Zimmerman: The Power of Circumstantial Evidence

Because there are no eyewitnesses to the shooting except George Zimmerman, who claims he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense, the prosecution will have to rely on circumstantial evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense.

Unfortunately, Florida does not define circumstantial evidence other than to call it “indirect” evidence. See Wadman v. State, 750 So.2nd 655 (FL 1999).

Washington State, where I practiced law for many years, defines direct and circumstantial evidence as follows:

Evidence may be either direct or circumstantial (WPIC 5.01).

Direct evidence is that given by a witness who testifies concerning facts which he or she has directly observed or perceived through the senses.

Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of facts or circumstances which, according to common experience permit a reasonable inference that other facts existed or did not exist.

The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. One is not necessarily more or less valuable than the other.

Wikipedia has a good discussion of circumstantial evidence:

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh’s trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, “Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence”. The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the “smoking gun”—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony. Thus strong circumstantial evidence can be a more reliable basis on which to determine a verdict.

In response to a Zimmerman supporter who posted recently here that circumstantial evidence can support conflicting conclusions, I said,

Anything is theoretically possible and the nature of circumstantial evidence is such that each individual circumstance in a chain of circumstances might indicate more than one possibility. However, when examined as a totality of circumstances, they add up to only one possibility.

Put another way, the more splainin’ that Zimmerman has to do by resorting to ridiculous extremes like, I was walking in the same direction as Martin but not following him because I was looking for a street name and an address to give the dispatcher, the more unlikely his story becomes. Especially when he has lived in the neighborhood for three years, patrolled it as the neighborhood watchman on a regular basis for months, and he walked right past townhouses on TTL with the addresses on them in plain view, ignored them, and never provided the dispatcher with an address. It doesn’t take any intelligence to figure out that he was never looking for an address.

Step by inexorable step he lies and lies and lies.

What is he concealing?

He wasn’t out there exercising in the rain.

He was hunting.

The answer is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell.

The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all theoretical doubt.

I am not going to detail every lie that we have revealed and discussed at length because I want to go macro on y’all and look at the big picture.

However, if you want to review the evidence to date, I recommend you watch this video prepared by our very own Whonoze.

Is there a discernible pattern to his lies that reveals his intent or are his lies mere random occurrences that happen due to chance?

Consider, for example, his stubborn insistence that Trayvon Martin suddenly came out of the bushes next to a townhouse or materialized out of the gloom on the N/S sidewalk a few feet south of the intersection and confronted him as he was on the sidewalk cut-through between TTL and RVC supposedly minding his own business returning to his vehicle parked on TTL.

Some who post here and at other internet sites contend that we must take GZ at his word and cannot look at other evidence (i.e., the circumstantial evidence) to determine if he is telling the truth and, if not, discern his intent.

Sorry, but that is not how trials work.

GZ claims that TM sucker punched him knocking him to the ground and then he jumped on him and started beating his head into the sidewalk and punching him repeatedly in the face.

Aside from the lack of physical injuries that would be consistent with such a claim, the location of the fight is inconsistent with the location of TM’s body. That is, if GZ is telling the truth, the body and the location of the fight should be in the same place, but they are not and he has no explanation for that other than he kind of sort of stumbled after TM hit him. Yet, that explanation only gets him a little less than halfway to the location of the body and various items found within a few feet of it, such as his phone, the earbuds, the can of iced tea, the Skittles, and the spent casing.

We have to ask ourselves what does the circumstantial evidence tell us regarding the fight that ended with TM’s death? That is, what can we reasonably infer from the evidence at the scene.

The initial conclusion is GZ lied about the nature and extent of Martin’s attack because his injuries do not support his story and his conflicting claim regarding where and how Martin confronted him tells us he changed his story during the walk-through video the next day when he realized there were no bushes at the scene behind which Martin could have been hiding.

What do these lies suggest?

They suggest GZ went looking for Martin in the area between the two rows of townhouses and found him where the shooting occurred.

If that is what happened, why would he lie about it?

The obvious conclusion is that he did not want to admit that he went hunting for Martin and found him.

Why is that a problem?

Maybe it has something to do with his statement, “These assholes, they always get away, fuckin’ coons.”

Hmmnn. That sounds like GZ was determined to make sure this “asshole” did not get away.

Why would GZ lie about Martin jumping him?

Could it be because he knew an aggressor cannot claim self-defense?

A pattern is apparent in these lies. They all appear to be motivated by a desire to cover up that he was the aggressor who hunted down TM and attempted to detain him, but TM did not submit to his authority willingly. A struggle ensued in which GZ sustained some minor injuries and he shot and killed TM without legal justification.

This is the incredible power of circumstantial evidence because, ultimately, the explanations GZ offers for each item of evidence become increasingly strained until they degenerate into irrelevant and irritating whining.

As I have said before, he is his own worst enemy and his conviction of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree will materialize out of his own lyin’ mouth and the abundant circumstantial evidence.

321 Responses to Zimmerman: The Power of Circumstantial Evidence

  1. Lonnie Starr says:

    In a case like this, one can’t possibly hope to “get away with it”, if they are acting alone. Not if they’re hoping that the narrative being built will succeed. As we can see, the narrative that was built, not only failed miserably, but is itself incriminating as well. Which means that, anyone expecting to use the given narrative, is also expecting help from the authorities charged with processing it.

    So then, there’s a question as to why GZ believed he could count on the police/prosecutor(s) to accept his terribly flawed and not-so-well-thought-out story? This is, after all, “in the matter of a capital crime”, thus anyone who intends to commit it, and still hopes to go free, needs some powerful assurances, to have the confidence they need to go forward. In short, GZ did not commit this murder thinking “I’m very sure to get caught”. Nor does he appear to believe, that his story needs to be extremely carefully contrived, so that conflicts are kept to manageable levels, but instead he believes that any likely story will sell.

    That puts him is some weird middle land, where he thinks he has reason to believe he’ll get away with it, despite his story containing, even glaring flaws. Who would put such ideas in his head? Obviously someone had to, because this is not something one can simply dream up and act on, with the hope that the dream will come true and LEO’s will rally to his side. Or… Does GZ believe that all LEO’s are rabidly racists and wild eyed supporters of vigilantism?

    So, it is in this frame that we view a police officer’s attempt to tamper with witnesses. A person with LEO credentials, helps, aids and assists the removal of evidence from the scene. (MO helps Shelly remove GZ’s truck, instead of notifying the police that it’s part of their evidence collection. Something I’m sure MO would have done, had it been another crime scene, not related to his friend.) There’s testimony, that I’m not quite sure of, but is to the effect that MO stood around the crime scene taking in whatever he could learn. Important information to have, if you are later to shelter the shooter, eh? Then there’s the strange behavior of two other witnesses, “John” and Frank Taaffe, who both rally to GZ’s cause/side. While there is nothing unusual about friends backing up friends, what makes it so strange is, neither of them wants to be known as Zimmerman’s friend, but rather tries to portray themselves as impartial/disinterested observers. And GZ attempts to help them keep things that way! He does not mention that he knows John in anyway, nor does he announce that his friend FT lives right there at the western cut through.

    So, there’s a lot going on in the background here, and much of it is the very kinds of things that one expects would need to be going on. Not to mention people suspect that this NW unit, composed of “secret” or unlisted members, may also have communicated using untraceable devices.

    It is only after subsequent investigation reveals, that GZ’s narrative is so terribly wrong, that his “impartial observer/secret friend witnesses/police/prosecution helpers” begin backing away.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      Great Post! You are so right. What happened that night is not just an unfortunate meeting at a T in the sidewalk.

      • Lonnie Starr says:

        We are seeing, via the evidence dumps, testimony and interviews, the “tips of icebergs” that remain submerged.
        “The gun is on the ground”??? Can only be the tip of some kind of notification iceberg, what does the submerged part look like? A clue is that the tactical flashlight, that clips to the weapon is on the ground and the weapon it clips to is back in the holster. Now, what could that possibly mean?

        Well, for sure it would not look good, if the gun was found on the ground, with the tactical flashlight still mounted thereon.
        It doesn’t seem that the police were there when he says the gun is on the ground… But, then, who else would he be telling this to? Could the police have misstated their real arrival time?
        Or is it simply that GZ could not risk being seen picking up the gun and disconnecting the tactical flashlight, so he had someone else do it and hand him the gun?

        “Just tell her I shot someone”??? Why is this all she needs to know? No other context is needed? For all the world, this seems to me like, she’s been preparing to expect her husband to shoot someone for a very long time. So, who prepared her and how was she prepared to hear that her husband had finally shot someone? Or, why would GZ expect us to believe, that wives get messages like this all the time? So that’s the tip of another ice berg.

        MO, FT and John are each the tips of other very big icebergs.
        And, of course, the fact that there are others who claim to have patrolled on NW, while never being listed or otherwise connected officially with NW, means that’s the tip of yet another iceberg. GZ has made 46 calls to NEN, has FT or any of the other NW’s made any calls at all? Or do they call GZ and let him wear the cape?

        • fauxmccoy says:

          lonnie – your comments are great – i wish you’d join us on the more current threads and come back to these older ones as time allows. 🙂

          • Lonnie Starr says:

            I’ve had a bit of an e-disaster one of my computers is down. Since I work with WordPress by mail, because you don’t always get a reply button when you need it on the site, I’ve just been answering the follow emails I’m getting, while I struggle to set things back right.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        Lonnie,

        “Could the police have misstated their real arrival time?”
        Does anyone have the exact time for the connection of the 911 call from Witness 18?

        I have not done any real detailed analysis of post-shot events on the night. My own blog concentrates on events up to the shooting, with some thoughts on SYG added recently-ish.

        The Witness.18 911 call is an excellent source for timing some events after the shot.
        The dispatcher who took it is absolutely wonderful.
        He’s got someone who is frightened and alone – someone is horrified and has no friends to comfort her.
        He talks to her for about 14 minutes. He helps her. He suggests things that she can do.
        That call should be mandatory for dispatcher training courses.
        http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-18-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/

        The thing is.. his calming technique gets her describing what she sees outside as it is happening.

        If you have an exact time for the call connection, you have an exact time for people observed, the cops arriving, Zimmerman being taken away, the medics..
        If using the recording from the link above, you need to chop 10 seconds off the start, of course.

        I have a mention of that tactical flashlight on my page re the Struggle, explaining the purpose of the grooves under the gun muzzle.
        I didn’t get as far as confirming the make and model of the flashlight. Given tactical lights and laser sights will fit a range of guns. It’s not totally universal.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          I’ve got to get back those other blogs I was reading before I had a computer crash. Most of the analysis is already done, because there are dedicated people working really fast and furious.

  2. Animaljunkie says:

    I’m not sure if this is legally sound, but something came out of the blue to me yesterday:

    GZ was talking to the female detective, before the official interview, on 27th February 2012, this is their conversation:

    GZ: Have you ever had to shoot anybody?
    Detective: No
    GZ: Good for you…………….You’re probably stern enough to get the point
    Detective: Sorry?
    GZ: You’re probably stern enough for it to get the point….he does that
    Detective: Mmm
    GZ: Authoritative, commanding….
    Detective: (Here, I can’t decipher what she says at the beginning)…all geared up eh!
    GZ: I think you wouldn’t doubt it
    Detective: Well
    GZ: I wouldn’t question your authority

    GZ’s last statement is where I believe he indirectly confesses to confronting and shooting Trayvon Martin, because Trayvon questioned AND did not submit to GZ’s own perceived authority as a Neighbourhood Watch Captain, a position he inveigled HIMSELF into by the way. In my mind, it’s really quite a disturbing indirect confession, as he has NO authority in any position.

    So, my question is, could this be perceived as circumstantial evidence, since it’s not a direct confession?

    • SlingTrebuchet says:

      It’s not evidence of anything but
      Zimmerman was talking about his day, and about how his visit to his psychologist “really brought it home” to him.
      “It” is clearly the shooting, because…
      … after a long silence, he asks that question, and gets to wondering about why a full-time cop never had to shoot anyone.

      It’s a good enough thought to dress up and add to one of my pages 🙂
      http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/speculation.html

      • Animaljunkie says:

        The context of the conversation was him shooting Trayvon Martin and it remains in that context for the duration of the video. Therefore, Zimmerman IS referring to that night and HIS lack of authority, otherwise why refer to it at all i.e. in replying to Detective Singleton for a second time: ‘You’re probably stern enough for it to get the point’, implies that he obviously is NOT stern enough and WAS not stern enough to stalk, approach/question/detain and avoid shooting & killing Trayvon Martin; due, I suspect, to his uncontrollable anger issues. Absurdly, Zimmerman equates Detective Singleton to himself i.e. an experienced Detective to a Neighbourhood Watch captain!

      • Animaljunkie says:

        FYI, I’m not registered with Blogger.com to add to any of your pages I’m afraid & I’m not interested in joining either. 🙂

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        My feeling is that Zimmerman just snapped when the punk had the temerity to scare that crap out him by walking right past him.
        Punks “always get away”. They do that by running away the moment you see them. They don’t to that by walking right up to you and eyeballing you.

        It’s likely that he searched out Martin and tried to detain him.
        It didn’t go well. Martin didn’t say Yes Sir. Zimmerman wasn’t stern and imposing enough. Lucky he had a gun. He very probably produced it early in the proceedings.

        ————

        Don’t worry about my blog.
        It’s primarily a structured place for me to store my thoughts on the matter.
        I only began creating it as a result of ending up with a comment that was way to big to post on somebody else’s blog.
        Now I can say something short and point to a page of mine on the topic.

        I’m happy if it does not attract comment discussions. There are plenty of other places where people can do that.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        Love your hand in the waistband comment. I can not wait to watch the GZ – made for TV movie only if you will be writing the script!

  3. MedicineBear says:

    Because of the discussion of GZ in regards to Neighborhood Watch, I took a look at the National Sheriff Association’s Neighborhood Watch Manual pdf:

    http://www.usaonwatch.org/assets/publications/0_NW_Manual_1210.pdf

    Here are a couple of interesting excerpts from the NW Training Manual about NOT CARRYING WEAPONS, NOT PURSUING, NOT CONFRONTING, and designated neighborhood Safe Houses for Children BEING PURSUED (!):

    “[NW] Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It should be emphasized to members that they do not possess police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. Members should never confront suspicious persons who could be armed and dangerous. Patrol members can be equipped for their duties. For example, flashlights or searchlights are necessary for night patrols.”

    “[NW] Safe Houses for Children — A safe location such as the McGruff House or Block House is identified by bright stickers on windows and doors which indicate that the occupants are block parents willing to help a frightened or pursued child if needed.”

    Here’s another excerpt (emphasized several times in the NW Manual):

    “Remember — Community members only serve as the extra ‘eyes and ears’ of law enforcement. They should report their observations of suspicious activities to law enforcement; however, citizens should never try to take action on those observations. Trained law enforcement should be the only ones ever to take action based on observations of suspicious activities.”

    What “suspicious ACTIVITIES” was GZ observing? Walking? Running? Skipping? Looking at houses [from the street]? Looking into houses [even though the townhomes don’t have front windows to peer into]? Looking at him [the guy who’s been following him]? Wearing a hoodie? Putting his hand in his waistband/pocket?

    There’s a huge difference between reporting suspicious ACTIVITIES and reporting a person who LOOKS suspicious while performing NO suspicious activities.

    • TruthBTold says:

      @Medicinebear,

      Exactly, particularly with respect to your last statement. I’ve seen people use looking suspicious and acting suspicious interchangeably and I would push them to clarify for me. There is a difference. As I’ve said before, GZ has not articulated how TM was acting suspiciously.

    • Lonnie Starr says:

      We cannot find fault in what GZ finds suspicious, because that matter is left to his mind alone to decide. But, how he reacts to this matter is another issue entirely, where he has agreed, in accepting NW COM, not to carry a weapon, not to follow and not to confront.

      So, GZ contrives by dint of his fashioned story, to excuse his violations of the rules. 1. His weapon carry was unintentional. 2. He did not follow, only sought to obtain and address where the police could meet him. 3. The suspect confronted him.

      The main trouble with this story (and the law seems to aware of this possibility and has written exceptions to “self defense” and “SYG”, to ensure that any leading in by provocative action, will strip away these defenses), is that GZ’s story is fashioned from only one side, of what he admits is a two sided story.

      He admits that he was discovered to be following by the suspect. He admits that he was armed while doing so. And finally, he admits that he was seen, by the person he was following, a second time, in an area far removed from where he was originally discovered to have started following.

      Whether or not he was following at that second sighting, is going to be key to whether he can claim any SYG or self defense rights. Since, I’m very sure that any judge, will observe; the person being followed will not be able to discriminate, between the second sighting at a location remote to the initial sighting, as being merely coincidental.

      Thus, you cannot be discovered to be following a person, then, at a later time and in another place, soon thereafter, appear and expect them to know it’s merely a coincidence that you appeared there. Most especially when your own reason for appearing at that second place, has no merit at all. The trip across the walkway to RVC, is without purpose. It does not garner an address for a meet with the oncoming police, because GZ will not be there, even if an address were obtained from there. Yet, the trip across the walkway, goes in the same direction as the person who discovered they were being followed. So, being seen again by that person, is provocative, and it could have been avoided if GZ had merely agreed to meet the police, either where he was already parked, or by the mailboxes or clubhouse.

      So, he’s forgetting that he’s carrying a weapon, he’s agreed not to carry, on a mission he’s not supposed to be on. Now he wants to plead self defense, because the person he cause to fear, discovered his weapon and attempted to wrestle him for it. But, self defense does not allow you to claim self defense, against a weapon you brought to an altercation. Most especially not if a judge believes that you provoked a self defense response yourself.
      Which is exactly what GZ did.

      Zimmerman’s training at law should have told him that a physical attack against himself, would be justifiable if he were discovered to be following again. He disregarded that knowledge.

      • MedicineBear says:

        Let me add another reason to your point that “The trip across the walkway to RVC, is without purpose” . . .

        On the NEN call, the Dispatcher asks GZ: “What address are you PARKED IN FRONT OF?” His truck was parked on TTL.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Courts, down through the ages, have been aware that legislators can’t pass statutes to cover every possible event that might occur, if not prohibited by non-arbitrary regulations and/or rules in the wide variety of workplaces. Thus the courts rely on workplaces, to set the rules of safety as their needs establish, and the courts tend to recognize these workplace rules as if they were statutes. They become the “controlling rules” for the matters they affect.

          NW has rules and reasons for those rules! The courts will examine those rules and the reasons for them. If the court finds they are reasonable and not arbitrary, as well as necessary for the safe operations of the organizations purposes, those rules will be treated as the controlling laws that should have governed the conduct of it’s membership.

          Zimmerman could have escaped these rules, if he had not been a NW. But since he was, it is assumed he was aware of these rules.
          Ignorance will be no excuse for that knowledge, since, to allow otherwise, would be to prevent the SPD from controlling the actions of its NW organization.

          Now, Zimmerman tries to fashion “excusable” departures from the rules. But those excuses will not hold because they have insufficient merit to function as proper excuses. The claimed trip to the store, which is obviously intended, to excuse weapons carry and to conceal his being notified, is rendered threadbare by a lack of supportive evidence for any such claim. Where we note that at the station GZ displays neither money nor credit/debit cards, nor checks nor shopping list, and the absence of his wife in the car, as this is supposedly the families weekly shopping trip. Obviously such a trip is not logically made, by dashing alone to a car, to depart home hastily in the pouring rain.

          If there is something about this that isn’t true, either GZ or SZ will have to take the stand and clarify the matter. Otherwise MOM will have to avoid any claim that GZ was going shopping, since the prosecution will be able to show the absence of a “shopping configuration” having existed at the time in question.

          Meanwhile, GZ’s own words puts him squarely on duty as a NWCOM, moments after he leaves home. His first claimed NW action is to call the NEN, which is what NW’ers are instructed to do. So, he is complying with NW rules and not calling 911 as an ordinary citizen would. He also accepts that a non-emergency officer will be sent to respond to his report, and he agrees to meet with this officer. This is a plan that differs from what a 9-11 response would be. Thus, GZ has clearly initiated and engaged in a NW response/event. Thus, there is no reason for him to be excused from his NW duties and rules.

          Thus it derives that when he later admits he has been following, he is also admitting to the fact that he has become a vigilante! He pretends to agree not to follow further, but then embarks on an inexplicable trip for no good reason (to obtain the address of a house where he does not intend to be???). Which makes it clear that he does not intend to give up his vigilante role, so it comes as no surprise that he encounters the person, he has been following, again.

          Whereas the NSA says that by either following or carrying, he would become an unlawful vigilante, he does both. So it derives that, it is as an unlawful vigilante that he encounters Trayvon Martin, in an area where neither of them would be, if not for George Zimmerman’s armed and deadly vigilantism.

          So it is as a criminal vigilante with a deadly firearm that GZ encounters, accosts and confronts a teenaged black youth and shoots him dead, probably because the teen refused to “recognize his authority”. As George Zimmerman states, at the station, would not have happened, if he could have presented as sternly as the detective he’s speaking to. Apparently, from that conversation we learn, that GZ has dreamed up some kind of authority for himself.

          GZ had been amply warned that if he broke NW rules and followed while carrying a weapon, he would become a criminal vigilante. He chose to become one and as such, he shot and killed a young, innocent, unarmed, citizen, child!

      • TruthBTold says:

        Lonnie Starr wrote,

        “We cannot find fault in what GZ finds suspicious, because that matter is left to his mind alone to decide. But, how he reacts to this matter is another issue entirely, where he has agreed, in accepting NW COM, not to carry a weapon, not to follow and not to confront.”

        Good post. As it relates to the above and while I get what you are saying, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive particularly, as seen in this case. Meaning what he finds suspicious and his subsequent actions. I think we can challenge or question what a perso finds “suspicious,” especially when suspicious behavior is not really articulated, but based more on a person’s appearance or a person’s pre-conceived notions. It never occurred to GZ that TM was running away out of fear. His running away validated, in GZ’s mind, his notion that TM was “a real suspicious guy,” “something is wrong with him.” Yes, he completely disregarded the rules of the NW.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          It just goes to show:

          “He’s got his hands in his waistband”, he may be armed.
          “He’s real suspicious”, he’s obviously intending some crime.
          “I don’t know what his story is”, I don’t like him.

          Yet, GZ get’s out of his truck and follows him; this real suspicious guy who may be armed and is acting like he’s on drugs.

          We’re supposed to believe that while GZ thought TM might be armed, thoughts of arms did not remind him at all, that he too was carrying a weapon?

          Why is GZ not concerned that, as his NW training told him, a person he follows might become frightened into taking defensive action? Why is GZ not concerned that TM’s “defensive action”, might be to fire a weapon at him, if he had one?

          So that, in effect, GZ is giving little to no thought at all of the danger of pursuing a possibly armed and possibly dangerous person, all while “forgetting” his own weapon? Just how stupid does GZ think a jury is going to be? Will insulting the intelligence of jurors win them over? I doubt that’s an effective strategy, but then, I’m no defense lawyer, so perhaps there’s something I’m missing.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        “Where we note that at the station GZ displays neither money nor credit/debit cards, nor checks nor shopping list,..”

        He just forgot to bring that stuff. He forgets stuff all the time.
        See? If he goes on NW, he leaves the gun behind.

        No. Wait!

        On the Hannity Show, he says “I carried it at all times except for when I went to work.”
        He just forgot to say that he didn’t carry it at all times.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Gee, he certainly didn’t forget that he always carries his weapon? How in the world did he forget that he had a weapon with him when he confronted Trayvon Martin? Of course, leaving his truck with his weapon, made him a criminal vigilante. Unless he can take the stand and cite some crime he saw Trayvon Martin commit, then GZ is just another sundry criminal, even if he pretends to be a law abiding one.

          I have to wonder, when the police answered those other 46 or so calls GZ placed, did they ask GZ if he was carrying a weapon? Oh, right, in those cases he didn’t follow anyone.
          Funny how he gets the rules right when he wants to, eh?

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        No really. Zimmerman had totally forgotten that he had a gun.

        When he felt Martin’s hand going towards his hip, his only thought were:
        “What the hell is it with this guy and waistbands? He must have a waistband fetish or something.
        First he walks past my truck with his hand in HIS waistband. Now he’s trying to put his hand in MY waistband!”

        It was only at the very last spit second that he thought
        “Doh! What a silly feather-brained follow I am. There’s a gun there.”

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          YEAH! Right! At first I thought there might be a chance of TM seeing his gun. But the more I learned about it, I realized that story isn’t going to fly at trial. The gun is only 5/8ths of an inch thick and about 5 inches long. It looks more like a toy than a gun, it doesn’t even cover the palm of one hand. It doesn’t even reach from the wrist/palm bottom to half way up the middle finger. It’s terribly small.

          Even if GZ’s shirt raised up, what you’d see would not even look like a gun at all, unless you knew what it was, you’d have no reason to think it was a gun. It could pass for a cell phone or pda. from the edge view you’d get of it in it’s holster. And that’s if you could see it at all. It’s designed not to be seen even if the shirt happens to rise.

          GZ is going to lose big time when the jury gets to see the actual weapon. Hopefully they won’t get to see it too early on. Let them hear the lies about it first, then when they get to see it, they’ll be looking at GZ really strange.

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        I have a photo of that gun in a hand on http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/the-struggle.html

        I also mention that the only light source is a porch light about 20 feet away.
        Given the way Zimmerman describes they positions they were in, the only way Marin might have suspected there was anything there at all would have been to feel something hard and small against his thigh. There would be no reason to suspect that this tiny thing was a gun as opposed to a phone or wallet.

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          It’s such an astonishingly small gun, I doubt a kid who saw it, would think it was anymore than a toy. Yet, without even having possession of any weapon… Without any weapons training at all… Without even being able to identify or even see the only weapon around, Trayvon Martin is supposed to have flatly stated “you’re gonna die tonight”??? Like I said, what wouldn’t I give to be in the courtroom to see the jurors faces when MOM tries to run that by them. The SP should make a point of passing around that gun to the jurors, at several points during the trial, whenever the issue about the gun comes up.

          For sure, the only one who knew that there was a real weapon available and ready to fire was GZ!

          Nor do I see anything in the way of regret that Trayvon refused to bow to his obvious authority. Some law student, he equates law enforcement with posturing. What kind of deranged mind would think that anyone being pursued in the night, should notice the bearing and body language of their pursuer and immediately assume that they’re being chased down by an authority?

          Thighs are not very sensitive to begin with and even less so through two layers of clothing. I think Trayvon wouldn’t have felt anything at all. Anyway, from the two narratives GZ told about Trayvon detecting and reaching for the gun. Where the first time around he says Trayvon saw it, reached for it and they struggled over it. To the later versions where he “felt” or “thought he felt” Trayvon’s hand going for it. We can easily see that he’s trying to make up another exculpatory story for himself.

          Well, GZ has done such a poor job of defending himself, the only question I have now is, “Why did he do it?”

      • MedicineBear says:

        On your August 25 post you say, “The claimed trip to the store, which is obviously intended, to excuse weapons carry and to conceal his being notified, is rendered threadbare by a lack of supportive evidence for any such claim.”

        What does “conceal his being notified” refer to? Could you expand on his “BEING NOTIFIED”?

        Thx in advance (very insightful posts, BTW!).

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          It was on the BCC:List that I first saw the timeline played on a map of the area. Over time we came to understand, via google ground view, just how the topography of the area would affect the views.

          I noticed that the cut through near Taaffe’s is only about 10 or so feet wide. A person wearing grey garb, about two feet wide, would not appear very visible to a person driving by.

          GZ claims he was off to the store as his only mission at that time. He’d be coming down RVC west, at about 25 – 30 mph ~37 feet per second. Now, go have a look at the reenactment video.
          As you will see, the location where GZ claims to have spotted TM, is at a 90 angle to the left, as the car would be entering a right turn in the road. In the dark, through a rain speckled drivers side window, at 37/ft/sec. it isn’t an encounter that’s very likely to occur.
          The odds/probability of it are extremely low. And any remaining likelihood is further reduced by the upcoming right turn requiring the drivers full attention. Needless to add, a mind that should already be focused on the complexities of the shopping ahead.

          So, it is because of this, early on I voiced my suspicion that GZ had actually been notified that there was a target available. The new timelines and the reenactment “walk through” only served to confirm it. TM arrives at the mailboxes only 9 minutes later than he would have if he had run all the way from 711. Making it even more unlikely that GZ would have seen him there. But, if he had, to explain the timeline from there, he’d have had to stop to observe TM, then creep along with him to the clubhouse, since he claims to have arrived their and parked only seconds before TM arrives.
          (It’s a 15 second drive from Taaffe’s to the clubhouse, while it’s a 1 minute and 20 second walk). Since TM was on the phone talking the whole time, you’d expect there to be some mention of him being followed before he arrives at the mailboxes.

          Instead he arrives at the mailboxes and shelters for some time. While an analysis of the RATL videos (tcoupi) shows GZ did not pass in front of or park at the clubhouse, but actually patrolled back and forth on TTL near the mailboxes, until he gained sight of TM, and TM gained sight of him (because of his weird maneuverings in the rain). (my other computer is down so I don’t have access to the links, but I’m sure others here can provide them).

          The only way GZ takes Longview to Twin Trees Lane, on what was supposed to be a shopping trip, is, there was no shopping trip at all, but he was trying to find someone who he believed didn’t belong in RATL. He probably, upon notice, left home in his truck, went east on Long view, probably backed up a bit to see the back gate clearly, then forward to the mailbox area. He didn’t see anyone on his first pass, so he u-turned and went back again, on his second or third pass he spotted TM sheltering at the mailboxes, and by this time TM had spotted him. So, I figure that’s where the story truly begins, the part about coming down RVC and spotting TM at the cut through is just a contrivance, designed to conceal that GZ had any notification at all. That keeps him from having to explain that others were involved with him.

          NW advises members to form “trees”, for notification purposes, and so that’s probably where the idea came from.
          There’s been some speculation that a few of the NW’ers used walkie talkies or cb radios to communicate without leaving a trace.
          Most, generally agree we need to see the cellphone records of the NW membership. Some speculate that Osterman helped Shelly remove GZ’s truck from the area to conceal communications equipment among other things. Osterman should have known better than to remove the truck and not report it to the police as evidence.

          But there you have it, now you’re somewhat up-to-date on that leg of the puzzle.

      • MedicineBear says:

        Thanks for discussion of how GZ may have been notified (possibly by someone on the NW phone tree) of (ironically) a “target” heading toward the gated community. From the beginning I’ve wondered how GZ first came across TM. The GZ stories in the “walk through” aren’t plausible. Ever since I saw the surveillance pictures of Osterman at the ATM on Reinhart Road (same road 7-Eleven that TM walked to is on) with the time stamp of 6:38 pm (TM was killed about 7:16 pm), I wondered if Osterman had seen TM and called GZ to let him know a “target” was heading his way.

        Here’s a link to a map showing (A) GZ’s home address, (B) Osterman’s home address, (C) the M&I Bank ATM on Reinhart, and (D) the 7-Eleven on Reinhart:
        http://maps.google.com/maps?rls=com.microsoft:en-us&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=1I7GGLL_enUS359&q=map+114+Golfside+Circle,+Sanford,+FL&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x88e712c80a70f83d:0x872db9eb1b1dc3ae,114+Golfside+Cir,+Sanford,+FL+32773&gl=us&daddr=114%20Golfside%20Cir,%20Sanford,%20FL%2032773&sa=X&ei=Ats6UPDZK8rwigLtpYCQDw&ved=0CCIQwwUwAA

        Here are some missing puzzle pieces to ponder:

        o The picture taken (by first neighbor on scene who took pictures with his phone) of back of GZ’s head shows GZ with cell phone at his right ear. Who did he call immediately after the shooting before SPD arrived? It wasn’t his wife (that was later). Was it Osterman? (Osterman reportedly showed up at the crime scene before GZ was taken to the SPD station).

        o How did GZ spend that Sunday prior to the shooting? Did he and Osterman spend time together that weekend? Did he get together with any other NW members?

        o After SPD arrived at the crime scene and GZ was handcuffed, GZ had a neighbor call his wife to “Just tell her I shot someone.”
        That message to his wife makes some sense if his wife had foreknowledge that he had left home to patrol the neighborhood for a suspicious character. Doesn’t make much sense if the wife was expecting that he was at Target grocery shopping (wouldn’t there be some mention to the wife of “Tell her I didn’t make it to Target — I never left the complex and I shot someone?).

        o If the neighbor called GZ’s wife, did GZ also have the neighbor tell her to call Osterman? Who called Osterman and when? Osterman showed up very quickly.

        Can’t wait to see the phone records!

      • MedicineBear says:

        That link I supplied only shows the “B” address (Osterman’s home) — here’s the others to fill in:

        (A) 1950 Retreat View Circle, Sanford, FL

        [click “Add Destination”]
        (C) 1381 Rinehart Road Sanford, FL

        [click “Add Destination”]
        (D) 1125 Rinehart Road, Sanford, FL

        • Lonnie Starr says:

          Okay, here’s a more manageable url for the complete picture:
          http://tinyurl.com/8zpuoxx

          Note that MO comes from lake mary. Note that there’s no road that takes him directly to his bank.

          Osterman’s best bet, to get to the bank, is to short cut through RATL, in the back gate and out the front gate and go right to the bank. It also seems this would be a good route for MO to use to go shopping.

  4. Obwon says:

    Lol, this is FLLB. I’m reading in email and posting in browser, so I didn’t notice which blog I was on. I use email because you can’t always get a reply button on site with wordpress. Please forgive my error.

  5. Obwon says:

    The very first part of the prosecutions case will have to be to create the childhood life of Trayvon so that the jury can see the real person.
    The few transgressions of note, are not worthy of mention and will only work to damage the defense case, if they try to use them to corrupt TM’s image. This is because they are so minor and passive, they can only fail to have a negative weight for any claim that TM might have been “combat ready” which is what the defense will need to show.

    The second part of the case will be to inform the jury of NW rules and the reasons that underlay them. Showing that GZ knew these rules, is amply demonstrated by the fact that for years GZ observed and followed them.

    That brings us to the third and final part of the case, which is the facts of that night and how GZ’s stated actions don’t line up with the timelines. As the jury begins to see how GZ’s dodges are meant to preserve an appearance of abiding by NW rules, while actually engaging in breaking them, the defense begins to “brown at the edges”, as if from exposure to an inordinately high heat source.
    As they approach the matters at the ‘T’, the edges of the defense begin to glow brightly. Until finally they get to the matter of gun draw and shot, the defense bursts into bright hot flame.

    So that by time the summation is made, the defense has nothing to work with but cinders. The jury will be forced to conclude that, although they may never know what actually happened, they know that what the defense has told them is not possible. So, in the absence of a rational defense where there should be one, they can only imagine that is because wrongful things were being done for which there is no alternative explanation that can be contrived to cover it.

    However, if the defense chooses to make a spectacle of itself by rambunctiously forwarding improbable/impossible and confusing errata, in an effort to baffle ’em with Bull shot, instead of dazzling ’em with brilliance, they could come back with murder ONE.

    • lynp says:

      I doubt George Zimmerman had a clue to NW rules. His Condo Association did not even belong to a NW Program. O’Mara’s responsibility begins and ends with defending George not put a show on for spectators. Actually, does a jury have the power to increase the charge? Particularly in a State that only a Grand Jury can charge Murder 1? I think the forensics will tell the tale.

      • fauxmccoy says:

        lynp states “I doubt George Zimmerman had a clue to NW rules.”

        zimmerman most certainly knew the NW rules, that is why they are entered into evidence (see first document dump – http://www.scribd.com/doc/93960335/Documents#fullscreen. zimmerman attended the training held by wendy dorival, the nw coordinator of the sanford PD and the document dump contains the training materials.

        furthermore, you may look at the NW manual itself as distributed by SPD at their website in which the ‘rules’ are on page 2. this of course does not mean zimmerman read it, but ignorance is never an excuse, is it? i would give you the link, but SPD has changed their site since gz was arrested and i do not see the handbook PDF in the section where it used to be located.

        fully agree that the charges cannot be ‘upped’ at this point for the reason you stated among others.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          Fauxmccoy: Regarding the article indicating Trayvon could have been alive for 2 minutes. Question for anyone: Yeah, Trayvon was shot. But, to make matters worse, GZ got on his back. Maybe to make sure the child died (could not be revived). At the time, he did not know where the bullet entered, I am certain. To roll Trayvon over and sit on him sucked the little life Trayvon had right out of him. He could not afford to have the only other witness live to tell what really happened that night.

          Second comment: Regarding GZ not knowing about the Neighbourhood Watch Program. He worked with LE to set up a meeting with residents. He told them how many copies of the handbook were needed and set up the equipment for the power point presentation. He knew the rules.

          Third comment: GZ feared for his life when Trayvon spotted the gun and moved to obtain it as TM said – you’re going to die tonight, Motherf…. – all according to Gzs wild imagination.

          • TruthBTold says:

            @Sandra,

            Yup, he knew the rules. Wendy Dorvial even stated regarding the use of no weapons. I don’t know how many times I have to say it (paraphrasing). For the other poster to suggest that he didn’t know shows me that they are not really following facts and using common sense. Annoying.

        • Obwon says:

          So maybe I’m reading too many sites? Well, on one of the law blogs by a lawyer, maybe viewfromll2 or such, they’ve stated, and I remember, that the jury can upgrade the charge. If I come across it again I’ll be sure to post the missive here. Otherwise, I have no idea how many blogs and blog posts I’d have to search to find it, and I really don’t have that kind of time. But, be patient and I’m sure the answer will appear.

          As far as the SPD’s changed website, my guess is one of the net archivers will probably have the old site, try thewaybackmachine, it’s a favorite first choice. I understand there are other sites that do the same thing, I just haven’t had much use for going back yet.

          • No, a jury cannot increase the charge because a defendant has a right to know what he is charged with before he goes to trial so that he can prepare a proper defense.

            A grand jury investigating a case can decide on a more serious charge to bring than a prosecutor recommends, but that is an entirely different matter.

          • Obwon says:

            I’ll bow to you on this. Unless or until I’m able to certify differently, your view will prevail.

          • TruthBTold says:

            @Obwon,

            You won’ be able to certify differently, because the Professor is correct. What type of system would we have if this was allowed?

          • Obwon says:

            I’m leaving myself a reason to track down the source of this misinfo.
            I’ve got to stop these long overnight sessions.

      • Obwon says:

        Yep, GZ had, not only a clue about NW rules, the SPD gave him a 14 hour course on the rules. Further, for all of the time when he was NW-COM he, scrupulously observed those rules for every event save this last one. He never follows nor confronts any suspects he calls in about.

        If you read the NW rules at the National Sheriff’s Association (google) then read GZ’s accounts of the events on 2-26-12 you will get the general impression that GZ has fashioned his conduct, to answer every rule that might have prohibited him from doing what he was doing.

        You probably also, are not aware that NW is set up and managed by the SPD’s community affairs officer. It is their responsibility to register the NW units they set up. I also note that the 14 hour course on NW, is probably or very likely the same 14 hour course that is offered by the NSA on their site.

        Police departments are free to set up their own NW programs, thus they don’t need to register with the NSA. But, they probably do use the NSA NW materials, because they cover legality and vigilante issues much better than the local legal offices probably could.

        So, the SPD did have the authority to set up the NW program, and they did have the authority to appoint GZ as the NW-CON.
        They also gave him the required and proper training. Although, from what I’ve been reading, they probably didn’t monitor his operation of the NW very closely. I doubt they knew that he was, for example, mounting patrols, and/or allowing others to mount patrols either alone or jointly with him. Since patrolling is not a NW activity, it is an activity of a much more highly controlled operation called an Auxiliary Police program, where the members wear full uniforms and ride in specially designated patrol cars.

        And, yes… As far as my reading at Frederick Leathermans Law blog:

        https://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/

        The jury may return Murder One if they feel inclined to do so.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          As a NW, is he permitted to carry a concealed weapon, patrol, creep around the neighbourhood. If not, was he acting as a regular neighbour – not NW. Or is a NW person, always a NW person whilst in the complex.

          • Obwon says:

            I get what you’re saying, you’re pointing out that I’m wrong in saying that “he scrupulously observed NW rules”, and you are absolutely correct, what I said was wrong, because he didn’t.

            What I was trying — perhaps a bit too dramatically — to emphasize is that, previous to this incident, he observed the most important instruction he was given, being. not to follow any suspects. Because, by not following them, he caused them no concern for their own safety, and even if he was carrying a weapon, at least he didn’t bring that weapon into the presence of a frightened person who might then try to use it in their own defense.

            I especially liked that post of professor where he shows that the law is well aware of a person carrying a weapon into a situation they provoked, is making available the same weapon, they will try to claim was a threat to themselves. The courts have decided that dance ticket is canceled. You provoke, you carry, you’re toast!

            If GZ takes the stand, he will have to answer one big question to the juries satisfaction — no quibbling, hemming or hawing — “Why do you think you have the right to go around scaring people?”

            Because that’s exactly what following by car, then on foot in the dark, would do to any stranger. So, that’s the behavior that George Zimmerman needs to explain satisfactorily and justify.

            ” I thought he was a criminal” just doesn’t do it!

      • SlingTrebuchet says:

        For reasons given by others, GZ was well aware of NW rules. He was also aware of the law surrounding this. Despite his indifferent grades, he was studying criminal law.

        As far as I see, solely from the NEN call, and where the truck was parked – assuming that he was parked where Taffe put him and my calculations confirm – he was doing nothing other than reporting and observing from a distance.
        My reading of his tone is that when Martin walked from the Clubhouse and past his truck , Zimmerman freaked.
        You can hear his rising tone of panic in the call.
        Punks are meant to run away. They are not meant to walk right up to you and eyeball.
        Martin then just walked past him. Zimmerman recovers quickly.
        Then Martin ducks down the path. Zimmerman was pumped full of adrenaline, and he snapped.
        Anger Management – F minus.

  6. Daniel Q. Public says:

    Thank you for your explanation of circumstantial evidence.

    And I’d especially like to thank you for telling the truth about the fact Zimmerman said “coons.”

    Anyone who says it was “punks,” “goons,” or “cold” either has an agenda for doing so or is a dupe, IMO.

    • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

      Same thing I have been saying all along. GZ used the words “coon.” Angelia Corey quickly hushed that up by saying punks. This was to calm racial tension and this is what disturbs me about the procesution. They are suppose to seek out the whole truth. Not cover selected areas.

      I will always believe someone from higher up made the call to quash that racial reference.Shortly afterwards the Feds confirmed it isn’t stated also.

      GZ is a raciat coward…lunatic…

      • fauxmccoy says:

        EIETTO states : “Angelia Corey quickly hushed that up by saying punks. This was to calm racial tension and this is what disturbs me about the procesution. ”

        – – – – –

        ms corey used ‘punks’ in the information filed because that is the word gz admitted to saying. (just like when a trooper pulls you over on the interstate and asks you how fast you were going, you fudge a bit and say 65 although it was really 80, but the trooper takes your admission of guilt at 65.)

        she can amend this during the court proceeding at any time should she develop evidence that shows otherwise. the professor can correct me if i am wrong. the information filed was deliberately a ‘bare bones’ document meant to satisfy only the basic elements of the charge.

      • ajamazin says:

        Don’t trust Corey or Lester.

  7. ada4750 says:

    The three major claims from GZ
    — TM surprised me at the intersection of the sidewalk
    — TM pronounced dead threats and actually tried to kill me
    — I was under TM when i shot
    My belief is if the prosecutors can persuade the jury that at least two of the three are false GZ will be find guilty of manslaughter or second degree murder.

    • ADA4750 says:

      I should have write: IF AND ONLY IF the prosecutors …

      Logical dependence between the three statements. I think the second one almost imply the first one but the opposite is not true. The last one is almost independent from the two first.

  8. Malisha says:

    Mr. Leatherman, thank you for this blog; I only discovered it tonight and I am very impressed.

    For a long time I have been doing an uneducated layman’s analysis of the lies that George Zimmerman has told, and they all amount to a simple formula:

    Anything that is said that would tend to show that George followed, tried to “restrain” [tried to arrest or “bring in”], assaulted, terrified, and then killed Trayvon Martin, has to be controverted by George by means of a lie, no matter how illogical, counterintuitive, or plain ridiculous his lie may be.

    We start with him in front of the cop car when he’s being taken into the police station on 2/26/2012 and he apparently volunteers (unless the officers simply add it in to help him out) the idea that “I was yelling help help help but nobody helped.”

    First of all, that would sound insane, considering the fact that there were approximately eight calls to 911 in response to his alleged calls for HELP.

    Second of all, if you’ve just been attacked and violently beaten, you’re probably still trying to orient yourself and catch your breath, and needing help, and not coming out with explanations in a calm and authoritative voice. Had he really been nearly killed it would be far more likely that he would be thanking the officers who were surrounding him than that he would be explaining his vocalizations. In addition, he would not necessarily (and PROBABLY NOT) have a clear memory of what he said, what his attacker said, or any of it.

    Recently I was in an airport trying to make a connecting flight and as I phoned my friends to let them know the ETA, I learned that the friend I was going to visit had died. Apparently I broke down and screamed and cried in the airport; I was transported by wheel chair to medical and treated. Later, they told me what I had said; I had no recollection of it whatsoever!

    I remember the guy who was beaten up in the Twilight ’92 riots — they showed him a video of his own beating; he had no recollection of it, and was astonished.

    Anyway, on to the next trail of lies:

    George said he had a degree in criminal justice. WRONG.
    George said he had not followed Trayvon Martin. WRONG.
    George said Trayvon circled the car. WRONG.
    George said Trayvon said, “You got a problem, homie?” ???
    George then said he didn’t know if Trayvon used the word “homie.”
    George said he had forgotten he had his gun with him. WRONG.
    George said he figured Trayvon was suspicious because he did not look like an athlete. HUH?
    On and on…until we get:
    George said Trayvon WAS NOT AFRAID OF HIM. He said that when Trayvon went “out of visual contact” from George, he “kind of skipped.”

    If these kinds of things add up to an experienced judge thinking that George’s credibility is low, so be it. Even an uneducated layman can draw that conclusion.

  9. TruthSeeker12 says:

    I just had to share this article I received from justice quest that discusses GZ’s medical records.

    http://thisruthlessworld.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/do-medical-records-exonerate-george-zimmerman-not-so-fast/

  10. CherokeeNative says:

    Another great LLMPapa video:

  11. davetheg28 says:

    Mr Leatherman what do you think about the crime scene layout in the 2nd document dump page 145. This is what I think,The smoking gun in this case is in the documents page 145. if you look at the mock up of the crime scene you will find that the most compelling evidence against George is in that page.just look at the position of martins body and the shell casing number 6 is martins body wile number 8 is gorges shell casing.they even give you where martins head and feet are. now if you look at this mock up and lay on the floor as if you where George, think about where your right hand is now look where the shell casing is. doesn’t mach up. if he shot with his right hand why is his shell on his left side. There’s  only one way this could have happen,if George was on the bottom when he fired his shot the shell should be on his right Martins left.what i think happened is that George shot martin wile he was able to get on top of martin during the struggle and flipped him over to try to detain him till the police arrived

    • SlingTrebuchet says:

      Someone did work on the shell-casing etc.

      http://www.evidencetrail.net/3-the-shell-casing-and-the-body.html

      and apropos nothing…
      Can anyone point to a definitive description of the bullet trajectory?
      “Front to back” is not helpful.
      Entry point is clear from the autopsy.

      Left or right?
      Upwards or downwards?

      • Tho only information that I know about is in the autopsy report where the Assistant ME said the shot was direct from front to back. The key word is “direct,” and I understood that to mean no variation left or right, up or down.

        I’ve seen that language used in other autopsy reports and if there is an angle of trajectory, it’s listed in the report.

        So, this is a straight-on shot, direct from front to back, with the muzzle of the gun at an intermediate distance from the entrance wound of approximately 2 to 4 inches.

        I got the distance from an interview of Dr. Vincent DiMaio, the former Medical Examiner for Bexar County, TX (San Antonio). He is a well known ME and he provided the estimate based on reviewing the autopsy report.

        That distance is within the intermediate range.

        That’s an interesting video. After looking at the shell casing rejection path for that type of gun, I am now inclined to believe that the wound to GZ’s nose came from the ejected shell casing.

        Sure looks to me like GZ shot TM as TM was trying to back away and break free from GZ’s grip on his sweatshirts.

        That ain’t self-defense.

  12. Concerned Citizen says:

    I’m not so sure I agree with the post about the Casey Anthony trial.

    I think it is conceivable that the child died by an accident that the mother than covered up or maybe one of her friends was involved or maybe it was some sort of negligent behavior on Anthony’s part oor maybe it was straight up murder. Who can say what truly happened to the child except Casey, and Casey isn’t going to tell.

    Anthony’s behavior was bizarre, for sure, but it could also be explained by a number of psychological disorders/personality disorders that she may be suffering from.

    I think the jury in that case did the right thing.

  13. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

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

    Be encouraged Professor….

  14. Dennis says:

    They have convicted people of murder without the victim’s body or blood to prove they are actually dead. I laughed by butt off when the juror #3 from the Anthony trial started blabbering her mouth about how the prosecution could not provide a cause of death. I have a quote here from someone in the legal field:

    “The truth is, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove cause of death. It only need prove criminal agency—that the death was a homicide, as opposed to an accident.”

    • Dennis says:

      It is not my intention to distract everyone, but I would like to rant about the Anthony trial and circumstantial evidence. Every piece of circumstantial and direct evidence imaginable says that Anthony murdered her child. It is sad that jurors don’t even understand the weight of circumstantial evidence or even the definition of reasonable doubt. Here is a hypothetical situation:

      I believe in Aliens and I have seen enough proof that they exist. In my mind it is possible that aliens abducted and killed Caylee Anthony. That doesn’t make it reasonable though. Without any evidence to support that bogus theory, you would never be able to put reasonable doubt in my mind as a juror. The only single piece of evidence that Caylee died in the pool was a photoshopped picture of her attempting to open the heavy sliding patio door. Casey’s actions, tattoo (Beautiful Life), and constant partying after Caylee’s death prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she wanted that child gone from her life and she was very happy, not in a stage of denial. Just like Zimmerman, I believe that Anthony is guilty of murder and anyone that believes in her innocence is braindead.

    • masonblue says:

      Yep, that’s true.

  15. ada4750 says:

    should be “the defense will strongly attack her and …”

  16. ada4750 says:

    Congratulations for your very valuable extensive work.

    If i understand you properly, GZ inconsistencies in his statements will be sufficient to persuade the jury TM didn’t come back to GZ. Who reached the other one is the very key point in the event. Add to this GZ’s superficial injuries and that will be enough for manslaughter. To prove the second degree murder, It seems to me they need to prove GZ was not under TM when he shot. You suggested some points on how to do so.

    What about DeeDee testimony? Is it sugar on top? For sure the defense will attacked her and the fact TM didn’t went in his house strongly.

    I sympathise with the girl but she has a great deal of responsibility in all this. I mean if she did call 911 after loosing contact with TM she, of course, wouldn’t had saved TM life but it would had change completely the way Sanford police managed the case and good chance we would not be writing about this case right now.

    The prosecutors will have also to provide the jury some good indications why TM didn’t go in his house. Maybe DeeDee or his parents will help the purpose.

    Thank you again for your excellent work.

    • CherokeeNative says:

      Ada – As I recall, there was one witness who saw two people running from South to North between the townhomes. It appears that GZ may have cut Trayvon off from being able to reach his destination of home. This is one part of the witness testimony that I am unclear on, so if someone has better knowledge, please speak up. In any event, Trayvon was doing nothing wrong and was under no obligation to go straight home, although I tend to believe that he tried to hide to get away from GZ. I believe that once he made the turn at the “T” running away from GZ, he stopped to rest and was chatting with DeeDee when all of a sudden he either say the truck headlights or heard GZ talking on the phone to dispatch and hid – probably on the opposite side of one of the fence panels dividing the units..,.and when GZ concluded his call with dispatch and continued down the dog path between the townhomes, he spotted Trayvon. Trayvon probably tried to run and GZ grabbed his hoodie or something that made Trayvon say “get off” and the altercation went from there…

      My point being – the defense is going to have a difficult time trying to convince a jury that Trayvon (who has no history of being violent and in fact was termed as a “momma’s boy”) as a thug who laid in wait to attack GZ when he had spent the previous 10 minutes trying to get away from him.

      • CherokeeNative says:

        s/b “saw the truck” not “say the truck”

      • TruthBTold says:

        CherokeeNative wrote,

        “In any event, Trayvon was doing nothing wrong and was under no obligation to go straight home, although I tend to believe that he tried to hide to get away from GZ. I believe that once he made the turn at the “T” running away from GZ, he stopped to rest and was chatting with DeeDee…”

        Yes. Since GZ was following TM in his car and once TM eluded him, I don’t believe that he thought that he would then get out of his car to continue pursuing him. So when he stopped running to rest and continue his call is when GZ caught up to him or cut-him off. The rest of that paragraph makes a lot of sense as well.

      • aussie says:

        I am sure TM was aware of GZ running after him. And felt he was safe when he saw/heard that he was no longer doing so.

        If he was resting up, it was not only for the resting and not only to finish his call, but to wait until he felt sure it was safe enough to come into the open and keep heading home…. like not having seen or heard the creepy guy for some time. Only the reason for that was, creepy guy had gone around a different way.

        If TM is in one of the unpaved paths between buildings, GZ can see from the T that he’s not on the main path. So maybe he went through another cut-through to RVC? so GZ goes to check that, too. Seeing nobody on RVC, comes back through a cut-through into the middle path area, in time to see TM emerge from the TTL side. “Cornered” as DeeDee says.

      • ada4750 says:

        @CherokeeNative TruthBTold aussie The prosecutors will have to persuade the jury without any reasonable doubt that TM didn’t
        come back to GZ. To do so they will have to explain the “behavior” of Trayvon. Almost sure DeeDee knows why. If he was talking about anything else with her that’s an answer. Because it’s mean he wasn’t scared anymore. If he was still scared she knows also. In my book, DeeDee is supposed to be able of some explication. She will have to convince the jury. She carries a huge responsibility on her young shoulders in the coming trial.

        Of course, i don’t believe that Trayvon went nuts and tried to kill GZ but strictly talking the possibility is still there. Fortunately, when GZ made up his story that evening (as we believe) he was sure TM was a young criminal. That caused him to put way too much spice on the dish.

      • Pooh says:

        ada4750 says:
        August 16, 2012 at 12:48 am

        @CherokeeNative TruthBTold aussie The prosecutors will have to persuade the jury without any reasonable doubt that TM didn’t
        come back to GZ.

        —-

        Don’t think so. TM is permitted to confront GZ and ask GZ why he is following him, even if TM is afraid. GZ then intensified or renewed TM’s fear by obviously lying about why he was following TM and reaching into his pocket.

        And just on a personal note, people who are in the midst of a dangerous situation will often try to persuade themselves that they are only being paranoid or prejudiced and that the dangerous situation is not dangerous at all. I’ve done it, and I know others who have tried to overcome their fears in this way with very serious consequences.

        However, I think it was GZ who approached TM. TM told DD the man was “coming closer.”

        Keep in mind that GZ was not far behind TM when, according to GZ, TM started running and GZ leapt out of his car and ran after him.

    • ada4750 says:

      @Pooh TM went to GZ means DeeDee testimony is false and it means also GZ can argue SYG or at least SD. Unless the prosecutors dispose very solid forensic proofs saying TM was not on top of GZ when he shot my belief is they have to convince the jury GZ reached TM. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to obtain a guilt verdict.

  17. TruthBTold says:

    Granny wrote,

    “Puleeezzze! Blaming Sharpton and Jackson played out along time ago, but RACIST in denial continue to use it as an excuse to avoid the truth about injustices committed towards blacks.”

    Exactly. Isn’t it tired and dated? They throw around the same names and accuse these individuals of starting “race wars.” How embarassing. Time to learn some new tricks or just face facts. How about that? Oh what a concept.

  18. TruthBTold says:

    Personally, I am not a social networking person but some Twitter uses don’t protect their tweets, so I was able to see this interesting piece of information. Someone posted it to Natalie Jackson. Seems like GZ’s other BFF, Mark Osterman, is writing a book. Okey dokey.

    http://tinyurl.com/8jd3lpg

    • TruthBTold says:

      Typo correction,

      Sorry uses should be users

    • @TruthBTold

      Really? Hmmm…

    • aussie says:

      Hahaha. Look at your sources.

      The book story is on conservativetreehouse.

      The comments indicate the original source for the story may be Odessagirl, an clickorlando commenter who claims to be a close friend of GZ and have some family relationship. Among her “inside scoops” are gems such as the phone found at the scene is not Trayvon’s but belongs to a little girl, and TM’s phone had been left behind in MIami.

      There IS a crime-novel author by the name Mark Osterman, who may or may not be this MO’s father, but which in any case not be evidence that this MO is writing anything. The way he’s kept literally in the background throughout, I have doubts about him making guest appearances on various TV shows, too. ALSO generally books are not thus promoted until they are actually published.

      The whole story makes about as much sense as being attacked at the T but landing 50 feet away.

      • TruthBTold says:

        I don’t know. We’ll see. I don’t put much past anyone. Just thought if true, definitely would be interesting. No biggie lol.

  19. longtimegeek says:

    I just read Professor Leatherman’s new article, and I’m crying.

  20. CherokeeNative says:

    George Smiley says: ” The anti-Zimmerman side is the most emotional, and also the most vocal. Nevertheless, more people believe the shooting was justified than not.

    The professor mentioned links. Here’s 2. ”

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/may_2012/40_now_say_trayvon_martin_shot_in_self_defense_24_say_it_was_murder

    This link provides, in pertinent part:

    “Forty percent (40%) now think George Zimmerman, who has been charged with second degree murder in the Martin shooting, acted in self-defense. ”

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/16/2897263/poll-most-floridians-want-no-changes.html

    This link provides, in pertinent part:

    “Voters are essentially split about whether George Zimmerman — who faces second-degree murder charges for shooting the 17-year-old Trayvon on Feb. 26 — was acting in self-defense when he pulled the trigger. Forty-four percent believe he was and 40 percent say he wasn’t, while 16 percent are not sure.”

    • CherokeeNative says:

      My point in posting the above was to make note that it is NOT fact that more people than not believe the shooting was justified…..hope I was clear on that.

  21. TruthBTold says:

    Crane-Station wrote,

    “At this point, I do not think Neighborhood Watch is a good idea, because it almost encourages the sort of hyper-snooping that can lead to problems exactly like the TM shooting.”

    Yeah, and this is kind of unfortunate because community-oriented policing programs can be effective in improving community-police relations as well as improving the quality of life for community members. However, and as you already stated, it can bring with it a great deal of liability when you have individuals that do not either comprehend or respect the limitations to which they are assigned. The “little hero complex” that has been characterized of GZ is a prime example of what can go deadly wrong. This truly should have never happened. It had no business happening. It’s really sad.

  22. TruthBTold says:

    Crane-Station wrote,

    “Well, speaking for myself, I agree that bringing family members, friends and other folks into the case is really not helpful at all, for either side. Dig long enough and hard enough and anybody can find potentially juicy past dirt on anybody else.”

    Absolutely.

  23. TruthBTold says:

    SouthernGirl wrote,

    “I visit a lot of blogs to discuss this case but I am yet to see Trayvon supporters refer to themselves as Trayvonites.”

    I believe you. The name itself has a negative connotation. I mean it’s just ridiculous. I can see Justice For Trayvon or something like that, but a Trayvonite? Nah, sounds off.

  24. TruthBTold says:

    Southerngirl wrote,

    “There is no such thing as a race card. Racism is very real in America. Don’t try to play it down.”

    Girl, don’t study her. Based on her posts, I’ve already decided that he/she doesn’t have good sense.

  25. George Smiley says:

    Professor Leatherman wrote:
    “Sonner is a lawyer who was speaking on behalf of his client at the time.”

    Let me make sure I understand this. Are you implying that a licensed attorney was telling a bald-faced lie? That he was claiming to have had a detailed conversation with a person that doesn’t really exist?

  26. TruthBTold says:

    SouthernGirl wrote,

    “Someone posted on HP about going to find the person who brought these charges against Zimmerman.”

    They mean Angela Corey? Lord Have Mercy. The scary thing is with so much activity on the internet regarding this case and all of the threats and crazy talk, is there enough manpower to deal with this? Not only that, it is difficult to just chalk it up to people “just talking” because you never know. People need to simmer down, get some sense, and think.

  27. @GeorgeSmiley, you spoke about bruises forming on TM’s knuckles at a later time. Correct if I am wrong, I think that is what you said. Anyway, of course, there was no continued blood flow after death, so this may be difficult to determine. An interesting related article from Journal of Clinical Pathology:

    http://jcp.bmj.com/content/54/5/348.long

  28. TruthBTold says:

    Pooh quoted and wrote,

    “Other than that, I’ll just say that perceiving TM as a stereotypical black teenager is not an enormous leap. It’s not PC to say such things, but let’s be honest. There are stereotypes for a reason.

    “In many ways, TM fit the stereotype of a black teenager pretty well. I mean, he tweeted under the name “No_Limit_Nigga”. I don’t think that is too subtle.”

    “Dear, dear Mr. Smiley,”

    “You have, of course, just admitted your racial prejudice and the fact that you believe it is justified.”

    It never fails how they reveal themselves, huh? Tragic. Funny though, when we characterize the GZ supporters as racist, etc., they start playing crazy and going off on different tangents trying to deflect the issue off of them. Good on y’all who continue indulging these individuals.

    • @TruthBTold

      Do they know that’s music?

    • lynp says:

      The Race Card is worn out and does not play anymore in America, subtle or not. Even Al Sharpton knows that. Call folk what you will. Who Cares? Noone is crazy or deflecting. And thats the truth.

      • There is no such thing as a race card. Racism is very real in America. Don’t try to play it down.

      • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

        I don’t know anyone who plays a race card better than those who like to stereotype and label ALL young black males as dangerous thugs? What has played out is blaming Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson for anything involving black people, especially in Zimmerman’s case. Sharpton nor Jackson played no role in Zimmerman following Trayvon and killing him. When you have no substantial argument or justification for an injustice perpertrated towards a black person, just throw up Sharpton or Jackson’s names as if that in itself excuses the crime or injustice. Puleeezzze! Blaming Sharpton and Jackson played out along time ago, but RACIST in denial continue to use it as an excuse to avoid the truth about injustices committed towards blacks.

        However, I expect a comment like that from you Ms/Mr. sit-in, walk-in, etc., a person that feels that little people are beneath them, I’m sure that black people rank high on that list.

      • GrannyStandingforTruth says:

        @diaryofasuccessfulloser, forgive me for grammar, just give me an “F” for being too lazy to proof read what I write. 🙂

  29. Justkiddin* says:

    I found some info on broken noses and from the video linked I do not believe GZ’s nose was broken. Hit by branch maybe but broken not buying it:
    Broken Nose Symptoms

    It is usually obvious that there is an injury to the nose due to bruising, swelling, and bleeding from the nose. A history of traumatic injury should lead to suspicion of a broken bone in the nose or nasal fracture.

    Signs that suggest a person has a broken nose may include the following:

    Tenderness when touching the nose
    Swelling of the nose or face
    Bruised nose
    Bruising under the eyes (black eye)
    Deformity of the nose (crooked nose)
    Nosebleed
    When touching the nose, a crunching or crackling sound (crepitus) or or creaking sensation like that of rubbing hair between 2 fingers
    Pain and difficulty breathing out of the nostrils

    Do you see it as broken?

  30. diane says:

    George Smiley sounds EXACTLY like someone who started bugging me on Twitter. I wouldn’t doubt that he’s a troll on O’Money’s payroll.

    • angela_nw says:

      I guess we know now where all the money’s gone lol

      Seriously, it is so tiresome. Seems the troll activity intensified more after Zimmerman made his gaffes on Hannity and Omara started following the Zim bloggers’ instructions.
      It also seems the defenders of Zimmerman want to be able to express/project racial prejudices (stereotypes!) without being called racist. What’s up with that? Maybe they are unaware of what they are doing. Remember the song from South Pacific “You’ve got to be carefully taught” — people learn racist thinking from their elders often.

      • Sandra E. Graham says:

        My guess is that George Zimmerman supporters, the majority anyway, couldn’t care less about him. Their motivation is political. While the majority of people are wanting justice for the real victim in this case -Trayvon Martin. Like LLPapa writes in his latest video on YouTube. No one should have to walk in fear – no one.

  31. TruthBTold says:

    Crane wrote,

    “Well, that is certainly turning out to be the case. We are both being personally attacked on Twitter, and some of the folks, full of grace and tact, have had the temerity to drag Fred’s daughter into the mess. I blocked and reported someone this morning for abuse.”

    That’s a shame, but unfortunately not a surprise that people resort to such hateful, silly, irrelevant behavior. Plus, given these type of outlets makes people internet bullies because they get to hide behind their anonymity. I am on my way over to read about you:).

    • George Smiley says:

      “We are both being personally attacked on Twitter, and some of the folks, full of grace and tact, have had the temerity to drag Fred’s daughter into the mess.”

      I fully agree that such actions cross the line. On the other hand, Zimmerman supporters have been called ‘racist’ and ‘stupid’ by Professor Leatherman (and others here), so it’s very difficult to claim the moral high-ground on his behalf, re: the use of ad hominems or not bringing in stuff about Zimmerman’s family members, friends, etc. That’s my opinion, anyway.

      • Well, speaking for myself, I agree that bringing family members, friends and other folks into the case is really not helpful at all, for either side. Dig long enough and hard enough and anybody can find potentially juicy past dirt on anybody else.

    • If you wade over to Frog Gravy to read about the incarceration experience, let me give you a reference point sort of in the middle, and you can surf forward or backward from there. The reason is, I have not written online in a while- I have a completed manuscript and am seeking publication. Three of the essays are already published. Here is one
      Hannibal Mammogram:

      http://froggravy.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/hannibal-mammogram-frog-gravy-10/

      I think there were 86-89 essays in all. Here is the book that has three of them:

      http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=this+side+of+my+struggle

      Another essay here, called Meanness Among Warehoused Inmates:

      http://froggravy.wordpress.com/2011/12/25/meanness-among-warehoused-inmates-frog-gravy-72/

      • Errata: I have continued to write online about a variety of topics, but have not written a Frog Gravy chapter in a while.

      • TruthBTold says:

        Oh okay. Thank you Crane. I took a cursory glance earlier (looked interesting), but now I am more in the position of being able to delve into it. I would suggest everyone to take a look, learn, stay engaged, etc.

    • longtimegeek says:

      Ugh! Ugh! Super Ugh! So, people have definitively decided that GZ is in the right to the point that they have to attack the professor and his wife and his daughter? Who’s rushing to judgment and who’s rushing to judgment so much that they are willing to attack innocent bystanders just because they disagree with them? Wow. There’s a reason why Eyes for Lies was incognito for so long. There’s a reason why Seamus O’Riley was incognito for so long. This blog is a real threat to someone.

      Professor Leatherman and Crane Station, I worry for you and your daughter. Please, be careful.

      • Right. I have a son and Fred has a daughter, both by previous marriages. Both kids are grown. They have attacked Fred’s daughter.

        For Twitter lurkers looking to attack my grown son, let me save you some time: My son is a recent graduate of Georgetown Law School who spend time studying in Singapore, SE Asia and South America. He is bilingual. He passed the CA Bar and recently sat for the MD Bar (most likely backhanded that one), and he resides in DC.

        Watch the Twitter lurkers take all that and twist it into something bizarre.

      • TruthBTold says:

        @LTG,

        There are really some sick people out here and I am very serious. I cannot emphasize enough the type of wackadoos existing among us. Like earlier, that individual referred to us as Trayvonites and then said when someone responded to him, that some TM supporters refer to themselves as such. That’s all well and good, but we don’t do that here. So those types of characterizations, the internet aggressive behavior against others, smear campaigns, etc., is really disgusting and the issue(s) gets lost in the madness. I am not surprised that Professor Leatherman and his wife have become the targets of this type of behavior and have and will continue to be thrust into the forefront as their popularity continues to grow.

      • What? These fools have gone waaay to far. The Professor have their IP. Report them to the authorities. Someone posted on HP about going to find the person who brought these charges against Zimmerman. HP needs to report them ASAP. They cannot handle the facts and it makes them furious.

      • TruthBTold,

        I visit a lot of blogs to discuss this case but I am yet to see Trayvon supporters refer to themselves as Trayvonites. I have seen Zimmerman supporters refer to the people that support justice for Trayvon as Trayvonites. It’s just astounding how nutty some of them are. For real.

      • longtimegeek says:

        TruthBTold – Thanks. And, thanks for all of your other posts, too.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          longtimegeek – IMO, most don’t care about GZ at all and will not check what has been written as to its truth. They have a personal agenda and are supporting those with like minds. When challenged, they can not back up the comments made because they don’t give a hoot as about GZ as much as they do give a hoot about him being found not guilty. The so-called trolls are fanatics – the other end of the spectrum. My analysis is based on comments made from YouTube videos. Nasty, ugly, threatening comments.

  32. ajamazin says:

    There is absolutely no proof that Gladys abused George.

    This wild claim is unsubstantiated.

  33. TruthBTold says:

    Professor,

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

  34. Animaljunkie says:

    I have always known GZ was guilty as sin, even BEFORE all the evidence came out to justify such. However, your relentless arguments validate ALL that I have concluded myself and much more, for which I truly thank you. I have a mind more of a scientist, so your legal mentality forces me to think in a slightly different way. I follow you on Twitter, so I ALWAYS look forward to your blogs on this case. I suspect all Trayvon supporters would like to thank you for your unceasing fight for justice, in support of a 17 year old young man, with a bright future, whose life has been cut short by a sociopath. There are repercussions to all our actions and we desire the same for the conduct of GZ. Let the FULL extent of the law be placed upon him, since there is so much circumstantial evidence against him, the prospect of a life behind bars is hopefully a given.

    • George Smiley says:

      “I have always known GZ was guilty as sin, even BEFORE all the evidence came out to justify such.” You are certainly not alone in this.

  35. longtimegeek says:

    I’ve been trying to formulate a line of questioning about lying and credibility, but I’ve been struggling with it. So, please pardon my fumbling around. I’m lost as to how people can believe that GZ is truthful. He not only lies by omission, but he is in the special category of people who lie by commission, i.e., the top 10% of liars, i.e., the population of people that produce a larger percentage of criminals. One of his most incredible lies is the description about TM moving and talking and moving and talking after he was shot in the heart and his lungs collapsed. How do you convince the jury that he’s a liar? At what point is his credibility called into question and none of his statements to be believed? What are the consequences of lying and losing credibility? I’m asking partially, because I’m stunned by the liars who get away with obvious lies. The Casey Anthony case was the first case that I followed fairly closely. Maybe she was a unique exception. The jury was unaminously in tears about their decision. If that isn’t reasonable doubt, as defined by the judge’s jury instructions and not as defined by the lying defense attorney, then I don’t know what is. But, I’m digressing. Where is the normal line in the sand for a defendant? I have so many questions. I also have the same types of questions about witnesses, e.g., W6, and about defense attorneys.

  36. TruthBTold says:

    ks wrote,

    “I see George Smiley is playing the “Joe Oliver” card again.”

    And we see how that went.

    • Vickie votaw says:

      gz’s father was a retired magistrate for the Supreme Court Of Virginia, I’m guessing he has many connections & I believe he’s the one who saved GZ’s butt so many times, if the AG of Florida comes up the night of the shooting, those phone lines were humming.

  37. longtimegeek says:

    The first bit of information that drew me into this case was that an armed 28 year-old man followed and killed an unarmed 17 year-old boy. I still haven’t made it past that one yet! Society cannot have this be okay, unless there are extraordinary circumstances. The story isn’t even close to extraordinary circumstances. I’m naïve, so maybe my expectations are naive. But, I expected a story in which it would be obvious that the armed 28 year-old man was largely in the right and the unarmed 17 year-old boy was largely in the wrong. I expected the debate to be about a narrower gray area, if you will, where the 28 year-old man needed to be more in the right than he was to justify killing the 17 year-old boy. We don’t have anything close to this. The story could easily be that the armed 28 year-old man was entirely in the wrong and the unarmed 17 year-old boy was entirely in the right! (The police knew enough the night of the killing to arrest this man and let the legal processes sort everything out.) Even if GZ’s story(ies) were true (which they’re not), I don’t think society can have his version(s) of the situation be okay. An armed 28 year-old man followed an unarmed 17 year-old boy, and within about one minute of initial contact, including 40+ seconds of continuous screaming, the unarmed 17 year-old boy is dead.

    The forensics show that there was little to no fighting during that minute of contact. What else could be life threatening to GZ? TM reached for GZ’s gun during that minute? Really? Not only is GZ able to stop TM from getting GZ’s gun, GZ is able to grab TM’s clothing, pull it down and to the left to avoid shooting his left hand, aim at TM’s heart by pressing the gun against the pulled clothing, and make the perfect front to back shot with a hollow point bullet to blow TM’s heart to bits. Uh, oh. This is upsetting me. I have to stop now.

    • Unabogie says:

      And this is where the racism comes in, IMO. George has a history of violence. He assaulted an undercover agent and claimed the agent hit him first. He assaulted his ex-girlfriend and claimed she hit him first. In other words, assaulting people and then claiming that they attacked him first is entirely in George’s MO and consistent with the facts of the case as we know them. While in Trayvon’s case, he has no history of violence. And according to the only other witness to the moments before he was murdered, Trayvon was actively seeking to avoid George while George was actively seeking to find Trayvon.

      So in order to find George’s story plausible, you have to believe that Trayvon acted wildly out of character and flew into a homicidal rage for virtually no reason. And I say “no reason” because according to George, they never said a word to each other until Trayvon attacked George. While in George’s case, you have to believe that in this one instance, George really was attacked first and he was also acting out of character.

      Trayvon is the violent one and George was the guy minding his own business, in other words.

      So how does someone possibly come to that conclusion if not for racism, conscious or unconscious? You have to buy into the idea that all black people are just a trigger hair away from violence at all times. That they are all hyper-athletic and know how to win a street fight. That they are dishonest, which is why we can talk about “Al and Jesse” and “Team Crump” and DeeDee as connivers, while excusing George and Shellie as confused souls who only accidentally hid that money and never willingly lied.

      We have to believe the known liar and violent man and disbelieve the child he murdered. I don’t know how you get to that point if not racism.

      • TruthBTold says:

        Unabogie wrote,

        “Trayvon is the violent one and George was the guy minding his own business, in other words.”

        There you go. People just have to believe that TM’s supposed random outburst of confrontation and violence is more fitting of him because of him being a black male, than the other way around. Some will fight you tooth and nail and holler that they don’t hold certain views yada yada yada, but that’s what it is. Even the nasty remarks and smear campaign that GZ supporters engaged in. Your post was on.

      • longtimegeek says:

        I knew immediately that racism played a major role. I do believe that people have learned to be more tolerant and less obvious about their racism. But, for far too many people, it’s still alive and well when it comes to playing a major role in harming others and in looking the other way. If TM were white, would GZ’s connections have gotten him un-arrested? I’m guessing no.

        Short of being a hard-core racist, how does a juror with a conscience get past question #1? We have an armed 28 year-old man of questionable character who followed and killed an unarmed 17 year-old boy who had a real future and didn’t deserve to die.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          Yes. …and there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I think GZ would not have been arrested if TM were white either because of his connections. What brought this case to the fore was a mother who wanted answers as to why the man who killed her son was NOT arrested, If Trayvon (white, black, orange, or blue) did not have parents who were determined to see justice and would not let go, GZ would have gone free. To me the racism, started with GZ profiling Trayvon. GZ is a racist.

          • ajamazin says:

            Sandra,

            ” I think GZ would not have been arrested if TM were white either because of his connections.”

            I agree completely. 

            However, some posting here incorrectly interpret that view to negate racism was involved.

            >________________________________ > From: Frederick Leatherman Law Blog >To: aja_young@ymail.com >Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 1:39 PM >Subject: [New comment] Zimmerman: The Power of Circumstantial Evidence > > > WordPress.com >Sandra E. Graham commented: “Yes. …and there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I think GZ would not have been arrested if TM were white either because of his connections. What brought this case to the fore was a mother who wanted answers as to why the man who kille” >

          • Sandra E. Graham says:

            It has been proven from past arrests, etc., that he has escaped proper prosecution. He definitely profiled and murdered Trayvon and it didn’t matter to him because (JMHO) he thought he would get away with it as he had done in the past. His attitude toward the justice system indicates a disregard for authority and he has relied upon connections before. He is not getting away this time.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          If Trayvon was a so-called thug, what difference would that make to this case. He wasn’t doing anything that a rational human being would interpret as suspicious. If Trayvon did have a record, would it be OK to randomly kill him. I can’t get the question mark key to work on my computer but these are not questions requiring a response. So, it matters not whether Trayvon was good, bad, or indifferent. As a human being minding his own business – he did not deserve to die.

      • longtimegeek says:

        What if that same man follows your white, but darkly tanned son on a rainy dark night, mistakes him for a lighter skinned black boy, and within a minute of initial contact kills him?

      • And there you have it! Good Post!

      • longtimegeek says:

        Sandra – I agree. Even the thug GZ doesn’t deserve to die. GZ was judge, jury and executioner of someone who at worst was leisurely looking at house after house–let alone being someone who was armed and quickly killed someone he didn’t know. (Let’s give GZ the benefit of the doubt that it took him an hour to decide that he had to kill someone he didn’t know.)

        Oh, that brings me to another thought. If someone were deemed by the justice system to be worthy of execution, accounting only for the execution part, how long would it take to execute him? Would it be more than one minute?

      • longtimegeek says:

        Sandra and ajamazin – I fear that you may be right that even if TM were white, GZ’s connections would have gotten him off. So, thank goodness TM was black? Oy. Thank goodness a spotlight is being shed on both racism and the privileged? How powerful do you think his connections were? Or, how sad do you think the state of justice for the privileged is? Oy. This is whole other can of worms.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          As evidenced, we have a can of worms. If you believe GZ has anger issues, and if you believe GZ carriers a gun at all times, and if you believe GZ is a wannabe cop, if a kid of any race had his hackles standing on end — do you NOT believe he would draw that gun again!!! I think if you follow some of the documents, you will find the connections. Serino wanted him charged, didn’t he. He has issues and is a danger to society as long as those issues have not been resolved and he is carrying a gun. He profiled Trayvon because he is a racist. When he spotted Trayvon, he wasn’t angry. Anger was not his motivation.

      • aussie says:

        I disagree about no arrest if the victim were white.

        GZ whole self defence case rests on the concept that he NEEDED TO DEFEND HIMSELF. With me so far?

        For this to work, it is necessary for him to have been ATTACKED, right?

        Black youths are all gang members or heading that way, prone to random violence (insert prison statistics etc). Therefore it is obvious the unidentified black youth attacked him. So no great need to investigate properly, okay?

        White youths are peaceful and law-abiding and may grow up into caring neighbour-protecting responsible adults (almost like George except he’s Hispanic). This would require a thorough investigation of why this particular one may have attacked innocent GZ. Get it?

        This is where racism really and strongly came into it, and that wasn’t GZ’s racism, it is institutionalised racism. Not even spoken out loud, just the thought in the back of too many LE heads that the likely-thug is no great loss, why mess up an innocent white self-defender’s life by even thinking about charging him?

      • TruthSeeker12 says:

        This was a great post! So, so true….

      • longtimegeek says:

        There are so many great points in this thread alone. I’m so glad to have found a place where I can really learn. Thanks, everyone!

    • longtimegeek says:

      I was going to supplement this post with some of GZ’s bigger lies. But, I don’t think I have the stomach for it anymore. I haven’t been able to get past the first few questions in my mind: armed vs. unarmed, forensics, and timing. Everything else seems so secondary now, and it’s just more ugliness.

      GZ calmly killed a kid he didn’t know after following him for less than an hour and killing him within a minute of contact. Do we even know for sure that GZ didn’t know TM, or is that another bomb to be dropped later? In this situation, GZ did the opposite of what he was supposed to have learned in community college, concealed weapons permit training and neighborhood watch training.

  38. @GeorgeSmiley, you claim:

    “… speak out on behalf of a homeless black men, or mentor to black children. They just don’t.”

    Links other than GZ’s own claims or it didn’t happen.

    • edgySF says:

      Yes, we need links. GZ’s word is absolutely worthless. He’s already lied under oath in a court of law.

    • George Smiley says:

      “Zimmerman wrote an e-mail to Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee saying, “In the past, I have not had a positive perspective of Sanford Police Department, due primarily to the Sherman Ware incident.”

      “Zimmerman’s outrage over the incident was clear at the public meeting the previous January.

      “I would just like to state that the law is written in black and white. It should not and cannot be enforced in the gray for those that are in the thin blue line,” he said at the hearing. CNN obtained a recording this week.”

      http://www.wxii12.com/news/national/Tape-showed-Zimmerman-s-anger-over-black-man-s-beating/-/9677834/14084642/-/ofyyid/-/index.html

      “Sonner [an attorney] insisted that Zimmerman is not a racist, pointing out that he and his wife mentored for two black children for free.

      When I asked this mother [of the mentees], who trusted [Zimmerman and his wife], and she’s an African-American, if she trusted George Zimmerman, she said she did, and I asked her if there was anything that caused her to believe that she was a racist, and she said, ‘Absolutely not.’ And I said, went further, ‘Did you ever hear him use racial slurs in any time that you’d been around him?’ And she said, ‘no’ as well,” Sonner said.”

      http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-attorney-friend-speak-trayvon-martin-incident/story?id=15999256#.UCvUjZ2PVec

      I am as certain that Zimmerman is not a racist as I am that you will find a way to dismiss all of the above. Have at it.

      • crazy1946 says:

        I won’t try to dismiss your claims! There is mention of a tape in the first link, but where is the alleged tape? The second link is not facts but simply opinion by a man that was alleged to be Zimmerman’s attorney, but according to Zimmerman, never was. What bearing does his opinions have on this case due to his remarks having been made long before other evidence has come out? Do you have a more recent link that actually presents any factual evidence?

      • Sonner is a lawyer who was speaking on behalf of his client at the time.

        The important points are that neither the children mentored nor their parents have stepped forward to verify Zimmerman’s claim that he mentored them and, even if they had verified the mentoring, that would not establish that he was or was not racist.

        Zimmerman’s depiction of Martin is a trite and dated stereotype of a gangsta thug 10-20 years ago and speaks for itself in all its nasty racist glory.

      • crazy1946 says:

        GS: fauxmccoy provided the following link in a post above that pretty well blows your statements and links out of the water! Try watching and listening and perhaps you might learn? That is if you are willing to accept that your position might not be as correct as you hope it is..

        http://thegrio.com/2012/04/06/purported-zimmerman-family-letter-demands-naacp-call-off-the-dogs/#46979554

      • All I asked for was links.

    • KA says:

      James Holmes worked as a counselor a summer or two ago in a camp for disadvantaged kids…and he still callously ended life for amusement…

      There is a rumor that the mentoring was an involuntary program. I do not know, but I notice O’Mara does not seem to refer to it at all anymore.

      Regardless, it means nothing. I felt the statement by Glady’s at the bond hearing of Zimmerman “I have to go they have no one else” has racially biased undertones, in and of itself. They did not even realize that when conveying that story.

  39. MedicineBear says:

    Professor,

    Speaking of incriminating circumstantial evidence coming out of Zimmerman’s own mouth, I’d like your thoughts on the part of the reenactment video (at 19:46 in the excellent whonoze video) where GZ “stumbles” more than 35 feet southward after being “punched in the nose” at the T.

    whonoze’s video comments point out that GZ’s statement has him “stumbling” in the direction of the “punch;” has GZ going toward the kid that just “punched” him. I’ll take it further . . . GZ gets punched at the T and then stumbles in the direction of the “attacker” (instead of away from the attacker), he “stumbles” more than 35 feet into a DARKER area rather than moving AWAY from the “threat” and TOWARD better lighting, his parked truck, and where the police will be?

    Here’s my question about this: Even though his reenactment “stumbling” story is obviously bogus, doesn’t this very bogus story (out of his own mouth) describe an opportunity for him to RETREAT from the confrontation — and he didn’t?

    • Unabogie says:

      Well, yes, to all of what you wrote, but also keep this in mind: George’s own story says that he got hit once, then immediately fell to the ground where Trayvon jumped on top of him. He told that version of his story at least twice, before going to the walk through and realizing that it would have been impossible. Only then does he say that he “stumbled”. And even in his weird “stumble”, he doesn’t get near to where the body and debris field was.

      Again, in his original telling, he was punched once, and actually fell backward, away from the body’s eventual location. That’s around 40 feet for him to have stumbled.

      This is the key piece of evidence that will convict him, IMO.

    • TruthBTold says:

      You know what MedicineBear, I thought the same thing. However and like Unabogie pointed out, he changes his story.

      “Even though his reenactment “stumbling” story is obviously bogus, doesn’t this very bogus story (out of his own mouth) describe an opportunity for him to RETREAT from the confrontation — and he didn’t?”

    • longtimegeek says:

      It was such a powerful punch that he went somewhere between falling immediately and stumbling, shoot maybe even 100 feet and back somewhat in the wet grass and rain—or not falling at all—or hardly being punched in the nose—or not being punched in the nose at all. GZ told many versions of his story that show that he had many opportunities to retreat, as well as to announce himself. He didn’t.

  40. CherokeeNative says:

    Sharing:

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      From the Heart of a Blogger – Wow – Powerful images, powerful words. What a presentation. Thank you.

    • Thank you for sharing this, CherokeeNative.

    • elcy says:

      I’ve been following the excellent analysis and commentary on this site for quite a while, but haven’t commented before. However, I haven’t seen any mention of the recent report that Trayvon’s blood was found on the bag of Skittles – which was in his pocket. Perhaps it’s been discussed and I just missed it.

      I found it puzzling that I hadn’t seen the exact location of the Skittles bag mentioned in prior police reports. This new info would seem to indicate that the candy was outside his pocket at some point during the physical confrontation. Who placed them in his pocket? It seems unlikely to me thatTrayvon would have had the presence of mind or time to do it himself, once the struggle began.

      The fact that Zimmerman’s flashlight – I’m assuming it was the small keychain one – was mentioned in context with the Skittles along with a confusing reference to blood evidence on the flashlight, makes me wonder if Trayvon had the bag of candy in his hand when that hand made contact with the flashlight, perhaps resulting in the small laceration he had on one finger below the knuckle.

      This may be inconsequential, but it’s a new puzzling nit for me to pick at until I see it explained. Here’s the excerpt from the article about the inadvertent release of additional evidence by the prosecution team last week. (We know that the second flashlight did belong to Zimmerman, not to a witness.)

      snip>

      “The document release included an evidence receipt, listing items including the medical blanket used to cover the Miami teen’s body after the shooting, Zimmerman’s car keys, blood evidence collected from the bag of Skittles candy Martin was carrying at the time of his confrontation with Zimmerman and from a flashlight found at the scene, audio recordings of witness interviews, and photos of Martin taken during the autopsy.

      Martin was carrying the candy, a can of Arizona iced tea, and just over $40 on the night of the shooting. A note regarding DNA tests points to the possibility of an “additional contributor” to the DNA found on the Skittles, but indicates that no blood evidence was found on the flashlight. Zimmerman is believed to have been carrying a flashlight on a key ring on the night of the shooting. A second flashlight found at the scene is believed to have belonged to a witness, who was the first person to talk to Zimmerman after the shooting.”

      http://thegrio.com/2012/08/09/new-evidence-released-in-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-case/

      • CherokeeNative says:

        Someone correct me if I am wrong, please, but Elcy, both flashlights belonged to GZ. The larger of the two was found near Trayvon’s body, while the smaller one which was attached to a key fob was down by the “T” near the poop station. None of the flashlights had Trayvon’s DNA on them, and I suspect that the “other” DNA found on the Skittles was that of the store clerk’s or whomever stocked the 7/11 candy shelf. JMHO. I know this does not answer your question as to how the Skittles was returned to Trayvon’s pocket – that is an unknown to me.

      • MedicineBear says:

        Is that accurate info about the larger flashlight belonging to a neighbor?

        About TM’s blood on the skittles . . . A report from one of the first responding officers mentions the can of tea being in TM’s front hoodie pocket (the officer discovered it when lifting TM’s shirt to do CPR). I have NOT seen explicit mention of the skittles being in that same pocket (and in same 711 bag too?) as the tea. The officer also requested plastic from neighbors to seal the sucking chest wound — he may have used the plastic 711 bag for that. It is conceivable that the can of tea, skittles, and 711 bag were removed from TM’s front hoodie pocket during CPR efforts, and the handling of these objects by the officer transferred blood to them from the chest wound.

      • aussie says:

        Trayvon placed the skittles into a pocket at the 7-11. You can see it on the video. There is no reason to believe they ever left his pocket. The likeliest source of blood of from soaking through after he was shot (although we don’t know how the blood pattern was distributed exactly).

        The 7-11 bag was found on the ground. The drink was found in the front pocket of the hoodie. That I would expect to see blood on, as it was definitely close to the gunshot area and therefore the blood. There’s not way to know how and when it got into that pocket.

        The plastic bag used for “sealing the wound” was the Walmart one also found at the scene, it was provided by Witness 13.

        The big flashlight was always recorded as belonging to GZ. It is the one he said he could not get going at the T and which Serino said he had had no trouble turning on. This Grio story is the first I’ve ever seen about it belonging to someone else. It might be their writer “believing” this, the evidence records don’t.

        The witness concerned (#13) hung about inside the crime scene tape and most certainly would have said “hey that’s mine give it back” had it been his. The first aid kit is his too but was kept there because it had been used/had blood on it.

    • Not a good time for me to cry! My students will come in any minute now from lunch! Very touching, Cherokee.

  41. nan11 says:

    @George Smiley: You say: “(I would love to have a link to others.)”

    Here is just one that I could come up with quickly.

    http://www.theraganlawfirm.com/the-best-argument-not-yet-heard-on-the-zimmerman-case/

  42. George Smiley says:

    I think there is some irrational exuberance and wishful thinking at play on this forum, that may lead to abject disappointment with how this case is ultimately resolved.

    Folks here enthusiastically receive what the professor has to say, in large part because they believe, as a former attorney and former professor, what he says carries some weight of authority.

    That may be, but there are very few legal scholars that agree with him. In fact, he is the only one I’m personally aware of that believes the state’s case against Zimmerman is strong. (I would love to have a link to others.)

    The truth, as unpopular as it may be here is: The prosecution’s case against Zimmerman is weak. It is extremely unlikely Zimmerman will be convicted of murder.

    It’s possible that Zimmerman could be convicted of manslaughter or some other lesser offense, but it’s still not likely. This may change if new evidence becomes available.

    But as it stands now, an acquittal or a hung jury is, by far, the most likely outcome (based on the current evidence.)

    • CherokeeNative says:

      Good luck with that George. The truth be told, it does not matter what legal scholars believe, it only matters what the jury believes – and I remind you that the jury will be comprised, hopefully, of reasonable minded persons, not unlike those you see commenting here on this blog. Take a stroll through the internet blogs and you will see that there are far more people seeing GZ’s actions that night as murder, not self- defense. And, this is without seeing the forensic science and expert opinions. I will put my money on Professor Leatherman any day. And, since you apparently trust those who believe otherwise, why are you not following their blog instead of this one? Just sayin…

    • EdgySF says:

      If we’re disappointed in the outcome, it will most likely be because of the failure of the SPD to have properly investigated GZ that night. They intentionally tried to bungle the case.

      But even just having GZ arrested was a victory. The SPD almost got away with sweeping this under the rug. We didn’t let that happen, and that is our victory. TM will be remembered forever. He may even make the history books. He is known all over the world.

      We are a nation of laws and we value justice. The admitted killer must atone for his transgression. It’s only fair.

      I personally don’t think GZ has a chance. He has been caught in so many ridiculous lies — including under oath – that his word is meaningless. And all of his defense depends on his word. And right now, his word is dirt.

      Even manslaughter for killing a minor is 30 years in prison. That’s better than what Chief Lee decided for GZ!!

      • lynp says:

        No, it will be because the Prosecution has no case. In this great nation of laws and justice, the Founders were specific that a person is considered innocent until declared quilty by a jury of his/her peers. It is only fair that even George Zimmerman gets his day in Court. George is a dope. No doubt of that but a racist he is not. Even the “FBI finds no evidence of racism” and that can be googled. I see no evidence that the SPD intentionally bungled the case. What do they care about George Zimmerman?

    • You say:

      “That may be, but there are very few legal scholars that agree with him. In fact, he is the only one I’m personally aware of that believes the state’s case against Zimmerman is strong. (I would love to have a link to others.)”

      Why do you even bother hanging around this site, protesting too much? Might you be more comfortable someplace else?

      “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

      “The phrase’s actual meaning implies the increasing likelihood of suppressed feelings for the contrary of that which is being argued. I.e., the more passionate and fervent the argument, the greater likelihood the cause is a suppression of belief for the contrary argument, and the subsequent confirmation that it is the (actual) truer statement.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_doth_protest_too_much,_methinks.

      • TruthBTold says:

        “That may be, but there are very few legal scholars that agree with him. In fact, he is the only one I’m personally aware of that believes the state’s case against Zimmerman is strong.

        I’ve always found these comments to be weak. As if somehow, it invalidates Professor Leatherman’s views or opinions. Although there are attorneys and defense attorneys mind you, that have agreed with many of the points we all have put forth. Whether it be condemnation of MOM allowing GZ to give an interview, etc., One legal expert out of Florida I believe (her name escapes me) stated that the Zimmerman family was losing touch with reality. Again regardless of whether legal scholars agree with Professor Leatherman or believe that the State’s case is strong, is really irrelevant and I am sure doesn’t phase him at all. I get the impression that he is an individual with a lot of experience (cultural, legal, etc.) that has shaped his “out-of-the-box” perspectives and one who has a firm grasp on who he is and don’t need to be in lockstep with the masses. This is one of the major differences between those leaders and progressive people and those who follow and don’t critically think. Just my opinion.

        • Funny how, when folks do not have forensic evidence to back their claims, they go into attack mode. For example, I am even noticing on Twitter, some passive-aggressive attacks on me in addition to bogus claims about Fred. Insane.

          Anything to avoid the issues and forensics, I guess.

      • longtimegeek says:

        As a good friend of mine has said many times, “If you can’t attack the argument, attack the arguer.” It’s an automatic red flag that the person is not coming from a position of strength.

        • Well, that is certainly turning out to be the case. We are both being personally attacked on Twitter, and some of the folks, full of grace and tact, have had the temerity to drag Fred’s daughter into the mess. I blocked and reported someone this morning for abuse.

          Not like I have anything to hide, my whole life story is on my own website, but these folks are intent on spewing not only private information but false information as well.

          Shows you what happens when folks have no talent, merit, grace or argument to stand up on their own behalf- they go into gossip mode.

          Gossip is the Hail Mary pass of the worried, if you ask me.

          World, here’s my site and story. Difference is, I include all the documents:

          froggravy.wordpress.com

      • longtimegeek says:

        Even if the professor and his wife (I suddenly flashed to Guilligan’s Island; sorry for the interruption) are blind squirrels, that doesn’t mean that they haven’t found an acorn. So, I’m one of those people that doesn’t get attacking the arguer instead of the argument. Of course, we don’t have any proof that the professor and his wife are blind squirrels. So, back to the topic at hand. What’s the deal with the acorn?

      • longtimegeek says:

        Crane Station. I’m sorry. I didn’t notice your embedded posts earlier. I’m still learning the wordpress system and strange ordering of comments. It really scares me that you, your husband and daughter are under attack. I’m really sorry. I want to cry. There are so many people who can be hurt by one crazy person and his supporters. It’s too much.

        There seem to be no depths below which some people will go. They fabricated falsehoods about TM. Now, they are fabricating falsehoods about innocent bystanders who disagree with them. How dare you disagree with them. They’ll show you. Wow. I’m so very sorry. Please, please, please, be careful.

        I also traditionally have no use for criminal cases. For personal reasons, I’ve been wondering how it is that liars get away with obvious lies. I was so certain that my naïve view of the world would be validated by the Casey Anthony case. It wasn’t. I even told myself that I was going to go back to not reading about the dregs of society again. But, this case drew me in. A key reason is that I can’t imagine a crazy person running around my neighborhood killing a kid, and the justice system only being left with his lying word. That peaked my attention. Really? No. Really?

        Again, I’m sorry, and please be careful!

        • Thank you so much for your reply, longtimegeek. It was actually Fred’s grown daughter they mentioned- she does not live in the state we live in, and we have not seen her in years. Needless to say, it was creepy.

          The Zimmerman case has also made me think a bit about neighborhood watches, a concept I never even considered. We are a little older and quiet, and we mind our own business, but we are aware, for example, that the law has been called to our area for various issues. We considered this none of our concern.

          The first thing that struck me about the Zimmerman case was that a Neighborhood Watch captain knew how to kill but not how to administer CPR. I thought that was bizarre, to put it mildly.

          At this point, I do not think Neighborhood Watch is a good idea, because it almost encourages the sort of hyper-snooping that can lead to problems exactly like the TM shooting.

      • longtimegeek says:

        Crane Station – I’ve been thinking and thinking, and I don’t know what to say. Again, I’m so sorry, and please be careful. You, your husband, his daughter and also possibly your son are dealing with trouble that is particularly stressful. I marvel at how much you’ve put yourself out there to help people. You’ve already done so much. Thank you!

        As far as a neighborhood watch, I’ve never lived in a neighborhood that had one. I think I would move out of one that did.

        • Thank you, longtimegeek, for the comment. Maybe I am naiive, I really did not know that cyber bullying could become stalking.

          I see issues with Neighborhood Watch, particularly when it comes to the idea of notifying EMS in a timely manner in the case of emergency.

          Since the GZ case is the discussion, take that night just for example. I am not focusing on GZ’s guilt or innocence in this comment, only on what he claims he told the first witness, who apparently asked, “Should I call 911?” The reply? No, I need help restraining this person.”

          That is the wrong answer. The correct answer is YES CALL an ambulance right now!

          I guess the problem I have with the sort of fake authority that a neighborhood watch person takes on is that the authority can skew the person’s perception of grave, dire situations right in front of them. That is exactly what happened in that situation.

          Also, when someone ‘postures’ in a community, by following people around in a car or on foot, or by calling the police for non-issues, the community may have a higher likelihood of posturing back…and this is not good for the Neighborhood Watch citizen, after all.

          This is an interesting subject, and I would like to see some peer-reviewed studies. Overall, I believe that people place high value on privacy. Granted, it is not against the law to follow somebody, but I really think it can do more harm than good.

          Community members all have eyes in their head, and they can do a perfectly adequate job of notifying law enforcement when they see something amiss.

      • KA says:

        Most legal bloggers save TalkLeft feel that the defense has an uphill battle and this will not be dismissed under SYG immunity I also follow two other legal blogs that cover the case from time to time and also feel that GZ has an uphill battle. Debbie Hines who is a former prosecutor for one and Darrin Hutcheson is another. NeJame also believes GZ had little to no shot of immunity under SYG due to his dishonesty.

        Prof Leatherman is in good company with those who have looked and analyzed evidence and feel that the State has a strong case. Many of the commenting attorneys on local news outlets are asked a single question or two and opinion is based on that verses a strong review of the case, situation, and evidence.

    • ks says:

      Oh please you’re just trolling albeit in a tolerable manner for now. You’re offered nothing but windy pontifications and repititions of weak por-GZ talking points.

    • Justkiddin* says:

      George I am curious as to why you are so sure GZ will walk? Do any of the lies he has been caught in make you question any or all he has testified to? Normally when I catch someone in a lie, I then start to question every word out of their mouth. TM can no longer speak his version of events, imo GZ made sure to silence him because GZ knew he would be in a lot of trouble for attacking a kid. He knew he was a kid, he told the NEN so.

      • George Smiley says:

        “George I am curious as to why you are so sure GZ will walk?”
        It would be fair to say I’m sure he won’t be found guilty of murder. But I am not sure he will walk, I just think that is ultimately the most likely scenario.

        “Do any of the lies he has been caught in make you question any or all he has testified to?”
        I have always questioned what he’s testified to right off the bat. I mostly base my beliefs on other sources of information.

        “…imo GZ made sure to silence him because GZ knew he would be in a lot of trouble for attacking a kid.”
        This would be a silly reason on his part to kill him. There would have been no reason for GZ to have worried about getting in trouble for attacking Trayvon.

        When the police came they’d have witnesses testify to GZ being on the bottom with the kid on top.

        They would have found GZ with an apparent broken nose, bloody head, with grass stains on his back.

        And a kid that didn’t have a scratch on him (except his finger). (The bruises on his knuckles would have developed later.)

        There is absolutely no question who would have been the one in trouble, and it certainly would not have been GZ.

      • Mike S says:

        @George: You’re forgetting one thing. There’s no evidence that Martin ever hit George at all. There’s one tiny cut on Martin’s finger and that’s it. No other cuts, no bruising, no nothing.

        And in particular, with all the blood all over George’s face and head – none of George’s DNA on Martin’s hands or arms.

        The whole “bruises would have come later” thing is untrue.

        At the end of the day you have George with two very small cuts on the back of his head, one small cut on the bridge of his nose, and zero defensive marks on his arms.

        You have Martin with zero wounds other than the gunshot and a tiny cut on one finger.

        George has said that Martin hit him over a dozen times. And managed to get no blood on his hands?

        George has said that Martin covered his mouth and nose after the hitting to try to smother him. And Martin still got no blood on his hands?

        George got not a single defensive bruise? And no bruises at all on his face? No fat lip? Just a single cut on his nose?

        Come on. You are straining credulity past the break point.

    • heartofhearts says:

      George, if you haven’t done so yet please check out “The Smoking Gun” website. Your ideas and conclusions are far more prevalant there and far out weigh the folks that don’t believe GZ was acting in self-defense. Actually it is good site to go to to find out more about racism from the GZ side of things. You are certainly more civil than the folks there so beware they will chew anyone up who remotely disagrees with them!
      Report back and let us know what you think about the defenders of GZ, please!

    • heartofhearts says:

      The other comment you made about the police finding Trayvon on top of GZ. I wish they would of made there on time to do that because he would still be alive today.
      The way I look at it is that GZ said, “these assholes always get away”. Why? Because he knows from all his calls to 911 that the police take a while to get there. I’m confident that he felt he had time to find Trayvon before the police arrived and detain him. He was on a mission to do that because he was tired of them always getting away. Unfortunately for Trayvon he paid the ultimate price and committed no crime.

      • heartofhearts says:

        While I was out taking my dog for a swim another thought came to me and it may very well be redundant somewhere on the professor’s blog but I have to go back and see what time he called NEN (we all know that those calls will take longer for the police to arrive than 911) and the time the actual 911 calls were made from the neighbors and when the police actually arrived.
        He KNEW they weren’t going to be there before he found Trayvon. God, I wish there were someway this kid could of made it home or called the police himself. But I know he was a teenage boy on the phone with his girlfriend, he surely didn’t think he was going to die that night.

  43. George Smiley says:

    Conspiracy theories involving witnesses, calling anyone who thinks Z acted in self-defense a racist, and now resurrecting the debunked “coons” thing to stir up hostility with the race card.

    I know, I know. You believe all of this is “proven”. It shouldn’t surprise you that I disagree, of course. While it sort of sounds like it, I am quite certain he did not say “coons”.

    Personally, I have never heard an “audio expert” claim that he said coons. So, my question is, do you have a link to this?

    • George Smiley says:

      Also, you do realize you are undercutting the credibility of the “audio expert” that found it was not Zimmerman’s voice screaming for help, right? Since he determined that Zimmerman said “punks”.

      This question is for those who do believe those “audio experts” were credible, but also believe that Zimmerman did say “coons”. I know the professor did not include them in his “13 reasons” post, so he appears to at least be consistent on this issue.

    • whonoze says:

      George: I am an audio expert (though not someone who testifies at trials for money). I have written several posts on the subject and produced a YT video. Check my blog. Then try Googling “whonoze coons”.

      You’ll see first of all, that while I think GZ said “coons,” I do not think this comes anywhere near proof that he is a ‘racist.’ (And when i say I “think” he said “coons”, I mean to say I have ruled out all possibilities other than ‘coons’ or ‘goons’ via detailed phonetic analysis, beyond reasonable doubt.)

      You are in error in saying “coons” has been “debunked.” It has been challenged. But these challenges have their own problems. The CNN ‘audio expert’ who claimed GZ said ‘fucking cold’ is the worst travesty of audio analysis i have ever seen in my life.

      As for Tom Owen, who excluded Zimmerman from the screams, but said he thought GZ said “punks.” He did not ‘show his work’ on the last one, and i think he just took a stab at at. More importantly, his expertise and method relates to determining whose voice is being heard, not what words are being said. That is, he generates spectrographs that profile the tonal quality of the larynx, whether it is screaming, speaking English, mumbling gibberish, etc. So, if Owen has credibility, it’s not in ‘audio’ in general, but in his particular sub-specialty. We all have our limits. For example, I have no skill in the particular type of analysis Owen does…

      There are several different things people mean by using the term “racist”. In the sense you are using the term — a thorough race based bigotry as a defining piece of an individual’s identity — I do not think George Zimmerman is a ‘racist.’

      This is the kind of big picture issue the prosecution does not need to address in making a specific criminal case against GZ. It doesn’t matter what you call it, or even what caused it, but the NEN call shows beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ came to the completely unjustified conclusion that Trayvon Martin was a criminal who need to be prevented from getting away, at any cost. His prejudices, whatever they were, cost a young man his life.

      • Tzar says:

        Zimmerman does not say the “keys are in the ignition”, I hear “the keys are in my truck” and furthermore, he clearly does not say it as if he if talking to the dispatcher, he clearly is speaking to someone else, presumably someone on the scene with him. One does not simply change volume mid-speech for no reason.

      • princss6 says:

        I don’t know how anyone can conclude that GZ is not racist after he target a black kid doing nothing and his NEN call. If a black kid walking down the street doing nothing is described in negative light for doing nothing and that’s not racist, then NO one is racist.

        Having said that, I agree the State doesn’t need to introduce a racial motive to win this case but that does not absolve GZ from racially profiling Trayvon that night, running home another black boy who he accused of stealing a bike and creating a hostile environment within that complex for black men.

        His entire bs about if he was named Jorge, he wouldn’t be charged is racist. His bs him doing more about Sherman Ware than the black community is bs. And it all weaves a tale of someone who holds racist views about black people despite having “black friends” or mentoring “black kids.”.

        The superficial analysis of what racism is and isn’t a very disappointing and if nothing else to prevent other Trayvons from happening, one must understand that context in which he was targeted as criminal because of his youth and his race.

        I’m really tired of seeing the same ole same ole vis a vis race which is for POC to say, look, this is racism, this is what we experience this is what we know and for non-POC to say, nah, this isn’t racism, nope, nope, nope. Sticks fingers in ears.

        • ajamazin says:

          For me, this is more about privilege and entitlement that is enjoyed by members of specific groups that exercise power  and authority denied to the majority.

          It is much more dangerous as the racial distinctions become increasingly blurred.

          >________________________________ > From: Frederick Leatherman Law Blog >To: aja_young@ymail.com >Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 11:10 AM >Subject: [New comment] Zimmerman: The Power of Circumstantial Evidence > > > WordPress.com >princss6 commented: “I don’t know how anyone can conclude that GZ is not racist after he target a black kid doing nothing and his NEN call. If a black kid walking down the street doing nothing is described in negative light for doing nothing and that’s not racist, then NO one” >

          • princss6 says:

            I think if we adopted a view that centered the victim versus the perpetrator, i.e. I doesn’t matter what race or color or ethnicity or language you speak if you see a black kid doing nothing and think criminal THAT’S RACIST.

          • ajamazin says:

            princss6,

            Did I say it was not racist?

            You distorted my comment and I resent it.

          • princss6 says:

            Step back. Re-read my comment. The comment is not saying that you said it was not racist. I’m actually agreeing with you and offering a way that we should be looking at whether something is racist or not. To view it from the lens of person being objectified and their characteristics not looking at the objectifiers race, ethnicity or language to mitigate.

            Geez!

      • George Smiley says:

        whonoze says:
        “In the sense you are using the term — a thorough race based bigotry as a defining piece of an individual’s identity — I do not think George Zimmerman is a ‘racist.’”
        I agree. But to say “fucking coons” to a dispatcher during a call would have to be a racist in this sense of the word. This is perhaps the primary reason I think it so unlikely that he said it.

    • Odd that you would request a link when you have never provided any support or links to anything you have said.

      You have only expressed unsupported conclusory statements that impress no one.

      Links have been provided for the information you request.

      Go find them or take a hike and get lost.

      • George Smiley says:

        “Odd that you would request a link when you have never provided any support or links to anything you have said. You have only expressed unsupported conclusory statements that impress no one. Links have been provided for the information you request. Go find them or take a hike and get lost.”
        Wouldn’t it have been simpler just to say, “I don’t have a link.”? I don’t recall anyone requesting a link from me.

  44. Sandra~~I am assuming the NEN call to be direct evidence. The noises and screaming heard on the call would be circumstantial. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

    • Sandra E. Graham says:

      mainstreamfair – Thanks for answering. So, the call would basically be used as a timing mechanism as direct evidence. Then the sounds would be used by both sides open for interpretation because it can not be proven directly (for the most part). I think I got it. Thanks again.

      • Sandra~~matching up the times on the NEN call with DeeDee and Trayvon’s phone records would be great evidence if they match up especially if they coincide with DeeDee’s testimony. Zimmerman’s voice and the dispatchers can be identified so that should be direct evidence. Any unidentified noises, screaming would be circumstantial. I would sure like to get my hands on those phone records, also Shellie’s, Taaffee’s and Osterman’s.

        PS, I just hope I know what I am talking about. lol Sometimes if I don’t know the answer, I have a habit of making things up.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          mainstreamfair – it would be great if it all came together in a nice big bow. I am also focusing on those phone records of FT and MO, if they exist. They may clear up a few questions and dispel a few thoughts — or not. I still believe there is more to this story.

          • masonblue says:

            The phone records are circumstantial evidence because they will be used to prove that certain things happened at certain times or did not happen.

        • Direct evidence requires a live witness testifying about events he or she perceived through the senses.

          In other words,

          I saw X.

          I heard Y.

          I touched Z.

          I tasted A.

          I smelled B.

          The rest is circumstantial. For example, it’s used to infer certain things such as a person’s intent, knowledge, or motive, whether he was lying. or the identity of a person screaming in the background during a 911 call.

          Does that help?

      • boar_d_laze says:

        I hesitate to make too many corrections, because … as I said … the distinctions are mostly not important and there there are a few definitions of direct, indirect, and circumstantial which aren’t entirely consistent with one another.

        That said:

        Because the voices can be identified doesn’t make the statements made (in the NEN call, e.g.) direct or indirect.

        If the statement (by a participant or witness) is offered for the truth of the matter asserted, it’s “direct.” So, if the prosecution offers Zimmerman’s answer “yeah” to the question “are you following him” to prove that Zimmerman meant to follow Martin, that’s “direct.”

        But if the prosecution offers Zimmerman’s statement, “those a**holes they always get away” as proof that Zimmerman meant to apprehend or assist in Martin’s apprehension, that’s “indirect.”

        If the evidence requires an inference in order to advance a material proposition, no matter how it’s given, it’s “indirect.”

    • No, the NEN call was GZ talking to Sean and does not contain any screams.

      It’s circumstantial evidence because, together with other circumstantial evidence, it will be used to infer that GZ was lying to conceal that he was hunting for TM with the intent of detaining him for the police. That is, to prove he was the aggressor.

  45. Sandra E. Graham says:

    Is the NEN call considered circumstantial evidence or direct evidence. I have been trying to analyze the events of that night without the NEN call as the guide. The call is a very big nail and without it, GZs lies would not be found to be such blatant lies. Yet, GZ continues with his tall tale as though that NEN call never existed.

    • It’s circumstantial evidence because, together with other circumstantial evidence, it will be used to prove George Zimmerman lied and went hunting for TM to detain him, instead of returning to his vehicle to wait for the police to arrive as he falsely claimed.

      • longtimegeek says:

        According to GZ, the only time he didn’t go in the same direction as TM happened to be the one minute before he had to kill TM. According to GZ, within that minute, TM turned into a person with murderous intent. So, continuing this storyline, the tear on TM’s face shows that TM had some regret about what he was about to do to GZ. GZ, however, has no regrets.

      • boar_d_laze says:

        “Direct evidence” is testimony from a participant or other percipient witness of the “I saw…, ” “then I did…,” and “I heard…” variety. Everything else is indirect.

        The statements Mr. Zimmerman made in the NEN call are indirect, but as some of them constitute admissions, I don’t think I’d term them “circumstantial.” The written statement to police is direct, and so is the re-enactment is mostly direct.

        The statements Mr. Martin made in his call with DeeDee are “direct.”

        The big take away from nearly any discussion descending to technical definitions, and other linguistic and semantic considerations is that unless you’re having fun with it, it doesn’t count for much. At least for the lay person.

        In this case, the prosecution will bring several different types of evidence, including witness testimony, cross examination of the defendant, records of the defendant’s prior out of court, statements, the physical evidence, the disposition of the physical evidence, expert testimony including analysis of the physical evidence, and the ever popular “and so on.”

        The trick will be weaving it together into a coherent whole which constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

        • Sandra E. Graham says:

          The reason why I asked the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence stems from another high-profile case where some of the jury members acquitted the defendant because the evidence was mostly circumstantial. Part of my job duties used to be motor vehicle accident investigations where neither party would take responsibility for having caused the accident. No trials. But, we find eyewitnesses accounts did not hold as much weight as the actual accident scene did. Sometimes there were no eyewitnesses and both parties claim no fault, so the scene was all we had. Why does a jury think that, even though there are conflicts between eyewitnesses recollections that the witness statements are more valuable than the forensics. Or was the case I just referred to an anomaly.

      • Vickie votaw says:

        longtimegeek says:
        August 15, 2012 at 10:44 am
        According to GZ, the only time he didn’t go in the same direction as TM happened to be the one minute before he had to kill TM. According to GZ, within that minute, TM turned into a person with murderous intent. So, continuing this storyline, the tear on TM’s face shows that TM had some regret about what he was about to do to GZ. GZ, however, has no regrets.
        I think the tear on Trayvon’s face was from fear not regret, he just tried to protect himself and get away from that crazed m f bad word er!

      • longtimegeek says:

        Vickie votaw – I agree that TM was the victim! I was just mocking the possible GZ spin on that!

  46. We need a typo fairy in here. It is a given that it is impossible to proofread your own material. *skin not skim

  47. TruthBTold says:

    Professor wrote,

    “He is his own worst enemy and his conviction of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree will materialize out of his own lyin’ mouth and the abundant circumstantial evidence.”

    There you have it folks.

    • Trix says:

      Can’t be much simpler than that can it??

      • Vicky ~~If Zimmerman was of the mindset that most of the breakins/burglaries in his neighborhood were caused by black youths then I will agree that the color of Trayvon’s skim would be included in his ‘criminal’ profiling.

        I still do not think that Z was/is a racist. I remain on the fence on that one.

      • George Smiley says:

        “I still do not think that Z was/is a racist. I remain on the fence on that one.”

        Get off the fence. :-p (Psst… Don’t tell anyone here I said this but… It couldn’t be much more obvious that he’s not a racist.

        Racists just do not tend to go into business with black friends, have a lot of black friends on their Myspace page, speak out on behalf of a homeless black men, or mentor to black children. They just don’t.

        You really have to bend over backwards to be in absolute and utter denial to think he is a racist. Get off the fence. You’ll feel better about yourself.

        Do you need him to join the Black Panthers or marry Queen Latifa first? Get off the fence and say it with me, “Zimmerman is not a racist.” No “I thinks”. No “fences”.

        You can do it. They won’t hate you. Well, some of them might.

      • PYorck says:

        George,
        You are either attacking a straw man or you have a very naive concept of racism. Nobody is arguing that GZ has white robes in his closet.

        – Knowing black people does not mean that you are not a racist. (BTW we have yet to see anyone of any race who is GZ’s friend as opposed to one of his washed up tough guy ‘mentors’)
        – Speaking for specific black people does not mean that you are not a racist.
        – Mentoring black kids does not mean that you are not a racist – far from it, depending on your motivation.

        – Thinking that someone is more likely to be a criminal because they are black makes you a racist.
        – Feeling entitled to act on that takes it to a whole new level.
        – Thinking that people will buy your hare-brained story because it is about a black person makes you a racist.

      • ks says:

        I see George Smiley is playing the “Joe Oliver” card again.

  48. Tzar says:

    “Step by inexorable step he lies and lies and lies.

    What is he concealing?

    He wasn’t out there exercising in the rain.”

    Somethings wrong with this Zimmerman guy…I don’t know what his deal is….

  49. Vicky says:

    Thanks for the reminder that circumstantial evidence can and does lead to a conviction. I would assume much more so when it is provided by the defendant himself.
    I listened once again to the cries for help on the video linked. One thing that struck me was that the person calling out for help, sounded as though he was literally crying. In the photos of George taken as short time after the crime, George did not appear to have any of the tale-tale signs of a person who had been crying. You know, like puffy, red eyes. However, it has been reported that the photos taken of Trayvon showed a tear running down his cheek. If true, IMO, GZ is screwed when a jury is left to decide, based upon circumstantial evidence, who was crying for help.

    Another thing, while the “freelance cellphone photographer” was taking crime scene photos of Zim’s bloody head, that showed no signs of the hemotoma one would expect with a head banging, why no photo of his “bleeding” nose? Surely he would have captured that before the blood and snot (from crying) had been wiped away. My answer, there was no noticeable discharge of blood coming from inside his nose.

    I also continue to wonder why there was no swelling of or bleeding from GZ’s lips after having someone not only repeatedy strike him in the face, but apply suffocating force to his mouth. Especially given the fact he was screaming the entire time. He is so fortunate his teeth didn’t wind up coming through his lips during the struggle.

    • (Hello Vicky~ I ready to paste my comment. Talk about great minds. lol)

      Prof~~just food for thought and some things a jury may ponder.

      Re Zimmerman’s wounds from the altercation. It is next to impossible for Z’s head to be pounded on the pavement several times and he only ended up with a couple small lacerations on the back of his head. A small cut on the scalp will bleed profusedly. Z’s head connected with some hard object or may have just scraped against the edge of the pavement briefly.

      Z was diagnosed with a possible fractured nose by, I believe a nurse, at the doc’s office. You can diagnose a broken nose sans x’rays. If Z got a smack on the nose enough to create a fracture, there would be discoloration around his nose/eyes in approx 24-36 hrs. Are there any pics of Z’s face when it was black and blue?? If not, why not?

      A broken nose is any crack or fracture in the bony portion of the nose. This is usually a result of external trauma. Blows to the face during altercations, vehicle accidents, falls, and sports injury are the most common reasons for a fractured nose. The following link explains the fractured nose.

      http://www.emedicinehealth.com/broken_nose/article_em.htm

      Was Z’s injuries life threatened? No. Given another couple of minutes, could they have become life threatening or enough to create great bodily harm? Don’t know.

      • Mike S says:

        A Physician’s Assistant gave a diagnosis of a closed fracture of the nose and noted black eyes the day after the shooting. But she also recommended he see a specialist, which Zimmerman refused. It’s unclear to me if she is really diagnosing a broken nose for sure if if she thinks it’s a broken nose and he should go to the specialist to confirm. I think the latter, but that it somewhat up to debate.

        On the head wounds she notes the wounds are superficial and Zimmerman shows no signs of trauma from them at all. They can be ignored entirely it seems to me.

        Back to the nose – what’s odd is that the PA diagnosed a closed fracture mostly from “nasal pain” from Zimmerman and discoloration around the eyes. What’s weird to me is that if you watch the walk through video Zimmerman did, which was on the same day as the diagnosis, you don’t see any discoloration under his eyes. His nose does not appear to be broken. He is speaking normally in soft tones with no nasal distortion and does not seem to be in any pain at all.

        I don’t know how to reconcile what you see on the video with what the PA diagnosed. They seem irreconcilable to me.

        All of that aside, a witness was on the scene only a minute or less after the shooting and described Zimmerman as being very calm and matter of fact. Beyond the problem of his wounds not matching his description of the fight, his emotional demeanor doesn’t match that of someone who was crying hysterically and fighting for his life 30 seconds ago. As you said there are no signs anywhere on his face that he was doing that bone chilling shriek over and over again.

        • Brown says:

          @Mike
          Likely broken nose.
          •When your doctor submits her bill to insurance for reimbursement, each service described by a CPT code must be matched to an ICD code. If those two codes don’t align correctly with each other, payment may be rejected. In other words, if the service isn’t one that would be typically provided for someone with that diagnosis, the doctor won’t get paid. For example, the doctor could not typically
          submit a bill for an x-ray if the patient’s complaint was a rash.

          There is no code for likely. I believe she put what would fit for billing purposes.
          And of course he needed a note from the doctor to be able to return to work. At least that is the excuse he gave to the PA.

          I agree with everything you stated in you post.

      • PYorck says:

        The diagnosis was about as negative as could be expected under the circumstances. For a number of reasons, if you go to a doctor and insist on a particular diagnosis, they will not rule it out unless they are absolutely sure.

      • longtimegeek says:

        During his voice stress test, he said that he couldn’t breath through his nose. Then, he drank a large quantity of water, closed his mouth and swallowed.

      • Angelia says:

        If you look at the video of GZ walking through the police station, unescorted, three days after the incident, as he is walking up the stairs you can see he has a pair of sunglasses hanging from the neckline of his shirt.

        I don’t know many guys who wear sunglasses strictly as a fashion accessory to their outfits. I believe he wore them to the police station, removed them and hung them from his shirt when he entered the building. I wore glasses all my life, prior to lasiks. It’s difficult for me to believe that a person with a broken nose is wearing any kind of glasses that would entail the weight of the glasses resting on the bridge of the nose, and the eyepieces sitting on both sides of the “fracture”, pressing downwards.

        Even lightweight sunglasses would be very uncomfortable, if not downright painful. I played sports in school. I have been hit in the face with volleyballs and soccer balls. While my nose was never broken, it was nonetheless very tender and sensitive for several days. It would be very difficult for me to believe that a man with a broken nose was wearing sunglasses on that broken nose only three days after it was broken.

      • KA says:

        Angela, great point. I had not put that together.

        I would think that an interesting sidenote for the State.

  50. Two sides to a story says:

    Thanks for this post. I appreciate knowing more about circumstantial evidence and have always felt that this and GZs words are the “smoking gun.”

    Not only do GZ supporters not understand it or refuse to understand it, I believe that GZLC purposely does not broach this subject with supporters in order to continue securing donations. The only other alternative is that GZLC completely believes in their client, which is a little hard to swallow.

    • Case#1 says:

      Part of the blame rests on the fact that most supporters aren’t lawyers, and the lawyers (with the exception of this blog) aren’t explaining the legal doctrine or concepts. They are playing to the camera or to their audience, and telling them what they want to hear or what the lawyer wants to believe.

  51. case#1 says:

    You are right , and I think in a non-racialized world that would be enough. But, I think the prosecution will still consider a plea of manslaughter due to the race factor in the case.

    • princss6 says:

      Criminalizing archetypes are very powerful. I still can’t understand the oftentimes compartmentalization I see sometimes where a person who actually employs the racist criminalizing archetypes are absolved while those who are manipulated by said person are branded as racist.

      In short, GZ is a racist. His entire tale begins and ends with him and he dogwhistles very well. He is NO different than Susan Smith or the man up in Boston who blamed a black man for killing his wife, Charles Stewart. To claim that those who fall for the dogwhistles are racist while not also branding the dogwhistler as racist has always been beyond me.

      BTW – Thank you for the post, Professor. Top shelf as always!

  52. GrannyStandingforTruth says:

    @Whonoze, you good. That was an excellent video presentation.

  53. Brown says:

    Great post as always Professor…..

  54. CherokeeNative says:

    Bravo Professor – you’ve made my day, once again.

  55. EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

    Dear Professor, can you clarify why the FBI and media quickly came out claiming “coons” wasn’t used by Zimmy Boy. I know what I heard and he said that… Do you think the procesution have enough evidence where “coons” will not be needed in the fight for justice for a dead child?

    • No single nail, or circumstance in the chain of circumstances is sufficient to nail down the coffin lid so that Zimmerman cannot dislodge it, but together they exert more than enough force to keep it shut, even if one or more might fail to function.

      • Prof~~since Zimmerman criminally profiled Trayvon as per De La Rionda, why would ‘coons’ or an other racial innuendos be brought into evidence at the trial? I do not believe that the state is going to try and prove that this crime was racially motivated. Trying a case on the media and in blogs is a far stretch on how it will be tried in a court of law. I am still sitting on the fence. It’s lonely up here.

      • A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. After the Casey Anthony fiasco, I will not breathe a sigh of relief until the verdict is read.

      • Vicky says:

        Regardless of whether GZ said, coons, goons,or whatever, the fact remains that he did profile Trayvon Martin that night. Part of his “criminal” profile included the race of his suspect. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge that fact, is losing sight of a very important aspect of this tragic story.

        It seems to me that one of the reasons people become so uptight over the use of the word racist/racism in describing the individuals who have chosen to believe GZ’s story, is that many people automatically envision white supremacists, segregation, men in hoods,etc. when they hear the term racism, and immediately deny or take offense to being labeled as such. What they don’t understand is that in today’s society racism is much more subtle and at times people exhibiting racist attitudes do so without ever taking time to realize it is exactly what they have done. I believe this is the case with many GZ supporters. They have either consciously or subconsciously bought into the stereotypical black male image, and as a result are able to identify with George and his self serving recall of the events surrounding Trayvon’s death.

        A book written by Annie Barnes called “Everyday Racism: a Book for All Americans” is a really good read on the subject of subtle racism (if anyone is interested).

      • fauxmccoy says:

        Have not read “evryday racism” yet, but will add it to my list. i can recommend tim wise as one who hits the lecture circuit discussing what i assume to be a similar topic. i fear both may be preaching to the choir, but if one mind becomes enlightened, that is a good thin.

        Tim Wise at Mt. Holyoke
        “The Pathology of Privilege: Racism, White Denial and the Costs of Inequality”
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3812249801848706206

        • I know from my experience picking juries that a substantial percentage (way more than half) of White jurors are blind to their racial prejudice.

          This includes many well educated people in high paying professions who self-describe themselves as liberals.

          My experience is anecdotal, of course, but my colleagues all reported similar experiences.

          • fauxmccoy says:

            i have no doubt – it is why i consider the preliminary findings of the FBI’s investigation to be completely worthless. although i’m a californian, my mother is from atlanta and i have spent a lot of time in the south. i am often appalled at what people think is ‘ok’ to say when they think they are in the company of those who think as they do. i am positive the folks interviewed by the fbi would not even recognize subtle forms of racism because for them, it is the norm.

    • whonoze says:

      “I know what I heard…” Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean that’s what he said. It’s what I think he said, but do I KNOW beyond a reasonable doubt. No i don’t. You must understand that audio and video media do actually mediate. They change the thing, or rather they only trace it with a certain limited level of resemblance, which amounts to changing it. And human perception is far from perfect in any case.

      What exactly he said doesn’t make a difference as long it was a referent to Martin, (coons/goons/punks) as any of these demonstrates an inappropriate pre-judgement (depraved mind??). If it was a comment about something else, as some have claimed (“fucking cold” or “fucking boots” — yeah people actually have claimed those) that would only be one lost nail as the Professor says.

      IIRC, the FBI said they couldn’t tell what he said. They didn’t rule anything out.

      As for the media, they first said “coons”, then “punks” then CNN came out with the “cold”. Why? Because each new take on the word lets them run another story on the most hot-button element of a hot-button story. In other words, they’re in it for the spectacle, because they’re in it for the money.

      • EveryoneIsEntitledToTheirOpinion says:

        Sorry but I just can’t agree. But as I say everyone is entitled to their opinion… Interesting view though…

      • Tzar says:

        The PA said in her report that his injuries were 1/2 a cm and 2 cm, you list them at 3 inches and 1 inch, the apparent sized of the blood streaks. Look at the photos of GZ taken at the police department.

      • God is there says:

        “Sorry but I just can’t agree….” I would have to agree with this statement, simply because of the pronounciation of words. “unk”, punks – “oon” coons. There is no way punks can sound like coons. And this is just my opinion.

    • George Smiley says:

      How I interpret the question: ‘Do you think the prosecution have enough evidence where [the race card] will not be needed [to convict Zimmerman]?’

      No. If not for the race card he never would’ve even been charged. And unless the prosecution can find some other way to make a jury highly prejudicial against him, they have very little chance of success. IMO.

      • angela_nw says:

        Well, if not for George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin never even would’ve been dead.
        And Zimmerman’s not getting charged that night is an unsolved mystery, not to mention him not getting tested for drugs/alcohol, and being allowed to wash his hands, and never going to the hospital for tests, etc. It would not take a highly prejudicial jury to see the holes in his story(ies).

      • boar_d_laze says:

        The State made very clear from the beginning that they weren’t going to use allegations of racial animus as a basis for prosecution. You’re arguing without foundation or basis in fact.

        Q. How is it so many many white men see themselves as the victims of societal racism?

        Word to the wise: Wait for the trial verdict before making excuses.

      • KA says:

        I believe the first one to bring up race was the investigators when they asked GZ two days after the killing “George, do you have a problem with black people?”….it was not the parents, nor the media.

        Any reasonable person seeing that a single neighborhood watch member called exclusively on black males as “suspicious” in a neighborhood seven times in the past 6 months when there is only a 20% minority AA population in that neighborhood would give anyone an indication that he just might have a racial issue.

        There was no “race card”, just a simple deduction of extraneous variables in his recent behavior with police interaction. The investigator that asked him about his behavior was, in fact, Caucasian.

        • TruthBTold says:

          @KA,

          Good point but could the bringing up of race do with the call that Witness 9 made? She had called like 2 days later. But maybe not because he said after asking GZ that question, that he has to ask.

      • KA says:

        Truth –

        I am not sure, but I think Serino had brought up his calling multiple times on only AA males in the same interview.

        I am not sure how the timing of the W9 call was to that question. I believe any rational person looking at the surrounding situation of this case as it related to GZ’s actions would ask the same question and conclude a possibility of the same motives.

        • TruthBTold says:

          @KA,

          Oh absolutely especially, when he was like “Did he use the word homie?” GZ first told Detective Singleton that. Of course, he denied or “couldn’t remember” shortly after that when confronted by Serino.

    • George Smiley says:

      “I believe this is the case with many GZ supporters. They have either consciously or subconsciously bought into the stereotypical black male image…”

      I don’t think Trayvon was in a gang, and I don’t believe he was a full blown thug. At the same time, I think people should have a realistic conversation about race, stereotypes, etc.

      Unfortunately, I don’t think we will be able to have what I consider to be a realistic conversation in this forum (without risk of being banned.)

      I’ll just say that I don’t think it helps race relations to call everyone a racist. Although you have at least presented a more balanced definition of the word, which is helpful I think.

      Other than that, I’ll just say that perceiving TM as a stereotypical black teenager is not an enormous leap. It’s not PC to say such things, but let’s be honest. There are stereotypes for a reason.

      In many ways, TM fit the stereotype of a black teenager pretty well. I mean, he tweeted under the name “No_Limit_Nigga”. I don’t think that is too subtle.

      • crazy1946 says:

        Mr. Smiley, You seem to have taken the time to examine TM’s on line activity and seem to have decided because of his online name he was a black thug? Have you spent as much time looking at GZ’s on line activity and seen where he admits to criminal activity in the past? Do you consider him a Hispanic Thug because of that? Can you fairly look at both sides of the issue or is it your predetermined view point that Zimmerman is innocent and all the evidence to the contrary is simply false and not worthy of consideration? I would think that after all the false hoods that Zimmerman has be caught in already, one might think his story about the events on the evening of the murder might be just a little suspect as well? Perhaps if you could remove the blinders for just a little while and actually consider the evidence as shown so far you would question the innocence of Zimmerman and stop blaming Martin for the actions of Zimmerman on that rainy night….

      • EdgySF says:

        Mr. Smiley, please discontinue from perpetuating myths about Trayvon Martin. His social media accounts were immediately hacked by racists, and incorrect & fake photos were circulated as well. there was not an ounce of “thug” in the boy.

        However, Murder Two is George Zimmerman’s fourth arrest. He obviously has a history of violence.

        The only way to heal racism is to first acknowledge it. Why is the term “racist” so alienating to you, yet the term “thug” acceptable? For me, slurring an innocent victim who did not deserve to die is far more alienating that suggesting GZ is a racist.

      • Mr. Smiley, you say:

        “In many ways, TM fit the stereotype of a black teenager pretty well. I mean, he tweeted under the name “No_Limit_Nigga”. I don’t think that is too subtle.”

        What in the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you even aware, for example, that the term ‘nigga’ is a common term of endearment? Even if you had proof that this is a twitter handle TM used, which I doubt that you do, you are making a gigantic leap here, assuming that the teen was a stereotypical black teen thug because of his twitter feed, and you ignore the evidence that this so-called thug walked through the neighborhood carrying candy and tea.

        Furthermore, even if his twitter handle was “ImaBlackNoGoodThug,” and you had proof to back it, what in God’s name does that have to do with the Feb 26 events?

        Are you advocating following black teens around with a loaded gun, based on some sort of a twitter name?

        What’s even more interesting, following your skewed logic further by looking into character, is that GZ had the record of assault, not TM.

        • ajamazin says:

          No_limit_nigga says to me that although some might denigrate  me because I black, there is no limit to what I can achieve.

          >________________________________ > From: Frederick Leatherman Law Blog >To: aja_young@ymail.com >Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:47 AM >Subject: [New comment] Zimmerman: The Power of Circumstantial Evidence > > > WordPress.com >Crane-Station commented: “Mr. Smiley, you say: “In many ways, TM fit the stereotype of a black teenager pretty well. I mean, he tweeted under the name “No_Limit_Nigga”. I don’t think that is too subtle.” What in the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you even aware, fo” >

        • Brown says:

          @Crane-Station,
          Smiley only put that post up with the alleged handle with the word *nigga* in it, so he can get away with calling him a nigga without actually doing it, if you follow my meaning. Also I believe he wants to see how many times someone will repost the word.

      • BLKMSCORPIO says:

        Stereotyping can lead to prejudice and prejudice can lead to discrimination. Racial profiling is considered discrimination and all these things can be used to support racism. How can people consider TM a “thug/ganster” because a know liar (GZ) stated that TM assualted him but a white male can kill and wound multi people on purpose without being considered a “thug/ganster”? I feel sorry for the victims at the movie theater. Every ethnic group has good and bad people and we must treat everyone as an indivual. It seems that racial bias has put blinders on some of GZ’s supporters if not all of them. Hope I have not offened anyone.

      • ks says:

        @George Smiley,
        I see you’re still blowing smoke as usual. Funny how your “realistic conversation” about race is just a litany of the usual nonsense.

        It is amusing how you sort of GZ supporters tirelessly try and create an imaginary “thug life” for TM but ignore the documented thugishness of GZ. I know it’s just a lame attempt to create a “suddenly psycho TM” narrative but still, it’s silly.

        In any event, even if TM were the hradest thug imaginable, it had nothing to do with the events of the night in question.

      • Pooh says:

        “Other than that, I’ll just say that perceiving TM as a stereotypical black teenager is not an enormous leap. It’s not PC to say such things, but let’s be honest. There are stereotypes for a reason.

        “In many ways, TM fit the stereotype of a black teenager pretty well. I mean, he tweeted under the name “No_Limit_Nigga”. I don’t think that is too subtle.”

        Dear, dear Mr. Smiley,

        You have, of course, just admitted your racial prejudice and the fact that you believe it is justified.

        A stereotype is a “conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image.” A stereotype has very little to do with reality and everything to do with people’s needs to fill up what they don’t know about the world with the very little they think they know.

        Basically you have said that Trayvon Martin fits your stereotype of a black teenager because he is a black teenager.

        Is it possible for you to consider that a typical black teenager is simply a typical teenager? Do you know of no teenagers, for example, who are rebellious, wear tattoos, act sullen or angry, put gel in their hair?

        Trayvon Martin’s emails (his Gmail account was hacked by a white supremacist group) showed a teenager who was searching for colleges, had taken an aptitude test, and was planning to take college admissions tests.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/white-supremacist-trayvon-martin-email_n_1389584.html

        Could we possibly liberate you? Bring you gently to an understanding of your everyday, garden-variety racism? You are not alone. Quite frankly racism exists in most of us, to varying degrees, as others upthread have brought up. But many of us try to recognize our instinctively racist reactions and eliminate them, believing that freedom from prejudice opens us up to a better, fuller appreciation of the humanity of others as well as our own.

        In any case, I hope you stick around for the discussion. This very issue — the subtle but enduring racism revealed by this case, even more than the crude, obvious racism — is part of what makes it so compelling for so many people.

      • Rachael says:

        Where is the like button for Pooh. Thank you for this excellent post.

      • KA says:

        The Martin family is, in realty, the values that people apply to GZ and his family out of racist tendencies. Most minor theft is done by socioeconomic disadvantage regardless of race. Trayvon had a loving family life with two parents that were clearly middle class with stable,longstanding jobs. We see in video, reports, and pictures that Trayvon was showered with affection and was a polite, good student. His family had frequent get togethers and celebrations as seen in his photos over the past several years. They took vacations and were given advanced educational opportunities as seen with his older brother in his 2nd year of college. The child nor the parents had a record of violence.

        If we look at the Zimmerman’s we see a son that had a strained relationship with his parents, a family that did not stay or maintain closeness, a record with the law, anger management, an inability to keep a steady job, restraining orders, financial destitution, and several failed hopes for completed schooling.

        If you say stereotypes are there for a reason, then it would seem the Zimmerman’s would fit the stereotype you suggest??

        Who in the above scenario would be most likely to “case houses” and be suspicious? (pretend you do not know the race of either).

      • shano says:

        All my white middle class relatives who are teens, early 20’s say and do the same things Trayvon does. The language is the youth speak today- the photos in ‘gangsta’ poses- all white kids do these things now.
        No one thinks much of it.

        Black musical culture is one of Americas most precious art forms- always has been- the whole world loves us for blues, jazz, rap, hip hop, etc. People who speak and dress and move in the manner of this culture are mainstream now. It is a huge monied industry.

        I guess you do not have any teenagers in your circle……ask anyone who does. The stereotypes you seem to see in Trayvon are mainstream behaviors in youth today.

  56. fauxmccoy says:

    when i read the title of this article, i was immediately reminded of the scott peterson case because the prosecutor won a conviction based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence. if i recall correctly, the body(ies) had not even surfaced yet (sadly though they did and quite close to where i was living at the time – i followed this case closely.)

    peterson was certainly more reviled than zimmerman i would think, but that does not help in obtaining a conviction.

    i do hope that corey and her team are up to this job.

    • Prof Leatherman ~~great post and right up my alley. I love learning about the law. I consider each piece of circumstantial evidence a link in the chain of event leading up to a conclusion. I see you mentioned Scott Peterson. His was the first case that came to mind when I read the title of your post. Now I am back to reread… this time to absorb. Thank you for your efforts. MSF

    • Trix says:

      Baby Connor’s body was found on April 14, 2003 and Laci was was found on April 15, 2003. Scott was arrested on April 18, 2003.

    • boar_d_laze says:

      Petersen killed a white woman and didn’t use a gun. Of course he was reviled!

  57. Professor,

    I posted the following in the previous thread. It seems that O’Mara keeps trying to press a false narrative, confusing conjecture with what he states as fact. Will anyone be able to rebut the statements he makes in this petition?

    “I just read O’Mara’s Petition for Writ of Prohibition. O’Mara makes some blatantly false statements in this document:

    *He says, “Martin was seen by a witness to the incident on top of and straddling and beating Mr. Zimmerman…” He failed to mention that this very witness recanted his original statement and indicated that he saw no beating and that the bodies were prone rather than one “straddling the other.

    *He also says, “Those cries for help were recorded in the background of another witness’ 911 call and lasted for at least 40 seconds…” O’Mara is stating as fact that the cries for help were those of Mr. Zimmerman’s.

    *He writes, “EMT’s observed that Mr. Zimmerman had… and a swollen, bleeding, broken nose.” There is no evidence that Mr. Zimmerman sustained a broken nose, none at all! He is also stating this as fact.

    In addition, he writes, “…other than the gunshot wound, the only injury to Trayvon Martin was an abrasion to his knuckle.” Wasn’t the abrasion to the underside of Trayvon’s finger? I could be wrong on this.

    Finally, he asserts, “The state did not offer evidence to rebut Mr. Zimmerman’s self-defense claim [at the June 29 bond hearing].” The prosecutor clearly stated that the bond hearing was not the place for responding to the dog-and-pony show that O’Mara put on at the hearing.”

    • I honestly do not know if they will catch all of the misstatements.

      Don’t forget that they know more than we know.

      • Trix says:

        How can an attorney file a Writ of Prohibition that is riddled with lies and inconsistencies? Is there not legal recourse regarding this?

      • longtimegeek says:

        I wonder about this, too. Are you saying that there are many bigger fish to fry?

        • No, I’m not saying that.

          Those are two disconnected thoughts.

          I hope they find and correct the misstatements, but as Boar points out, the important stuff is what evidence do they have that Judge Lester is actually prejudiced against Zimmerman, as opposed to correcting the factually inaccurate and misleading assertions that MOM made on behalf of Zimmerman.

      • boar_d_laze says:

        The Court of Appeals may know more Florida law than we do (we hope), but it only “knows” what’s in the filings and attachments. That’s how the appellate system works.

        It’s not “illegal” nor (strictly speaking) unethical to spin unlikely and/or mostly disproven propositions as facts in a writing to an appellate court. Litigants do not have an obligation to put their opponent’s best case forward.

        However, appellate courts generally prefer a straightforward presentation to a lot of spinning; and you don’t want to lose credibility in an institution where you’ll likely be forced to return for further relief.

        Also, the “fact” part of the Petition is its least important part. Mr. O’Mara is attempting to show that the State’s case was not sufficiently “strong” for the trial court to have imposed bail in an amount more than nominal at either hearing.

        You can judge the faith the defense puts in its own argument by the fact that it never bothered to actually analyze the bail statutes, or otherwise explain its reasoning.

        I believe the defense’s ultimate goal in this part of the Petition is to get bail reset at a much lower amount so as to free up some of the surety (cash) given to the bondsman.

        There’s no question that they’re already having problems with cash; and they’re entering an expensive phase of trial which is not only going to involve putting together the written part of the Motion for Immunity, but organizing the evidence, and retaining at least one expert and probably more. All the while, Mr. O’Mara will have to put his paying practice on hold — or damn near.

        Going against the State on an equal footing is a very expensive undertaking.

      • longtimegeek says:

        Ah. Thanks Professor and boar_d_laze! Now, I understand.

      • Obwon says:

        Well, any juror worth his/her salt, will expect both sides to “misrepresent”, by various means, the entire case in their favor.
        So, it comes as no surprise that O’Mara is offering as fact, evidence easily controverted. The problem with doing so, in front of a jury is, if to much, or too many of your offers become exposed as having controversial views, jurors will begin asking them selves “where’s the beef?” each time you speak.

        That’s a terrible position to be in, most especially when you need to have “suggestive” evidence point your way, because the opponent is no longer able to speak.

        The terrible thing here, from the defense perspective is, the suggestive evidence points away from the story they’re trying to tell.

        First there’s the jurors on reflexes, when they see a visual of one person straddling anther and trying to bash their head back down. Their own neck muscles stiffen, making it hard for them to visualize the “limp noodle neck” image GZ would have to present. If models of approximately appropriate sizes are used, the entire saga looks even more ridiculous. …And that’s even before you explain that the big heavy guy on the bottom worked as a barroom bouncer. Who was fired for over reacting? Carried an adult female across the bar room to the door, and threw her outside? Where did all this physical vigor go?

        O’Mara has an extremely high hill to climb, because everything has to back up his suggestions that:

        1. The attack of GZ by TM was terribly frightening and deadly.
        2. It happened so quickly there wasn’t time to do much of anything else besides grab the weapon and shoot, in a desperate attempt to beat the loss of consciousness.
        3. GZ was desperately seeking other alternatives but could find none.
        4. GZ was in fear for his life.

        But the “suggestive evidence” all seems to point in the other direction. It says:

        1. Perhaps there was no attack at all, because there’s no physical evidence of it. After all, if you’re asking the jurors to believe the evidence, you should not expect them to fantasize about physical activities to happen and yet leave no evidence of it.

        2. Nothing appears to have been happening so quickly, that there wasn’t time for GZ to get his hands on a weapon, that would have been blocked by TM’s legs at the time. A weapon that would have been behind him if it became exposed. A weapon that he could reach easily, if he knew it was there, but GZ’s access to it would have been effectively blocked. …And, worse still, a weapon that would have to be turned around, before it could be aimed and fired. So, that makes O’Mara’s job even more difficult than it already is.

        3. Why would a big, hulking bar bouncer, need to scream for help? Has anyone ever heard of a “string bean” 17 year old, using just his hands, being a life threatening attacker? Even unarmed adult on adult fisticuffs are not widely accepted as life threatening attacks. So why should we accept that an untrained teenager, lighter and weaker than an adult and without the coordination of adulthood, would be able to mount a fatal assault with his hands? Perhaps some jurors will be parents? After they lose the opinion that all blacks are born fight ready, they’ll be able to think more clearly.

        4. GZ was in fear for his life??? But, he wasn’t there where he says the surprise attack happened? He had somehow moved away from that position. If the head bashing was accomplished by dint of the surprise attack, then clearly that was over a long time before they moved 40 feet away from that place. So, now the jurors must wait expectantly, for a new story of fearsome activity, that occurred at this new location.
        Alas, it will not be forth coming, the same actions that happened at the ‘T’ are what will be offered to them, as having also occurred 40 feet away and at the same time. Can a jury really buy such a story? It probably depends on how much of what pharmaceuticals O’Mara can get them to take.

    • boar_d_laze says:

      If the Court of Appeals asks for a “traverse and demurrer,” the prosecution will contest the facts “in controversy,” and/or argue that they’re irrelevant. If I were writing the traverse, I’d do both.

      The trial court and the prosecution share the proposition that even if those assertions were true they could not be considered by the trial court because the second bond hearing was not an “Arthur hearing” and the court was limited in what could consider to reset the bond. I don’t know enough about Florida law to tell you for sure one way or the other, but the court and prosecution are probably right.

      In any case, don’t worry too much about the “facts” the defense keeps trying to sell; as they are the least important part of its argument.

      In order to get disqualification, they must show that Judge Lester harbors bias against Mr. Zimmerman himself, “personally.” Not just against Mr. Zimmerman’s case as it’s been litigated so far.

      The defense has done a much better job of writing that part of the Petition than they did in the Motion for Disqualification; but in my opinion it still doesn’t come anywhere near what the Court of Appeals should require.

      If you have specific questions, ask.

  58. Trix says:

    Great blog as always!!! Surely Zimmerman must realize by now that his goose is cooked. Good grief. Short of evidence slapping them in the face, I’m not sure how anyone can continue to believe and support him.

  59. probalance says:

    Thank you, Professor! Really!

  60. Corey B. King says:

    You are so brilliant! And nice to see that you have legal terms and precedent to support your theories, unlike George Zimmerman supporters. Thanks for all that you do in the fight for justice.

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

%d bloggers like this: