Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
At this point, to be honest, all of the back and forth regarding “evidence” in the Zimmerman Case that has occurred here over a number of threads has been mere speculation that misses the salient issues raised by this case. The real (admissible) evidence will be presented at the trial and a hopefully an unbiased jury will make its decisions. The issues that we need to discuss from my perspective are:
1. Did the Sanford Police make a mistake in releasing Zimmerman rather quickly and allowing him to retain his gun, which was potential evidence?
2. Was there undue outside influence used upon the police to end their investigation quickly?
3. Is there a degree of probability that in many Stand Your Ground venues, had the victim been white and the protagonist of color, that the protagonist would have been immediately arrested?
4. What are the purposes of a business oriented lobbying group, like ALEC, in getting “Stand Your Ground” Laws passed?
5. Is this once again an instance where a media circus has poisoned the ability to have a fair trial?
The George Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin has been marked by the typical aspects of what we have come to know as a media circus in American justice. Since this country began, when it comes to criminal justice, our free Press (Media) has found that sensationalism sells. Consequently, when a particular criminal case raises widespread public interest, the Press (Media) fans that interest beyond even the initial public interest. The process of leaking “new evidence” as the case plays out brings with it angry public debate over the significance of the leaked “evidence” and the guilt or innocence of the protagonist.
This creates an uneven public relations battle between the prosecution and the defense. I say uneven because in almost all instances the prosecution has the advantage in terms of media access and also the public’s presumption that the police/prosecution are their protectors. We have seen this occur in this particular case and quite frankly, save for the basic facts that are indisputable; none of us really know what evidence are public relations ploys to sway opinions and what facts will actually be admissible as evidence at trial. What makes this case somewhat different than others is that in this instance the original prosecutor and the Sanford P.D. actively were trying to justify their actions in releasing Zimmerman and not continuing to prosecute him. Their leaks were perhaps attempts to justify their actions. Now that the public uproar has brought in new prosecutors and investigators the leaks to the press may take on a different tone. What we don’t know, as the latest photo of the back of Zimmerman’s head illustrates, is whether the current prosecution is seeking true justice, or continuing to participate in a potential whitewash.
I would like to mention four cases that have occurred in my lifetime that show the problems encountered when sensational cases become prosecuted in the press. The first is the case of Dr. Sam Shepard, a Cleveland physician accused of murdering his wife in 1954, convicted he spent a decade in prison, only to be exonerated at a second trial:
Sheppard was brought to trial in the autumn of 1954. The case is notable for its extensive publicity and what the U.S. Supreme Court called a “carnival atmosphere.” Many have compared the O.J. Simpson trial to it, in terms of the often lurid press coverage it generated.
Some newspapers and other media in Ohio were accused of bias against Sheppard and inflammatory coverage of the case, and were criticized for immediately labeling Sheppard as the only viable suspect. Some believe that a specific headline from the Cleveland Press, “Why Isn’t Sam Sheppard in Jail?,” clearly indicated the bias of the media against Sheppard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Sheppard
The second case I’d like to mention is that of Caryl Chessman. Chessman was executed in 1960, having been convicted in a storm of lurid publicity. The issue wasn’t Chessman’s guilt per se, but whether California’s “Little Lindbergh” law should have been applied in a case where there was no murder. The publicity and antipathy towards Chessman, who was no doubt a low life criminal, obscure the fact that he hadn’t committed murder. In fact many proponents of his death lost sight of the fact that this was not a murder case:
“Born in St. Joseph, Michigan, Caryl Chessman was a criminal with a long record who spent most of his adult life behind bars. He had been paroled a short time from prison in California when he was arrested near Los Angeles and charged with being the notorious “Red Light Bandit.” The “Bandit” would follow people in their cars to secluded areas and flash a red light that tricked them into thinking he was a police officer. When they opened their windows or exited the vehicle, he would rob and, in the case of several young women, rape them. In July 1948, Chessman was convicted on 17 counts of robbery, kidnapping, and rape, and was condemned to death.
Part of the controversy surrounding the Chessman case stems from how the death penalty was applied. At the time, under California‘s version of the “Little Lindbergh Law”, any crime that involved kidnapping with bodily harm could be considered a capital offense. Two of the counts against Chessman alleged that he dragged a 17-year-old girl named Mary Alice Meza a short distance from her car demanding oral sex from her. Despite the short distance[citation needed] the woman was moved, the court considered it sufficient to qualify as kidnapping, thus making Chessman eligible for the death penalty.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caryl_Chessman
The last two cases I want to mention are much more familiar to everyone so I’ll just include the links to each one. O.J. Simpson’s murder trial was perhaps the most publicly viewed trial in our Nation’s history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson_murder_trial . Let me first say that I never liked Simpson, either as a football player, actor or celebrity. I thought he was an overrated runner and his public persona always seemed to me to be that of a complete phony and media whore. It was surprising to me then, when the case broke that I began to develop sympathy for someone I see as a loathsome man. What bothered me about this case was that from the beginning the prosecution waged a public relations war to convince the public of O.J.’s guilt, through strategic leaking and via officials making definitive statements about his guilt to the media, prior to even his arraignment.
I watched the entire arraignment and trial on TV at work because the City Agency I worked for was being split up and for literally months I had nothing to do but sit in my large office watching the trial on TV. At night my wife and I would watch the recaps at home. Based on what I saw I feel the verdict acquitting Simpson was the correct one because a credible case for “reasonable doubt” was made. He may well have been guilty, but to me the inept prosecution had botched their case. The reader may feel differently, but I think must admit that there was a firestorm of publicity on the case that made a serious trial into a circus.
Finally, last July prior to the verdict I wrote about “Should We Care About Casey Anthony” as a guest blog: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/02/should-we-care-about-casey-anthony/#more-36728 . Afterwards, being retired, I watched the entire trial and truly believe that the correct verdict was also reached based on the evidence and the over charging of the case. The reader again may disagree with my judgment here, but also must admit that the media sensationalism that characterized this trial was way over the top.
In the latter two cases I think that there is some comfort to be take by the fact that the juries in each seemed to actually perform their duty and look at the evidence presented without bias. In the Sheppard Case the defendant was convicted due to the improper publicity and it took a Supreme Court verdict to help set him free. He left prison a broken ma and both his and his son’s lives were destroyed in their attempt to exonerate his name. This is somewhat less comforting. Caryl Chessman, bad human being that he was, should not have been convicted of kidnapping in the sense of the “Little Lindbergh” law, but deserved a possible life sentence for rape. The pre and post trial publicity made it impossible for California politicians to try to prevent execution.
The Zimmerman case has again raised the wrath of anger and injustice on all sides. Zimmerman has been demonized and his victim Trayvon Martin has also been demonized. Zimmerman’s trial, should he not take a plea, will be a circus raising hackles everywhere. Whatever decision that comes from it will be questioned by people whose minds have been made up via the information leaking out. In the end we will all be victims of yet another diminishment of our legal system via a process we must be very loath to rein in. Democracy and freedom cannot flourish without widespread information on public happenings. There is no one we can honestly give the power to make a decisions as to where the media crosses the line, because invariably all human decisions are ultimately self-serving.
At the outset I posed what I see to be the six salient issues to be drawn from this case, whatever the outcome at trial. I’ve avoided taking sides on these issues, though truthful disclosure by me would say that at this point I believe Zimmerman is probably guilty of some form of aggravated manslaughter, but truly what do I know more than anyone else?
As for the five questions I posed here are my own answers/opinions:
1. Did the Sanford Police make a mistake in releasing Zimmerman rather quickly and allowing him to retain his gun, which was potential evidence? Yes. To me the Police should not ever make the decision as to whether “standing one’s ground” is a viable defense. They need to collect all the evidence and present it to the prosecution. The prosecution must then present it to the court. SYG is for the court/jury to decide.
2. Was there undue outside influence used upon the police to end their investigation quickly? I believe that Zimmerman’s father played a role in trying to avoid charges against his son and that influence was used to try to make the case go away.
3. Is there a degree of probability that in many SYG venues had the victim been white and the protagonist of color, that the protagonist would have been immediately arrested? My belief is that if the shooter had been a person of color and/or what is considered a foreign ethnicity, they would have been arrested in any of those venues with a reversed situation. The only caveat is that if they were someone of wealth or connections, then they might not have been arrested.
4. What is the purpose of a business oriented lobbying group like ALEC in getting “Stand Your Ground” Laws passed? I think that ALEC has been pushing these particular laws because many large corporations employ security forces that are armed. With these laws many actions by these armed security forces would be held to be justified, thus blameless.
5. Is this once again an instance where a media circus has poisoned the ability to have a fair trial? Absolutely, as I made clear above.
What then is your opinion on these issues, taking out the guilt, or innocence of George Zimmerman?
Submitted By: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
The spy software may be important in our case in another context. It could give the prosecution a chance (gave?) to watch post event communications by the suspect. Can it be done, legally?
Will he use prepaid cards from now on? I could imagine that the prosecution would like to take a closer look at the new NSA data collection centers, and what it has stored on Zimmerman,via voice and text recognition, I definitively would. But I don’t even know how advanced technology is in this context. But it surely is super-secret.
Personally i am absolutely unparanoid, may they collect my completely mundane data, if they like.
How did this strife and name-calling develop from the simple question, if the same local (mobile) and server time is necessary for a connection, or the necessary handshake data exchange?
The point was the time stamp on the photo, or the question: could it have been, at least theoretically, manipulated?
Does taking a picture with your mobile need a server connection at all?
Could we get back to an answer to that question. Is the same time necessary for the handshake protocol? It feels to me, it isn’t. But I sure could be wrong. Why would a provider want to deny a user a connection who by accident changed the time manually? It feels that can’t be in their interest. In the handshake data one top priority that makes sure the user has somehow paid for the right to use the service.
Subscriber Identity Data and Removable User Identity Module
thanks, Otteray, that explains it. I did in fact have three.
Leander22, the spam filters block postings if you have more than two links in a comment. Those are the only parameters I know about. You can use two links, but no more, otherwise your comment goes to moderation limbo.
Would somebody please explain to me, what type of comments result in: Your comment is awaiting moderation, and what type will appear immediately after pushing the “Post Comment” button?
In answer, briefly to OS question about the presence of sentient life at the Sandford PS, etc.
I would answer the rhetorical humorous question this way.
Of course there is sentient life. They followed standard “protected persons” routine in removing all sources speaking against Zimmerman at the very beginning, and may have done so in the whole handling from Z’s first report on Trayvon. Zimmerman, as the magistrate’s son, which has been emphasized and made acquainted to all within the PD on all watches, and by his role as neighborhood guard with frequent call-ins, he gets special treatment as a “protected person”. Knowing who the protected persons is required of all officers, even visitors status. Can give a personal example some time.
Now following special routine in handling him and his actions is evident from the reports now available from several sources.
Now we are back to MikeS’. five questions, which have a weight equal to the population of the USA minus approx. 0.001 percent..
I, at this point, can only point out the significance of the “lowly” magistrate in Virginia.
I have written I believe previously explaining how a magistrate, just through his absolute power, can be a necessary “justice dispenser” useful to many VIPs, etc. Their power extends his power, for favors done are repaid in influence, not simply in money, however these are paid. People travel, relatives reside in other places. Even LEOs need “help” at times.
If I have not, I will do so and repeat it on a suitable Zimmerman thread.
Lastly, a jest.
I’m thinking to start my own blog in competition with JT, not sure tho’ if I want to have all the flies which will buzz around my crap.
Now comes the idiot who treads in a fight, No sides chosen, but full of opinions
One, Gene is right, ANON is right, OS is right, and possibly I am right.
However open Android is, there is no difficulty to having code “inaccessible”.
Thus if the Feds want ot activate and then deactivate a “cold” telephone, then they usually get their way. They got the telcom prov. to break the law, didn’t they. How hard would it be to reach an “agreement” internationally for this function. Proof: Well watch your laptop run through its power down sequence. Did your pushing a button do that? The button was a signal, the control remains with the laptop, and the internal status, which can be controlled from the net.
The handshaking idea is correct but has extended over time. Did it all start with the wired telegraph net, and went on from theire via CCITT X.25, ISO standards and on and on. Snd the layers and side branches increase like a growing tree.
The only compatibility necessary is with the layrer below and the one above——and of course with those on the same layer.
The worlds time is set to GMT or UTZ, and used by nets.
Local adaptation to local time is standard. The user’s displayed time is set by him or her (or it?),.
If I were to establish an international forensic time code to be registered on files (and fotos are files) then I would prefer that BOTH times be registered. The extra data is miniscule. The forensic usefullness is larger, but there you all know more than I do.
What is fact? Don’t know shit. But will take the time to followup on some of the stuff you all have revealed. You guys know a lot.
Your relationships are yours. There I will not tread.
Written by one who worked for Ericsson Telecom for 30 years and has inherited the first smartphone in the world from his wife. The Ericsson K750.
Said to prove that I DO NOT KNOW crap. So piss away if you like.
My next comment below is more worthwhile.
“It’s not as if Android hasn’t had malware issues already.
urls removed for despamming purposes.
So guess what: if you’re a mobster and don’t want malware on your phone, don’t download apps from the appstore.
Then you have only the operating system that you built yourself and installed.
Download only mafia approved apps, like “angry mobsters” and “Wheres teh body?” and “nice neighborhood, shame I have to put zombies in it”.
Could the telcos or the FBI install software without you knowing about it?
Again there have been no reports of that ever occurring. All downloads provide one of about 3 icons as a notification. But yes, just like the Sun rising in the north it is possible. The file system is open and available for anyone to inspect (with root). No one has noticed these hidden files.
But steganographic techniques show how files can be hidden, so let’s say the files are hidden within other files.
But once more that involves a conspiracy of all those companies, all those carriers I outlined above, and their employees. And it can’t involve any code that is in Android itself. It has to be code in the proprietary radio drivers for those phones that have proprietary radios. Not all do.
And if the code to do these secret installs is in Android itself, and no one has noticed it yet, they might still notice it tomorrow. All the code is there for you to see:
http://source.android.com/source/code-lines.html
So someone has to have got this secret code that downloads code and installs it. And it can’t use the native communication stacks because they all log everything that is downloaded. And it has to have steganography in it.
So your secret code has to have its own communication stack and yet … it still can’t do it when the phone is turned off, because again, you have provided no proof that an Android phone doesn’t turn itself off, or that it can turn itself on all by itself.
So this remarkable secret downloading software still will have no effect when the phone is turned off.
You have provided no evidence that this can occur. Your theory relies on an all powerful government with all powerful abilities to manipulate any company at will and confusicate 1000s of developers.
So yes, Gene, against and all powerful government it is possible that phones can magically turn on when they were turned off and no one ever figures that out. And companies can magically download and install software on these magical phones without anyone ever realizing those capabilities are there.
You have no evidence that any of this has ever occurred, and yes, I have no evidence this could not occur, even though the mathematics of it and the logistics of it certainly make it very unlikely.
This is an argument from ignorance: you assert the government can do anything with an Android phone because no one has proven that they can’t.
Put on some sun screen Gene, because you are right, the Sun could rise in the North tomorrow.
Your comment is awaiti
You may not like my evidence? But you have none whatsoever.
So blather on.
“What this does is take a publically inspectable and even publically modifiable version of the operating system, downloads it to your computer system, and builds it entirely from scratch.”
Which is what you would do if you wanted to reinstall it or modify it before reinstalling it.
None of which changes that the telco can remotely load and execute code on your phone and you wouldn’t know a damn thing about it.
It’s not as if Android hasn’t had malware issues already.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/19/android-study-privacy-security-risks-in-app-ads/
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/01/more-malware-in-the-android-market-google-removes-26-deleteriou/
Are you really so intractably stupid that you think the telco and the Feds couldn’t give your phone code you don’t know about without your knowledge?
If so, you’re dumber than I thought and I think you’re as dumb as a rock.
You spin a conspiracy theory from one paper in CNET written by a dodgy reporter based on a paragraph from a 2006 decision that is ambiguous but which Occam’s razor suggests was misinterpreted by CNET. And since then there have been no other reports of this behavior seen in the wild.
In contrast there are 300,000,000 users of a phone out there and not one report that the phones are not turning off. And tens of thousands of developers poking and prodding and modifying these phones and they power on and off the phone every day and test it every day and not one of these people have reported any evidence that the phone doesn’t really turn off.
And you cannot point to anything other than this single solitary report quite likely misinterpreted decision from 2006.
No problem Gene. It is possible the sun will rise in the north tomorrow.
“mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make”
Of course this does not “reinstall the operating system”
What this does is take a publically inspectable and even publically modifiable version of the operating system, downloads it to your computer system, and builds it entirely from scratch.
You can look at every piece of source code in this, and once you are satisfied with what’s in there, you can load it on your phone and understand that your phone is working the same as before.
And tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands if not more people have done this. And the companies above have built the phones from scratch, ordering their own components and then assembling them as they desire.
So perhaps the feds have made a deal with FoxConn or with ARM or Samsung or other makers of CPUs and phone chips.
Perhaps.
And no one has noticed this.
It is possible.
Isn’t it possible Otteray Scribe? Isn’t it possible that Gene’s conspiracy theory is true? And that 300,000,000 Android phones don’t turn off and we don’t realize it?
BTW, I’m still waiting for proof.
Not more of your opinion.
Again, you act as if Android phones are all they sell. The fallacy of composition strikes again. And one of those companies you named I used to work for. They’d sell you out in a heartbeat if they could get some kind of advantage out of it.
Do you think that if the FBI wanted to spy on your phone that your service provider wouldn’t upload whatever code they were asked to? Especially since they were granted immunity before?
Then you don’t know what the corporate culture inside a phone company is like.
Do you use a probe to check whether your phone is drawing power when you think it is off?
No.
Do you review every line of code on your phone every day?
Of course you don’t.
Do you know every single bit of data the network sends your phone when it is on?
No.
You’re a naive fool.
Companies conspiring with Google and the Federal Government to hide the fact your Android phone doesn’t really turn off.
acer, alcatel, archos, asus, cherry-mobile, dell, fujitsu, fujitsu-toshiba, hp, htc, huawei, kyocera, lenovo, lg, motorola, nec, panasonic, pantech, pocketbook-int, sk-telesys, samsung, sharp, sony-ericsson, toshiba, zte
Also of course,
Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Orange, Cricket, …
“A powered off cell phone is powered off and inert unless they got physical access to your device.”
Not if it is a phone that “off” really means “standby” – which is many if not most of them.
You are making the fallacy of composition.
If you can’t prove it’s not still an issue, that’s okay too.
We’re quite used to you being wrong.
Ooooo. You can re-install your phone OS.
I’m so not impressed and that’s so not proof.
So your theory is that with 300,000,000 Android Phones sold, and 300,000,000 users. And knowing that all of the source code to these phones has been released, with yes, the exception of a few proprietary modem drivers, that these phones secretly never power off, but remain on in standby. And that none of the carriers and none of hte developers and none of the users have ever noticed that.
Okay counselor, how likely is that that none of these 300,000,000 users, developers, carriers with access to source and about 600,000,000 years of user experience with the phone have never noticed their phones don’t really turn off?
You’re a silly person Gene. And incapable of admitting when you made a mistake.
Ooooo. You can re-install your phone OS.
I’m so not impressed and that’s so not proof.
“A powered off cell phone is powered off and inert unless they got physical access to your device.”
Not if it is a phone that “off” really means “standby” – which is many if not most of them.
You are making the fallacy of composition.
If you can’t prove it’s not still an issue, that’s okay too.
We’re quite used to you being wrong.
But you’ve already expressed faith in your Android phone.
Now, you were going to get some proof that this is no longer a problem . . . .
Where is it?
mkdir android ; cd android ; repo init -u git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/manifest.git ; repo sync ; make