The evidence continues to roll in on the Zimmerman case. While the new evidence is not entirely bad for the prosecution, it does contain some evidence that will likely bolster the defense of George Zimmerman in the second degree murder trial over the killing of Trayvon Martin. Regardless of the ultimate impact, the evidence again shows (in my opinion) that prosecutor Angela Corey over-charged the case in Florida.
Some of the new evidence shows that Martin had traces of THC (the active ingredient of marijuana) in his blood stream and urine. Martin was suspended from school due to a marijuana offense (though it involved an empty marijuana baggie). Another benefit to the defense is that Martin father is shown denying that the voice calling out for help was his son — though he later changed that view when he says he was given a better recording. Other witnesses have indicated that it Zimmerman who was calling for help.
Generally, the existence of drugs in the system of a victim or defendant is admissible. The suspension would appear inadmissible under standard evidentiary rules.
There is also evidence that some neighbors described Zimmerman as a bully and a racist. That would help bolster the reported hate crimes prosecution being considered by the Obama Administration, though I still have reservations based on the evidence as it currently stands. Also the police viewed the shooting as “avoidable” — if Zimmerman had left the matter to the police.
I am not sure how much of the neighbor’s view of Zimmerman as a bully or racist could come into evidence. Such accounts, however, can have the benefit of further discouraging Zimmerman from taking the stand as a witness — always a benefit to the prosecution because (while they are told that a defendant has a right not to testify (jurors expect to hear from defendants).
On the whole, however, I would view the evidence as more positive to the defense. First, I have previously said that I was most interested in the distance of the shot and forensics. It now appears that Martin was shot from an intermediate range (no more than 18 inches and as little as an inch away). That would support the claim of Zimmerman that they were in a wrestling fight when the gun was fired. The greater the distance the stronger the case for the prosecution. The defense will likely present expert testimony to try to reduce the range further on the stand. Also, the report does have people at the scene saying that Zimmerman’s nose appeared broken — supporting the later medical report of the family doctor (though such injuries could occur from Martin defending himself).
Moreover, at least two witnesses appear to support Zimmerman in describing the man in the hoodie at straddling the other man and throwing punches. The report state that the man in the “‘hoodie’ [was] on top of a white or Hispanic male and throwing punches ‘MMA (mixed martial arts) style.’ He then heard a pop. He stated that after hearing the pop, he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass.” One report also says that Zimmerman can be heard yelling for help 14 times on a 911 call recorded during the fight.
While the reports blame Zimmerman for getting out of his vehicle (he says that he was trying to get a house number for the police), that is not itself a crime. Of course, none of this means that Zimmerman was not the aggressor. Given the presumption of innocence and the need to prove the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, this evidence presents an added problem for the prosecution in my view. I have expressed skepticism over the way the case has developed and how it has been charged from the outset. As a criminal defense attorney, I would view this as a strong defense case even on the manslaughter charge, particularly given the poor police work at the scene.
What do you think?
Here is the police report.
Source: ABC and NY Daily News
Malisha – Regarding your previous comment on Police Chief Lee
**start Malisha**
If the statements released supported your versLee would be back in the saddle again.
**end Malisha)
To be fair he tried to selflessly resign and the city council loved him so much, they wouldn’t accept the resignation. Now the city manager is “firing him” to appease the blood thirsty masses of Sanford. Its what Lee wanted all along and I bet he is thrilled to be free of this and wouldnt come back for a doubled salary…I bet he is sick of this garbage and mindless mud slinging blame game and wants to move on regardless. The man himself did nothing wrong, they act like it wasn’t the prosecutors that decided who to charge. If anything Chief Lee is a victim here and wisely he knows it no longer matters what is “right” or “wrong” its all lost in the politics and racist tensions at play and now just the “appearance” of a facade of something… anything desperately “being done” is fine even if its without merit.
Point being it doesnt matter what evidence/data comes out. Chief Lee is not pining away for his old job back, he is too busy being relieved and thankful he got what he wanted ever since he tried to resign and city council teared up refusing to bow to racist pressure since they saw Lee as having done nothing wrong regardless
Posting spelling correction to invented word: Omissively
Correction based on the derivative Dismissively
Malisha – Stop the presses…Dershowitz speaks on the video re-enactment/statments/video, etc. Feast your eyes
**Start Malisha’s request**
Notice Dershowitz making any comments about George’s story? If you find that, please do me a favor and post the link. Dershowitz comments AFTER release of the Zimmerman re-enactment video, handwritten statement, and so forth. I haven’t found it yet.
**End Malisha’s request**
Cite: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/21/3670446/zimmerman-said-martin-assured.html
Copy/Paste from Cite:
**Start Excerpt**
Legal analysts who are watching the case closely said the re-enactment video benefits Zimmerman, because it shows him telling his self-defense account clearly and convincingly.
“For George Zimmerman, this is one big positive,” said Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who has had a public scrap with the prosecutor Gov. Rick Scott appointed to the case, Angela Corey. “If it’s admitted in court, he is not subject to cross examination and then that makes it harder for the prosecution.”
Dershowitz said he’s not sure if the defense, however, can submit the video statements as evidence. The prosecution might have to do that. And it probably won’t, he said, because it makes Corey look bad.
Corey and Dershowitz have had a public battle over what he considers a grossly overcharged case and an unethical probable-cause affidavit filed in court, which failed to mention Zimmerman’s broken nose and scraped head.
The affidavit Corey filed “knowingly tells a false story,” Dershowitz said. “She overcharged. But that’s her reputation: She over-charges. If Rick Scott wanted to avoid a riot and make sure that George Zimmerman was overcharged, he picked the right prosecutor.”
Cheney Mason, an Orlando criminal defense attorney who helped successfully defend accused “tot-mom” killer Casey Anthony last year, said the reenactment video is just more proof that “Zimmerman shouldn’t have been charged in the first place.”
“If a jury sees this tape, this case is over,” Mason said. “George Zimmerman will walk as a free man. But it shouldn’t even get to a jury. A judge, if he has the political courage, should throw this case out…. Zimmerman has made a strong case that he was fighting for his life.”…
**End Excerpt**
So it doesnt look like Dershowitz is ommissivley recanting anything as was implied through not being able to find his recent comments. Yes, I just invented the word ommissivley. : )
He is a true blue left wing liberal as there ever was one (not a right winger just because Fox interviewed him) and Harvard seems to think he is not an idiot, so he deserves some credit methinks
So I wandered into a Stately Manor and left a message
It might possibly irritate some of the people there
============================================
I have a witness who says that:
– Zimmerman got out of the truck purely to follow Martin
– The question of where Martin was going only came up after Zimmerman started to get out of the truck
– The question of an address – for a meet-up – only came up when Zimmerman was already up near the T-junction
– Zimmerman clearly realised that Martin could have been within earshot when he was up there
– Zimmerman turned back from the end of the path at Retreat View Circle to go to his truck 2 minutes and 30 seconds before the first 911 call connected.
He only had 95 feet to walk from where he ended the call to where he says he was accosted. That would have taken him 20 seconds or so. 30 seconds tops.
My witness’s evidence is extremely reliable and credible as he saw everything that happened right up the the time of the call ending.
I defy you to contradict the testimony of my witness.
Get in as many lawyers as you like, but my witness’s testimony will come through intact.
He gives his testimony as a contemporaneous account in a recording of a phone call.
His testimony is not reliant on memory.
His testimony is not coloured by a motive to spin a story.
His name………. is George Zimmerman.
His testimony – lined up against the video of the Walk-Through and the interviews is available at
http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com
========= ENDS ==========================================
I’ve abandoned the Zimmerman’s Statements blog and revamped the Zimmerman’s Call blog in the light of the material now available.
It’s fascinating.
If GZ assaulted Trayvon Martin, he did NOT have a right to shoot him.
His injuries do not amount to danger. Corey is in the clear there.
no time to check, supper time, trying to make it shorter would need more time too …
(( He forgot that the recording has him changing to a “call me” at the last minute,,
Sling: No problem, communication problems between the dispatcher and him. That’s an easy one, although I have admittedly Tony C’s theory in mind here, occasionally.
But again congratulations Sling, you perfectly attributed the two flashlights on the scene. Just as you surely noticed you read the passage about “I do not want to give it all out”, absolutely perfect.
Has anyone of you listened to the Wendy Dorival interview? Zimmerman should have passed on to her a list of the people he recruited, his block captains, but he never did; neither was there ever another neighborhood committee meeting. None. He was occasionally present at the homeowners meetings. But that’s about it. So maybe his neighborhood was a secret for police, or it was a one-man-show.
Something else we learned. Did you pay attention to the prominence his 02/02/12 call, were he calls back to give the new address of Frank Taaffe’s house gained in his narrative? it always felt it could become an important part of his story.
Now we know why there can’t have been a burglary at that day, and the only witness for a prevented on is Zimmerman himself. Interestingly he complains about Taaffe since he always keeps his door and windows unlocked.
This explains something that puzzled me:
?residence secured as best we could, owner called
from a private transcript.. I wondered about that, since there was no trace of a break-in recorded. One of the officers on the scene is Timothy Smith, the one delayed on 02/26/12.
In this case he obviously followed the suspect to Frank Taaffe’s house, he describes it at length in his first interview with Serino, about 4:00, if I remember correctly. Not only did he supposedly first see Trayvon there, lingering about just as the earlier “suspect”, but he also goes to great length to we weave it into his tale, using it to explain why TM was suspicious. That feels like grounding in “police report reality” to me.
Now interestingly he claims that the same “suspect” committed a burglary 10 days later, and that he was arrested. There is no report about a burglary on 02/12/12 in the burglary reports. There is only one on 02/06/12 four days later. That’s the guy that is caught with the help of the roofers, loitering with three others in about the same location. That’s Emmanuel Burgess. Zimmerman claims, that’s the same one he saw. Check the burglary reports nothing like that surfaces. How does he know it is the same. If this is true, police hasn’t shown us the evidence so far. But he clearly seems to think it was the same. I am still a bit puzzled.
After listening to his interviews my suspicion is even stronger that Zimmerman’s supposed help that led to the prevention of burglaries and arrests, thus part of his hero image, are maybe only his own inventions.
Don’t forget this. I never got an answer from Leland Managment, I guess I have to wait till the interview is released, but who but George Zimmerman would have informed them about this:
Look that is exactly as he says, 10 days later. The problem is, he is only half informed. There may have been several guys, but only one was arrested. And you can check the burglary reports, Zimmerman is not among the witnesses.
Adorning himself with borrowed plumes? Jeralyn as most media wrote about a burglary on 02/02/12, problem is there was none, but listen to Zimmerman yourself.
Malisha, you are absolutely correct, I will study his interviews closely with an eye on the development of the narrative. good comments on DeeDee, I am meditating about her too.
Interestingly during the interview in which he is confronted with his 911 call by Serino, he says something like: I don’t even remember, I said that. Maybe it was the “button on his shirt”, I forget. I found that highly interesting. But he had quite a bit of time to meditate on the not so long ago call, since his interview at the police station was later. When was he brought there? Should be in the first discovery reports. No time stamps on the video. When did he write his statement?
One of the things I managed to convince Cboldt my law-specialist-at TalkLeft-which-seems-to-come-down-to-pro-Zimmerman, is that contrary to what he kept repeating, that Zimmerman never followed people by foot. He in fact did exactly at the day he talks so much about. Besides I agree, Zimmerman acts more furtively and less frank and confrontational, but all he needed to do that night is feel he was in his right, and TM was suspicious, to trigger his rage.
Cboldt by the way states, I guess Jeralyn too, I didn’t read her legal analysis, that it ultimately does not matter, even if he had assaulted TM he would have the right to defend his life. I guess, that was one of the straws that broke the camel’s neck for me.
oh, dear. I always have to edit what I write to be sure I have something that makes sense. My editing sometimes doesn’t make sense. In this case I had to get the right subject to match the verb and missed part of the edit.
“hire guards hired” should be “guards hired”.
I think the SYG law is so that hire guards hired to protect property can injure or kill transgressors and get away without penalty, even civil penalties that could go to those who hired the guards. OJ beat the criminal rap, but not the civil rap. ALEC has written a law that allows a single judge to determine that there is no need for a criminal trial and that a civil case is not allowed because the judge says it’s SYG.
Consider: Protesters decide to non-violently occupy mega-corps office. They enter the lobby and sit down. Security guards say move out. Protesters stay. Guard shoots. Claims SYG. Judge says SYG. Move on, folks, nothing to see here.
General disclaimer: I do not do those analyses of time and distance. My kid is kind of a physicist; I’m not. But I appreciate the work of Sling and Leander, etc.
My forte, if it is a “forte,” is in the motivational stuff. What would make him do this? What would make him do that?
If you intersperse the talk on the phone call with the travel along the routes, you do get this result:
George Zimmerman’s version of events did not occur in “reality.”
Sling, Zimmerman’s “mania” about the non-existent demand on the cops’ part for him to give a precise address/street name, and his repetition of the idea that he was being asked to report coordinates for where Martin HAD BEEN when he was no longer in sight only started to develop AFTER there were questions about the veracity of his story. In the original handwritten statement George gave the investigators on 2/26/2012, he is not at all concerned about that issue, and he calls Martin “the suspect.”
“The dispatcher took note of my location and the suspect fled.”
Then he goes on to say the suspect went into the darkness, but a sentence later, “as the dispatcher was asking me for an exact location the suspect emerged from the darkness & circled my vehicle.”
and then…
“The suspect once again disappeared.”
and then…
“The dispatcher once again asked me for MY EXACT LOCATION” [emphasis supplied, not in original]
“I could not remember the name of the street so I got out of my car to look for a street sign. The dispatcher asked me for a description and the direction the suspect went. I told the dispatcher I did not know but I was out of my vehicle looking for a street sign and the direction the suspect went. The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route. As I was headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said ‘You got a problem’ I said no. The suspect said ‘you do now’ as I looked and tried to find my phone to dial 911 the suspect punched me in the face…”
After George claims he fell, he never says he did any more searching for the address. There is no claim on his part (and no evidence in the tape itself) of any more requests made by the police for him to give them a precise location either of “the suspect” when he was in sight or “the suspect” after he was out of sight. The one question asked of George was which way “the suspect” ran — and George answered it immediately, saying he ran to the back entrance of the neighborhood.
The use of “once again” and “emerged from the darkness” and “the suspect” clearly make this a little chapter in a “true crime novel” in George Zimmerman’s mind. This doesn’t have to do with him looking for an address; this has to do with him nailing his “suspect.”
But, AFTER THIS STATEMENT, apparently, we hear the conversation between Zimmerman and Officer Serino. Serino says that it is “Murphy’s Law,” that (according to that ‘law’) WHATEVER CAN GO WRONG WILL GO WRONG.
What has gone wrong?
It is nothing that has “gone wrong” with the crime itself. It is something that has “gone wrong” with the STORY about the crime itself. And what is it?
TRAYVON MARTIN was not a suspect. He was just an unarmed kid.
Serino goes on to describe him as a “mild-mannered kid.”
Someone who has people who cared about him. A good kid.
Uh Oh.
Now I went back to think about Dee Dee and why she didn’t call the police after Trayvon Martin’s phone went dead. It struck me — here’s why. She did not think Zimmerman was a stalker/murderer; she thought he was someone who imagined Trayvon had some marijuana on him, and the guy was going to steal it or something. There had been a brouhaha about the plastic baggie at school — mom sent Trayvon to stay with Dad for a while, probably to get him away from whatever social circle he had been in when the problem arose — and that is what was on Trayvon’s mind and Dee Dee’s mind that night, besides their separation because Trayvon was sent away from Miami. Mom and Dad are hardworking lower income folks who care deeply about their kids. They were deliberately separating Trayvon from the kids he had been with in Miami for a “cool down” period and Dee Dee had no idea who might know him up in Sanford. “There’s a creepy guy following me” and “here he is again” could have meant anything — Trayvon doesn’t even say he’s a “creepy WHITE guy” — he’s just a “creepy guy.” Dee Dee would not come to a conclusion that is unlikely. (Admittedly, an armed neighborhood watch guy with delusions of supermanism is probably likely but our society does not yet know that.) “If you see hoofprints, think horse, not zebra” would dictate that when Dee Dee heard the phone ring off, she just expected some sort of issue, not a murder. And if Trayvon had gotten suspended for having a baggie with traces of marijuana, the last thing in the world she would want to do would be to call the cops on him when he wasn’t doing anything wrong. She’d lose her boyfriend AND her reputation for that.
THe shift in the story from “I was nailing a suspect” to “I was looking for a street sign” had to happen because of MURPHY’S LAW.
Something went WRONG: “Trayvon Martin was not a criminal and he was not a nameless John Doe and he was not a THROW-AWAY KID” was what went wrong.
“Looking for an address”>/b>
I’ll believe him about not knowing the name of Twin Trees.
Before any funny business starts, he describes where he is – but doesn’t say the street name. He does it again after he gets out of the truck.
Remember my control freak thing in my original Zimmerman’s Call blog?
He was exposed as not knowing the street name. He tried to get away with directions. Then he walked himself into being asked for the address that he was parked outside of.
In my Zimmerman’s Statements blog, I have highlighted all the times that he bangs on about the dispatcher wanting an address. It’s start to finish in the Walk Through – from the clubhouse on. He’s manic about the topic. He couldn’t even take a breath without the Dispatcher giving him the third degree about addressas and Martin’s whereabouts/direction.
In the Walk Through, he is absolutely clear on being at Retreat View Circle when he ends the call.
He is absolutely clear that he then did not get an address.
He claims that it was his idea to meet at the truck.
He says that he started to walk back immediately.
(( He forgot that the recording has him changing to a “call me” at the last minute,
He says that he started to walk back. right then.
I calculated 20 seconds to the T-junction.
In the Walk Through, that little walk can be taken as a reconstruction, It’s a short walk along a straight level path.
It took him 19 seconds to the T-junction.
Sling, what I’m banking on for a result other than exoneration of the thug-killer-hero George Zimmerman is this:
Self-defense is a defense (and stand-your-ground is a subcategory of self-defense) that can only be put on in a trial by means of it being an affirmative defense, that is, SOMEBODY has to testify to it or there has to be some initial evidence OF IT. In other words, if a guy were accused of rape, and his affirmative defense was “she wanted it,” he would have to testify that she wanted it! She starts off testifying that she did NOT want it so he has to say otherwise in order to present his defense. Now in the case of MURDER, there is no doubt that the victim did NOT WANT IT and WANTING IT is not even a defense (people are convicted of murder for assisting suicide) so the analogy is not perfect, but the evidence stands, before the self-defense claim goes in, like this:
Z killed M.
Then you look at motive.
In this case, very clearly, you have (from the recorded non-emergency call) the motive of malice. You can back that up now because int he written statement given by Z to the cops, he calls Martin “the suspect.” He regarded Martin as a criminal and he felt malice toward him. He was armed.
So you have motive and opportunity.
Only THEN do you go to whether or not there will be a self-defense defense. How do you get that self-defense defense on the stand?
“Well Martin attacked first.” Just arguendo, presume that’s true.
But That won’t work because no witness saw it other than Zimmerman. So only Zimmerman can say that happened.
“Well Martin was beating Zimmerman to death.” Just arguendo, presume that’s true.
But that won’t work because although some witnesses saw it, only Zimmerman says it happened that way and the physical evidence (very minor injuries that Zimmerman sought to enlarge with bandaids later) does not corroborate that. Besides, if Zimmerman struck first all that becomes irrelevant and only Zimmerman can say he did not strike first. Furthermore, with no testing, we don’t even know if the blood on his head was his; it could have been Martin’s because some creepy things occurred — such as his own narration that he asked for help restraining a man he had already shot!
So all you have at the end of the day is this:
Lots of people including Jeralyn and Dershowitz basing their whole case on THE STORY ZIMMERMAN TOLD because they believe that proves self-defense…but…
Can O’Mara risk putting Zimmerman on the stand to TELL HIS STORY?
THere is the rub.
I believe the risk is far too great.
Zimmerman’s story is so full of holes that any prosecutor who didn’t cross-examine him beyond belief would be an idiot.
Now that the statements are out, I am beginning to think that George’s goose is actually cooked.
———————————–
It just occurred to me, late last night what the SYG law does. It takes away JURY JUSTICE from our courts. It makes it possible for JUDGES to deal with even the most serious cases WITHOUT JURIES. Why is this so important?
In a society where there is rampant injustice, where the very means of production of the society depends upon there being an underclass that is so beaten down and helpless that they will work for a pittance and carry on an illegal economy under the eyes of the authorities so that they are individually vulnerable at all times and have no real defense, where that underclass must and easily can be threatened with incarceration and untold indignity and deprivation at the drop of a hat,
YOU MUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL THEM WHEN NECESSARY TO KEEP THE SOCIETY GOING.
It is right back to the point made by the judge in State versus Mann.
You have to have absolute power over them so that the ones who would bring about a revolution are killed off and others are terrorized at all times. YOU CANNOT OPERATE WITHOUT THIS.
So the SYG law says:
Zimmerman can kill Martin.
But Martin could not have killed Zimmerman.
Alexander was never allowed to defend herself.
Any other confrontation between any other two people can ALWAYS come out the way the judge wants it to come out, without the risk of a jury trial.
Welcome to 1863. State versus Mann. The SYG law hands ALL DISCRETION to a single judge in every serious case. Therefore, what you have is this: the really rich guys just own a few judges and they can do with the rest of us as they will. ALL the USA is “their ground” and they are beginning to “stand” it as we blog.
I actually didn’t want to slip this in here (Freud), but there it is. I have been meditating about the peculiar parallels these people have with the ones that can explain anything Israel does away with utter arrogance, it cannot do anything wrong, just as GZ is absolutely unable to do something bad. The Gaza war was necessary self-defense, wasn’t there something again, I didn’t pay attention, lately another bomber raid and resulting . I am so tired of that story too
Looking back at that debate via a Trayvon Martin lens, maybe Israel only re-enacts the US winner and losers tale? .
Returning to the things I hate to do…
Just as I slipped in George Martin, two men with two tatoos each, one with a possible trauma of once being beaten up in high, the other confronted with the most simplistic profiling and discrimination and surely confronted an air of utter superiority.
I honestly would like to know what and how it all happened second by second. It’s a pity the Clubhouse surveillance videos are of such bad quality.
In his first interview with Serino he responds like this: To be quite honest, I have a bad memory. but actually there are three streets, there is another small one. But yes hard to believe.
Add, what sense does it make to look for an arbitrary street sign on Retreat View Circle, since that is a one you know by name, to give to the arriving officers an address, so they can meet you somewhere else on Twin Trees, which name you forget? Absolutely logical, don’t you think?
Problem is, it can be razed out, and it will be explained away. Just as Slings careful calculations, I am afraid. Well, he didn’t show it in the re-enactment, but really he of course went a bit down since after all he wanted to give them a house towards the back entrance, which mysteriously disappeared from all his statements. Maybe that is a telling blankspace? I think that is close to a breach of the rules. 😉 Humor doesn’t help either or any other attempts to circumvent the strict rules.
I was a bit unfair and frustrated yesterday, actually I kept telling myself all the time that GZ will go free anyway, since the best possible witness is dead. And Zimmerman is well aware of that advantage. But sometimes the collective hilarity of the pro-camp is absolutely hard to take, especially when Jeralyn with faithful devotion repeats his narrative, to the utter joy of the legions of rightful citizen.
Strictly I think this “flyover America”, as I am told it’s called by one of it’s self-declared parties, will rise in a race riot, if it does not get its way with their chosen and gladly fed hero.
I honestly wished occasionally, that all these perfect lawyers, first and foremost “the Dersh” that know their and Florida laws, including applicable jurisdiction, would be wrong, since, surprise, surprise the prosecution secretly had a trump card up their sleeve; unfortunately I doubt, and I guess that made me just as angry as the manners of the pro-Israel crowd.
And yes I am admittedly slightly irritated about the overly harsh treatment of my friends the Zimmerman-narrative-skeptics, versus these true believers with “their innocent lamb”, that are in high heaven about Jeralyn down to most rabid right wing circles all over the web, and yes I overdid a little. 😉
Betty, I think witness #20 is the friend or husband of the first caller witness#11, if I remember correctly, part of the four or five best witnesses according to Jeralyn. When he talks about the gun, he talks about Zimmerman’s surrendering of his gun to whoever was first on the crime scene. GZ himself says he thought initially the neighbor, the first on the scene that took the photograph and called his wife, was an police officer.
Some strange things:
Z has lived there for 3 years, is the NW coordinator and he doesn’t know the name of the second street in a 2 street development. Amazing.
Z claims that he knows everyone in the development but the only witness who has a clue as to who he is is a board member and the one anonymous witness who’s afraid of him.
It was witness 20 on 3/2. I think he was talking about hearing Z saying that he has a gun after the shot.
I listened to the witness statements from Jeralyn’s web site. In one of the witness statements the guy says he heard “i’ve got a gun.” tape quits. I’ll go back to find which witness it is and look for that interview elsewhere.
I’ve stopped fiddling with my blog for today.
To do
– A rewrite of the Struggle that was on the first blog
– A page of ‘funnies’ – Things I wrote to let of steam 🙂
The Walk Trough page currently ends with:
==================================
“Parked right there. I’ll meet him right there
So I started walking back”
This is where his whole story falls starts to disintegrate.
He asserts that he ended the call with an agreement to meet back at his truck.
He asserts that he ended the call and immediately started to walk back towards his truck.
No hanging around. Not going to a door for a number. Just about turn and head back.
This quest for an address at which to meet the officer – that never was put to him – but that he’s been OCD about a number of times up to now in the Walk Through and in his interviews — is unceremoniously dropped. Talk about fickle!
It’s like a Knight of the Round Table getting within sight of wherever the Holy Grail is, and saying “Ah the Hell with it. I’m going back to Camelot.”
His whole quest has been to talk up a storm about imaginary demands from the Dispatcher for and exact address (and the whereabouts/direction of Martin). Maybe he thinks that if he repeats the story enough times, people will believe it.
He has invented a story. The story gives him an excuse to be out of his truck and up at the top of the central pathway area.
He might have gotten away with it. He could have convinced the world that he really believed he needed an address, but..
He made two huge mistakes
A) He had not realised that the call recording shows that in the last moment of the call, this happened:
Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
Zimmerman: Yeah that’s fine.
Dispatcher: Alright George, I’ll let them know to meet you around there, okay?
Zimmerman: Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?
Dispatcher: Okay, yeah that’s no problem.
B) He had not realised that the call time was automatically logged – and the the times of the 911s were also automatically logged
“So I started walking back”
Yes. He started walking back – at 19:13:41
The distance from the side of the road at Retreat View Circle – where he describes ending the call – to the T-Junction is 87 feet. An average walking pace of 4.3 feet per second would have him there in 20 seconds.
The place at which he indicates he was accosted is a further 7 feet beyond the T-junction. Say another 2 seconds max.
The Walk Through is not a reconstruction.
We can’t assume that the time it will take him to do the walk now is precisely the same time that it took on the night.
But… let’s measure it just for the sake of ball-park.
He sets off at 2:31 in the video
He gets to the T-junction at 2:50
19 seconds. I has estimated 20
He’s at the ‘confrontation’ position a second later.
You can have him walk a bit slower to spin out the time if you want to, but you’re never going to get him slow enough to explain why the first 911 call is logged as connecting at 19:16:11
That’s 2 minutes and 30 seconds after the call ended and
Zimmerman started walking for 94 feet
Just looked at this a new way.
Just imagine, Zimmerman had in his mind that Martin was a criminal, and he killed him thinking he would be not only excused, but basically DECORATED for what he did.
Then imagine, as Serino said, “Murphy’s Law,” and it turned out that Martin was innocent and the whole thing was in Zimmerman’s head.
Serino, see, is calling it “anything that can go wrong WILL go wrong” when he describes Martin NOT BEING A CRIMINAL as an exmaple of “Murphy’s Law.” That WENT WRONG!!!!
OK, so what would George do then?
WOuld he: get totally shocked, horrified, feel sorry, feel remorseful, be overcome with guilt, break down, apologize, beg and plead for understanding because HE GOT IT WRONG and he KILLED AN INNOCENT KID?
Or would he have to ramp it up and make Martin into MORE AND MORE AND MORE AND MORE OF A CRIMINIAL? To justify himself! To excuse his conduct! To tell a story that could be interpreted with him coming out innocent in spite of what he had done?
Remember, while he hand-wrote his statement on 2/26/2012 he repeatedly referred to Martin as “the suspect.”
When it turns out that Martin was not “the suspect,” he had to criminalize Martin to excuse his act.
Doesn’t fly. I think it will not fly.
Folks like Dershowitz define themselves with respect to their politics. Their political positions will be carefully crafted to the particular person they want to support in any given debate. It’s like judges handing down “result-driven” opinions. They will twist the law to make it appear to support whatever the Hell they wanted to do. They are not “activists”; they are sophists.