpas and maintain some appearance of integrity. “Next: our legal analysts return to discuss what they got wrong, so stay tuned!” And people stay tuned.

    Essentially, the news media wants to get as much out of this once they get to the other side post-verdict. They want a shocker, so they have to set that up during the trial.

    • PiranhaMom says:

      @ Puck -

      You’re correct. Media time/space is considered “real estate” by the owners. Abrams is just setting up expanded airtime for himself once the verdict is in.

      To discuss the shock of it all …

    • YQ says:

      I agree with you, and I’m telling you man I don’t like this mark nejame guy on CNN. He stinks like a rat and he had his dirty claws in this from the outset. He had the inside scoop on Reckseilder when this thing broke out. When O’Mara got the first judge recused, it bought him some more time and he made some shrewd moves over those extra weeks or so. Same for the bogus claim on Lester. In hindsight, Fogen should be already catching butt shots in prison. We know who the screams are and most people with a decent set of ears will agree that it’s the kid. And most incredibly , the BS that came out in the Frye is the one of the more pathetic moments… Like an audio expert opinion from halfway across the world being allowed to testify against not new and novel methods that were bring generally deployed in cases in the US. Mind you, no one had anything to say when the methods were convicting other criminals. I don’t get it… Comment threads everywhere are ugly with some of the worst ways you can possibly disrespect the dead. But no one ever takes into account that Fogen would never discriminate, he would have profiled the kid even if he was whIte.and that’s the most twisted part of it all…

  41. Cercando Luce says:

    I listened to GZ’s “lie detector test” interview on Lonnie’s site and heard yet another lie, (2/27/12, 7:11.24) where he tells the interviewer “Oh, my employer wants the case number, too.”

    “Why?” asks the man, “they have no business to it.[sic]”

    GZ (softly): “I guess they want to see if I’m a criminal or something.”

    After a pause in which the interviewer is distracted, GZ says, “Now that I think about it, maybe they’re just being nosy, but they asked, it was HR, they asked for the police report.”

    Interviewer: “….homicide investigations are not released until (unclear word)”

    I wish prosecutors had asked GZ’s employer if they had asked for a note to return to work, and for a copy of the police report.

    GZ also claimed he was unable to breathe through his nose, yet he has no trouble pronouncing “m” and “n” and “ng”, and even sighs through his nose.

    • Rachael says:

      Why would they be nosy? I can totally understand the medical note, but why would HR want a police report? Makes me wonder if GZ had an attendance issue. I know, it is total speculation. But I’m not above speculation

      • DruDo says:

        This was on 2/27/12? I don’t think he had lawyered up yet and I think he wanted it for himself so he would know what they had on him. He’s stupid enough to think they would just hand it over to him.

      • Xena says:

        @Rachael.

        I can totally understand the medical note, but why would HR want a police report?

        Because GZ told a co-worker that he had been mugged. He would need an excuse for being off work, in addition to a medical release to return to work. Let’s not forgot too that Sondra Osterman worked at the same company, and there’s no telling what she mouthed off to HR that morning.

        • Cercando Luce says:

          I don’t think HR wanted a police report, or the case number. This would’ve been an easy lie to check. And I don’t think GZ’s stupid enough to think they would just hand it to him– I think he was testing to see if a person for whom he had been acting as a mild-mannered schmo for a couple of hours would give him the report.

      • KA says:

        Honestly, I am not sure they wanted a medical note except to excuse the day off work. He had a desk job, primarily on the phone. It is not like he was working with heavy machinery.

    • Sleuth says:

      The confessed murderer was probably trying to get a copy for himself to show to zidiotSr. so they could get his story straight to avoid arrest.

      According to an FBI report, ‘four days after the incident’:

      “Mr. Zimmerman told the co-worker he had been mugged by Mr. Martin, who he said declared, “You don’t know who you are messing with,” the co-worker told agents.

      During their struggle, in which Mr. Martin was “kicking the crap out of Zimmerman,” Mr. Zimmerman’s shirt was raised, revealing his handgun, the co-worker reported Mr. Zimmerman saying. Mr. Martin reached for the gun, saying, “Now you’re going to die, [expletive]” and “Now you [expletive] up,” the co-worker said Mr. Zimmerman told him”.

      But what really, really, had happened was, Trayvon really said, “You don’t know who you are messing with homie, I am armed with Skittles and tea, and I will kick the crap out of you”. (my version of it. ;-)

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303644004577522921327607902.html

  42. kllypyn says:

    I’m tire of hearing about his injuries. All he had are a few scratches and a couple of minor cuts on the back of his head which are no where near consistent with his ridiculous claims.What about trayvon’s injuries.Trayvon suffered a brutal and possiblity painful death(if he was conscious before he died.) which he did not deserve. the right ventricle of his heart was punctured so was the lower lobe of his right lung. Each time his heart beat it flooded his chest cavity with blood which caused them both to collapse.He then began to suffocate. His heart kept pumping till there was no more blood to pump when it was all over nearly half his blood volume was filling his chest cavity.Trayvon was a minor he was only 3 weeks into his 17th year when he was murdered.Trayvon did everything to avoid this man. when that didn’t work he tried to talk his way out of it.Zimmerman was the aggressor. these so called educated people ought to be able to figure that out. Trayvon was never a serious threat to zimmerman. he was unarmed he had no, special fight training he was just a normal kid. He was not troubled. ain’t it funny how they only say that about black kids.He did not have a rough life his life was no more rough than most teenagers life is rough anyway. he was a normal kid dealing with the normal issues teenagers deal with. I’M TIRED OF THIS CRAP!!!!!

  43. silk says:

    Hay every 1. Their is more then enough to convict gz on m2!!! Its how
    the evidence is presented. BDLR is to conservative. He could had burn zimmerman ass by now ! He won’t rebuttal omara. This is a very good case for the state , just that it that the is blowing it. Maybe it is fixed , idk. But that bullshit bloodie nose pic hasn’t been called phony by the state. And that bull shit with serino and good, bernie could have clean that up. And he didn’t. Then u have 5 white juriors and 1 hispanic , in florida !!! I feel for trayvon. Yes I do. But BDLR can do a better job then that!!! And what happend to trayvons time line ? The trajectory?? Just don’t understand why they rest so soon. It was proven that gz had no defense. I don’t get it.

  44. YQ says:

    Question for all:

    We know that the shot was front to back, but I don’t think that the kid was on the .top.. Anyone suggest that the shooting may have happened when both subjects laying side by side facing each other?

    • Romaine says:

      yes I have presented that scenario, and believe strongly that it is possible.

    • PiranhaMom says:

      @YQ -

      Possible, but much more difficult to hold onto the shirts with one hand and position the muzzle of the Kel-Tek with the other as precisely as he did, to result in the intermediate range shot.

      With one arm or the other, in that position the earth impedes.

      It is also much less stable for Zimmerman. He wanted all the protection he could get.

      And there would be smearing of the blood on the side of Zimmerman’s face that is next to the ground.

      It’s those pesky blood trails again!

  45. MDH says:

    IMO, the bloody photo is good evidence that George is guilty. The blood trails do not lie.

    The cleaned up photo is also good evidence in that they show the puny nature of the wounds.

    Major blunt force traumas cause swelling that takes days to recede.

    Minor blunt force that only impacts superficial tissue caused swelling that recedes quickly. Note the nose in the bloody photo vs the cleaned up photo.

    This was all pointed out by the ME.

    And the media calls this convincing evidence of “a pummeling” or “being beaten up”?

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      In addition:

      • PiranhaMom says:

        Right – all that “arm pinching” that Zimmerputz would HAVE TO IMMEDIATELY RELEASE (“the clamshell opening”) when he has to put his arm back to whip the Kel-Tek out of its holster.

        Serino didn’t notice this out in the field the next afternoon when Zimmerman was play-acting?

        Sh ……. t!

    • DruDo says:

      Is this the photo that the person who took it transferred it to his computer and “forgot” about it for three weeks? I still believe that photo was altered because that’s the shiniest, like patent leather, blood I’ve ever seen and his nose miraculously healed between the time it was taken and less than an hour later at the police station.

  46. PiranhaMom says:

    The key to the verdict will be Judge Nelson’s explanation to the jury of ALL the elements of the law.

    She will present this slowly, clearly and meticulously.

    You can see that this is “her” jury. They know this. They see that she treats them as human beings – humans enduring hardship for the community good. They see that she’s looking out for them – notice how she asked them if they wanted to work late?

    John Guy, Bernie de la Rionda and Richard Mantei are all charismatic and the jurors will pay attention to every word.

    But they will HANG ON TO every instruction that Judge Debra gives them! They will internalize the responsibility that she has entrusted them to deliver: A JUST VERDICT.

    They’re human: they’ve also seen Judge Debra aggrieved at the defense — and they know why!

    What we will get, from this trial, beautifully presided over by Judge Debra Nelson, IS A JUST VERDICT.

    We know what that will be.

  47. You all have thoughtful comments says:

  48. aussie says:

    Fred, you say
    “NBC’s Dan Abrams,… he believes to be impossible since the defendant has a coherent theory of the case ”

    What don’t they get about TRIAL??

    “Theory about the case” went on for 15 months. Proponents of both sides were able to say
    “:GZ stalked Trayvon” or
    “Trayvon beat up GZ”.

    Theory time ended when the trial started.

    It is now down to which theory is proven by physical, forensic and timeline actual EVIDENCE.

    Anyone still relying on “theory of case” does not understand what a trial process is, or is living under a rock and has not noticed that there is a trial going on.

    There are thousands who will keep sticking to the “theory” and claim the conviction was unfair. This case is demonstrating how little understanding there is about due process and facts vs dreams. These people are mentally back in the Middle Ages (maybe even the Dark Ages) before scientific thinking was developed.

    They disregard reality and keep believing what they want to believe. The same way GZ shot Trayvon just because he wanted to.

    The horrifying thing is, WHY DO THEY WANT TO?

    • MDH says:

      Keep in mind that the right wing in the USA is rabidly anti-science. In their world, it is good vs evil. Black or white. Non of this using rational thought to find the truth in a world obscured by shades of grey. Just have faith in the words spoken by those who belong to the good part of the world. Look at how they spin this. Thug culture Trayvon vs good little catholic “I can not tell a lie” George.

      Although I am not a religious man, I find this very ironic.

      Who was more like Jesus.

      Trayvon, who did not mock Dee Dee?

      Or George, A man who put the protection of bikes and weed cutters above the life of another and killed without mercy

      Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me.

  49. You all have thoughtful comments says:

    W11 did not answer O’Mara correctly in court:

    • PiranhaMom says:

      Jenna’s statement to FDLE is the reason I think O’Mara will not bring her back to the proceedings.

      If he does, Bernie can launch the ultimate Scud Missile on cross .

    • groans says:

      Another great LLMPapa video! I’m so glad to see that he just CAN’T sit by idly during trial without letting the world know that there are lies being perpetrated on the court and jury.

      Thank you, LLMPapa!

    • tonydphotog says:

      I thought she did answer correctly. She didn’t hear “What are you following me for”, or “What are you talking about”.

      He knew this already, and made sure to not ask “What are you doing around here.” And she wasn’t going to volunteer any additional information.

      I can’t believe how many people care so little about an innocent child being murdered.

  50. dianetrotter says:

    I’m glad you addressed the Abrams article. In isiolation he sound like he’s making sense. I wish someone would demonstrate how the fight too place complete with Z removing the gun over Trayvon’s hand and taking her to not shoot his own hand. “You got me” could have been a plea for help which he didn’t get.

  51. ay2z says:

    Good evening,

    Has anyone watched the Day 18 recap by Greg WArmoth and Bill schaeffer over at wftv?

    Bill Schaeffer speculates that the new pot information (I guess he meant that was alluded to by ME Dr. Bao (?), could spell trouble for the state if the trial goes against the defendant, he could go after Judge NElson’s ruling to keep the pot info out of the trial could allow the defense to challenge this and gain a mistrial.

    Scjaeffer did not mention the possibility of the defendant’s drug use, prescriptions, alcohol abuse, then coming into play.

  52. You all have thoughtful comments says:

    • jodiwankanobi says:

      brilliant…so clear even O’mara could get it

    • tonydphotog says:

      For some reason I thought the button was on a chain, or something similar, that hung around his neck. My bad!

      So CAC pulled the shirt down so he could aim his shot, and not hit the button? If so, he really is a sick a-hole!

      • PiranhaMom says:

        @Tony,

        Sicker than you think, Tony.

        Zimmerman understood that these buttons were worn on the left side of the chest, in the vicinity of the heart.

        They are, after all, memorials, and you see them frequently on young people.

        It was dark.

        Zimmerman used the memorial button to judge, by feeling the Kel-Tek nudge up to it, just how far to slide the gun to get his “sweet shot” to the heart.

        Twisted …

        • Trained Observer says:

          Twisted and beyond, Piranha.

          Guy’s comment in the opener about shooting Trayvon “not because he had to, but because he wanted to” is based at least in part, I think, on use of the button to — as you say — assure the “sweet shot.”

          I don’t believe we’ve heard about the button yet in trial testimony, and I think jurors will be horrified when they hear about that.

  53. ay2z says:

    And O’Mara thinks himself, a ‘renaissance man’??

    There is another ‘r’ word for him.

    • ay2z says:

      THIS is a renaissance man.

        • ay2z says:

          NO twitter in China, no Facebook in China, soon no Google in China. Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, didn’t know no Twitter in China.

          These are new tools for activism, terrifying for the government.

          Ai Weiwei’s visit to Sezchuan’s earthquake disaster, and his subsequent searching for families of the students who died, has resulted in a collection of names of the children, and reveals that 5000 students were killed in these 20 ‘tofu’ schools. A secret of Chinese government.

          Someone speaking their mind, frightens the Chinese government. Within seconds his three blogs were shut down.

  54. jodiwankanobi says:

    something i never noticed before about the 911 call with the gunshot……the “heeeelllllp” “heeeelllllp me” sounds very distant but the gutteral screams sound very close and clear..it doesn’t sound like it’s coming from the same place. Could be because one person was facing the direction of the phone call while the other had his back to the phone call…they sound like they are two different people when it comes to the clarity and volume. By the way, if zimmerman was yelling help it wasn’t because he was scared, it was because he wanted someone to help him hold this guy in case he gets away. The depravity is unnerving. I’d rather shoot you dead than let you get away, punk.

    • ay2z says:

      possibility. But if Trayvon was being tortured somehow, his screams would reflect that in volume, in direction, in projection as well as his emotion and pain and terror in the dark..

      • jodiwankanobi says:

        i don’t think he was tortured as such…..except for his fear of course….but i can imaging gz yelling for help because he thought he was being citizen of the year and acting out all the fantasies he’s had of being a hero. Just my observation but except in the movies no one yells help as such, but screams, when they are afraid and terrorized. The help me seemed more controlled, not the same fear as in the screams.

    • Sleuth says:

      I noticed the same thing about the “helps”, and posted about it a couple of days ago asking if anyone else had noticed. I hear it much better on the 911 call that was played in court. But the way you’ve described it is just how it sounds to me.

      I’m inclined to believe that there are 2 different types of voices yelling “help”. I believe the long, shrieking screams are Trayvon’s and the other could possibly be the confessed murderer’s voice, or other male voice that was in the area.

      • jodiwankanobi says:

        hi sleuth, i agree. i think gz was yelling help, help me. Because i truly think he was trying to detain Trayvon, partly because it is the only part of the story he hasn’t changed. he said he yelled help, he never said he was screaming in fear. The “help” yells don’t sound desperate to me, the screams do….perhaps in that final desperate scream Trayvon landed a blow in desperation so GZ shot him for it.

        The helps were more of a plead, the yelps were more of fear and desperation…i think they were 2 different people.

        • PiranhaMom says:

          @Jodi,

          Even Bernie stated in court in one of the early hearings that there were two voices on the tape, and we’ve all heard two voices – the “help,” and the terrified, desperate scream.

          That is what will protect Ma Zimmerman from perjury charges. She heard the killer yell “for help” — as in: requesting assistance.

          But the long, drawn out, gut-wrenching scream was Trayvon, begging for his life.

          • jodiwankanobi says:

            thanks PMom, i haven’t been able to follow much in the past couple of months (no internet at home until a week ago) so i have missed a bit. I really think george was yelling help but because he wanted to “apprehend” the bad guy, not from fear. He was trying to detain..i can almost see and feel it. The screams were fear and sounded very different. I’m glad BDLE mentioned that earlier, i hope he nails it home in closing. Thanks for your information, it makes me rest easy knowing BDLR might address it before the trial ends.Cheers!

        • KittySP says:

          It wasn’t until I heard it played again on JVM show that I was able to detect the two distinct difference…one is agonizing, fearful, the other, more controlled, pronounced…please make no mistake that GZs pleas for help were for someone to assist him with restraining Trayvon, that was just one of his many self serving statements, that was strictly for John Good’s benefit so that GZ can claim someone came out, saw the struggle, and he yelled for them to help…John’s story of seeing 10sec of the struggle, yet not hearing those gut wrenching cries is ‘suspect’ to say the least, because more than 10 sec of screaming is heard on Jenna’s call…remember, John was barely in house to call 911 when shot is heard.

          Remember, GZ never followed up with assigning block captains as part of NW. He was determined to not let another one of these F’ng punk, a$$holes get away…there’s no way he was gonna share the spotlight!

  55. ay2z says:

    the killer had a live round in the chamber, plus a full clip, that means he did not have to rack his weapon, it was already in ‘ready to fire’ position.

    • Ms.X says:

      The ballistics expert demonstrated in court that the gun had to be racked in order to fire. A bullet is not going to put itself in the chamber. If there was 1 in the chamber, gz still put in more bullets or the magazine behind it, as is evidenced by the audio tape. The point is, he was preparing to shoot while on the phone with the dispatcher.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        @ms.X who says

        The ballistics expert demonstrated in court that the gun had to be racked in order to fire.

        respectfully, as a gun owner, that was not the demonstration. yes, a semi-automatic must be racked initially to put a live round into the firing chamber, but this expert also testified that the magazine contains 7 bullets and that the defendant had 8 on board. this is accomplished (usually before a CCW leaves home with holstered weapon) buy racking the gun to put a live round in the chamber, removing the magazine and replacing the round just moved into the chamber with a fresh bullet.

        john guy confirmed in his opening statements that the defendant carried the 9mm with a FULL clip PLUS a live round in the chamber. once this is set up, the gun does not need to be racked, it has a live round in the firing chamber and is ready to shoot with 5 lbs or less of trigger pressure.

      • jodiwankanobi says:

        of course he needed 7 bullets and not 6……you know how them colored folk like to congregate in mass (gangs)…poor georgey had to be prepared

  56. Sleuth says:

    @Xena

    This is the link to the comment I posted regarding Sgt. Anthony Raimondo’s involvement with the cover up of the brutal beating of Sherman Ware by Justin Collison, son of SPD Lt. Collison. Judge Nelson was the judge who presiding over the case.

    According to SPD state they did not take a statement from Mr. Ware because he was uncooperative, never mind the fact Mr. Ware was knocked unconscious at the time. Remember, Sgt. Raimondo was the lead officer on the crime murder scene of Trayvon Martin.

    Now this is what a sucker punch looks like.

    http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/diam.jpg

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-10-03/news/os-sanford-cop-son-plea-20111003_1_sherman-ware-justin-collison-jerry-hargrett

  57. Sleuth says:

    @Xena

    This is the link to the comment I posted regarding Sgt. Anthony Raimondo’s involvement with the cover up of the brutal beating of Sherman Ware by Justin Collison, son of SPD Lt. Collison. Judge Nelson was the judge who presiding over the case.

    SPD state they did not take a statement from Mr. Ware because he was uncooperative, never mind the fact Mr. Ware was knocked unconscious at the time. Remember, Sgt. Raimondo was the lead officer on the crime murder scene of Trayvon Martin.

    Now is this what a sucker punch looks like?

    http://bossip.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/diam.jpg

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-10-03/news/os-sanford-cop-son-plea-20111003_1_sherman-ware-justin-collison-jerry-hargrett

  58. Nef05 says:

    Roderick said this@ 8:53pm, and I just can’t let it go.

    KA, you’re making a lot of assumptions, and no where did I mention race.

    Irrelevant. It’s a FACT.
    1. Witnesses described the breakin suspects as “young, black males”.
    2.The one suspect arrested 3 wks prior was a young, black male.
    3. The first words from fogen were “breakins” and “suspicios guy”, linking the two.
    Clearly he knew the race before he called or he would not have not have used those words.
    4. CLEARLY, fogen linked Trayvon to the breakins and thought he was “suspicious” from his profile, despite all evidence to the contrary.
    5. Every single utterance and action from that point on, was based on that premise.
    He never considered he was wrong!
    6 Ergo – he called NEN about the “suspicious guy” because Trayvon “fit the description”. He called Trayvon because he “fit the profile”. That is the DEFONITION of profiling, and he was WRONG!

    He knew before he ever called NEN, or he wouldn’t have linked Trayvon to the breakins, simply because of his profile.

    Whether that may have been a reasonable move, it does not negate that he DID it. It was ALL about race, and there is no dispute.

    • Nef05 says:

      *Definition.

    • PiranhaMom says:

      @Nef –
      @Roderick -

      Of course Zimmerman profiled Trayvon by race – jamming this innocent kid into a profile based on one prior burglar. who happened to be black.

      He profiled the black kid who he said stole his bike — except the kid didn’t steal his bike. But he was black, though. Profiled a youngster walking to elementary school – while black.

      What pisses me off is that he doesn’t profile pedestrians as “black;” he profiles black pedestrians as “criminal.”

      And when he got the chance, he shot one.

      Dead.

      Hey, how else did he figure he could get an atta-boy e-mail sent out by the HOA, calling George Zimmerman a hero?

      By golly, those Stucco Guys would be forgotten in an instant, after THIS triumph!

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      Excellent posts, Nef and PiranhaMom.

      I agree completely!

  59. Jun says:

    My only observation is

    1) Why the state allowed so much “objection material” allowed by the defense? The defense used way too many speculative, leading, and badgering questions, trying to force the witness to change their testimony to fit their’s, or claiming they were only assuming, unless it was Jon Good, whom stated he was assuming LOL

    2) Why did they not save the Fogen statements till after the state rests? I feel they should have used the rules of hearsay to force Omara to play his hand a bit

    • amsterdam1234 says:

      JN allowed his hearsay statements to Manalo and Smith that he shot Trayvon in self-defense, to come in. That was probably enough for a self-defense instruction. The defense could’ve kept GZ of the stand and none of his statements would ever be heard by the jury.

  60. Nef05 says:

    Geez o’ pete. Have a massive toothache and can’t sleep. Can’t find man strength Orajel, and neither Advil, Aleve or even my prescription strehgth migraine pain meds are working!. Mad af,and having a pity party. Goodness this SUCKS!!! :-( !!!

    • Xena says:

      @Nef05. Sorry to hear you’re in pain. I just woke up thirsty and figured I’d check in while drinking some juice.

      Cloves. Hold it either on your tooth or between the gums and jaw where the tooth hurts. You can also rinse with peroxide first to remove anything that might be wedged in.

    • vickie s. votaw says:

      Cranberry juice, every 8 hours kept a friend of mine sane for over a year until she could find a dentist to take payment. I’ve used it when I needed relief.

    • You all have thoughtful comments says:

      I am so sorry to hear that, Nef.

      Swish a capful of peroxide with a cup of water. That’s what I did until my dentist gave me antibiotics for my tooth that ended up needing a root canal.

    • Trained Observer says:

      x 2 on cloves recommended by Xena.

    • PiranhaMom says:

      @Nef,

      Do you have a whole clove in the pantry? Those bud-like spices that you stick in whole hams?

      If you have a crevice in your tooth, stick a clove in it, or nearby.

      If that doesn’t help, and it’s a root problem, try chewing ice or sipping ice water. If there’s an abscess forming, the warmth of your mouth keeps it expanded (against a nerve) but chilled ice/water will make it contract, away from the nerve.

      If you have a canker sore (mouth ulcer) eat a whole head of iceberg lettuce (I know that’s a job. Chew, chew, chew). In 24 hours the pain will be gone and the ulcer will heal within a day or two later.

      Good luck – want you feeling NO PAIN!

    • parrot says:

      Clove oil works well, too. A drop in a cavity helped me.

    • jodiwankanobi says:

      try swishing something vigorously between your teeth for five to ten minutes…preferably an unrefined oil, but make sure you spit so you don’t swallow all the bacteria it releases….google “oil pulling” and have a read. My teeth were aching and annoying me (not excruciating but uncomfortable) but i did not have any unrefined oils at home so i tried it just with mouth wash and the aches went away…apparently all the yuck and bacteria gets “pulled” out from between your teeth and makes them and your gums healthier. Worth a try.

    • Nef05 says:

      Thank you. The residual effect of the pain med made me oversleep and still loopy (my migraine meds are no joke!) I’m just waking to more pain. I will be trying errthing, expeciallly cloves since they worked on my root canal. Just posted a wonderful list of uses of peroxide on my FB pahe and will be trying that, as well as any other suggestion.

      Thank you so much. Your care, concern and willingness to help; mean the world to me!!!

      PS will post peroxide page, just to save on your own pages and save money.

      http://ulmerlori.blogspot.com/2013/05/hydrogen-peroxide-magic.html

  61. Xena says:

    Please take the poll on Global Grind. The question is, who do you think started the fight, George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin.

    http://globalgrind.com/news/who-do-you-think-started-the-fight-george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-t-better-baldwin-poll-blog

    • jodiwankanobi says:

      majority says Trayvon….wtf! i really feel for the Americans that follow their own heart and can decide for themselves what they believe, without some bigger agenda. Seems to me loving guns and hating blacks goes hand in hand.

      • PiranhaMom says:

        @Jodi -

        So, in American, there are 12,000 racists out of almost 400,000,000 people.

        It’s the Jury that counts.

        To bad GG didn’t run that nice “going to the prom” photo of Tray.

      • You all have thoughtful comments says:

        jodi, you are right when you say, “Seems to me loving guns and hating blacks goes hand in hand.”

        Sadly, these white, gun-toting people want the “okay” to be vigilantes.

        It is also about these uneducated, white racists being inferior and total wimps.

        In falsely accusing the NBA of being racist in his book, Robert Sr. was acknowledging that few white athletes make the grade to be on basketball teams.

        Unsuccessful racist dimwits cannot stand to watch successful blacks whether it be in politics, academia, business, etc.

        Well, the times have changed, and these types of white people have to admit that they are inferior.

      • Xena says:

        @jodiwankanobi. The author of the article and poll has written a “post-poll” article where he says that people clear their cookies and vote more than once and there was “voter fraud.”

  62. You all have thoughtful comments says:

    I am going to keep a close watch on the trial this WEEK even tho points made by West/MOM will REEK.

    I will be sending positive vibes of support and prayer to Sybrina and Tracy nonstop.

    We stand by you Sybrina and Tracy!

  63. Tee says:

    I wonder why the prosecution didn’t do a visual of the mount for the jury, BDLR used two water bottles, MOM got on that floor. I am hoping that at some point he gets down their to point out how do Trayvon see the gun, how does he reach for a gun that’s under GZ and how does GZ gets a gun that’s under them both. IMO, the jury needs to see this. The fool is guilty as sin they have all the pieces why not displayed them for the jury to make it plain then use a wind up witness to bring it home. I feel they dropped the ball & now I have to trust that God will continue to show his power.

    • mrsdoubtfire says:

      Yep seems redundant to put in phone records, timeline exhibits, dna charts and weather reports unless you point out their significance for the Jury. I’m hoping the Prosecution are being strategic by not emphasizing certain issues until cross examination or rebuttal.

      Seems alot of dots still need joined up for the Jury.

      That said I was deeplly impressed by Mr Mantei arguing the MFA and I noted he likes to use powerpoint. :)

  64. Leisa says:

    Good Morning America, the female judge said of Fogen’s Hannity interview: he claimed it was God’s plan that he shot him. She said as a mother are you kidding me? For going to get skittles?
    Loved her WTF face!

  65. Leisa says:

    Trial to start at 9am?

  66. KateW says:

    His opinion was made up long ago, before he even heard the evidence. I will admit mine was also made up; however, it was supported given the evidence I had seen then and the evidence I see now. If he feels this way, is there a possibility that some of the jurors feel the same way despite the evidence. In the end, we are all speculating because we are not the jurors and we don’t know what is going on in their head.

  67. MedicineBear says:

    Repost:

    Hey, I’m trying to get a start time (“birth time”) for the beginning of the trial (Monday June 24, 2013 — after the jury selection) to create a mundane astrological chart for the trial.

    Intuitively, I keep wanting to set the start time at 8:30 am EDT even though the NBC stream coverage began at 9am, I believe.

    Can anyone tell me if they know if trial-related meetings began at 8:30?

    Thanks in advance!

  68. willisnewton says:

    The more witnesses the defense calls the better for the state IMO. Any chance they have to rebut lies or misleading baloney I’m guessing they are prepared for.

  69. jm says:

    I am at the point that I believe commentators do not actually listen to the whole trial and also they do not want to offend GZ supporters so they try to play middle of the road or fail to paint a bigger picture because they aren’t actually watching the complete trial.

    • Leisa says:

      I found that out during Conrad Murray trial and HLN people talking during critical testimony then misstating what was just said. There is no way they can see the evidence and do their jobs at the same time. In the end, they report it toward the angle of the station that employs them…. The entire thing is difficult to grasp at times… Love the computer feeds……

  70. Leisa says:

    I heard one comment (that penetrated the drug induced fog) on news last week about the case where medical examiner said Trayvon could have lived for up to 10 minutes and it just made me cry my eyes out knowing that killer had no more thought or feeling for his life than a bug he stepped on. I admit being very emotional this week but I doubt I was only person to have this reaction. I have not had time to read all posts from those days. Will be doing that in every spare moment I have.

  71. mgs710 says:

    Mr Osterman said always at the top of the list of our discussions at the range was safety. You mean to tell me that they each of the eight times or so they went to the range O and GZ discussed safety. I know I use to go to the range and after the first time I already knew the rules.

  72. mgs710 says:

    Perhaps not what I heard on the 91 tapes? Perhaps?

  73. Jeff Winbush says:

    Reblogged this on The Domino Theory by Jeff Winbush and commented:
    I’ve found the law blog of attorney Fredrick Leatherman a safe harbor from the spin and b.s. of the cable news instant analysis of the Zimmerman trial. Here, Mr. Leatherman takes issue with ABC News legal expert Dan Abrams’ assertion there is no way the jury will find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter.

    Mr. Leatherman believes otherwise.

  74. My Forehead Tho says:

    Because you requested:

    These were from when Bernie did his closing:

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 980 other followers

%d bloggers like this: