The Hidden Agenda Exposed – Mark O’Mara On BET – Air Date April 20th @7:30pm (Videos)

Major big time HatTip to Treeper Froggielegs for digging up the golden nugget we needed to finally prove what we have suspected for a while.   And with the helpful brilliance of Ad rem Puddy capturing the moments, we are finally able to highlight the setup of George Zimmerman and expose the dark underbelly of the Sanford Machinations.

Black Entertainment Television (BET) aired a Trayvon Martin Exclusive hosted by Emmitt Miller on April 20th.     April 20th is the same date of the First Bond Hearing for George Zimmerman and nine days after Mark O’Mara took over as lead defense attorney (4/11).

There are two videos.   Part II is the segment where the ulterior motives of Mark O’Mara surface and things click into place.

Key things to note in video #1:


Pam Bondi phone call to Tracy and Sybrina – Listen to what she says – Remember Pam Bondi and Benjamin Crump are personal friends from the Martin Lee Anderson case.   Bondi was the State Prosecutor and Crump was the Anderson family civil lawyer suing the state of Florida and Bay County.  It was Bondi who talked Rick Scott into selecting Angela Corey as the prosecutor of George Zimmerman.  Ugh, ugh, ugh….. It’s a trap.

Also note how Benjamin Crump lawyerly parses his words regarding Trayvon’s school records.  We know Trayvon was excessively tardy, absent 53 days in the current school year, and serving his Third 10-day suspension at the time he was staying in Sanford.

The key things to note in Video #2

#1. Mark O’Mara’s words to Emmitt Miller @ 6:15 mark They will send Ice Cold shivers up your spine. Listen as O’Mara says that Stand Your Ground is “an absurd statute”, and “I don’t know it’s purpose”.

#2. The LOOK.    – AT EXACTLY 7:54 mark. During the bond hearing when George Zimmerman answers Judge Lester’s question about him being represented by Mark O’Mara.   Just as George says “yes sir” the “in your face picture” speaking 1,000 words as Mark O’Mara and Angela Corey look directly at each other.   The picture says it all.   Proof right there that the fix was in.   Angela Corey has the smiling look of glee, and O’Mara gives her the nod of recognition.  Watch it yourself.  Unreal.

Let me transcribe exactly what Mark O’Mara says at the 6:15 mark when questioned about Stand Your Ground:

It’s an absurd statute, y’ know, I don’t find it’s purpose.  To be quite honestly, because there have been a number of people quote “exonerated” because of the Stand Your Ground Law, um, it really should be a traditional self-defense.

[...]  A young black male was shot seemingly without reason….

Mark O’Mara (defense attorney)

BET 4/20/12 air date 7:30pm

What more proof do you need than this interview with Mark O’Mara before he even had substantive time with his client to discuss the events surrounding the shooting.   The interview took place before the Friday 4/20 air date obviously.

It’s an absurd statute, y’ know, I don’t find it’s purpose

Meaning the interview you just watched took place prior to the initial bond hearing where THE LOOKThis look, between Mark O’Mara and Prosecutor Angela Corey took place.

Watch the video and at the 7:54 mark you will clearly see how Mark O’Mara and Angela Corey look at each other.   In this moment, this frozen, captured, on TV moment, you can tell what is going on and it all begins to make sense.   George is being delivered.   Watch it, and look closely at these moments in time.  The screen shots do not do it justice.

I need only one more confirmation of what I believe took place between the morning of Tuesday April 10th and the evening of Wednesday April 11th to fully expose the manipulative den of vipers.

Then I will be able to blow the lid off the Sanford Setup of George Zimmerman by both the prosecution AND his defense.

To accomplish this I need two research Treepers to help me.   If you want to volunteer to help, send me an email asap.  Include your username in the subject line along with the word “Wolverine“.   To volunteer you must have an active twitter account and be well versed in twitter use, in addition you need to know how to “screen grab” and send screen shots to me via email.    If you are up to the challenge, and want to help, send me an email and I will provide specific details on the strategy.

In the interim please George Zimmerman family, please begin a conversation, an honest conversation, about changing representation.    Mark O’Mara needs to go.

Everyone else start praying.

Mark O’Mara is part of the problem and he is NOT on the side of setting George Zimmerman free.

About these ads
This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Decepticons, Mark O'Mara, media bias, Obama re-election, Obama Research/Discovery, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Predictions, Racism, Trayvon Martin, Treehouse Tips, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

657 Responses to The Hidden Agenda Exposed – Mark O’Mara On BET – Air Date April 20th @7:30pm (Videos)

  1. I am quite angry at myself right now for biting my tongue for so long. I should have followed my gut instinct. :(

    • GBishop says:

      Great job SD.

      What a Judas!

      Thank you!

      • Shari says:

        I’m thankful that you and froggylegs have found this info, Great work,
        Saying a prayer right now.

      • gz4cmmdr says:

        What decent judge would not be a little irritated with O’Mara for putting on a indigent testimony with no preparation of documents and a well known account (talk about sh*tting on your client), instead Lester says i know it’s not your fault.

        It seems Lester is a Crumper and is incapable of understanding his duty.

        Why would i say all this? I just can’t believe O’Mara did not know about the account,
        that and all he’s done and said… blows my mind.

        At this point i can’t say 100% that O’Mara has communicated with Corey, but it’s a close knit family down there and there’s parties & events and much talk between many of them for years now.

        Who knows maybe “prosecutor” O’Mara feels tied for all to be happy
        and is trying to make an impossible case possible for a light charge against GZ.

        It’s not outlandish……, it is a possible motive, people are strange inside.

        Let’s make it clear…THIS IS NOT about an average teenager getting killed for minding his own business, THIS is about a delinquent who viciously attacked another for focusing on him and calling the police.

        The one positive light in all of this is the clarity of those who shamelessly exposed themselves to who they really are.

    • stephufla says:

      SD, with all due respect, what is the hidden agenda of MOM? From the headline. I am not married to his continued defense of this case, I am open to incompetence and even a hidden agenda. But why would he potentially violate every ethical standard to achieve an unknown agenda. He would be risking his career, reputation, for what gain? All lawyers have relationships with all sides of the law in which they practice, even friendships. I don’t see a credible motive to deliberately participate in a scheme to achieve political ends.

      • Chuck says:

        Possibly out of greed, possibly out of fear.. He’ll get paid whether he wins or loses the case (at least a six digit pay day). Secondly, Should he win and get Zimmerman cleared of the charges, all he has to look forward to is a bullseye’s on his back from every radical Black group in the country, and the brand of being racist. In my opinion, those would be two very powerful motivators for anyone.

      • 22tula says:

        Credible Motive – Fear?

      • cleaningmygun says:

        To me the look cannot tell us anything, why do you say the look is proof? It is not like you have exposed any backdoor deals or anything, you say everyone else has a hidden agenda but lets be honest, nothing in your blog has exposed anything. From your point of view his meeting proved an agenda, from a logical point of view it was clearly an Advocate for George Zimmerman trying to control the inferno, he has up until this point been trying to put out the fire, a fire in which George Zimmerman brought against himself by not coming out in the beginning and getting his story out, a fire that George Zimmerman started by not retaining an attorney from the beginning and saying way to much to law enforcement, remember everything you say can and will be used against you…and if we fail to do our due diligence the first time and have interview your 5 times on five separate occasions and your statements are inconsistent then we will never take blame for it, you should of known better then to talk to us, we warned you ahead of time!

        • cleaningmygun says:

          I think your correct in questioning everything but please do not go on the offensive if I or others here question you Sundance, your warning to George is your own agenda, the only warning that George should have listened to was this one:
          You have the right to remain silent.
          Anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law.
          You have the right to an attorney.
          If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
          Do you understand these rights I have just read to you?

      • Jamie O'Connor says:

        stephufla says:
        July 8, 2012 at 10:19 am
        But why would he potentially violate every ethical standard to achieve an unknown agenda. He would be risking his career, reputation, for what gain?
        I can assure you the agenda is not “unknown” to O’Mara. It is not possible to do what O’Mara has done and not have an agenda. If he was incompetent, yes, I could understand his acts and failures to act, but he is very competent and I’m sure he knows exactly what he is doing,why he is doing it, and for whom. The public would be the last ones to know his agenda. You’d be surprised what lawyers will do to achieve political ends.

    • CIGuy says:


      You disappoint me. The glancing look is nothing more than that. Ms. Corey’s smile is weird, but she seems like a weird woman. A lawyer’s personal opinion about a law does not mean that the lawyer won’t do everything he can for his client. Most clients of defense lawyers are guilty as hell, but they respect the fact that they deserve to be treated fairly and have every opportunity to use our absurd laws for their benefit.

      You need to ask yourself what the motive is. Usually it is money and I don’t see anything that would deter me from that conclusion. So, then, would it be more lucrative for Mr. O’Mara to win at an SYG hearing or would it be more lucrative if he lost at an SYG hearing? Think about it. Your talents are being wasted in this pursuit and you’ve lost sight of the objective.

      • cajunkelly says:

        I somewhat agree with you in the disappointment. Though O’Mara discounts SYG, he follows that by saying, in effect, that it’s not necessary BECAUSE there is ALREADY self defense laws on the books.

        I equate this with the ignorance of “new” gun laws. There are *already* sufficient gun laws on the books, ENFORCE THEM!

        I’m not sure Corey is looking at O’Mara as much as she’s looking at Zimmerman to capture his reaction, then O’Mara notices out of the corner of his eye that she’s looking and responds by looking at *her*.

        I just don’t see this, SD, as two “gotcha” moments. Sorry.

        I think gump’s comments after O’Mara in the second video as more of a damning piece of evidence. “if there is a fair and impartial jury, they *HAVE* to convict”

        That’s intimidation of any potential jury member for this case. It enfuriates me that gump and his team of gumpettes are not restrained in any manner and are running around verbal intimidation of the potential jury pool and telling outright LIES with no accountability.

        • 2ntense says:

          The problem is (whether he is in collusion or not) O’Mara is doing NOTHING. He throws George under the bus EVERY opportunity he gets. He won’t say my client is “not guilty of murder”… he say b/s like “my client was charged with a crime he doesn’t think he committed”. What kind of crap is that?

          Even O.J.’s lawyers didn’t do crap like that.

      • would it be more lucrative for Mr. O’Mara to win at an SYG hearing or would it be more lucrative if he lost at an SYG hearing?

        O’Mara will benefit more from GZ losing than winning.

        • CIGuy says:

          I disagree. If GZ loses, he will face a civil suit, but he has no money. The state might also be on the receiving end of a civil suit due to the law, but the fact that he was prosecuted and lost an SYG hearing, would make it difficult to hold the state accountable. The city of Sanford would probably expect a civil suit, as well, for their “mishandling” of the case and so might Wolfinger. Unless there are backroom deals, none of that will line the pockets of MOM. And, if you’re thinking that there are, you’re accusing MOM of a crime at this point.

          On the other hand, if GZ wins at the SYG hearing, he would be able to sue the state for a wrongful prosecution, perhaps the city of Sanford, and definitely multiple media outlets that also have very deep pockets. MOM would more than likely be directly involved with those suits. It is more lucrative for MOM to win an SYG hearing. I’d like to see why you think the opposite is true. I couldn’t glean anything from your one line retort.

      • Jamie O'Connor says:

        CIGuy says:
        July 8, 2012 at 12:09 pm


        You disappoint me. The glancing look is nothing more than that.
        That “look” was much more than a “glancing look” my friend. That look said it all.

    • Cupcakes says:

      Not only did Corey smile at O’Mara, but he smiled back at her! You can see it in the video DiwataMan posted below.

      • StephUF says:

        And your point is…

      • cajunkelly says:

        I disagree. If you can call that small change in his lips a smile, it comes AFTER he looks up and further to his left.

      • John Galt says:

        Maybe that was her “thanks for not challenging my defective probable cause affidavit” smile?

      • CIGuy says:

        The expression you saw may look like a smile, but it was not a real smile. The face has other cues that show when a smile is real or not. The slight upturn on one side of the face is more akin to dislike, distrust, or displeasure being masked. The folded hands in front of the body also indicate a barrier due to distrust.

        • Jamie O'Connor says:

          CIGuy says:
          July 9, 2012 at 9:42 am

          The expression you saw may look like a smile, but it was not a real smile.
          You are right about that CIGuy, that look was not a “real” smile,

          That expression was something much more sinister,

    • Jello333 says:

      Ok, you know I’ve been focusing on the judge. I think Lester is totally biased, and needs to be removed (or remove himself) from the case. And while I’ve been upset with some of O’Mara’s actions/inactions, I’ve been saying that IF he starts to attack the judge, it might be a sign of a change of heart and tactics. Up till now, I have NOT been among those calling for O’Mara himself to step aside. I’m STILL not quite there yet, but you have caused me to rethink. I’m now at least leaning toward getting MOM off the case. I’m still having problems believing that he’s “in on” some kind of plan to get George, but I’m open-minded about it. I’m reading everything here, and I’m thinking about it. So have NO doubt: If I come to the conclusion that O’Mara is working against George, I WILL STRONGLY join the calls for his removal. Actually, I’d call for his disbarment. And no, I’m not willing to let this drag out forever. While I’m sorta still “on the fence” at the moment, I may be jumping off very shortly.

      • danalain says:

        What is known about what went on higher up? Up to the DOJ? MOM had a reputation as a super ethical attorney, and competent. I don’t think he would do dishonest things for money, he already had a good career. There is a video posted here at treehouse that has many testimonies on it, from Sanford police officers, Sanford EMT’s, fire. It has Mr. Robert Z. Sr begging for some sort of relief. These were all taken at the State attorney office, it says. But, what is known, if anything, about what was said at the DOJ to Crump, Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the State Attorney’s office?

    • gz4cmmdr says:

      If many of you are doubting this theory THINK AGAIN, at least try to understand with some homework what happens at a bond hearing,..what O’Mara did to the Zimmermans is inconceivable !, then go back and find all comments and his confirmations of rumors and media questions, it’s mind blowing, something smells from here to Timbuktu….and that’s not even a fraction of it…., i kid you not.

      • Walther PPK says:

        YGTR. I looked and looked again, scratching my head and asking have we really got the goods on this prog or are we just being reactionary and excessive about trivial things.
        Ummmmm, yeah we really have got the goods on this prog O’Mara and no we are not just being reactionary or excessive about trivial things. O’Mara has been sniffed out and the smeel is definitely there of a profligate prog who is a playa and is playing his role, which is not friendly to the interests of GZ.

  2. deblyn27 says:

    SD, don’t be angry with yourself, at least it WAS looked into further, and we now know WHAT we are dealing with here. It has got to stop. That pic is downright sickening.
    Poor George, soft-spoken, trusting – I hope he finds someone else, pronto, who is 100% on his side. If you are paying someone gobs of money, they better darn well REPRESENT YOU! They all want to make a fool of GZ…..who’s the fool now MOM? Embarrassing, no? You should be ashamed.

    • gz4cmmdr says:

      “This” has a purpose and plants a good seed, all in all it’s early and we don’t want to give the SAO any advantage or ideas, consider when making comments.

      It sure would be nice if we could confer with Shellie.

  3. GBishop says:

    I hope you find the other piece SD and please keep it up. Thank you for your pursuit of truth!

  4. Eliminator55 says:

    I hope that George, Shellie, George’s father, and the rest of his family see O’mara’s dastardly acts. I’m sure George will see this rather quickly since he’s on the outside. A move needs to be made quickly before O’mara has additional time to expand upon his self-serving agenda. Surely George’s family, especially his father, will implore George to take the appropriate actions. Matters such as these are not easily maneuvered. But, with a persons entire life at stake such drastic steps must be taken.

    • stephufla says:

      What is MOM’s self serving agenda?

      • GBishop says:

        Fame, fortune, friends, respect, recognition, power!

        • mwsomerset says:

          He already has those things….

          • minpin says:

            But he would be denied all those things if he didn’t go along with the agenda of his friends, right somerset? Can’t give up all the perks to defend my client, right somerset? More often than not, many will do what is required of them to remain a club member, anything. If you believe for one second that O’Mara doesn’t want his membership cancelled, than you are as naive as the rest of the…..

            You cannot have it both ways somerset. You can’t proclaim GZ’s innocense, and in the next sentence wonder if in that last second that TM sat up, and was possibly preparing to run away from GZ. Isn’t that right somerset. You can’t declare GZ innocent, or correct in his actions, yet add that you are just unsure of those last few seconds, and maybe GZ shot TM just a little bit too sonn. Right somerset.

            You are without doubt one of those that participate in double standards. If you didn’t have double standards somerset, what would you be left with? those cursed facts?

  5. Walther PPK says:

    There is a conspiracy to railroad GZ involving the leftstream media – Serino – Julison / Crump initiative and agenda being implemented formally by the Corey – O’Mara – Lester trifecta cartel of courtiers officiating over the rigged game. This is like a fixed prize fight where the bookies mob bosses have prearranged the outcome. The fix is in. And the fixers are smiling at each other.

    • Walther PPK says:

      Rat terriers, bird dogs, and rottweilers are all experts at reading body language and experts at smelling stinking rats too, even the two legged variety.

    • stephufla says:

      Why would mom conspire to violate every ethical standard to do this?

      • Walther PPK says:

        Why do some people take and oath to support and defend the constitution and then betray their country by doing differently ? Why do some people deceive, cheat, or even kill their own brother ? Why do some people abuse animals or even their own children ?
        Why id it that all the eudcation that some people have and all the intelligence which they have honed as a tool to serve them is put to use doing evil ? Why does a skunk stink ?

        • stephufla says:

          This place has jumped the shark.

          • minpin says:

            Actually “this place” hasn’t jumped the shark, just some making comments have. For example those arguing vociferously that GZ doesn’t qualify for SYG immunity. Some of those same people obviously don’t know the SYG law, or where and when it applies.

          • Chirality says:

            Agreed. I’m very impressed with the very valuable work that you have done finding the real Trayvon, the real Dee Dee, and the Crump operation. But, the funds fiasco doesn’t mean that O’Mara is a bad guy. It many means that a very unexpected thing happend during preparation for the first bond hearing and no one handled it well. Let’s don’t turn our own over nothing.

            • sybilj says:

              “Let’s don’t turn our own over nothing.”

              By definition, vetting is the process of examination and evaluation. Only when verified that one is on the side of truth does one become one of “our own,” … er, my own, anyway.

              JMO, but I don’t buy that O’Mara didn’t know about the paypal account, only the amount that was in it, (because he didn’t or chose not to ask). Though, he did know he’d get a pass from Lester.

              “I don’t think Judge Lester is going to believe that I misled him. I told him what I knew at the time, which is exactly what I was aware of.”

              Either O’Mara did a poor job of preparation, or he allowed his client to be railroaded and subsequently painted as a liar. Neither bodes well for GZ, in my estimation. Thus far, O’Mara is losing GZ’s case in the court of public opinion.

              “In court, you have the jury. Our job is to get the case to a jury. We need to fight first in the court of public opinion. The jury is the American people.” Crump


              • Walther PPK says:

                Willful ignorance on a financial disclosure for a client doesn’t cut it as professional lawyering. Blaming the client for the lawyers failure to do due diligence doesn’t wash either.

              • Chirality says:

                The one area I have been critical of O’Mara is the handling of the PayPal issue. I think that it was mainly that the website succeeded beyound all expectations. On April 12 when O’Mara signed the indigence papers they were true as far George knew. It seems to me that it is just a case of George not telling him and O’Mara not knowing what was happening. However, are you saying that O’Mara knew that the April 20 representations for false and did it anyway. Also, snaring Shellie with perjury as the same time? Think about what you are saying.

                • Walther PPK says:

                  I have thought about what I was saying. Financial statements should have been gotten and presented at the time of the bond hearing, not just reliance on verbal answers to questions.

          • Walther PPK says:

            With a Solingen Dacor divers knife and split that fish wide open from entrance to exit

      • M4 says:

        He wouldn’t

      • GBishop says:

        What are O’Mara’s ethics? Liberal white guilt? Being complicit when it comes to justice and freedom for those who oppose his friends in the black mafia? The man looks on in relative equanimity, speaks with forked tongues to dilute the blow to the Chumpsters, and hands over his client as a sacrifice to the Gods of eternal victimhood, while screwing him sideways to bill him the hours spent making friends with his client’s enemies.

        Not sure what his ethics are when he says Chump is right and his client is a liar and mislead the court, but calls the pictures of the angelic 12 yr old, “airbrushed.” What a nice word. They’re not misleading, not lies that have incited the witch hunts, death threats and mobs of ignorant people calling for Zimmerman’s death. No, they’re “airbrushed!” The man speaketh with forked tongues, but he is filled with the “spirit” and he does speak in tongues, no doubt!

        • 22tula says:

          “It Doesn’t Matter If You’re Black or White”
          by Daniel Greenfield – March 25, 2012

          “We Are All George Zimmerman”
          by Daniel Greenfield – April 15, 2012

        • M4 says:

          But his client did participate in misleading the court, and there’s no way around that. The best way to deal with it is acknowledge it and explain it if possible and rehabilitate GZ. You can bet this strategy was discussed with GZ and approved. O’Mara is looking at the long game — winning an acquittal at trial. In the mean time, his goal is to keep Zimmerman out of jail, which he has successfully done.

          • When your car breaks down and your mechanic tells you what’s wrong, do you approve?

            • M4 says:

              Lawyers and their clients have a different relationship than mechanics and their clients, but before a mechanic proceeds on repair work, yes you approve it. So what is it you think could have been gained for Zimmerman at this point that O’Mara has not gained for him?

        • Chuck says:

          The thing that bothers me most about MOM aside from his lack of properly representing GZ, is his speech. He talks like he has a mouth full of marbles, and is difficult to understand. I’m hearing impaired and it drives me crazy trying to follow him when he’s talking!

          I know that probably sounds petty, but if a person doesn’t speak clearly and distinctly, most people will tune them out. I know I do, and I’m sure I’m not alone in it.

          • boricuafudd says:

            Anyone that has read my posts know my objections with MOM and what IMO were his failures for GZ, but I don’t think that MOM is trying to get GZ convicted, just that he is trying not to use the SYG for being a conscientious objector to the law. I do also believe that irregardless to what some people believe there are forces that want to delay this case as long as possible for their own benefit. One last thing if I read or see another article about how fair, professional and great MOM is I am breaking my monitor LOL

  6. RZ says:

    I will not donate while MOM is representing GZ. This is a unjust statement: “It’s an absurd statute, y’ know, I don’t find it’s purpose”

    • GBishop says:


      GZ would not want us to donate until he decides what he is going to do. LETS HOLD OFF ON DONATIONS!

  7. DiwataMan says:

    The Duping Delight of Angela Corey


    2nd best video you have done DiwataMan – Great Job. And you have done many fine video’s…. so that says a lot !

    • Walther PPK says:

      @DiwataMan That is right on the money and center X in the bullseye, nice work.
      It is like a picture of a cat with canary feathers sticking to its smiling lips.

        • ctdar says:

          That kitty looks eerily like Puddy….

          • Sharon says:

            ….oh, no. I saw that specific kitty on a birdy post office wall some time back. it never was exactly made clear whose feathers those were….one of my cousins went missing at the time. It brings back bitter memories. Bitter, I tell you.

            • Ad rem says:

              I regret that you’ve once again been reminded of that tragic incident. :-(

              • Sharon says:

                ‘s ok. The PDST is getting better. Sort of. 8O

                • Ad rem says:

                  It it’s any comfort…..I’ve completed the 300 hours of community service at the aviary.

                  • Sharon says:

                    Aw gee, Puddy–I never doubted your heart. Some of your genetic habits skeer me–but yer heart doesn’t. :)

                • ctdar says:

                  No offense Puddy, but Sharon, remember Aesops Fable:
                  The Scorpion and the Frog

                  A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion says, “Because if I do, I will die too.”

                  The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp “Why?”

                  Replies the scorpion:
                  “Its my nature…”

                  • Sharon says:

                    Oh, dear. Now what.

                    I must respond with the memory of our Border Collie patiently, kindless and harmlessly removing pesky kittens from his feeding dish until they finally grew up and then he let them sleep draped across his shoulders and neck. ;)

                  • ctdar says:

                    yes no worries, like your patient collie, despite her genetics, I have faith Puddy would never eat a treeper … or a treepers relative :)

        • Walther PPK says:

      • BigMamaTEA says:

        Wow! I don’t know what to say….!Thank you. This says it all.

    • Dawn Doe says:

      That smile of Diane downs was chilling. *shiver*

    • Cupcakes says:

      And you can totally see O’Mara smiling back at her in the slowed-down version posted by DiwataMan! I’m speechless.

    • misty3 says:

      Why can’t this be Corey manipulating the situation? She is an EVIL woman to say the lease and uses that smile **shiver** often. Truly I think this was a passing harmless glance. I

    • James Crawford says:

      I am awful at reading body language and facial expressions, but this makes my skin crawl.

    • 22tula says:

      Excellent Video DiwataMan. Noticed that Mr. O’Mara looks beyond Angela Corey, as if he was checking to see if he “got caught,” or getting the nod from someone across the room.
      Looks like they are on the same team.

  8. labrat says:

    I hope you have more than a little glance. I’m not seeing it.

  9. minpin says:

    So now we know why Chief Lee and Pros. Wolfinger had to go. They originally believed George was innocent because he was Standing His Ground. All the evidence pointed to that, and that evidence hasn’t changed.

    It will be interesting to see what if any state discovery is released tomorrow. If the tox report, Tracy’s cell phone records, and the reports of recent and past crime incidents at RTL are not released, loud screaming should ensue.

    • Interested Reader says:

      This is critical. MOM needs to scream from the rooftops if this is not forthcoming.

      • minpin says:

        So far O’Mara hasn’t been screaming about anything in defense of his client. I don’t think he will now either. It will take all of us Wolverines to do the screaming, and all of those donors who are paying O’Mara to do his job.

        • ackbarsays says:

          Do you suppose it is possible that MOM has convinced George that a successful SYG defense would be the worst thing that could happen for his “long-term” prospects?

          I could see a lawyer in THIS case, because of its unique nature in terms of potential racial violence, telling George something like the following:

          “George, we know you have a strong Stand your ground defense, but honestly if you assert that and a judge finds it valid, you will be a marked man. You will spend the rest of your life in hiding. Your only chance at having a normal life is to go to trial and claim self-defense. That way, if you are acquitted, nobody will be able to say that the system was unfair to either your OR young Mr. Martin.”

          I’m not saying that attorney would be correct, but I could see the argument being made. Of course, if O’Mara really is a SYG opponent, then it seems that a successful SYG motion in a case like this would go a long way towards eradicating the law. The race hustlers would make it part of their conditions for ending the riots.

          • minpin says:

            Whenever this is all over for George, how ever it shakes out, I very seriously doubt that GZ and SZ and possibly GZ’s parents will stay in the US. Why should they? They’ve been so railroaded, the entire family, this surely can’t feel like the freest country in the world to them. I hope GZ sticks around long enough to sue everyone and everything he can, wins big, and then buys his own plane to acommodate his family, and hightails it out of the country faster than you can shake a stick. If I were he, I’d be sure to give the middle fingered salute on my way out.

          • Jello333 says:

            I just don’t know why THIS case is the one people would use to condemn the SYG laws. (Actually I DO know… it’s the “racial component”) SYG or not, this case is open-and-shut self defense. If they wanted to attack SYG, there was a recent case that should have done the trick. The one where the scumbag chased the car stereo thief and stabbed him to death. And he got off, from what I understand, because of SYG. So anyone who wants the laws to remain on the books would, I’d think, try to prevent injustices like that one from happening. People who find themselves in a position like George, on the other hand, are EXACTLY who both SYG and just basic self-defense is designed to protect.

            • And the guy who stabbed the car stereo thief to death and got off under SYG law was black. I say “was” because he got shot and died a couple of weeks ago.

              But, do you see any connection of the preference of Florida prosecutors?

              • Jello333 says:

                Wow, I didn’t know that. I mean either the guy’s race, or especially that he got killed. You gotta wonder if his killer might have been a relative of the stereo thief guy…. hmm….

      • Jello333 says:

        That’s the only reason I haven’t come down totally on the “O’Mara needs to go!” side. A lot of the stupid things he said came early on in the case. I think at first he knew very, very little of the evidence, and didn’t know George as a person. So yeah, it seemed that his heart wasn’t in it, and that maybe subconsciously* he was having trouble getting fully behind George. There’s NO excuse for that, of course… if you’re defending someone, you better do it 100%. But anyway, since then I’ve seen a few signs recently that MOM may have opened his eyes. He made the (very important, IMO) point in open court that it was Trayvon’s own fault that he died. And there was a comment by West that they’re thinking about asking the judge to step down. And people here have (rightly) pointed out that MOM seemed to have problems coming right out and saying George is not guilty. Well, at least now on the GZ website is a statement that says something like, “We steadfastly maintain that this was self-defense, and George is not guilty.”

        (* If I thought that O’Mara was intentionally working against George, I’d be screaming for his removal, his DISBARMENT, right now. I just don’t know that I think that yet.)

        • GBishop says:

          Jello333, he’s been awful to George, in ways that would turn your stomach if you knew. (Trust me on this.)

          Ultimately, it will have to be George’s decision. I really would like to see some discussion on how George could go about separating himself from that entity, provided someone better is found. Please pray that this cup be taken from George!

          • Jello333 says:

            Yeah, if you guys know more than I do about this, I’ll trust you on it. But beyond whether O’Mara deserves to be replaced, there’s also the problem of the “optics” of firing your lawyer… really for ANY reason. If it needs to be done, I hope George does it. But his new lawyer is gonna have to work hard at explaining WHY, so the MSM and Team Crump don’t make it look like it was due to “doubts as to his innocence” or some such garbage. I guess I should say, don’t SUCCEED in making it look like that…. since it’s a given they’ll TRY.

          • nameofthepen says:

            @GBiship, who says, “Jello333, he’s [meaning MOM] been awful to George, in ways that would turn your stomach if you knew. (Trust me on this.)”

            Anytime someone says, “Trust me on this”, my spider senses turn on full volume.

            Just sayin’…

    • Chuck says:

      I imagine everyone needs to get ready to scream, because I sincerely doubt that toxicology report or anything else incriminating about TM will be forthcoming. This is one of those cases where they give you a trial, then hang you..

      GZ must be convicted. If he’s cleared, the state will be subject to millions of dollars in lawsuits for unlawful prosecution, detainment, libel, slander, ad infinitum. There will also be riots, looting, vandalism, and non-stop protests.

  10. stephufla says:

    What motivation does MOM have to throw the case? Seems to me, he has much to lose.

    • Cupcakes says:

      What is the reason for MOM’s words and actions? Why hasn’t he attacked the arrest affidavit like Dershowitz did? What are the reasons for his lack of advocacy for his client’s innocence, his statements in that BET interview, throwing his client under the bus numerous times, repeated statements that George mislead the court and damaged his credibility? Why does he not say “my client is innocent” and “my client acted in self-defense” over and over? He has stated that George “mislead the court” so many times I can’t even count. Why would he do this? What does all that mean?

      • Jello333 says:

        I’ve got a theory about why O’Mara might be making all the “my client was less than honest” comments. Now I didn’t say it was a GOOD theory, but here it is ;) :

        When the time comes to point out all the “less than honest” comments, all the outright LIES by the prosecution, their witnesses, Crump, etc, MOM would have a nice comeback: “Hey, this isn’t right. When my client and his wife were less than honest with the court, we immediately admitted that. George has apologized, and he was severely punished for what he did. But in the grand scheme of things, his actions were NOTHING compared to what is being done now. The lies coming from the prosecution and their witnesses are many, many, many times more serious than anything George or Shellie did. And I think people should be held accountable for what they’re trying to do here.”

      • danalain says:

        I think the DOJ pointed out to MOM that there is no case on the state side, and his client will eventually be fouind innocent. (If there are 12 people on Florida who have the guts to stand up to the Black community.) I think somebody influenced MOM to take the “slow route” in order to allow time to calm and soothe the emotions of the Black community in Florida. But, that is not fair. Things can happen in the meantime, such as somebody can shoot GZ or one of his family. Misunderstandings can arise due to the terror gZ must have felt like when the BP put a bounty on his head, and when all the death threats are made. Then, throw in a judge such as Lester, and the case is going South fast. Eric Holder should have insured GZ’s safety, even if he had to declare martial law in Florida. Then, we could have had an honest SYG hearing.

        • ejarra says:

          “Eric Holder should have insured GZ’s safety” Do you mean like he got after the New Black Panthers for putting a bounty on George’s head.

    • He’s not throwing the case “he’s delivering Zimmerman”. Big difference.

      The Orlando/Sanford machine was under attack. They needed the blacks people who live there to calm down at all costs. Triplett does not want to be mayor of LA circa Rodney King and Bonaparte has a nose ring with a chain in it that leads to Seminole NAACP meeting chambers.

      In Short This Is cultural marxism or political correctness at it most bastardized form. Not hanging Zimmerman is not an option…. If they do not hang Zimmerman the natives will burn down the town.

      O’Mara was a means to an end, that’s all. A willing participant, convinced by his CNN buddy and backyard BBQ pal Mark Najame, to just take the case but don’t really take the case… *nudge, nudge*…. *wink, wink*…. say-no-more….

      All you gotta do Mark is make it look like he is being represented and insure that one of those outsiders with veracity and prowess like Dersh, or (___) don’t bring their ass in here and set up shop. The last thing we need is this Zimmerass pulling another Casey Anthony on us, only this time the blacks will burn down the town…. we can’t have that. So we need you to help us just keep things calm and steady and stuff…. and for that you’ll have a nice prog career with a big get-anything-you-want card for use if you ever need it.

      That’s why.

      • Jello333 says:

        But if that was the plan, and sadly I can’t say you’re wrong, you (this site) and others have made it MUCH more difficult for the conspirators to succeed. As you say… DAYLIGHT. Imagine if this case had happened like 15 years ago. Without being able to dig into everything, and discuss/debate it 24/7 on the internet, George would have had NO chance. I don’t always agree with each and every one of your opinions or conclusions, but I greatly admire what you’re doing and why you’re doing it.

      • danalain says:

        SD, do you think it stops at the edge of Sanford, or at the edge or the county, or at the edge of the state of Florida?

        • NO. Unfortunately it extended from Sanford well past the boundaries of Florida on March 20th…..

          When Team Pigford took up the Trayvon Martin Justice Banner and ran with it, everything changed. (seee Rose Garden)

      • stephufla says:

        No, what you describe is someone throwing the case for personal gain.

        • Maybe you cannot read…. maybe you just missed this part…..

          ….So we need you to help us just keep things calm and steady and stuff…. and for that you’ll have a nice prog career with a big get-anything-you-want card for use if you ever need it.

          Or maybe you are trolling?

          • StephUF says:

            Nope, not trolling. Maybe you remember yesterday that I said my husband has known MOM for years and considers him a very good, ethical lawyer. So, forgive me if I say, that if what you imply is true, he is even more devious and harmful to our country than Crump, who is an obvious shake down artist in the mold of Sharpton, etc. If true, MOM is stealth, and maybe stupid if all it takes for him to fold and sacrifice his ethics, is the lame reward you describe above…he has never struck me as that much of an ideologue. Maybe he is what you say, and another chunk of my faith in people bites the dust.

            • Maybe you remember yesterday that I said my husband has known MOM for years and considers him a very good, ethical lawyer.

              No actually you NEVER said that part. However, I suspected as such, as did I suspect your agenda here….. Now I understand far more. You have a vested personal stake. Time for you to leave, your capacity for objectivity is gone. Thank you for finally coming clean, and Thank you for your previous, albeit clouded, participation.

              Farewell and following seas. God Bless.

              • GBishop says:

                Thanks SD. She lined up this whole thread with her pesky qs, like some academic talking to a low IQ class.

                They can argue that intelligene requires giving other views equal time, but when there is so much anti GZ bias everywhere, especially on his own defense site, WE ARE EQUAL TIME! Thank you.

      • James Crawford says:

        Nailed It!

        + 1,000

        Obama adopted Trayvon as his son. You don’t suppose that those responsible for convicting GZ aren’t going to get juicy appointments as Federal Judges, US Attornies or support for political campaigns?

        I am not yet convinced that O’Mara is guilty. He could be unprepared for how dirty this case was going to get. However; he needs to redeem himself by going on the offensive. How about releasing autopsy photos that might show burns and ripping around the entrance wound that would be consistent with a CONTACT RANGE shooting?

      • rjp says:

        Why not paper white areas of the country (where ever the jury pool would come from) with a “Unamusment Park” type paper?

        If a white juror goes in thinking GZ might already be being misrepresented, it might open their eyes to the manner in which MOM actually “represents” GZ..

    • GBishop says:

      “What motivation does MOM have to throw the case? Seems to me,he has much to lose.”

      I wish O’Mara would throw the case, walk away from it and George completely. If he was a man of ethics or conscience, he would.

      But he’s not. He’s a milkman of enlightened white guilt politics and he’s going to milk this case and think himself a peacemaker and healer of the world for doing so, he’ll thow George a few crumbs along the way, and a 10yrs of manslaughter of malicious prosecution unproved charges that would have gotten dismissed by any other attorney.

  11. minpin says:

    Now since Dershowitz moved to Fla., and is licensed to practice in Fla., I wonder if he would be willing to defend GZ. From past remarks of his he doesn’t seem to have any great respect for the Fla. legal system, and especially Corey. He has been outspoken about GZ’s innocence, and he certainly doesn’t need the money.

    I’m sure O’Mara will eat up every dime in GZ’s fund for his legal fees, and then probably bill him for more.

    • Jello333 says:

      The one question I’d have for Alan is, what does he think about a LESSER charge? I mean, he’s often said how George should never have been charged with M2, but I don’t remember hearing him say the same about Manslaughter. I have to assume he feels the same, but it would be nice to hear him say it.

      • GBishop says:

        George should go with Alan only if the guy realizes that this case should be dismissed. I think he was criticizing Corey for raising expectations of the mobs, but manslaughter is not an option, period. George is innocent, and should choose wisely.

      • minpin says:

        Didn’t Dershowitz say at one point that the charges should be dropped against GZ. At first, even without the discovery, he criticized the PCA. With the release of discovery I believe he said GZ should not be charged at all.

    • chopp says:

      Dershowitz is not a trial attorney.

      • 22tula says:

        Alan Dershowitz can be part of and set up a defense team.
        And No one will dare accuse him of racism.

        Here is an excerpt from a pbs interview – OJ Trial.

        “But is that really your job as a defense attorney?

        That’s my job: to put the state on trial, to make sure that the state behaves properly, that the police behave properly. One potentially guilty murderer going free will not destroy a society; a corrupt police force, a corrupt prosecution, a corrupt state, will.

        Maybe I’m skewed by the fact that in the 1970s I litigated many cases in the former Soviet Union, and I’ve litigated cases all over the world where corrupt police forces and corrupt states conspired to go after innocent people, so I’m much more worried about the government than I am about an individual, possibly guilty criminal.”- pbs interview

        • 22tula says:

          Favorite 2 Excerpts from Alan Dershowitz Frontline OJ Interview

          1. … The other thing that I think the public hated is this showed how the Constitution is really supposed to work. This was a case with a level playing field. This was a case where the defense had not quite as many resources as the prosecution, but roughly the same resources. We had the best forensic pathologists. We had the best lawyer on DNA, Barry Scheck. We had the best trial lawyer for a Los Angeles jury, Johnnie Cochran. We had F. Lee Bailey, who had more experience than any lawyer in America. We had Jerry Uelmen and me, who could do the sophisticated legal research. We had [forensic pathologist] Dr. [Michael] Baden; we had Dr. Lee. We could stand mano a mano against the prosecution. And the public didn’t like a level playing field, because in a level playing field, when the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense will often win….

          2. ….The problem with this case is that the system worked, and it worked too well. It worked too well because it showed what the defense is capable of doing if they have the ability to use all of the constitutional protections that are given them by the Bill of Rights and by constitutional and other statutory rules. It showed what can happen if the defense has access to the best experts and good lawyers and experts in various other scientific areas. So it showed that the system can work very well, and that in fact the system will operate on the principle of better 10 guilty go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted.

          And you know what? The public doesn’t like the system. The public much prefers the old system, the old system in which the prosecution really doesn’t have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt; the prosecution really doesn’t have to abide by the Constitution; the prosecution really doesn’t have to play fair with all the evidence. The public saw the system working, and they didn’t like it.” – link posted above

          • rjp says:

            It worked too well because it showed what the defense is capable of doing if they have the ability to use all of the constitutional protections that are given them by the Bill of Rights and by constitutional and other statutory rules.

            It didn’t work because of that, it worked because nobody from the prosecution dared to question OJ’s ability to put on the glove. Good gloves fit well. Good gloves are not laborer working gloves. You don’t just stick your hand into good gloves. The act of OJ trying to shove a crippled looking hand into the glove was a absolute joke in American judicial history. And the fact that it was never questioned was both prosecutorial and judicial misconduct.

      • ctdar says:

        actually Chopp from his site
        “How do I submit a legal case to Professor Dershowitz?

        My primary focus is on teaching and writing. I accept very few legal cases each year and those I do accept are primarily appellate criminal cases.”

  12. minpin says:

    I doubt many attorney’s like the SYG laws. It prevents their lawyer buddies from raking in major dollars in civil lawsuits. Isn’t that what Natalie Jackson and Crumpy make their money on? I know the trial lawyers hate Rick Perry in Texas for signing tort reform, and loser pays laws.

  13. RiseFromBelow says:

    Just a thought, but there could be a simpler reason for MOM’s comments on BET: He was playing to his audience. BTW, I still can’t get over that Corey prayed with the Martin family. That just seems very unethical/inappropriate to me.

    • minpin says:

      “Just a thought, but there could be a simpler reason for MOM’s comments on BET: He was playing to his audience.”

      Don’t we already have enough of that type sitting in Washington? and what has that gotten for us?

  14. edmundruffinsghost says:

    I find the comment on SYG disturbing and perhaps MOM should go just for that, but I’m not so sure there is anything to the exchanged look between him and Corey. We might be reading too much into that. Not saying that all is well, but that that look doesn’t necessarily say anything. They could have just been acknowledging one another. Corey often has that excited little girl look on her face. I think she’s evil and OMaras strategy and views on SYG make his representation suspect. I am just dubious about collusion.

    • stephufla says:

      The question to ask is what would be the motive for MOM to throw the case. That question from the lips of my former prosecutor/criminal defense attorney husband. Incompetence is one thing. There might be that. Deliberately throwing a case is a whole other ball game.

      • minpin says:

        O’Mara may not be trying to “throw the case” but it is doubtful that he will do anything to keep it from going to trial. In a SYG hearing, if GZ is found to have properly stood his ground, it’s over right there, and it drastically cuts down on billable hours for O’Mara. Once the case goes to trial, no matter the verdict, GZ and many many others are then open to civil lawsuits. Isn’t the biggest difference between SYG and regular self defense that it gives the defendant immunity from being bankrupted in civil court, even if they are found innocent?

        As I said above, the trial lawyers in Texas hate the tort reform, and loser pays laws, as it severely cuts down on the trial lawyers bank account balances. Crump has so much invested in this case already, he is not about to allow any SYG hearing which could result in him having no opportunity to do his civil lawsuit magic. It is pretty obvious that even those in the highest elected positions are willing to break the bank to keep him from calling in the riot dogs. I read that many, if not most lawyers in Fla. hate the SYG laws. It severely curtails the lawyers billable hours, and it also severely curtails their time in the media spotlight. We know from O’Mara’s media time as a “legal analyst” he isn’t shy of the media, and he gets paid for it also.

        • stephufla says:

          No lawyer would risk his future business to churn a criminal case for some billable hours. In criminal law income derives from reputation, not billing of some hours on a case. Especially if you lose or are perceived to have lost.

          • howie says:

            There are not even many Private Criminal Lawyers already. Most criminals are broke and can’t afford one. I do know that the state has reduced the amount it pays private lawyers to $7.50 and hour or some such joke. For taking overflow cases from the PD Office. These Self-Defense cases are a very different type of case. I hope there was not communication between the defense and the state prior to the affidavit. That would look fishy. Especially since it was not challenged at the initial appearance and the deadline to challenge it passed.

            • stephufla says:

              This looks like a slam dunk self defense case to me, as opposed to a SYG defense. I could be wrong. I don’t think so.

              • kathy says:

                What do you think takes it out of the SYG? I’ve read the law and a bunch of the SYG decisions and it seems like a very good SYG defense case to me. I might even say a slam dunk if I were inclined to say that anything is a slam dunk. I know one thing, though, based on the evidence I’ve seen so far, I’d be thrilled with it if I were a seasoned criminal defense lawyer. Does your hubby (or anyone else) know whether the Judge’s ruling on an SYG hearing is immediately appealable or whether there’s a procedure in Fla. for certifying it as such under the Rules?

                • minpin says:

                  I’ve read the opinions of legal analysts who have stated that this case is the classic, prime example of exactly what the SYG laws were passed for. Those in the legal community hate it because once a defendant is found to have acted properly using self defense, it throws the brakes on the lawyers whose gravy train runs on civil lawsuits, whether the person was found innocent or not in a trial using traditional self-defense arguments. The picture couldn’t be more clear why those in the legal community hate it. We are living in a highly litigious time, civil lawsuits are bankrupting people and businesses right and left, the redistribution theories are in full swing. Redistribute what’s in your bank account into the lawyers bank account.

                  Look at the number of small businesses that have been forced out of business because of frivilous lawsuits that they have to pay a lawyer to defend them against. I’ve read that there have been many lawsuits for those representing those with disabilities. A business was sued because a counter in their establishment was too high. Another lawsuit was brought because the access door was located conveniently enough.

                  The lawyers have taken over the zoo.

                  • Kathy says:

                    You’re preaching to the choir, but you probably know that :) Btw, I’m a lawyer and I LOVE SYG. Of course, I’m not a Scheme-teamer — nor would I ever be! They are beyond an embarassment and should, imo, be sanctioned, if not disbarred. Never happen, at least in Fla, though.

              • howie says:

                It is complicated by TM age in the law he was under 18 I think 17 and considered a “child” in the rules.. I think different rules apply because of that. It is very confusing if you are not a legal expert. They seem to want to say GZ was culpable or negligent in his self defense. I have not even seen anything where the state declares there was no Self Defense other than the clearly defective affidavit. But the first order of Biz I think is to get rid of the 2nd degree. It should already be gone. These old rules have not taken in to account the Gangs and their exploitation of the laws by using young kids. In fact Corey prosecuted a 12 year old black as an adult.

                • Kathy says:

                  I think this is a good point. I mentioned the other day that I hadn’t focused on this aspect of the case, so I don’t yet understand the implications of Trayvon’s “youth.” However, by the language of the Judge’s order, he has given it some thought, likely because it’s an impediment to a standard SYG defense. I’ll look into it when I have some time…unles someone else already knows the answer?

                • splat! says:

                  Here’s something to think about. If TM had been arrested for felony assault & battery on GZ, would he have been charged as an adult? If so, it shouldn’t have any bearing on how GZ’s case is handled.

                  • ejarra says:

                    It would be interesting to see Corey call 17 yr. old Mr. Martin a child when she argued that a 12 yr. old should be treated as an adult.

              • ackbarsays says:

                The issue with the SYG defense, once the accused is charged with the crime, us that to make an affirmative defense of that type, the accused will have to testify at the hearing and will be subject to cross-examination. I’m sure that’s why that statute is designed to be employed BEFORE any charges are filed. No lawyer is going to want to give a prosecutor a free opportunity to cross-examine his client in a hearing which can then later be used against him in the trial.

                • Kathy says:

                  I’m not sure “has to” take the stand is accurate — unless you’re speaking strictly in practical terms. I think the preponderence standard could possibly be met in this case without George’s testimony. Subject to my uncertainty about how Trayvon’s “youth” factors into this.

          • minpin says:

            steph- I know your hubby is a lawyer, but, many many of us out here in fly over land know that the majority of lawyers live, breathe, and eat for billable hours. There are plenty of lawyers that win some cases and lose some cases, and life goes on and business remains steady. In this case if O’Mara wins he loses, and if he loses he wins. He will still have a gig on CNN as a “legal analyst,” he can still write a book about this experience, he has name recognition to bring him more clients. If he wins the case, he will get a certain clientel, and if he loses the case, he will get another type of clientel. Why worry about the two birds in the bush when he has GZ’s donations in hand. After all, GZ has proven to be a cash cow for him.


            • howie says:

              I love the way they term…Alleged Victim.

            • minpin says:

              WOW. Thanks for that Breibart star. I feel very honored. Thank you.

            • ackbarsays says:

              Minpin, the website you linked to for the other lawyers had some interesting information on it. I have read this law before, but I took special note of the fact that the Stand Your Ground law is supposed to provide complete immunity from prosecution. They then discuss how there is some discrepancy in the courts right now about what that means. I think I tend to believe that the courts will settle on the interpretation of the First Circuit Court of Appeal, which has ruled that to satisfy the law’s provisions, there must be an evidentiary hearing to weigh the evidence to determine if a prosecution can proceed. I believe that the fact that no such hearing was ever held in this case will be George Zimmerman’s first grounds for appeal, should things proceed that far. However, I believe that his lawyer MUST attempt to assert SYG as soon as possible. He should file a motion questioning the court’s jurisdiction over George since George has lawful immunity from prosecution in this case.

          • gz4cmmdr says:

            Yes stephufla, but some are wondering if O’Mara fully realizes this(his statements), reputation and money draw a fine line for some, that’s not including other motivation.

        • nameofthepen says:

          @minpin, who asks, “Isn’t the biggest difference between SYG and regular self defense that it gives the defendant immunity from being bankrupted in civil court, even if they are found innocent?”

          This really captured my attention! And, yes, it looks like you’re absolutely correct:

          “Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the “stand your ground” law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit.”

          Why would George’s attorney appear to be tossing the SYG law into the rubbish bin? :/

          • minpin says:

            nameofthepen- It would be difficult for O’Mara to defend his client using a law that he previously, and since taking GZ’s case, has been vocally against. From his own comments he wants the law gone. It restricts the wrongful death vultures from raping the defendant, Sanford, HOA, and GZ for every penny they can squeeze out of them. If this goes to trial, Crump et al will be wealthy enough to buy a small country.

            • ackbarsays says:

              SYG is much more powerful than just preventing civil action against someone. It prevents them (or is SUPPOSED to prevent them) from even being charged, arrested, or tried for the incident in question. This is where George has been poorly served already. A bulldog of an attorney would have sought to prevent charges being filed, and then would have filed a motion for dismissal as soon as George was charged. O’Mara isn’t even talking about a motion to dismiss. He’s talking about going to trial.

              • boricuafudd says:

                That is the point some of us have been making. it should not have gotten this far. I have another question if Judge Lester determined that the acts of the April 20th hearing were not enough to deny bond, why were they good enough to revoke bond in June, seem contradictory.

            • nameofthepen says:

              @minpin – Ah! Makes sense. Thanks.

              Boy, I have so many other questions about MOM, and also, who the heck is advising George and his family. But I’m going to wait before asking, in case they a) have already been answered somewhere else, and just I haven’t seen it yet, or b) will soon come up in discussion anyway.

              (BTW, totally off-topic: I *love* minpins. I’ve had 3 in a row starting back when I was a child. IMHO, the best “little big dogs” in the world. Most visually-appealing, too. :D )

    • RiseFromBelow says:

      Whatever his personal opinion might be he’ll use whatever laws benefit his client. He says as much in the interview. And yea, I don’t think there’s this deep conspiracy going on. MOM will defend his client to the best of his ability and using whatever tools are available to him. I think people are mistaking his attempt to lead people from “He murdered a small innocent black child!” and the associated anger and hate to “Gee, maybe it just looks that way but it was really self-defense.”

      • howie says:

        I sure hope so. One thing that has bothered me is the statement from Judge Lester in one of the hearings early on. “We are tamping this thing down” or something close to that. It is not right for a Court to bring charges without evidence of the crime, against a Citizen, in order to “Tamp Down” threats from a Mob. The eve of the Grand Jury is the date that sticks. The Grand Jury was cancelled. That is a first I think. A Grand Jury indictment and I would not question. This thing…yes I question it.

    • Shari says:

      I agree, very disturbing. You can’t defend something if you don’t believe in it. If he disagrees with SYG then he disagrees with GZ using it for his defense.

    • ctdar says:

      How can you be a FL defense attorney & bad mouth a standard defense tactic of the stand your ground law?

  15. Lou da Jew says:

    it’s difficult to “look into” a could mean that hse was looking at him to say, “yeah, we got this” or “Hi, I’m Angela, we haven’t met beofre”, or “I just go caught staring at you and I think you’re cute”. if it’s true though that they are in it together it will be truly disturbing and horrifying for George. let’s see what MOM does in the media this week. if he’s silent in the media, doesn’t advocate for George, and doesn’t verbally attack Trayvon’s character George needs to change lawyers. there are even simple things just like repeatedly asking “If we search for the truth about who Trayvon is, the parents need to unseal his records”, and very importantly follow up with “Unseal the records” or “what is being hidden in Trayvon’s school records that we don’t know about?” There are allegations that he swung on a bus driver.

    • RiseFromBelow says:

      How much can MOM actually get away with in terms of the media? Aren’t there laws and ethical considerations that restrict what he can do? I think if there needs to be some public relations thing going on then the Zimmerman family would have to get separate council and experts to do it. And who’s going to pay for it?

      • minpin says:

        Well for one, O’Mara already went to the media and called his client a liar. He said that both GZ and SZ were not honest with the judge, and they need to apologize to him. What “ethical” lawyer would go out in public and say such things about their client? What ethical lawyer would go on Piers Morgan and talk about the amount in the paypal account before he even disclosed that information to the judge?

        As to public relations, I thought O’Mara’s facebook page, and his website was to get the truth out about GZ and his case. Granted he can’t let all the cats out of the bag, but where has he strongly advocated for GZ’s innocense, over and over, as Crump has done in getting negative info/lies out about GZ? He has a media presence, but he has not utilized it in any way to be a strong voice for his client. Quite the opposite has happened on the facebook page. That has actually turned into a complaint/gripe site for the TM supporters. Why would he give them a bigger microphone? I hope GZ’s funds aren’t paying for that.

        • garnette says:

          Reminds me of how someone will point the finger at someone else and loudly say liar when they don’t want the attention to be on them. I still wonder why MOM didn’t know the amounts in the accounts before the hearings. It goes back to the basic law school 101 lesson, a lawyer never asks a question he doesn’t know the answer to. He should have known this information so that he could be in control of the defense.

        • danalain says:

          As to minipin’s remark at 10;30am, what lawyer would go on CNN and announce the amount of the paypal account? There was discussion on a recent thread, that a motion of recantation can be filed if an attorney learns that his client has submitted incorrect information in any hearing, and then no perjury, and no revooking can be done. Why was MOM not doing that rather than telling the nation about more money on CNN?

      • Sharon says:

        “How much can MOM actually get away with in terms of the media?”
        a. Quite a bit.
        b. Anything at all if it is what they want to have happen.
        c. Everything so far.
        d. All of the above.

        It’s GZ that can’t “get away with anything.”

    • James Crawford says:

      If MOM thinks Angella Corey is cute, then George will be able to appeal based on the fact that his attorney is insane.

    • howie says:

      I would rather the SA get a worried and scared look on their face when the defense enters the room. Not a big smile and Wal-Mart style greetings.

  16. edmundruffinsghost says:

    Uh oh. I just that noticed in his answer to the racist BET network interviewers question regarding what OMara ha sto say to blacks that omara said he understands why they would be angry if GZ doesn’t get a trial. Huh? WTF? OMara should be arguing that there is not enough evidence to go to trial, that the charges should be dropped, or dismissed outright by the judge. And why the hell is he even on BET doing interviews? That channell is racist and surely has no interest in justice or fairness for GZ. I’m not convinced MOM isin collusion, but he damned well doesn’t seem to have his heart in the defense of his client, so should leave.

    • Interested Reader says:

      “It’s something the department kept secret for two months, according to documents recently released by the special prosecutor in the case.”

      When is she/the prosecution going to release the phone records and the toxicology report ? Does O’mara have these? If so he should LOUDLY proclaim whatever he finds favorable to George. If not then he needs to file a motion to obtain that evidence and publicly denounce any failure to comply.

      • minpin says:

        Yes. O’Mara has had all of that discovery since around the 13th of June. He released the GZ police interviews. He can release all of it if he wanted, as the judge ordered that all of that discovery, with the exception of the pictures of TM’s dead body to be released by 6/26. O’Mara could release that info tomorrow if he wanted to. The judge ordered it released.

      • boricuafudd says:

        Sounds to me as damage control. Spoke to my uncles and cousin who are LEO’s they said that it is not uncommon for detectives to determine a charge but it is up to the prosecutors to make that determination. Often times the detective undercharges, it is done to continue the investigation.

    • minpin says:

      Do not believe anything that crosses from the fingers of Rene the Stutzman. Her article is nothing more than a fluff piece, with no links to any facts that Chief Lee agreed on arresting GZ. That simply is not true. She provides absolutely no proof of what she is saying about Lee, not even quotes from inside sources. If it was true he would still have his job. He didn’t agree with arresting GZ. On the other hand, everyone has known for a long time that Serino wanted GZ arrested, leaked information that harmed the investigation, conducted a horribly biased investigation with his agenda paramount, arrest this bastage, and resulted in his demotion to walking the midnight beat. Stutzman is a part of the rabid anti-Zimmerman crowd and will say anything to destroy GZ and his entire family.

      • kathy says:

        It’s a ridiculous article. The proposed warrant is old news, first off. No one was hiding it. I’ve known about it forever. Second, I think that preparing such a document would be standard procedure in a case involving a shooting under the SYG. LE would kick that decision to the pros. asap if there was the slightest question due to the immunity issues I would think. The whole point of it would be to see whether the prosecutor thought they had enough to safely arrest George. Wolfinger (correctly, imo) felt they did not. Again, standard procedure, particularly where LE would be exposing themselves and the City to liability to George based on the immunity provisions of the SYG.

  17. Chirality says:

    I believe this divisiveness isn’t helpful to George. It is quite possible that Mark O’Mara is a liberal Democrat and personally isn’t for “stand your ground” law. And, just like the interview said he’d use it if it was to his tactical advantage. Given what we are discovering about Judge Lester its main use may be to set up an appeal.

    This doesn’t mean the O’Mara is going to deliberately lose the case. That would be a major blow to his reputation. Don’t forget that Karl Rove beat the Fitzgerald witch hunt with liberal lawyer than defended the Clinton people. Also, don’t forget why O’Mara is on the case and that is because George fired his previous two lawyers.

    • edmundruffinsghost says:

      Divisiveness? It really bugs me when people try and dismiss investigation and discussion of subject as divisive. Well, yes, disagreement is divisive, but that’s how things are discussed an the truth revealed. You don’t get here by holding hands and whispering affirmations to one another.

      • minpin says:

        I’m beginning to wonder if those shouting the loudest in favor of O’Mara is great, aren’t actually working on the other end. They certainly would want to keep O’Mara who is doing a crappy job. That way they then win for Trayyyyyvon.

    • splat! says:

      George didn’t fire his previous two lawyers, IIRC. They held a press conference saying they Quit. And I don’t think they were ever officially “hired” to begin with.

      • minpin says:

        The timing of the two previous GZ lawyers doing a presser saying they quit was a little to coincidental. I think they had already gotten wind that GZ wasn’t happy with them, and was lawyer shopping. The fact that they questioned GZ mental status, and saying that they thought he may have left the state (like he was trying to flee) shows that GZ had reason to doubt them. From my experience, you must in fact fire your current lawyer before a new lawyer will take your case.

        • splat! says:

          You must in fact hire a lawyer before he can quit.

          • minpin says:

            That’s even better splat. They went on national TV to say they were quitting from something they were never hired to do. I love it.

        • thefirstab says:

          It would not surprise me if they got “a call” to back off – or some other veiled threat. These are local attys too, I believe. Najame? So he could “recommend” someone who fit into big story. The way this whole case has been full of twists and turns, etc. I wonder what GZ would say how that went down.
          IMO, I thought their media statement was totally out of line, unprofessional and certainly added more fuel to the erupting firestorm.

      • GBishop says:

        Exactly splat and minpin!

  18. menostupid says:

    Oops! I posted the above in the wrong thread! Meant to post in the open thread & will post it there now. Administration if you wanna remove it’s fine with me. Sorry again

  19. Edmundruffinsghost says:

    At around 7:00 in the video, in answer to the interviewers question about what MOM has to say to the black community he says that it appears that a young black man was shot for no reason and that if we weren’t having a day in court, if we weren’t having a trial, he would understand tha the frustration would remain high. That’s an absurd thing to say about his own client. He’s not an analyst, he shis lawyer. He should lawyer for him. He should say that his client did nothing wrong and that people have been misinformed and mad escape judgments, that this is a racially charge case and that if people look atthefats they will see his client is innocent. He should counter with how frustrated many Americans are at this persecution. Jackass.

    • raiikun says:

      There I don’t really see the problem either. At the beginning when O’Mara had no discovery, he was kinda vague and non-committal in his media dealings. Then as the discovery comes in, you start seeing more commitment to it. It went to “none of the discovery supports the allegations”, then after George’s statements were released, it became “none of the objective evidence contradicts George’s story”,..

      and now the Defense team’s stance is “We steadfastly maintain that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense and that he is not guilty of second degree murder.”

      I’m trying to keep an open mind here, because there’s been some eye-opening stuff I’ve seen come through this site…but I’m just not getting the complaints about O’Mara.

      • Interested Reader says:

        How about the fact he called his own client’s credibility into account and the fact that he has allowed it to be stated that George had lied without contradiction ?

        • RiseFromBelow says:

          GZ’s credibility was called into question. Lester did it himself. The damage was already done and will effect the judge’s decision on SYG immunity. Directly challenging Lester about it would be counter productive. A judge POd at the defense team is not good. Since the bond hearing/judgements will be irrelevant in trial it seems showing the judge some respect and letting the State win that irrelevant round might be a good move. I think we all know this is going to go to trial. The judge ruling GZ has SYG immunity isn’t an acceptable outcome for anyone (other than GZ) at this point. Elections, riots, etc.

          • boricuafudd says:

            MOM failed GZ at the outset by not taking control of the websites. Had he done that as most lawyers I have read comment would have done irregardless to how much was in them at the time.
            MOM also failed by not announcing to the court of the amount in the account after he got a hold of it.
            MOM failed also by not getting clarification from the court about the PP account. At the April 20th hearing the Judge was unsure about jurisdiction of the account.
            MOM also committed the cardinal sin of lawyers asking questions of Shellie that he didn’t know the answer to. Any answer that she gave would have been erroneous, if she had said the fund $130,000 the prosecution would prove that the amount was less, since some had been withdrawn if she had said if was $50,000 or whatever was left the prosecution would have pointed out that $130.000 had been collected and they were hiding money, etc
            MOM has failed GZ by putting all of this on GZ calling him a lier nationally very publicly.
            Having said all of this I think MOM is uncomfortable with SYG or trying to use as a defense and has made sure that one element is removed.

            • howie says:


            • Walther PPK says:

              More than likely a CPA is already employed by the office of O’Mara so it is a real stretch to think that a lawyer would be inclined to sloppy book keeping for himself or for any transactions having bearing on a client. There is no excuse for what happened to the detriment of his client. A fifteen minute visit to the bank could have produced certified copies of statements for GZ and SZ for the precedign three months and IMO that should have been done prior to making any financial disclosure to the court. Precise figures to the penny and bank statements should have been provided to the court not a game of twenty questions which could easily go wrong and did go wrong because of ineffective assistance of counsel. This is or should be appealable.

        • raiikun says:

          I see nothing wrong there either. George got his hand caught in the cookie jar IMO, of his own doing. Owning up to that mistake now rather than trying to brush it aside will make O’Mara look that much more credible down the road when he drives home the point that his client acted in self defense, IMO.

          • minpin says:

            Exactly what did GZ say that got his hand caught in the cookie jar? George sat there like a potted plant remember. If you were in his position that day, keeping in mind that he knew he was a very hated man, and it was being broadcast across the nation, would you have jumped up and said “my wife is lying” even if he thought she wasn’t?

            The bond hearing had everything to do with money, assets etc By law it shouldn’t have been based on those details, but with this case it obviously did. It should have been based on GZ as a flight risk.

            O’Mara went through all the contortions of asking each family member if they had any resources to help George, would the parents take out a second mortgage on their home etc. O’Mara admitted to Piers Morgan that he did know about the paypal account/s but thought they only had small sums in them. Someone told O’Mara about the accounts, no? Why didn’t he get up to date info. on those accounts before the bond hearing. He had access to Shellie and George’s brother. No one was interested in talking to the bil who could have put the whole thing to bed right there and then.

            Someone posted one of GZ’s jailhouse comments to Shellie that GZ was trying to reach O’Mara but his calls were blocked. How much time did O’Mara spend talking with GZ, or anyone in his family before that hearing? I would bet he didn’t spend much time with them at all. The whole paypal thing is O’Mara’s fault, plain and simple, but he hasn’t been man enough to admit to his mistake.

            O’Mara took the case on the same day GZ was arrested. GZ just set up the website 2 days before his arrest. Does anyone have any statements showing the daily paypal balances in his account? Does O’Mara? Did he ask for them? It’s very possible that there was only little money in the paypal account when whoever told O’Mara about it. I’m sure GZ didn’t get the site on line, and then gather $200 grand in a day or two. O’Mara likely never figured that there were so many people backing GZ, and willing to donate money to him. Granted the large amount may have surprised O’Mara, but it was his duty and responsibility to get current accurate information on a timely basis, like before the bond hearing. O’Mara oooopsed and is letting GZ and SZ take the fall for it. And not only that but stating that they were dishonest in public.

            • howie says:

              Let’s hope these things do not become appellate issues after a conviction.

              • minpin says:

                Can you imagine if GZ or someone in his family were at some point in time to come out and say that they did tell O’Mara about the paypal account but he ignored them. I’m sure if GZ were to ever go for an appeal, he would not be using O’Mara to represent him.

                • howie says:

                  Well I know. But my point all along is that they did. Right after George got out. Then Omara told Lester. This was 4 days after the 150k bond. Lester knew everything. If he wanted to raise it he could have done so. They recanted the information ASAP and told the court about it. Then all this hoopla about how Lester was deceived is a bunch of Hooey!

                  • Chirality says:

                    Lesters five week delay in taking action on the funds combined with the very tough steps he took surprising O’Mara is very suspect to me. It seems to me that Lester was over reacting to fears of negative media coverage that would follow the revelation of the jailhouse calls.

                • John Galt says:

                  I can imagine SZ saying that at her perjury trial.

            • raiikun says:

              He didn’t say anything. That was his legal right, but it did allow an untruth to be told on his behalf.

              It still doesn’t change the facts of the case, which are that all evidence points to GZ being completely justified in the shooting, but a mistake happened, and they’re moving on from it.

    • mooserator says:

      I think the it appears that a young black man was shot for seemingly no reason is the worst of the two statements.

      You have very little time to change the perceptions of your client in the public and you’re spouting this crap?

      I don’t know the legal standard, but to a laymen it looks like ineffectual counsel.

      What if a poor 18 yr old black kid was getting railroaded and his White lawyer was going on TV saying this stuff? People would sense that the kid was being authentically represented. The Media would burst. It would be like Niagra Falls with alka-selzter in it.


      • RiseFromBelow says:

        I guess you didn’t notice how MOM heavily accented the word “seemingly”?

        • minpin says:

          Hahahahahahaha! so if you say something and “heavily accent” a particular word, it makes it all better and excusable. Hahahahahahaha. What a stretch. What lawyer would say any of it when he is representing the guy that did the shooting? I guess GZ grabbed TM by the hoodie, pulled him from the doorway of Brandi’s condo, drug him back up to the T and shot him like a rabid dog. Right?

    • mooserator says:

      It’s not an option – to be an advocate for your client — or not.

      Mark O’Mara seems to have decided he’s representing a bad dude that calls for him to use laws he absolutely despises. If he wants to be a Greenpeace activist, then go for it, but he has an obligation to represent his client – abdigating his responsibilities in this manner puts GZ in serious jeopardy.

      His interest seems in getting love from the Media and local courthouse cronies. This act of detached spectator (or critic, really) isn’t something he can legally continue, not in most states.


  20. Reblogged this on USA Natural Born and commented:

  21. MikadoCat says:

    The “standing your ground” portion of SYG has never applied to this case, nobody stood any ground because nobody had the option of a safe retreat. Only the provision against arrest without probable cause and the penalties for such an arrest apply.

    Obviously no lawyer likes a law that has the prevention of costly litigation as its basic function.

    What I think many may have completely wrong is the assumption that GZ agrees with our point of view. He could be a straight up party line prog, willing to do whatever it takes to see Obama win in the fall.

    • Interested Reader says:

      “What I think many may have completely wrong is the assumption that GZ agrees with our point of view. He could be a straight up party line prog, willing to do whatever it takes to see Obama win in the fall.”

      Willing to stay in jail and placew his life and his family’s life in jeopardy ? Thats a bit much don’t you think ?

    • JEReading says:

      MikadoCat says: “What I think many may have completely wrong is the assumption that GZ agrees with our point of view.”

      Interesting that you brought this up today. With all of the current conversations and debates going on here at the Treehouse, what’s been on my mind is “What does George want?” –besides, of course, for all of this to be over. Also, am I wrong to assume that whatever George’s attorney is doing in court is not something done without the express permission of or, for lack of a more appropriate word, sanctioning by his client?

  22. RiseFromBelow says:

    Are people forgetting this?

    “The judge in the second-degree murder trial of a Florida man who admitted to killing an unarmed teenager said there is no need for a gag order on his attorney.”

    “Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda had asked for the gag order on Mark O’Mara, the defense attorney for George Zimmerman, because O’Mara had spoken to a reporter about evidence.”

    IIRC the judge kept the door open for a gag order in the future.

    • RiseFromBelow says:

      I think we need to be careful in how we interpret MOM’s actions or lack of them. The worst thing we could do is throw GZ under the bus by throwing his lawyer under one and taking away our support. Personally I don’t see any indication that MOM will do anything but what’s best for GZ. People want him to be more aggressive, but that may not be the best move right now and I think his hands are tied in what he can do and say. He wants people to calm down and consider the possibility of GZ’s innocence. If he goes around attacking TM and the Martin’s he risks re-energizing the hate and anger. I think low key is best at this point. Keep in mind there is likely a long way to go before this is over. Trial might not be for another year or more.

      • Lou da Jew says:

        if he doesn’t reenergize the anger, Crump will. the focus must be on Mr. Trayvon Martin’s actions before that night. we need to look further into who Trayvon Martin is. the records from his school must be uncovered.

        • Jasper says:

          The truth about Trayvon and his suspensions, drug use, and bus driver incident must be researched and brought to light now. Omara isnt going anywhere at this point so the most productive thing i feel would be to do whatever possible to get the truth about Trayvon and his families’and Crump’s lies out in the open- people need to know the motives behing the hiding of these facts by Crump and the $ they all stand to gain

    • cuky says:

      Thanks for this posting. I hadn’t known about this or thought about the limits placed on OM because of this. Meanwhile, the scheme team can go on and on making up there own set of reality and shouting it out on TV.

  23. raiikun says:

    I honestly don’t see it. That’s the same look I give when I catch someone in the corner of my eye looking my way.

    • Angel says:

      I thought that too. From my point of view, I think she was looking at MOM after the judge confirmed MOM was GZ’s attorney and MOM probably noticed she was staring and stared back. I did wonder why the look of glee was on her face though.

  24. DiwataMan says:

    Why are people claiming that other people are claiming O’Mara is going to throw or lose the case purposefully? Has Sundance or anyone claimed that? My position is that, albeit conspiratorial, this case will go to trial no matter what and the powers that be are going to make sure that happens. The main reason is that no one then but a jury will be responsible for impending riots, everyone has covered their butts.

    Has O’Mara had anything regarding this case that would allow him to file to get the case thrown out? Will he have a SYG hearing? I bet he will but I bet it will also fail, it has to fail or else that judge who would throw the case out then would be the one to have to answer to all of his little buddies as to why he just allowed the State of Florida to be put into a position of potentially losing billions of dollars, lol, nobody want to be that guy, this thing is going to a jury and the decision to make sure that happens probably occurred when Bondi and Scott got together.

    Of course there’s no proof of this, as I said it’s conspiratorial, it’s not like they would announce such a thing. But as I’ve said before, if you look at all of the actions from that day to this, the conspiratorial aspect has the explanatory power to many questions. The big one being; Why was this case taken out of the hands of Wolfinger and put into Corey’s? If you can’t satisfactorily answer that question with the public information available, and you can’t, then what is left?

    O’Mara still can fight honestly and truthfully for George at a trial and not do anything to purposefully throw or lose the case because by that time it won’t matter, the job is done, everyone’s butts are covered, no one person will be responsible and the State will be herald at for trying to serve justice, everyone’s happy.

    • Interested Reader says:

      This is not how a justice system should work. This is political expediency

      • Angel says:

        The prosecution, in a sense, is on trial here as well. They had determined in the early stages of the initial investigation there was not enough evidence to charge GZ because of SYG immunity and that got Wolfinger reported to DOJ. I don’t think they are going to allow that to happen again which probably would if GZ received immunity at a SYG hearing. No, it cannot be that the state frees GZ if he is innocent or not guilty by reasonable doubt. If GZ receives a not guilty for self-defense it will be from the hands of a jury. The problem with that is now he has to place his faith in a jury pool that is tainted and may work against him even though the admissible evidence may prove not guilty. It can be argued that due process SYG for GZ may have been violated and if so, that is where the socio-political aspect is at work in this case. Is it the ideal? Perhaps not but it is what it is.

        • boricuafudd says:

          How about GZ’s civil rights, presumption of innocence, unlawful detainment, due process, etc. for political expediency

          • Angel says:

            GZ (according to Statute 776.013.), still has opportunity to use SYG twice: A SYG hearing or at trial. Under normal circumstances, this statue would have probably prevented an arrest but he can use it as a defense if he is arrested. Doubt he will now.

            If its proven later that due process was violated for GZ because of his arrest, then what the ramifications are I would not even begin to speculate.

        • Aghastinfl says:

          You need to read the Statute it was written specifically for the very purpose of derailing frivolous and predatory criminal charges JUST LIKE THIS CASE, George Zimmerman is a textbook example of what SYG is and why these laws are needed. It is from so-called “~Lawyer~” the likes of Benjamin Crump and Prosecutors akin to Angela Corey that the public need the protection afforded by the statute. If there is evidence of self defense and that evidence is sufficient that a jury would receive such instruction then per the SYG laws the individual is immune from the very pro(per)secution we are witnessing.
          A citizen forced to preserve their own life from another in an act of self defense should never be subjected to the flagrant indecencies of elected officials showboating for a community or a Judge expressing mock rage at a perceived misrepresentation that never should have occurred. We needed this law (SYG) and we need to fully support its use in this case.

          • Angel says:

            I don’t think I wrote anything in my post that suggested that SYG could not be used for that purpose. I acknowledged that SYG, under normal circumstances, would probably have been appropriate to prevent arrest as the State prosecutor called it during the initial stage of the investigation before this blew up. I then stated GZ has two opportunities to use the SYG defense.

            I agree with you: Reading is so fundamental!

            Everyone keeps saying that GZ is being railroaded for political purposes by Crump, Corey and her team, and it appears that is a fact. But they haven’t been charged with anything as far as I know l and all the talk of conspiracies theories so far hasn’t changed the fact that GZ has been, whether justly or not (and I am currently leaning toward the “not” based on the evidence released so far). .

            • Aghastinfl says:

              Yes, but you continue to push toward the ideal of a trial, my point was that had the law been used effectively as written this never would have or should have occurred. Today yes he GZ seems to be headed toward a criminal trial with the opportunity to assert a defense using 776.013, but as Norm Wolfinger originally decided the case never should have, the evidence should have been presented to the GJ as scheduled and ending this entire fiasco before it began; Citizens have a right to defend themselves when confronted in a life threatening situation.
              I just wanted to clarify the difference in our POV, my comment was toward the sum total of you comments not just the one in particular.

    • stephufla says:

      You’re implying that mom has a separate agenda. Why would it be in his interest to comply with a conspiracy?

      • DiwataMan says:

        O’Mara doesn’t really have to fit in my little conspiracy theory for it to work but the judge would have to. It doesn’t even have to be all that conspiratorial really, as I said; being the one responsible to lose billions of dollars is motivation enough to kick this can down to a jury.

    • recoverydotgod says:


      With the BET video seeing/hearing the Trayvon Martin family and attorney hearing Attorney General Pam Bondi (date on screen was March 22) “….believe me I tried…”, now Florida citizens have a clear path to ask Gov. Scott about….

      My question would be: Is the sovereign State of Florida prosecuting George Zimmerman?

    • Angel says:

      “the job is done, everyone’s butts are covered, no one person will be responsible and the State will be herald at for trying to serve justice, everyone’s happy.”

      I agree with this Diwataman. I think the whole point is to just have a trial, no matter what the outcome,and the chips fall where they may. That what was wanted all along by the Martin family anyway. If the point was to have this decided by a SYG hearing, it probably would have been done already. Having a trial means the prosecutors do their duty, and whoever defends GZ do theirs. Doesn’t mean necessarily that it is set up to railroad GZ at the trial. .IMHO, its the SYG hearing that concerned parties wanted off the table.

      • Angel says:

        I would also so that the state prosecutors will really be working at doing their job since they were accused of not doing it before all this blew up. If GZ is to receive a not guilty verdict, it will be a defense working equally hard to get it based on some solid evidence that they will have to really put forth in this case.

    • minpin says:

      So who then will be in the jury pool that hasn’t already been barraged by the negative media campaign that has been taking place, and will continue to take place until a trial occurs? I think the tainting of a jury pool is the goal of many, and the judge, and everyone else have done nothing to counter the negative spin.

      And I will second the comment below, this is not justice, this is political expediency.

    • g8rmom7 says:

      This makes the most sense to me. It’s not so much that O’Mara is going to allow for Zimmerman to be lose and be put in jail for the rest of his life. But he is obviously doing his due diligence to make sure it goes to trial. If this were any other case, it would not have even gotten this far. I know for sure both Scott and Bondi don’t want to be in office when there are race riots. It’s so disappointing because if people could just know the TRUTH…black, white, brown and yellow, none of us would fear race riots and we’d all be celebrating the demise of the race baiters like Sharpton and his ilk.

      That’s why it’s important to remember this is not about Zimmerman…it’s about the government making decisions based on agendas and few race baiters hitting the jackpot. Disgusting.

      And remind you…I voted for both Scott and Bondi! Even contributed to HER campaign! This is why I am so sick of both parties and get daily disgusted with the thought of having to vote for another person that is shoved down my throat as the only choice. Hate.It.

  25. Randy says:

    I’d just advise caution here, guys. O’Mara’s a lefty – there is no way around that. There’s also no way around the collateral damage caused by the bond issues. This case is primarily a GOTV campaign by the media. Gov. Scott did this – not Mark O’Mara.

    O’Mara has neutered Crump with his metered approach. The media strategy is working. Cutting off resources and red-on-red are disaster at this point, IMHO. Pre-trial is a gentleman’s game. Just think back to O’Mara’s very first argument – peanut butter and….?

    • minpin says:

      “O’Mara has neutered Crump with his metered approach.”

      I respectfully ask- what planet are you living on?

      • mooserator says:

        The average person has no clue who Zimmerman’s attorney is – they couldn’t pick him out of lineup.. That’s because there’s been no advocacy, there’s been no effort to shoot down the fairy tales, or rehab George. He occasionally pops up on CNN and denounces George and talks about the price he’s going to have to pay…

        It’s ridiculous, if you think about it.

        I’ve never seen anything like this.

        A defendant has some right and expectation to be defended by his own laywer – we are on the cusp here – I would think – with O’Mara riding the edge of culpability.

        On National TV, he’s had Talking Heads invite him to say his client is innocent and he should be found not-gulity – and O’Mara says, that for a Judge or a fact-finder to decide — and, you must remember, he’s accused of crime HE THINKS HE DID NOT commit!

        Something is wrong.


  26. treemon says:

    This is just my opinion, but if I am going to go with a “conspiracy theory” on this one, i’m going with that this is event is a show for one or possibly two reasons. By show, I mean that its known GZ was legally defending himself when he shot TM and what has happened since about 3/16 has been a show for the public. The first reason for this would be the obvious one which would be to bring calm to the public. It wasn’t that long ago that the riots occurred in LA after the trial of the officers that beat up King and I think this situation had a more national following and could potentially lead to more widespread unrest. IF I am going with a conspiracy theory in this case, this would be the first one I would consider.

    The second angle that could coincide with this could be that the state is looking to use GZ’s situation to nail bigger fish and that parts of team Crump could be the ones truly under investigation. I’m not sure I have a lot of evidence to back this one, but i keep coming back to the interview of Dee Dee. I am not a lawyer and haven’t read or listened to many interviews that prosecutors have conducted of witnesses, but this interview by BDLR was the most odd interview on the record I have ever heard. It almost seemed to me like he was trying to pull false information out of her to show she was tampered with. We already know that Tracy Martin wouldn’t turn cell records over to the cops at Crumps request, hiding the identity of Dee Dee from them for another couple of weeks. There was also an article written shortly after the Martin funeral in which it was stated that Crump had already talked to Dee Dee in early March. Then we have Dee Dees first public interview where a lot of “facts” are incorrect, but could have been contrived based on what was publicly known at that time. Serino could have been the first piece of this and his reassignment was to keep him away from the case and smelling trouble.

    I’m not one for conspiracy theories and I don’t know that I give my theories a ton of weight, but I’d be more inclined to believe these than that the entire system is being played by everyone up to the Gov’s mansion to put an innocent man behind bars.

    • RiseFromBelow says:

      “It almost seemed to me like he was trying to pull false information out of her to show she was tampered with.”

      That’s interesting. I think the State did something similar with SZ during the bail hearing. They had to have known about the money and phone calls but the questions to her seemed to avoid asking her about “estimates” or “best guess” and they didn’t follow up on talking to the brother in law. I think it was a trap. I think we need to be careful about going in the direction that the State is on GZ’s side, though. It’s a stretch and a dangerous one.

      • Jamie O'Connor says:

        It could have also been a trap when O’Mara put GZ on the stand and had him claim under oath that he did not know; 1.) if Trayvon was armed and; 2.) how old Trayvon was, but believed he was just a few years younger than himself.

        The prosecution can always argue when the case goes to trial that GZ lied even then when he stated under oath that he didn’t know how old Trayvon was, while simultaneously playing the tape for the the jury where GZ was telling the NEN dispatcher he believed Trayvon was in his late teens.

        Prosecution to Jury: “This is a complete contradiction and just another example of how GZ manipulates the system, can’t be trusted, and incapable of telling the truth. All he does is lie, lie, lie.”

        I guarantee, GZ’s statement that he gave under oath will come back to haunt him in front of a jury. Once again, who will be responsible for this? None other than O’Mara himself. O’Mara was standing right there next to GZ like a potted-plant, knowing full well GZ’s statements contradicted the NEN tapes.

    • John Galt says:

      “this interview by BDLR was the most odd interview on the record I have ever heard. It almost seemed to me like he was trying to pull false information out of her to show she was tampered with.”

      Or an inept, clumsy, ill prepared prosecutor engaging in prosecutorial misconduct in a conspiracy with a race baiting attorney to manufacture evidence using a defective script.

    • ackbarsays says:

      That interview that BDLR did with DeeDee contains all the evidence we need to know that DeeDee is lying, in my opinion. It all centers on the “iced tea” and the All-Star game. At the time this interview was given, the only things that were public were some of the police reports and witness statements. The “iced tea and skittles” meme was already out there in the black community, and it was based on an incorrect notation in one of the police reports that said a can of Arizona iced tea was found near the body. The “All-Star game halftime” meme was also out there, and it was based (I believe) on Chad Green’s statement that Trayvon had left at halftime of the game.

      So, when DeeDee gave her statement to Bernie, she made two major mistakes. She claimed that Trayvon had left Brenda Green’s house at halftime of the NBA All-Star game, and that he had purchased iced tea and skittles. We know NOW that the NBA All-Star game didn’t start until about 10 minutes or so after Trayvon was killed, and we know NOW that he purchased Arizona WATERMELON COCKTAIL, not iced tea, but at the time she gave her statement, I’m sure that the Scheme Team thought they had a great story that pieced together some of the details that were out there in the media about the shooting. To me, it’s evidence of the complete fabrication that her interview was.

      That’s not even taking into account the other inaccuracies in her statement, or the way that it was obvious that BDLR had coached her, or the way she can’t put 3 words together to form a complete sentence, or the way her voice drops to a whisper at the end of most of her comments, as if she’s looking for someone to nod approval to tell her that she said the right thing. It’s almost like the horse that appears to be able to count, when in reality, it’s watching for a visual cue from its owner to tell it when to stop moving his foot.

      • boricuafudd says:

        You forgot an old white man. I sorry but there is no way a streetsmart kid like TM who lived in Miami would confuse GZ for white. It was done because of GZ surname, who would have thought if you weren’t a bigot that a hispanic man could have Zimmerman as his last name.

  27. RiseFromBelow says:

    Does anyone have information on Don West? The co-council? We haven’t really heard much from him so far. I get the feeling he can be quite aggressive but really don’t know much about him. Maybe MOM chose him to complement his low key style?

  28. MikadoCat says:

    Speaking of the state of FL losing money, has anybody seen anything showing how the case has impacted tourism?

    Why is it we only seem to think of the competency of judges after they are elected? Except for the highest level there seems to be no vetting outside of back room politics, or a few paragraphs in local news.

  29. James Crawford says:

    I had reservations about MOM from the start because of his stated opposition to SYG but was so impressed with his performance at the first bond hearing that I was confident that he could effectively representv GZ in spite of his opinion. Now I am not so certain. MOM’s claim that he was unaware of the legal defense fund donations until after that bond hearing just doesn’t pass the smell test. DID. MOM LEAD HIS CLIENT INTO THE PERJURY TRAP?.

    Finally, I’ll once again post my comments about the mischaracterization in the autopsy about the range at which TM was shot. If this finding was valid, it would refute GZ’s account if how the shooting occurred. If this finding was revealed to O’Mara as well as Sooner and Ulrig before him, then that might have convinced them that their client was lying.

    IMHO, the discrepencie between the ME’s actual observations and his conclusion is so severe that I suspect collusion. The ME’s summary of the incident so closely resembled Serino as well as Crump’s when the ME has no evidence or expertise to make such a determination had already caught my attention. IMHO, Serino talked to the ME the night of the shooting and told him what he thought happened. This either affected the ME’s judgement or recruited him into a defacto conspiracy to railroad GZ.


    I believe that there is an error in the Medical Examiner’s autopsy report that is intentionally prejudicial to conform to Chris Serino’s preconceived scenario of events.

    The ME characterized the wound as being from an “intermediate range” gun shot. Intermediate range generally refers to 1cm to 100 cm. A gun shot of a longer range of nearly 100 cm wouldn’t conform to GZ’s account of drawing his weapon as TM reached for it as they grappled on the ground. This of course would be very incriminating.

    However; the ME autopsy describes the entrance wound as follows:

    “3/8 inch dia round entrance defect with SOOT, RING ABRASION and a 2 x 2 inch area of STRIPPLING.”

    To explain what this all means, I would refer you to this link:

    Ring Abrasion is caused by friction with the bullet as it punctures the skin. This occurs at all ranges.

    Strippling, otherwise known as Tattooing, is caused by partially burned particles of powder impacting the skin. Clothing and other obstructions can prevent strippling from occurring. The density of strippling is dictated by the range but is also affected by the barrel length of the gun. Generally, Strippling is consistent with an intermediate range of 1 cm to 100 cm, hence the ME’s finding.

    However; in reaching the finding that the shot was fired from intermediate range, the ME ignored his own observation of SOOT around the entrance wound. Soot is actually the residue from burned powder. Soot is generally present when the gun was fire from a range of less than 10 centimeters which is more consistent with GZ’s account. It is important to note that the distance that soot will travel is dependent on barrel length. The longer the barrel, the further the soot will travel. GZ’s Kel Tec PF-9 has a barrel length of only three inches which is about as short as they get. Tests should be performed, but I would not expect such a gun to deposit soot on a target from arrange exceeding 5 cm or two inches.

    The simple fact is that the ME lied about the range that TM was shot at to conform to Chris Serino’s theory that GZ was lying.

    • ejarra says:

      I don’ t understand your point. In layman’s terms, intermediate range is less than 4 inches. Are you saying that Serino said that it was greater or less? Intermediate range conforms exactly based on George’s account. Mr. Martin was wearing TWO layers of a sweatshiet material that would impact the Soot/Tattooing.

      What again is the conclusion you’re making? I’m not trying to be arguementative.

      • boricuafudd says:

        Intermediate range extend to 100 cm or 4 feet 2 inches, which distance is the prosecution going to argue. Close range or longer. The appearance of soot says that the distance is closer to contact than that wider longer range.

      • James Crawford says:

        Sundancer posted on the finding of “Intermediate Range” earlier and included this excellent link:

        Here you go:

        Range of Fire:
        1. Contact: muzzle of gun touches target
        – Tight: fouling in tissue, muzzle stamp
        – Loose: fouling on skin and in tissue, searing
        2. Close: 30″ Neither

        *(Distances approximate and depend on many variables. For accurate assessment need to test fire weapon with ammunition used.)

        The definitions of “Intermediate Range” vary by source. However; a finding of Intermediate Range provides the prosecution with evidence to dispute GZ’s account of how the shooting occurred. The presence of SOOT on the skin, even through TM’s hooddie (and what other clothing?) conclusively proves that the shooting was at Close Range or Contact Range which disproved the Crump / Serino narrative of GZ hunting down TM.

        • ejarra says:

          Thanx James, as many here know this is an area or your expertise. So MOM only needs to show the shot pattern on a similarly clothed dummy with the same Make/Model handgun, right?

          • James Crawford says:

            Statisticly significant samples for various ranges are needed.

            More importantly, MOM or a new attorney, need to obtain copies of all autopsy notes, the Audio commentary would be great, and PHOTOGRAPHS! I also want to see the microscopic examination of tissue excised from the entrance wound to see if their are traces of SOOT, unburned powder or metal injected into the wound.

    • jimrtex says:

      The FDLE did a test firing into material cut from the back of Martin’s two shirts, and came to a conclusion that based on fiber damage it was a contact shot (I took this to mean to the cloth).

      The sweatshirt may have hung off Martin’s body as he leaned forward.with the mass of the juice can pulling downward. Zimmerman would be more concerned about getting the gun in the space between their bodies than pushing the barrel into Martin. Zimmerman also said that he was making sure that his left hand was out of the way.

    • jimrtex says:

      Once the EMT made a declaration that Martin was dead, the SFD lieutenant made a declaration that it was a crime scene, and the fire fighters and paramedics said they “backed away”. I took this to mean that they went from doing whatever was necessary to preserve life without regard to preserving evidence to leaving the area with as little further effect as possible. This was at 7:30.

      Serino arrived around 8:00 and called the medical examiner’s office, which is located in Daytona Beach. Under Florida law, the ME has complete authority over the body and items adjacent to it. Serino had to tell them what he knew about the circumstances of death. The ME forensic investigator is making handwritten notes, and that shows up as Serino’s statement. Serino had talked to a couple of police officers (Ayala and T Smith had been dispatched in response to Zimmerman’s call). Serino says that he interviewed T Smith, but if he did so it was by phone, since he had taken Zimmerman to the police station.

      Serino may have made a somewhat neutral statement to the ME, simply to avoid pushing a particular conclusion.

      He knew there was a dead person, who probably died from a gunshot wound, and he knew where the body was located. He could make a reasonable presumption that it was a homicide, that they had the shooter in custody and the gun in possession (which could be useful to the ME in determining the circumstances of death).

      He knew very little about the circumstances of the shooting. He did not know that Martin had fallen to the ground. He did not know why the encounter or altercation had begun.

      This statement ended up in the ME report, and parts in the affidavit of probable cause (eg “confront” and “didn’t belong there”)

      While waiting for the medical examiner, Serino began interviewing witnesses, and called over to the police station to take the cuffs off Zimmerman (ie they did not have probable cause for arrest, given the evidence that Zimmerman had acted in self defense).

      The medical examiner arrived at 9:40, and after looking at the body, permitted the Sanford Police to take the headphones, $40.10 in cash, lighter, Skittles, button, and juice can into possession. After the body was removed at 10:10, the police searched for the cartridge casing (there were a couple of hours of standing around, and interviewing witnesses, Serino interviewed 3 that night).

  30. hugh stone says:

    I always thought that MOM is taking “The tortoise and The Hare” approach. .

    • DiwataMan says:

      Maybe he’ll catch up to the facts of the case when it’s over.

      • howie says:

        Now I am even more confused about the defense. I don’t know about the Tiptoe through the courtroom strategy. So far not so good. I do remember when the Law started. It was because of a rash of Carjackings and Home Invasions. I think it was also because of all the muggings. I think it is a good law myself. But it does not look good to use the SYG defense if you publicly say you do not think it is a good defense. I guess the state is saying George should have run before TM could punch him out. I also noticed his Brother on the TV Clip. If George has the same kind of voice it is clearly him screaming on the 911 call.

        • danalain says:

          I agree! I played a video of Robert jr today, and I had forgotten how high his voice is, and GZ’s is about the same on the 911 calls to NEN. While, Trayvon’s voice sounds pretty low when he answers the phone in 7-11.

      • GBishop says:

        “Maybe he’ll catch up to the facts of the case when it’s over.”

        Thanks! I needed that nasal enema!

    • mooserator says:

      Does the Tortoise get Lynched in the end?

      That’s what’s happening here. The 11 yr old picture of Trayvon has become cemented in people’s minds and they’re not going to accept that sweet young boy would do anything illegal.

      The media coverage and the lack of any pushback or defense will be insurmountable, IMO.


      • minpin says:

        Isn’t that why Obama got elected. There was no effective pushback to counter his Marxist ideologies. It amazes me that in the new media today, there are many many more details that have been uncovered that were never uncovered in 2008. Bush never orchestrated any campaign to pushback on the wild orgy having at it at his expense. This is a total testamont that those that could and should push back never do. I wouldn’t expect any pushback from O’Mara as he is a liberal. I wonder how GZ feels about his personal support for the very same liberals that have not only thrown him under the bus, but have willingly backed up over him yet again. I wonder how GZ may be feeling about his freedoms, and equal justice may be feeling about this. Even though Corey, Scott and Bondi are so-called Republicans, that doesn’t bode well for him coming over to our side. No matter, I doubt GZ will remain in the US when he is finally freed, whether it’s soon, or in 20 years. All Americans should be acutely aware that they too can be in GZ’s shoes, simply for defending themselves. If Scott, Bondo and Corey are representatives of Republicans, I want nothing to do with that party, nothing. That is other than a vote for getting the Marxist lying piece of crap out of the WH.

    • GBishop says:

      More like he’s been working on the railroad!

  31. Bro-cahontas says:

    Yeah, O’mara is too involved in the local politics. The entire system there is incestuous and stepping out of line would have some professional consequences. Not that he would throw the case but, again, it isn’t the search for truth that is going on. The main concern is how to appease the political forces(including the President) and minimize collateral damage. Bunch of self-important smug jerks. They only have power because we have signed the “social contract” that gives them power. If they violate that contract then it is no longer legitimate power they wield.

  32. Lee says:

    I do not read much into the glance. Corey’s mannerisms however are different – she cannot pull off the coy, grinning, affable appearance she tries for in the public – it just doesn’t seem to be who she is. I don’t like the personal statements O’Mara made about his feelings on SYG. When it is all over and he wants to have a debate about SYG – fine – now is not the time. I don’t like his luke warm feelings he portrays nor the lack of zeal he exhibits when speaking about his client. The claws need to come out – if he cannot or will not – Zimmerman needs to find someone who will. So far O’Mara has been wrong about his interpretation of Lester’s court. Zimmerman’s freedom has been in spite of – not because of O’Mara.

    • howie says:

      I would like to see Angela Corey and Ann Finney from the Anthony Trial in a Steel Cage Match. At that hearing I think the information should have been challenged for lack of probable cause for 2nd degree. Florida has a time limit to do so. It is a very short window. As little as 48 hours. I am not sure. If missed the deadline it is more difficult.

  33. MikadoCat says:

    People don’t become lawyers if they like losing. I am still unwilling to toss MOM, mostly because I don’t know how all the personalities will play out in the verdict. Everybody has to be doing a lot of CYA due to the politics.

    Regarding distance, I’m not sure its a real issue, intermediate range includes close enough not to challenge GZ story, plus the base facts about the soot etc are in the report for experts to spin. I’ve read that the Kel Tec PF-9 needs a lot of cleaning due to soot in the barrel building up, could the amount of soot on TM be directly related to how clean GZ kept the gun? BTW none of the discussions of this issue I found via google had any real insight.

    • RUDY says:

      Of course MOM will do whatever it takes to win. He only gets fame and fortune (book offers, law school guest speaker positions, etc..) if he wins the case. He wouldn’t have taken the case if he didn’t think he could win it and if he wasn’t a little greedy for fame.

    • mooserator says:

      He’s not losing – by being loved from MTV to BET he’ll guarantee a huge payoff as a Legal analyst for one of the networks.

      They want someone that looks at things just like he does.


  34. RUDY says:

    What evidence is coming out tomorrow?? I always thought that the prosecution would have at least one bombshell. What possible bombshells could there be left?? What evidence has MOM yet to receive??

  35. splat! says:


    :: This weekend’s “Central Florida Spotlight” offered unusual perspectives on the George Zimmerman case. The opinion show allows WFTV-Channel 9 staffers to open up at length in ways they can’t do on a newscast, and they certainly did this weekend. The show repeats at 4 p.m. Sunday on WRDQ-Channel 27. . . .

    :: Defense attorney Mark O’Mara’s first responsibility is to his client, Sheaffer said. But Sheaffer added that O’Mara is “the ultimate professional” who realizes “there are far-reaching consequences to the questions in this case and to a jury’s verdict. . . .

  36. zane says:

    My problem with OM comes from his association with Shellie Zimmerman. He certainly knew that she would be called to testify at the bond hearing. Why did he not advise her to seek independent council, knowing he could not represent both George, and her? Had Shellie had independent council, that council probably would have advised her to not testify at all, and not put herself into harm’s way when it came to the overzealous Corey. Now Shellie is being charged with perjury, a charge that is rarely lodged against a spouse or parent (see Cindy Anthony’s perjury in the Casy Anthony trial).

    OM has stated that George was wrong for misleading the court, but what in the world did George say in that first bond hearing that even involved his financial status? NOTHING. The court is holding George responsible for what Shellie said, not what he said. It is also obvious that Lester has made predujicial comments about George, comments that OM should be objecting to loudly, yet crickets.

    • howie says:

      + 100

    • Examiner says:

      At the bond hearing, Shelly was making a statement as a witness. How many witnesses come to court witha lawyer for a bond hearing?
      O’Mara was not in control of the Paypal account yet. I suppose that will be his fault too.

      • minpin says:

        There is such a thing that lawyers can and do use all the time, it is called an “Asset Finder.” That would have listed the paypal account and amount that was in it when the request was made. Yes, O’Mara should have been as on top of the paypal account as the prosecutors obviously were.

      • recoverydotgod says:

        Watch the events unfold? Is that advocacy?

        From the Central Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers website…

        Selective Prosecution in Perjury Cases

        “As we watch the events unfold with regards to the perjury charges filed against Shellie Zimmerman…”

        • recoverydotgod says:

          Whole statement at the link….

          Selective Prosecution in Perjury Cases

          Dear Members of CFACDL,

          As we watch the events unfold with regards to the perjury charges filed against Shellie Zimmerman for statements made in a bond hearing relating to the George Zimmerman case, we are reminded of the manner in which State Prosecutors use this recourse when presented with false testimony. Many of us throughout our years of practice have witnessed the State file these charges against defense witnesses, but rarely do we see these same charges levied against the prosecution’s witnesses, even when they have admitted to making false statements. Mr. Lee Barrett, a long time member of CFACDL and FACDL is working along with Rene Stutzman, a writer for the Orlando Sentinel, in writing an article about this selective prosecution. This is a timely issue, and one that would benefit our cause as criminal defense attorneys. We obviously do not advocate the imposition of charges against anyone, however, justice is only justice if it is applied equally to all, including Law Enforcement and other State witnesses. I encourage all of you to contact Mr. Barrett at …….. with any information or personal accounts, particularly instances where the Prosecutor has been presented with evidence of false testimony by one of their own witnesses, and help bring to light the unjust and selective prosecution by State Attorneys in perjury cases.

          Thank you for you attention to this matter.


          Luis F. Calderon, Esq.
          President of CFACDL

    • RiseFromBelow says:

      You do realize that MOM was only GZ’s council for a few days before the bond hearing, right? He became the defense the day GZ was arrested. There’s no way he could have known much of anything so soon. Not what evidence the State had let alone what GZ or SZ would do or say.

      • boricuafudd says:

        He came on the 11th and the hearing was on the 20th, he had knowledge of the websites, what happened was that after GZ was arrested donations came pouring in, before there was only about $7000 and $500, he failed to assume control of them until it was too late. He still could have done something about it by notifying the court before the prosecution called for next hearing. It might have mitigated what happened.

      • Monday April 9th – Corey cancels grand jury, GZ Contacts Najame, Najame refers O’Mara

        Tuesday April 10th – GZ creates, Defense Lawyers quit. *Najame and O’Mara meet discuss professional courtesy referrall and case* Najame on CNN discussing fundraising website.

        Wednesday April 11th – *Najame and O’Mara phone call* GZ Arrested, O’Mara goes public with his retention.

        Thursday April 12th – First Court Appearance, Plea, with Judge Recksiedler. O’Mara and GZ together *video above*..

        Friday April 20th – Bond hearing.

        Regarding GZ defense fund. O’Mara knew 4/10.

        O’Mara knew and GZ Screwed

        • sybilj says:

          Operative words being “sort of” … twice.

          …When asked by reporters after Thursday’s [April 12th] hearing how many “Stand Your Ground” cases he has handled, O’Mara said: “Self-defense cases, which is really what you’re speaking of, a number of them. It shows up in a lot of personal crimes.”

          “I have not had one to a jury since the ‘Stand Your Ground’ statute, but I’ve had a couple that have utilized that as … sort of an impact on it,” he added.

          …O’Mara, a former president of the Seminole County Bar Association, said Zimmerman’s family contacted him about representing him and then he spoke with his new client, according to

          (Longtime friend and civil attorney Joseph) Flood said he spoke with O’Mara on Wednesday [April 11th] while he was deciding whether to take the case. Flood said he thought the case was a good fit.

          “I told him I think he should take the case, that I thought he’d be the perfect lawyer for it,” he said.

          On Rock Center with Brian Williams on Wednesday night [April 11th], O’Mara said: ‘Certainly self-defense seems to have presented itself as part of the one facet of the defense, and yes, the hold your ground statute, which sort of … authorizes or codifies the standard of self-defense in Florida is going to be one of the things that we’re going to look into.”

          “We have to look at what the statute says that is presently the law in Florida, it may be up for review because of this case,” he said. “But presently, that statute basically says if a person is in reasonable fear of … great bodily injury or death they can react to it. We need to see what the facts say to support which way it happened.”

          • howie says:

            Now if I was a suspicious type I would be worried that this whole deal was cooked up to put on pressure for a Plea Bargain. I have never been able to get past the first few hearings. It all just seemed too fishy. I just do not know what to believe in this mess. The only thing that would dispel my doubts would be some evidence I don’t know about.

        • minpin says:

          Good God in Heaven SD. My prayers will be answered if there is some kind of proof that O’Mara knew about the paypal account before the bond hearing. He mildly admitted to knowing about those accounts to Piers Morgan. He answered DLR’s question in the bond hearing by saying that “he hadn’t had a chance to look into those accounts. I know he knew about those accounts before than bond hearing, but set up GZ and SZ to take the fall. It fits with his comments in public that GZ and SZ were not honest with the judge, just to cover his crap stained arse, kinda.

          • When was the prostate foundation fundraiser?

            • sybilj says:

              Good question.

              Here’s the launch.

              New prostate cancer foundation pushes awareness, research
              2:23 a.m. EST, March 3, 2012|
              By Kate Santich, Orlando Sentinel
              A renowned prostate-cancer surgeon is working to make Central Florida the global epicenter of the battle against the disease — the No. 2 cancer killer of men — by launching a charitable foundation to promote education and research on genetic testing and more sophisticated treatment options.

              • sybilj says:

                Dayum! March 10th!!!


                NBA All-Star Legend Oscar Robertson speaks out to create awareness! Oscar not only sits on the board of the Foundation, he will also be the Honorary Chair of the Foundations Launch Gala on March 10th. We are so grateful for his help here at The International Prostate Cancer Foundation.

                In Partnership with Julison Communications and 2u Creative we have been working on a National Public Relations Campaign to promote the launch of the foundation and educate the public on some of the important facts of prostate cancer! Yesterday Oscar participated in a Media Tour that helped us officially launch The International Prostate Cancer Foundation and create awareness world wide on the importance of getting screened.


                • Bingo Baby – And on that note, I’ll just tell ya I left Orlando earlier today. More to come soon.

                  • sybilj says:




                    The NBRPA was founded in 1992 by basketball legends Oscar Robertson, Dave Bing, Dave DeBusschere, Dave Cowens and Archie Clark, and works in direct partnership with both the NBA and National Basketball Players Association.


                    NBA All-Star Legend Oscar Robertson speaks out to create awareness! Oscar not only sits on the board of the Foundation, he is also the Honorary Chair of the Foundations Launch Gala that will be held March 10th. I am so grateful to be working alongside one of NBA’s greatest legends in conjuncture with The International Prostate Cancer Foundation.

                    Dr. Vipul Patel, a renowned prostate-cancer surgeon, has operated on more than 5,000 men from around the world, including Oscar Robertson which is how the former NBA legend got involved. In launching this foundation, Dr. Patel’s goal is to make Central Florida the global epicenter for the battle against prostate cancer, a disease that is currently the number 2 cancer killer among men.

                    In Partnership with Julison Communications and The International Prostate Cancer Foundation we have been working on a National Public Relations Campaign to promote the launch of the foundation and educate the public on some of the important facts of prostate cancer! Thursday, February 22nd Oscar participated in a Media Tour that helped us officially launch The International Prostate Cancer Foundation and create awareness world wide on the importance of getting screened. The measures being taken by the Foundation will help educate men worldwide about the danger of prostate cancer and hopefully as a result we will all see the battle of this cancer become increasingly less threatening to men everywhere.

                  • Don’t forget the Orlando Fundraiser for Who? John Morgan and Basketball ;)

                  • ctdar says:

                    Ok just because you mentioned basketball & Morgan… i googled. Look who dined at Morgans house last fall and raised @$1,000,000 for hiscampaign


          • howie says:

            Don’t forget the credibility coordinated attack. Including the defense saying the credibility is a problem. I just shake my head.

  37. WestTexasFLA says:

    Now I do not know if there is a “conspiracy” that includes MOM to frame and railroad GZ….However…

    If you still believe that MOM is doing a good job representing GZ….then I got a nice 1957 Edsel, rarely driven, that I would like to sell you….

    SD has been spot-on repeatedly with his discoveries regarding this case, and recently w MOM. Fact is…GZ needs to fire MOM…and NOW. Get another lawyer, and quickly. And, get one from outside the Orlando/Brevard County area. He will be able to find one, just has to be dilligent

    I think people really need to wake up w MOM. He is awful. I am not sure yet if he is trying to railroad GZ…but that ain’t me laying down those rails and spikes….

    • stephufla says:

      What would be his motive to railroad Z?

      • DizzyMissL says:

        To get the law repealed.

        • stephufla says:

          So he would betray every ethical legal standard, put his ability to earn a living on the line, risk disbarment, for political ends? Over a law he doesn’t agree with? All lawyers practice law and have to negotiate around law they don’t agree with. If that was his agenda, and he was activist, he would join the Crump machine

          • DizzyMissL says:

            What does your husband think about the public comments the MOM has made Steph? I asked once before and never heard back from you.

          • boricuafudd says:

            I agree to some extent, he does not have to throw the case all he has to do is not apply the law for his client, get him off on standard self-defense argument. This would imo show that the law is needless, enhanced his standing within his legal community.

      • minpin says:


        • stephufla says:

          How would throwing the case get him $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

          • minpin says:

            First of all steph I never said he was “throwing the case.” That was your language. I have argued that taking the case to trial, and not going for SYG defense nets O’Mara more money, win or lose the legal bills still get paid. Once this goes to trial he makes many of his attorney buddies happy because they can run in with civil lawsuits out the wazooooo. That way everyone is happy, right? Except GZ that will be paying those costs for the rest of his life.

            • Omar says:

              Stephufla….In order for an attorney to be disbarred, the FLBA would have to be willing to disbar him. Seriously….that’s a joke. Are you saying that all unethical lawyers have been disbarred? Who are the members of the bar association that would disbar O’mara? And I’m not saying he is purposely “throwing” the case. But you can get the exact same result by not vigorously defending your client.

          • DizzyMissL says:

            Come on steph. You have to know the answer to that question.

  38. Sundancecracker,

    You Sir are a true stand up guy. Your contribution to the new media phenomena is immeasurable. You have added and you continue to add cohesion to the integrity of what is ‘right of center’ as well as to our society wholly . My prayers are with the Zimmermans and you as well. I wish I were able to assist you with this, unfortunately my investigative skills are very limited, however I would like to share something:

    For those of you not aware of the ‘No Nobility Clause’ of the U.S. Constitution and the original Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution which was stolen and replaced with the emancipation thirteenth we have now. I assure you a little understanding of this issue will produce a great deal of understanding just exactly WTF is going on with George and the rest of our “legal” system for that matter.

    Sound Crazy? Do not discredit this without seeking the truth. I have begun a series on it at:

    Good luck to all and keep up the good work . . . America needs you!

  39. easern2western says:

    the martins are the worst liars in the world. first they say they believe in the justice system, but then they tell the reporters that they would not rest till zimmerman is punish for killing his son. Basically they just lied in front of the camera and the media.

  40. Examiner says:

    I’d like to know what it is that O’Mara has not done – in the courtroom – that is deficient?
    He fell on his sword over a passport that he knew nothing about. He didn’t know the extent of the paypal funds and he didn’t know about the phone calls at the hearing that led to the revocation.
    I don’t see how these things are a deficiency on his part.

    • howie says:

      A lawyer is supposed to look before he leaps.

    • mwsomerset says:

      I don’t think O’Mara is being deficient. Apparently O’Mara has not gone of national TV 24/7 shouting to the roof tops that Zim is innocent. Instead he is spending his time reviewing the evidence and coming up with a game plan. O’Mara has other cases he has to work on as well since he took Zim’s case pro bono.

    • GBishop says:

      “He fell on his sword over a passport that he knew nothing about.”

      No, George fell on the sword of his lawyer’s laziness and incompetence! Lets separate fact from fiction!

  41. Popeye's Spinach says:

    Red flags from the beginning:

    Obama getting involved with Zimmerman becoming part if his campaign to “prove” AA’s are unjustly treated by America and that he is their only hope for “justice”. A patently false statement discovered when Ulhrig the attorney stepped up to the plate and stated a 6 foot 3 inch male is no child. He would have discovered further and outlined in public detail (Obama’s black son) was a drug dealer, user and thug wannabe. Obama is desperate for campaign money, collecting far more than he uses for TV spots and normal course of campaigning. Why? Because, like his proven efforts to pay off folks like Rev Wright, he needs extraordinary sums to pay off media and other key parties.

    2. Suddenly these lawyers (like Justice Roberts) does an about face in public of course (when it was not necessary) to embarrass George. Money talks.

    3. Corey gets rid of the Grand Jury (Huge red flag).

    4. OMara steps to the front. In one of his first interviews on TV, he exhibits tears for Trayvon’s parents and nuances that he is a plea bargain specialist. You just know where that’s going. Pro Bono work?

    Omara obviously wasn’t vetted by the family for his views on SYG. What was going on with the GZ fund and how much of it did Omara already know about it?

    • Popeye's Spinach says:

      Those funds from my understanding are frozen and even O Mara has no access?

      • Popeye's Spinach says:

        Also it seemed odd that O Mara stated he would take over the GZ fund and freeze it. Democrats as usual feel someone else’s donated money is THEIR money? GZ has a right to those funds because it was donated in his name and for the purposes of he & his family to battle the media and Obama giants.

        • mwsomerset says:

          O’Mara has no control over the money. It’s unfortunate that you don’t understand why O’Mara made this move regarding the money. O’Mara didn’t want the public’s perception to be that Zim was profiting off the death of an individual.

          • Popeye's Spinach says:

            So much for public opinion. It’s unfortunate that move to freeze the account “on behalf of” public opinion went nowhere. George is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. Those donations were intended for George, an indigent, to DEFEND himself against giant thug players in the industry of supposed justice. People who donated to GEORGE FOR JUSTICE intended it for just that purpose. The concept of profiteering originates in the minds of the other side. Everyone in the public who is in George’s side knows that money is for his protection. Only Crump and his trashcan public relations would tell you otherwise.

            • Lee says:

              Agreed – the money is Zimmerman’s. I gave willingly to a working man, who was forced from his job and his home by a band of vigilantes.

        • M4 says:

          He had to do that to make sure the judge and everyone else understood that the money was not being socked away by Zimmerman in preparation for a flight from prosecution. He couldn’t have taken over the funds without Zimmerman’s consent and transfer of the funds to O’Mara.

  42. Jay says:

    When I watched the video of O’Mara and his comments in regards to the SYG and Trayvon Martin I was shocked. I would never have a lawyer represent me that is against a law that could clear me. I had no knowledge of this video till yesterday. Has anyone looked into O’Mara past to find out why he is against it. Could he have had a family member or friend killed and the person got off using SYG.

  43. mooserator says:

    The only way to win this case is to take on the Fairy Tales and Media Myths.

    I believe he thinks he’s going to let Trayvon stand as a very special caring young man with a beautiful smile and heart – and to try to rehab George.

    If they’re are two good guys out there that night – George is rotting in prison for most of his Natural born life.

    I have said that from the beginning – MOM has been MIA when it comes to the Fairy tales of this case.


  44. bill says:

    Sorry I can’t believe o’mara is against his own client

    • DiwataMan says:

      If I did not know who O’Mara was when watching that video I would thin he’s working for team Crump-A-Dump

      • danalain says:

        That video is strong evidence against OMara. He fed right in to the angry crowd’s understandable questions, and confirmed their worst fears. He had this opportunity to educate and clear up the misunderstanding by saying “If someone is killing you, you can defend yourself.” But, he answered, “under the SYG law, Yes.” (Yes GZ can get by with murder.)

        • ackbarsays says:

          Actually, he said “Well, under certain circumstances with our laws THE WAY THEY ARE TODAY, the answer would be yes.” Then he followed that up by saying that other people call the Stand Your Ground law the “License to Murder” law. Why would a defense attorney who might use SYG give an interview where he calls that law the License to Murder law? What is he up to?

          • thefirstab says:

            I found that not only odd, but possibly alluding to “a change is gonna come”…. Good question, why WOULD an atty representing someone in a self-defense homicide refer SYG that way? I OBJECT – Inflammatory and misleading (IANAL)

      • ctdar says:

        6 Interviewer “Police told Zimmerman not to interfer” ?

        yet another example of media just making things up as they go along

  45. mwsomerset says:

    It’s too bad that the discussion here at the Tree House is now turning into conspiracy theories based on flimsy “evidence”….a “look” between Corey and O’Mara, a general statement O’Mara made on BET about the SYG law and his nuanced comments reflecting how a lot of the people of this country were feeling at the time of Trayvon’s death. I do hope y’all give O’Mara credit if Zim walks….and if a jury finds him guilty….I guess y’all can spend hours parsing every word, look and deed to support your conspiracy theories that somehow this case is about President Obama getting reelected and the Republican officials in Florida from the governor to the prosecutor to the judge are somehow complicit. O’Mara was real clear when he took this case that he would not be trying it in public. He is doing his best not to do this and at times will make a general comment about events that have occurred in the case. The only people that need to be totally convinced of Zim’s innocence are the people on the jury. I still have faith in O’Mara, the clear evidence that supports Zim’s claim of self defense and the good people who will serve on the jury.

    • minpin says:

      “O’Mara was real clear when he took this case that he would not be trying it in public.”

      If that is the case then why is he talking about the case at BET? on CNN? and publically stating that his client and his wife were not honest with the judge? Sounds alot to me like he is trying at least a part of the case in the public domain. If an attorney representing me went to the public and called me a liar, he would be gone yesterday. That’s not being humble, that’s being dumb.

      I love how people are willing to bank on every word O’Mara says, but when it comes to GZ, not so much.

      • mwsomerset says:

        Zim didn’t fire O’Mara after being called out for not being truthful…because Zim knew he wasn’t being truthful about his finances. It was pretty obvious to most people after reading the transcripts of the calls that Zim and his wife knew they had tens of thousands of collars at their disposal. They used this money to pay off bills. I’m just glad that O’Mara was able to get a second bond….Lester was mad about the deception as he should have been.

        • howie says:

          Lester was informed of the money as soon as Omara got it 4 days after the hearing. Lester was informed of all of it. He should have never let Shellie be charged. He should have never revoked bond. Omara should never have let it happen. This is Fishy.

          • howie says:

            Right after Z got out and was in a safe place he, his wife, and family, gathered all the money and the Passport and sent it in to Omara. Omara then informed the court of the mistake in the hearing. It was laid out in the open 4 days after the 1st bond hearing and Lester knew it.

            • Susiejoe says:

              And if GZ had not had a GPS monitoring device on him, what would he have done? I know what I would have done if I had been in his shoes and that would have been to seize the opportunity to get the heck away from such a mess.

              • deblyn27 says:

                I know this wasn’t for me, but I read it, and thought to myself….I really don’t think he would run. He is doing everything he is supposed to, legally, to get out of this mess. He doesn’t want any more trouble. You see how he looks at the hearings, the man is scared, nervous,and just wants this to be over. But he always does what is asked of him. One person in this whole mess…George has got morals, above anyone else.

                • ArkansasMimi says:

                  Exactly, he was paying off current bills, as has been said multi times, WHO would do that if they were gonna run?

          • mwsomerset says:

            No doubt Lester was being a jerk about the money….his point was that O’Mara stood up in court and claimed his client to be indigent (based on what Zim has told O’Mara)…which wasn’t the case at the time.

            • howie says:

              I am saying that according to Florida law a witness who recants a lie or misstatement is not subject to the perjury penalty. As long as the recantation is not made on duress or fear of discovery. Clearly the Zimmermans gave full disclosure to Omara 3 or 4 days after the hearing. He gave the information to Lester. It took the few days to get to a safe place and gather the money to give to Omara. This thing stinks to High Heaven. So why the heck was the bond revoked and Shellie charged a few weeks later? It makes no sense.

            • minpin says:

              How do you know what Zimm told O’Mara and when? Do you have recorded phone calls, emails, or any other means of communication between the two.

              Since you are familiar with the other jailhouse phonecalls, are you also familiar with the one where GZ tells SZ that he was trying to get in touch with O’Mara but his calls were blocked? Do you know for a fact that GZ and/or SZ didn’t tell O’Mara everything? No of course you don’t, but you are willing to take O’Mara’s words as gospel.

              • danalain says:

                We know O’Mara knew about the money because he told abouit it on CNN to Anderson Cooper about 3 days after the bond hearing. The next day he told Lester about it. But, he should have filed a motion preventing prosecution for perjury that goes along with corrected information stated at any hearing.

                • howie says:

                  Thank you. This is what I have been stuck on about Omara. My main problem with him. Unless there is evidence I am not aware of.

    • RiseFromBelow says:

      I have to agree. No disrespect to sundance or the other people who have a done a lot of good work, but it may be time to take a step back, take a deep breath and clear our minds. Not everything is a conspiracy. Not everyone would be involved even if it was. I do think politics play greatly, but GZ being free should be our goal. Let’s not try and take on the political machine. Focus on an innocent man being free.

    • MWSomerset says:

      O’Mara was real clear when he took this case that he would not be trying it in public


      That must be why he conducted 68 media interviews, held 5 pressers, and appeared on TV 42 different times between April 11th and April 23rd.

      Move along…. move along…. nothing to see here….. move along folks…. move along…..

      • chopp says:

        Yep. Less time on television appearances and more time preparing your wits and working the case would made a hell of a difference here.

      • GBishop says:

        Didn’t Om get paid for those appearances. Its high profile and he is a businessman like he said. Wonder what they paid him?

    • ackbarsays says:

      You said “The only people that need to be totally convinced of Zim’s innocence are the people on the jury.”

      I think the biggest point many of us are trying to make is that this case should never go to a jury. If GZ had a real advocate right now, we’d be talking about when the Stand Your Ground hearing is going to take place and it would be a big “IF” this goes to a jury, not when.

  46. Craw63 says:

    Again, I ask a question, does anybody know how or why GZ got MOM for GZ’s attorney?
    I’ve been feeling for quite some time that he had an attorney that was not really interested in defending GZ. This all just proves it.
    I sure hope GZ fires MOM!!!!

    • RiseFromBelow says:

      I don’t think this blog post proves anything. I think sundance is upset because he thinks MOM should be more aggressive. That he should be attacking. I don’t agree. Emotions need to settle down. People need to be able to consider the possibility that GZ acted in self-defense. If MOM goes on the attack then those that believe GZ’s guilty won’t listen. They will just push back.

      I think sundance is upset because he thinks MOM should be more aggressive.

      Errr, how about putting it this way please. I think Sundance is upset because he knows MOM is intentionally NOT being aggressive because he has an agenda. That would be more accurate. Thank you….. /SD

      • mwsomerset says:


      • James Crawford says:

        The most important things that MOM needs to do are:

        Understand that the ME’s conclusion in the autopsy report that TM was shot at “INTERMEDIATE RANGE” which obviously contradicts GZ’s account is false and refuted by the ME’s own observation of SOOT around the entrance wound.

        Publisize the ME’s blatantly false conclusion and get the ME as well as Det Serino on the stand, (perhaps in an appeal of the excessive bond requirement) to explain how Serino and the ME had discussed Serino’s theory of events which encouraged the ME to tailor his conclusion to conform to Serino’s scenario.

        Publisize the autopsy photos which might reveal evidence that TM might have even been shot at CONTACT range rather than CLOSE range.

        • mwsomerset says:

          You don’t get to make the evidence fit the account….the account needs to fit the evidence. It is possible in the split second that Zim fired the gun Tray had set up in an attempt to get off Zim since he had the gun…and his chest wound would have been at the intermediate range….8 inches away.

          • James Crawford says:

            Absolutely true. However; a finding of Intermediate range shooting is also consistent with the Crump – Serino scenario of GZ stalking the sweet, innocent chil’ ’cause he is rayceest then shooting him without provocation then laying down on the wet grass to bang his head on the concrete to make it appear that there was a struggle.

            The point of the matter is that the ME, no doubt at Serino’s request, did distort and misrepresent the evidence to support the Crump – Serino narrative of events. This not only put GZ in legal jeopardy, it provided Crump with ammunition to incite a riot.

            If a recent posting of alleged Emails that Crump sent to O’Mara suggesting that theta were good reasons for Sooner and Ulrig to withdraw representation from GZ, then it is also possible that Serino gave copies of the autopsy to Crump which he then presented to O’Mara, Sooner and Ulrig to undermine their faith in their client’s integrity.

            The ME is a LIAR!!!!

        • You know if you read the report from the FDLE on the garments worn by TMt and match it with he autopsy report this argument about intermediate range is moot. The FDLE report states “both holes display residues and physical effects consistent with a contact shot”. So very close range IMO.

      • Lou da Jew says:

        MOM did a fine job at the last bond hearing. It is now time to be aggressive in the media and question who Trayvon Martin really was. we can’t find out anything unless the records are UNSEALED. the media only attacks George, and never questions Trayvon. WHY? because we don’t know anything about Trayvon. why? because his school records are sealed. there are allegations that he punched a school bus driver.

        • Jasper says:

          No one questions Trayvon because they dont want to appear as if they are smearing a “murdered child” in order to help clear his murderer. Nobody in the main stream is going to do this- it is going to take the work of people such as SD and others here to get these details out.

          • mwsomerset says:

            Totally agree….once this case goes to trial and the evidence is presented that paints Trayvon as a little thug then the media can start “questioning” Tray’s character.

            • boricuafudd says:

              I doubt that the prosecution will say anything about how good or nice TM is and open the door for rebuttal. Same thing as to why would TM attack GZ, because it will allow the defense to talk about drugs their effects etc.

  47. Jay says:

    I think the cameras and national attention is the reason for the look Corey had. Cameras and the spot light seem to turn these people into complete idiots. It happen with the OJ trial everybody remembers judge ito and the prosecution. Casey Anthony trial same thing complete morons. I don’t think there should be any cameras media cause to much of a distraction. Nobody wants to screw up on national tv but they usually do.

  48. Angel says:

    “The defense team maintains that Mr. Zimmerman has a strong self-defense claims, and that is what we will be focusing on in the months ahead.” MOM.

    Doesn’t indicate a SYG hearing in GZ’s future

  49. DizzyMissL says:

    I saw that interview with MOM when it was first aired and I have not trusted him since.

    • RiseFromBelow says:

      I think he knows what he’s doing. He can’t succeed with a frontal attack. He’s playing chess and the long game.

  50. mooserator says:

    MOM: It’s an absurd statute. Now, they’re a number of people that have been QUOTE exonerated ….

    I have never, in all my life, heard a Defense lawyer speak anywhere close to this – and to be interviewed for this case – and shooting down the means of that client having their case dismissed, and going further, and implying they wouldn’t be validly exonerated, if that comes to be, is criminal considering his position as protector of George Zimmerman.

    The “Quote exonerated” is chilling in context.


    • DizzyMissL says:

      Chilling is the exact right word.

    • howie says:

      Corey could have an easier case charging Tracy Martin with Negligent Manslaughter than Zimmerman. He failed to supervise his child and it led to him being killed. That much is clear. He was responsible for his kid not Zimmerman.

    • myopiafree says:

      I am certain that O’Mara is a nice guy. But if my lawyer told the Press, that, “…I think I am INNOCENT..” – what the hell is the implication of that statement? If I found out about that statement, I would find another lawyer. GZ is in a very bad position to do that. But further, if my lawyer stated that the concept of “Castle” or Stand Your Ground” – was a JOKE – that lawyer would be incompetent to research the use of “SYG” for my benifet. It is very difficult to “change horses mid-stream” – but those statements are concerning.

    • mwsomerset says: This would be the type of SYG case O’Mara might have been referring to. The shooter in this case walked and I find that apalling..

  51. Geosqt says:

    I’m at a loss for words. My heart is heavy as my suspicions have just been confirmed. I hope MOM reads this and takes a long hard look in the mirror. George deserves justice. Nothing more, nothing less. I hate feeling this hopeless and all I can do is pray…

  52. ejarra says:

    After reading what SD wrote this AM and this thread I agree with the those here in support of MOM. I could not imbrace the concept that MOM would be willing to distroy his career to side with the devil. One of the big reasons to get a case like this and act pro-bono is to get large future cases. The only way to do that, is to WIN.

    Now, “the glance”. When one takes a statement out of context, it can be demonstrably different than what is intendend. In this case “the glance” is also. When one watches it in its intirety for the few seconds; it too it changes to “see you in court”, as in I’m gonna win.

    I still believe the problem lies with Lester and his prejudices. I started thinking about whether he reads the Orlando Sentinal and if he had been swayed by the writings of Weiner and Stutzman. There had to be a reason for him to say that the prosecutions evidence is strong at the first bond hearing.

  53. Jay says:

    I apologize in advance if this has been posted already but I just came across it.

    • John Galt says:

      Wow. Makes me wonder who might be posting here on behalf of Corey.

      • Jay says:

        Me too. I have been posting here a few months and have noticed people say that some posters seem to have knowledge about thing before they are public.

      • Jay says:

        Best way to find out is to study how black sheep posts then pay close attention here. I found a post from Blacksheep unrelated to the TM case. I’m sure there is more out there I’ll keep looking.

        Blacksheep 10/04/11 – 11:13 am 00
        It’s amazing how the haters
        It’s amazing how the haters can twist a story. Too bad defamation of character comes with phony names.
        Donnie D – your comprehension skills are bull crap! No more money has been added to the SAO budget. Corey is doing what everyone has been calling for – instead of filling high salaried positions, she’s spreading the responsibilities and monies to the next level hard working employees – they haven’t had raises in three years.
        Mr. Obveeus – (obviously a former employee who did not make the cut) you can criticize Corey all you want but even her greatest haters cannot deny her intelligence or integrity.
        WRR1 – Angela does not want MORE money. She’s simply redistributing the funds made available through attrition.
        Get your facts straight before you criticize. Cutting library budgets from city funds has nothing to do with SAO’s state provided funding.
        Corey has been in office almost 3 years and has done everything she promised to do during the campaign. Too bad the haters will never admit it.

    • froggielegs says:

      “Corey’s anger hasn’t all been behind the scenes. In a Jan. 24 phone call to FW editor Anne Schindler, she accused Folio Weekly of libeling her”

      LOL is there anyone she hasn’t accused of libeling her? You would think after one or two people saying things about her that she would look in the mirror and see what is wrong. But then again, she most likely broke all the mirrors by looking in them.

  54. sybilj says:


    “Tough prosecutor” Corey was brought in to over-charged GZ (now known as “liar”) with second-degree murder, thus allowing Courthouse Crowd card-carrying member and plea-happy O’Mara to bargain down to manslaughter, (the charge most predicted and the police originally sought.)

    The Scheme Team will “reluctantly” accept the agreement; citing lack of evidence due to shoddy police investigations, “witness tampering, ” and the need to ‘spare the family’ further duress of a trial, … yada, yada, yada. After all, it’s the civil suits the ST is seeking.

    All will harmoniously join hands calling for the repeal of SYG. Scott will sign new “TM” legislation, while negotiating another big, fat payoff to Crump & Co.

    • sybilj says:
      …(Corey) served on the Transition Teams for both Governor Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi.
      August 29, 2008
      …Corey also named felony prosecutors Mark Borello, Bernie de la Rionda and John Guy to her transition team Tuesday. She worked with all three extensively before leaving the office in 2006.

    • Examiner says:

      Believe it or not, most criminal defendants are guilty. Yes, it’s true.
      I don’t know if Mr. O’Mara is “plea-happy”, but since the clients are usually guilty, it seems that pleas bargains are a way to acheive the best outcome for the defendant/client.
      If he was a go-for-broke type, he would not have much of a future as a defense attorney.

      • Examiner says:

        I forgot to ask you what is the mechanism where the governor (I guess you mean the state of FL) gives money to Crump as related to this case?

        • sybilj says:

          Civil rights violations and conspiracy charges against State Attorney’s Office (and Sanford Police).

          See also: Martin Lee Anderson>Crump>Crist, etal=$7.2million

          • Examiner says:

            If you mean that the state of FL has violated TM’s civil rights, how exactly did that happen?

            • recoverydotgod says:


              Crist and several other lawmakers successfully pushed for the settlement this spring despite the Legislature’s general distaste for claims measures.

              The state has already paid Anderson’s parents $200,000, the most allowed by law without legislative approval. The bill signed by Crist pays the remaining $4.8 million.

              “What’s being done here today is the right thing to do,” Crist said just before signing the document. “No dollar amount can bring Martin back. It’s just.”

            • sybilj says:

              I did NOT mean the State of FL violated TM’s civil rights!! Scheme Team may argue TM’s civil rights were violated under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. (But that’s as far as I go down THAT road. Do your own research.)

              • Examiner says:

                Ok, but I’m still at a loss as to what hope for a monetary settlement/Award the Trayvon Benjamin Martin Has Been Wronged So Somebody Pay Us Lots of Money Family Enterprises, LLC ® ™ operation has when the only person who they will be allowed to name in any suit is GZ.

                • stellap says:

                  There are many cases where civil damages are awarded when the criminal case is concluded with a ‘not guilty’ verdict (OJ Simpson is a famous one). As long as Stand Your Ground is not valid, they can sue GZ.

                  • Examiner says:

                    Yes, and O.J. was the defendant in that case, nobody else. And in this case, it’s GZ and nobody else. You can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip. GZ is tapped out. Civil case yields no money.

                • nameofthepen says:

                  @Examiner, who says, : “Ok, but I’m still at a loss as to what hope for a monetary settlement/Award…when the only person who they will be allowed to name in any suit is GZ.”

                  Your Career Aptitude Test got a low score for the category, “Lawyer/Attorney”. ;)

                  Always sniff out the deep pockets. I bet The Retreat at Twin Lakes’ Homeowners Association have a nice fat liability insurance bond…

      • Popeye's Spinach says:

        So from MOM’s standpoint when he took on the case …….. Z is guilty, and MOM is doing him a favor buying him a plea bargain.

        • myopiafree says:

          That seems to be O’mara’s idea. GZ loses big time if he does a “plea deal”. He need a better lawyer – versed in “Stand Your Ground”. O’Mara is not that lawyer.

    • mwsomerset says:

      Or…once O’Mara got all the facts and evidence in this case and realized that George did have a right to shoot Tray O’Mara hired West to help take this to court instead of plea to manslaughter.

    • Everyone “BOOK MARK” sibilj’s prediction – IMHO She’s right on the money.

    • kathy says:

      I think you are absolutely 1000% correct on this. To me, it seems as plain as day. The only hope is that George will stand by his principles and refuse to take the deal. But I couldn’t blame him if he does. This case is the worst travesty I’ve ever seen up close. It makes me ashamed to be a member of the bar and I honestly can’t say I would have blamed George if he HAD taken the money and ran. To honestly believe that with my heart is just so overwhelming :::sigh:::

  55. Gretchen says:

    New here (to commenting). Just have to say that the glance between MOM and Corey speaks volumes. Think about situations in your own life when you exchanged glances with someone in a similar situation…something secret, something you wanted to keep secret but still wanted to communicate to the other person. The way MOM looks away to deflect from the glance is classic. Corey, however, couldn’t hide her delight. Sickening. Praying for George.

    • Examiner says:

      I looked at the video. Corey is looking at either O’Mara or GZ, or both. O’Mara picks up on the fact that she is staring.
      If I took notice that someone near me was staring at me, I think I would probably look back for at least the 1/2 second that O’Mara did. And I saw no verticle motion of a nod, so I don’t get where that is coming from.

    • Cupcakes says:

      Yep. Such looks are typically not exchanged by those who are on opposite teams, but by those who both know what is going on and are on the “same side”.

    • Welcome Gretchen. Nice to see you.

      Mark O’Mara and Angela Corey are both Romans trying to figure out how to hold down Zimmerman’s feet while someone else does the nailing, yet avoid the ire from the crowd…. Prayers indeed needed.

      • Walther PPK says:

        SD, about O’Mara and Corey, they are more like pharisees than Romans but yeah that is generally about right what you are saying

  56. zauber says:

    The self defense law is one thing and ‘stand your ground’ is quite another. You have to spend a lot of time in court to really appreciate the finer distinctions but ‘stand your ground’ gives you more of an affirmative defense when you are trying to defend your client after he’s shot/stabbed/severely beaten a thug who’s tried to mug/batter him. The ‘stand your ground’ laws received a solid thumping at numerous panel discussions during the Essence Fest this week, not self defense but ‘stand your ground’ in particular. There are many out there who do not believe that some solid citizen should be able to defend him/herself against a ‘good asskickin’ from a thug by shooting or otherwise severely injuring the attacker. I’ve watched a number of court trials, civil and criminal, where the defendant has used deadly or potentially deadly force against an attacker and, especially when the attacker’s been a minority and the defendant either white or Asian, the defendant has been fighting for his life with the attacker being presented as the victim. Many blacks see ‘stand your ground’ as a white hunting license for black males with no bag limit . That desire to see the privileged Blue Eyed Devil running in fear rather than standing firm and asserting his right to retain his ill-gotten gains is quite strong in many instances. If both actors in this little drama were either black or white it would have been a non-issue, a blip in the daily reporting on random acts of violence. GZ’s at the eye of a perfect political storm and, for all intents and purposes, his life as he knew it is over regardless of what the trial verdict is. After the criminal trial, if he’s found not guilty and Holden’s still on the throne, the Feds will try to hang him on squishy civil rights charges and the Trayvon Martin Family Investment Co, LLC, will try to vacuum out his monies through. a civil trial . Even if he wins against the Feds and the civil trial he’ll be flat broke. Best he can hope for is to mitigate any potential damages and live whatever life he has left the best he can.

    • Examiner says:

      While I generally agree, What monies would Martin Family, LLC hope to recover?
      It is widely discussed here that GZ is not going to have a lot of money left over once this shakes out.
      If the Feds were to try and claim a civil rights violation, would that not be counter productive to getting money from GZ? after all, that means more legal fees. Didn’t O.J. move to florida to file bankruptcy since the laws there are faborable to the defendant?
      Some of the logic here doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

        • Examiner says:

          That dude was in the care, custody and control of the State of Florida. While it does explaing where Crump got his money and some notoriety, it does not track with the facts of this case.

      • mwsomerset says:

        They will be looking to sue the big pockets….the company that owns the condo complex, city of Sanford and recover any money Zim might make from a book or movie deal.

        • Examiner says:

          It is a fact that the government has zero duty to protect anyone from harm. This is a USSC ruling. That lets off the City, County and State from any responsibility as to what happened leading to TM’s death.
          If one tries to make the developer of the property responsible, then it is a short jump to include those responsible for TM even being in the area, and that leads us directly back to the parents, he was admittedly unsupervised that night.
          But the property developer cannot be held legally liable for the criminal acts of others. It would be different if someone fell and hurt themselves on a bad sidewalk, porch, etc.

          • John Galt says:

            Easy enough to come up with enough window dressing to satisfy the incurious masses and carry off the heist: Z was issued a concealed carry permit in spite of prior restraining order and charges for resisting arrested with violence, made numerous prior calls to SPD profiling black males as stated by Serino, SPD knew or should have known Z was carrying a gun in violation of Neighborhood Watch Handbook.

            Won’t take much, the grand jury has already been subverted and the police station surrendered. A few hundred hoodie wearing “No Justice No Peace” chanting Obama’s sons can easily be arranged, if required.

            • Examiner says:

              Unless you are claiming that GZ’z permit was issued contrary to FL law, There is no way that civil damages can be awarded for the supposed negligence of the state for issuing him one. This is a matter of law and therefore a jury would never ne allowed to consider it as a fact in any lawsuit.

              • John Galt says:

                There will be no jury. All of the Anderson defendants prevailed at the criminal trial, yet $7,000,000 + was handed over without any civil trial.

      • zauber says:

        Other than meaning more legal fees a Federal DoJ case against GZ is a criminal filing and, if anything, would be a potential positive for the Martins if they filed a civil suit against GZ. The jury would see the Feds and their traveling maskirovka show shoveling carefully crafted ‘evidence’ to the press, trying to sway the trial before it ever begins. They are masters at this, just ask police officers the Feds have barbeque after local and state courts have absolved them of crimes allegedly committed against Federally Protected Groups. When the Feds want to skewer a defendant a state court has judged ‘not guilty’ the Feds unleash the power of unlimited funds and hoardes of civil service lawyers.

        As for tort and bankruptcy the tort action can be used by the Usual Suspect Talking Heads as another venue for punishing GZ and another venue to raise funds for the Martin Family LLC. The Martins could start more fund raising efforts using the lynching of GZ as bait – imagine the aggrieved Usual Suspects lining up to drop lunch money into the plates as they are passed, not to mention urban progressives suffering from Eurocentric guilt. They could ride the donation wave they’ve been surfing for months to come. There would be no shortage of lawyers willing to work the tort case for free for the publicity alone. As far as filing the tort suit all bets are off. Tort law is not cut-and-dried and really good tort lawyers drive really big vars and live in really nice houses. Civil law is Wonderland and I’ve seen many people who’ve walked into civil court with a clear case and have left dressed in a barrel. In a civil trial the responsibility for an act can be spread around and in GZ’s case even if he doesn’t have any personal property to forfeit if the Martins won a suit all the Martin’s lawyer would have to do is convince the jury that some other party had even a miniscule amount of culpability in the shooting and suddenly someone ells is getting their possessions transferred to the ‘injured’ party. Civil trials require the jury believes a preponderance (greater than 50% probability) someone was negligent while a criminal trial requires ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, a very telling difference. A criminal trial requires the state to prove the defendant is guilty while in a civil trial the defendant is frequently stuck trying to prove innocence. You mentioned OJ – Nicole’s parents ran OJ through the wringer, they wanted revenge, not cash. I think that given the right treatment the Martins could get a win-win out of filing a civil wrongful death suit against GZ and I’m betting the strategy for such a filing is being worked out as we speak, so to speak.

  57. minpin says:

    “it appears that a young black man was shot for seemingly no reason” Mark O’Mara at BET 4/20/12

    For those that still believe that O’Mara is doing a fine job for his client, can you explain what is fine or positive or in O’Mara’s client’s favor with that statement?

    This thread has been a lesson, one that SD has talked about more than once. There are some that lock onto a position, for whatever reason, and even if there are facts and mounds of evidence, they will not unlock their mind’s preconceived notion’s, and reconsider. Not even a tiny bit.

    That O’Mara statement at the top was made by O’Mara long after he took on GZ as his client. Why would he say that TM was shot “for seemingly no reason” when he is representing the person who did the shooting?


    Yes, yes, a million times yes. Most, not all, but most, of the folks on this page who are defending O’Mara ARE LIBERALLY minded constitutionally incapable progs. Some of them don’t even know it. Their mind is made up and they cannot see anything except what their ideology will allow them to accept. They are done. They are the institutionalized and legacy media indoctrinated.

    I guarantee you those same O’Mara deniers are more apt to have NOT watched the entire 2 videos either. They don’t need to because their mind is made up. This stuff don’t fit their psyche embedded reference so they don’t need to watch it. They just jump to the comment section and begin to tell everyone it is non-sense.

    They will call this Shark Jumping – Yes, yes, yes….. That’s them. The same ones who voted multiple times in favor of Mark O’Mara in the poll. Yes, yes, yes,…. that’s them.

    They, O’Mara-deniers, take this one post highlighting two to three keen aspects of O’Mara’s less than honorable representation and they dissect it as if this is the only time anything has been shared. They disconnect the other 30+, specific and cited reference points that ADD UP to making this a bigger issue.

    They see this, the interview with O’Mara and the video of him and corey, as “static” or existing all on their own. The O’Mara Deniers do not posess the capacity to see this outline as 3 “more” puzzle pieces, so they cannot see the picture. They view this as the “only” 3 puzzle pieces. Instead these are 3 puzzle pieces in a puzzle already containing 30+ others.

    Thank you Minpin for seeing this.

    Yes, you are 100%……………. Sundance

    ps. as a psy-ops exercise always play close attention to any thread where I put the first comment. I don’t do it often, but when I do it it’s done for a very specific reason, and always pay attention to the people who respond to that first comment and how they respond.

    • myopiafree says:

      I truly have a hard time understanding O’mara. What he should have stated, was that this 17 year-old, came back up the sidewalk, stopped my client, smashed his face with his fist, knocked him down as was in the process of attempting to kill my client – when my client shot him to prevent himself from being killed. (The “reason” TM did that – does not matter in a trial). For O’mara to say, “for no reason”. In a trial, it is not necessary to know WHY TM did what he did, it is only necessary to know WHAT he did to George. At this point, I would find another lawyer who was agressive in stating EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED!!

      That O’Mara statement at the top was made by O’Mara long after he took on GZ as his client. Why would he say that TM was shot “for seemingly no reason” when he is representing the person who did the shooting?

    • mwsomerset says:

      Taken in context he was saying… appears (to the general public) that a young black man was shot seemingly for no reason (we will be showing otherwise). The words in () are mine. That was my take anyway….but then I am not looking to pick apart everything he says to support a conspiracy therory. This will be one of the biggest cases of this decade, O’Mara wants to win it.

      • I agree. If O’Mara’s statement is put into context, my interpretation is he is simply addressing an audience, stating what he knows them to believe to be true, and suggesting that because there will be a trial, the truth will come out and the mob should stand down. He is clearly – to me – trying to diffuse the situation.

        After his “quote exonerated” statement, he goes on to say very firmly that the SYG law
        says force can be met with force with no duty to retreat.

      • cuky says:

        I agree

    • cuky says:

      That statement was given to “BET” and at first look the shooting was “seemingly” for no reason. We now know better and so does OM. He will show the reason for the shooting at the proper time. He is setting himself up as someone that can be listened to and believed. The word “seemingly” was perfect. Everyone thought on first report there was no reason for the shooting of an unarmed teenager. Now, OM can calmly show why it was necessary and be listened to by people that would have tuned him out if he came out on BET attacking TM as a thug on his first interview. Everyone would have thought he is just a defense attorney defending his guilty client. He has already put into court record before a trial in a bond hearing that what happened to TM was caused by TM without appearing as a raving, sleazy defense attorney.

    • Interested Reader says:

      That one is mindboggling

  58. JW says:

    I have to say when the issue of MOM not being behind GZ the whole way I was skeptical. I am becoming more convinced that SD is correct. I haven’t completely looked at everything but what has been presented do far is pretty darned convincing.

  59. cuky says:

    There is nothing in that glance! How fortunate for the scheme team that the focus of the best investigative site on the web in regards the TM shooting is almost entirely spending its time trying to discredit GZ lawyer. I really think you are 100%, totally, way, way off base on the glance and on 80% of the criticisms of OM.

  60. M4 says:

    I agree with most of what I read on this site, but on this I disagree completely. O’Mara is not delivering Zimmerman to the prosecution, and he has no secret agenda that is contrary to Zimmerman’s interests. His comment about SYG law being absurd makes sense in a legal context — he’s saying that SYG is covered by traditional affirmative defense of self defense.

    There is nothing significant about “the look” other than two colleagues acknowledging each other.

    O’Mara has done a very good job for Zimmerman so far. Zimmerman cooked his own goose by keeping secrets at the bond hearing and not being forthright with his own attorney. O’Mara managed to get him released again, despite Lester being clearly very pissed off at Zimmerman. A SYG hearing is going to be risky because Zimmerman has no credibility with Lester now, and that’s all Zimmerman’s doing. Plus, if he testifies at SYG hearing and loses, it gives the prosecutors a better chance to tailor their case around what they know Zimmerman’s testimony will be.

  61. minpin says:

    Does anyone have any familiarity with this Fla. law firm-

    I would hope that someone from GZ’s family gives them a call and see what they think or can do. No doubt these attys’ are watching the goings on in this case.

  62. M4 says:

    P.S. There’s not going to be a plea deal in this case. Doubt that a deal would be offered or accepted.

    • mwsomerset says:

      I would think a plea would be offered….and hopefully not accepted.

      • mwsomerset says:

        The state of Florida wants this case to go away and go away fast…for many reasons…questioning SYG law, possible rioting if George is acquitted, bad publicity for the state all around.


        Oh snap, I never thought I would find myself in agreement with a severe progressive. Ever. I stand corrected. I agree 100% with what somerset has said here. It is fact. However, I wish Somerset would carry that same starting point of reference – “Florida want’s this gone” – into other aspects of the case. …./SD

        • M4 says:

          The State of Florida does not want this case to go away — they want to use it for political purposes and will continue to do so, in my opinion. Prosecutors get elected because they are tough on crime, and it’s rare to see a plea deal in such a high profile case, especially where there’s so much public support for a conviction and long sentence.

          I think the state of Florida will continue to push hard for a conviction. If they wanted the case to go away, they didn’t need to drum up second degree murder charges to begin with. They want a conviction to pacify the black caucus. The jury can consider manslaughter instead of murder2 because it is a lesser included offense, so why would they offer that when they have a shot at murder2 and all the public support that goes along with it?

          In general prosecutors welcome challenges to SYG and would be pleased if it’s repealed.

          Also, Corey doesn’t back down. She tried a 12 year old as an adult on first degree murder charges which at the time carried a mandatory sentence of life without parole. Seeking such a sentence for a 12 year old is the epitome of “tough on crime”, and she persisted despite wide criticism and controversy (As of June 26, however, it’s now unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to life without parole — but that as the sentence at the time Corey prosecuted the case).

      • GBishop says:

        + 1000

  63. madclown says:

    Whoever convinced GZ to contact Sean Hannity led GZ down a very dangerous path. Did Hannity ultimately direct GZ towards O’Mara? Of course a member of the media is going to do what’s in the interest of ratings. I’m starting to think his original attorneys would have been better suited for a case like this. I could be wrong, and this all could be part of O’Mara’s long term strategy, but I get the inkling this needs to argued with blunt force and an affirmative defense. Yes, the defense is up against a large machine (as highlighted in the various updates here), and the attitude of the public seems to be more sympathetic to the victim’s family, but if someone truly believed in their innocence, wouldn’t said person want the most aggressive defense possible against such a huge monster in the scheme team? Perhaps it’s just too late and the damage has been done publicly with the PR campaign already injected into the narrative and at this point it’s just damage control. I don’t want to sound void of hope, but GZ is really just rolling the dice now. I hope he catches a break.

    • M4 says:

      I think GZ initially contacted Mark NeJame, but NeJame could not represent him because of a conflict of interest. NeJame referred him to O’Mara.

      • WRONG !

        Nejame refused to take the case because he wanted to be on CNN, he has a good life, he has two kids (girls), and despite his tendency to be a Roman, he could not bring himself to be the hammer that drove the nails into the feet of Zimmerman. So he handed the hammer and nail to O’Mara and reconciled his own sense of morality allowing him to sleep better.

        • sybilj says:

          Dude has to make a living, (not to mention supporting an ex-wife and a busted nightclub or two??) ;)

          “Susan Pelteson, owner of All About Events & Distinctive Weddings, is the stage manager. Five hundred guests make up the audience, including Orange County Chairman Rich Crotty, Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer and boy-band guru Lou Pearlman.”

          Wonder who’s all on the guest list?

          The Orlando Sentinel named Crotty the 2nd most powerful person in Central Florida behind Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer in 2008. In previous years he has occupied the top position in that list.[3]

          • GBishop says:

            Doesn’t O’Mara get paid for his appearances on CNN and other programs to talk about the case?

          • garnette says:

            Lou Pearlman caught in an investment scam and sentenced to 25 years in jail. There are reports by some of the boys that he managed that he molested them.

        • cleaningmygun says:

          In all fairness, its not a WRONG, NeJame could not represent GZ due to a conflict of interest because of his roll with CNN on this case.

          • Wrong again. His contract with CNN was not exclusive. The only thing that would have happened if he took the case would be his inability to comment on it while at CNN.

            He could have chosen to represent GZ. He specifically said he favored being able to just be an analyst on the case for CNN. Kinda worked perfectly. His buddy O’Mara does the dirty work of intentional incompetence, meanwhile Najame keeps selling the brilliance of O’Mara on CNN….

            …. see how that works.

        • M4 says:

          NeJame’s partner was the judge’s husband. Conflict of interest.

      • madclown says:

        Then what was the purpose of GZ contacting Hannity?

    • minpin says:

      madclown- GZ wound up with O’Mara on the recommendation of Mark NeJame who is doing the legal analysis for this case on CNN. NeJame has some very questionable associations/relationships with some on the Crump team. If GZ is going to have any chance, he needs to get someone that doesn’t practice in that area, and that doesn’t argue cases in that courthouse for a living.

    • recoverydotgod says:


      NeJame again said he could not represent Zimmerman and offered the names of five lawyers — topped by O’Mara — who might be considered instead.

      “They said Mark is the one we want, I put them together, and they took it from there,” said NeJame.

    • Cupcakes says:

      I really doubt Hannity and O’Mara are friends. Just saying!

    • Cupcakes says:

      Why would Hannity refer George to O’Mara? Is there any proof they are connected? They certainly don’t seem like they would be friends or business associates.

  64. Rand says:

    I have been waiting for someone to say this and maybe I missed the post. I’m thinking maybe George should have fled the country. It seems like he has missed the only possibility (slim) of getting out of this alive. I support GZ’s innocence if this posts seems to indicate otherwise.

  65. Jasper says:

    I feel the SYG claim is very important not only bc it allows immunity from civil action but it specifically allows deadly force to be used by someone in fear for their life despite the fact they may have initially been the aggressor. The pros is going to make convincing arguments to a jury that Z followed in his vehicle and then admitted on the NEN call that he was indeed “following” before saying ok and stopping. I am not sure if you can claim traditional self defense if you are determined to be the aggressor initially. Im not sayin he was the aggressor or pursued or that Z wanted to “catch” TM even but i think a jury could come to this conclusion based on what the pros will present.

    • Kathy says:

      Just want to point out that you only have to fear “great bodily harm.” I think it’s important to keep that part of the law front and center. Especially in this case where people are constantly questioning the severity of George’s injuries. You don’t have to think you’re going to die in order to use deadly force.

    • RUDY says:

      Read this blog from a Florida defense lawyer on GZ and SYG

      The problem for GZ is that there is no evidence of who is the First Aggressor (who hit first) and he will have to believed that he was in fear of his life (i.e. he really needs it to be clear that it was him screaming for help). If those are contested by the prosecution then it is unlikely the judge will grant SYG. That is why the state is clinging to DeeDee even though they know she is a weak witness. They need her to bring some doubt that TM hit first and say TM was in fear.

  66. scubachick75 says:

    I have a bad habit of believing in people. As embarrassing as this is to admit, I actually believed politicians were honest up until I was about 25. As much as I don’t want to believe there is a grand conspiracy against George, I’m starting to see it. Does anyone know of another case or situation where the prosecution and defense were working together?

  67. sandy says:

    I have been following this blog for several months but have rarely commented. Being a conservative independent residing in an extremely liberal state (Massachusetts) the TH was the only place where I could find facts and evidence without bias. The comments were well thought out and informative. Today, unfortunately, truth, facts, and evidence seem to be lacking. We accuse the TM side of lies, distortions, and manipulations. How is this O’Mara post any different. Most of the people commenting are quite willing to ruin the reputation of this man because of a split second glance shared with Corey at a hearing. How is that evidence or fact that he is willing to throw his client under the bus? O’Mara has defended GZ rather well in my estimation. Yes, he has stated that GZ misled the court. To my knowledge he has never used the word “lie”. GZ did indeed mislead the court indirectly. If he had spun it, GZ would have looked even more foolish. If you’re caught with your hand in the cookie jar, far better to come clean than try to lie your way out of it. A few posts have said that O”Mara made the “at first glance” comment long after he began representing GZ. Total spin – the comment was made exactly nine days later. Good Lord, someone is even checking out new lawyers for Zimmerman. I could be wrong but isn’t that a right reserved only for the defendant?

    Last but not lest, why in the world is Dedicated Dad on the moderation list? He is one of the most fervent defenders on the side of Zimmerman and the truth. Did aliens invade this site or what? I hope by tomorrow everything is back to normal and Truth is once again the only agenda.

    • DD is on the list because he loses control of his language when he gets worked up on meds. He curses and spews vulgarity constantly and needs to be held down so he doesn’t attack. That’s why.

      Regarding everything else you just wrote….. it ain’t about the glance, it’s about the couple hundred documented moments before and after than glance that tell you what is going on. The glance just helps with the timeline.

      • sandy says:

        Thank you for responding. I will reserve judgment on the O’Mara situation until there are more facts published. So far, you have been accurate on everything you have stated and have completely documented it. As to DD, I hope he is let back in soon – I enjoy his posts and hope everything is ok with him.

      • Walther PPK says:

        Exactly. It was the same Kodak kind of moment in that picture of Lee and Serino, making us curious what are these people thinking and what explains the odd expressions where subtle body language is telling secrets is what is occurring if you can read it.

      • Jasper says:

        That glance was a “ok now remember everything we have been discussing the past few days” glance (as MOM seemed to replaying it in his mind but quickly looks away bc he realizes he is obvious) and Corey’s look almost seems to be checking for affirmation from MOM(bc she stares a lomg damn time) and then a giddiness when she realizes she has it and everything is going as planned!

      • DiwataMan says:

        “it ain’t about the glance”

        I agree there. People seemed to have forgotten everything else you have said in regards to O’Mara and have made your position as thought it’s based solely on the glance. It becomes a strawman at that point, clearly your position goes well beyond the glance.

        • Jasper says:

          Absolutely- that whole four or five days before the hearing where the first two attys said they couldnt contact GZ and then the cancelling of the GJ and then GZ had been in touch with Corey- all strange and i have a feeling that Sundance is tying it all together for us with more to come soon. Also Lester has to be scared to death after seeing Serino and Lee’s careers deteriorate instantly even though Serinos was mostly his own doing- Lester has to have thought he could be next if he were to get in the way of the freight train.

    • ctdar says:

      It wasn’t just a glance, OMara & Corey locked eyes on each other than he immediately adverted his eyes to the left (guilty like) and she smiled as she turned her face forward (one in the driver seat). I’ve seen that look before, like you’re looking at something you know you shouldn’t be looking at, get caught and advert hoping no one else caught that exchange.
      Which begs the question why would a defense lawyer even look over at the prosecutor unless has a need to speak directly to them. All parties I would think should have been soley focused on judge. When I’m annoyed, disappointed in, or mad at someone I can’t even bring myself to look at them; really po’d I don’t even speak to the person.

      • Examiner says:

        It seems that withing the Seminole County Law Profession, experienced attorneys are going to know each other. It also seems like they can, as professionals be expected to seperate business from socializing. The Judge is married to a prosecutor, the defense lawyer was a prosecutor, etc. I think this is standard practice. I remeber the same stuff during O.J.’s trial.

      • Walther PPK says:

        Almost reminds you of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski innocently exchanging glances in public, everybody just pleeeeease move along, there’s nothing to see here ……riiiiiight.

      • GBishop says:

        The “glance” was the precursor to rulings on SYG and guns, keeping the race baiters happy and riots at a minimum. Om making friends in the black community for more business later, not to mention diversion away from a strong SYG immunity ruling with:

        bond revocation
        35 days in jail for being a potted plant
        divide and conquer with wife’s perjury charge
        $1 million bond
        ludicrous restrictions
        nonsensible opinions by a ruling judge
        destroyed credibility of defendant

  68. Walther PPK says:

    It may be business as usual for a public defender to be a public pretender but for a hired private attorney when that sort of conciliatory concessional garbage arises as has arisen here involving the PR style of MOM it is doubly a case of professional malpractice. Public pretenders are paid by the state and are de facto agents of the state because of who pays their salary, and it is a legal fiction manufactured to honor the requirement of Gideo v Wainright which was a Florida case that is the reason public defenders are provided to indigent accused so thay can “call it having a lawyer” for appearances that a fair adverarial process is occurring. A criminal defense attorney is supposed to be a zealous advocate for their client not an ambassador for gamesmanship at duplicity serving a states efforts to placate a racist mob by serving up his client on a platter, and by a failure at due diligence in preparation for a bond hearing and ambigious questioning concerning assets which he knew existed, to fail to provide the accounting which would protect his client from any failure to disclose. MOM has demonstrated incompetence by a failure at due diligence and then demonstrated further incompetence by not owning up to his own failure, but instead by throwing his client under the bus and exposing both his client and clients wife to liability, and that constitutes professional malpractice and a breach of fiduciary duty for which MOM could not only be sued but disbarred. This is not trivial. This is huge.

    • Walther PPK says:

      Somebody needs to check also to see if O’Mara was on the list for qualified “conflict counsel” appointments scheduled on the calendar during the time when MOM came on board as “pro bono” and “for costs” representation for GZ, because it is possible that MOM could have been “next in line” as a court appointed “independent” counsel for GZ if the Court estimated or the PD office estimated that the controversial nature of the case and circumstances were such that the PD office could provide no attorney really qualified to supply “effective counself” for an indigent GZ. It is possible that MOM may have become the court appointed counsel for GZ anyway, if he had not “volunteered” for the job. So the altruism of MOM may not be what it appears.

  69. Rum says:

    Not many people will allow themselves to be killed because taking adequate measures to save their lives would get them in trouble afterwards. Self defense is a given. The only question is whether the cops take the side of the perps or the innocent civilians. Since there are so few cops- and in most places their budgets are shrinking and will continue to shrink- they ought to carefully consider the long term implications of their choice.

  70. Brahms says:

    O’Mara wanted this to go to trial way back in April?! Did he misspeak or is he implying that he will not be putting much effort into a pre-trial dismissal? If he believes it should go to trial then he believes that the evidence supporting George is not strong – which it obviously is. I see problems. The most obvious problem is that SYG is not even needed to win a dismissal – just simple self-defense – and yet, O’Mara was already planning on using SYG while planning on a trial. O’mara knew of the injuries and the eyewitnesses – I can’t make sense of it – injury to client and a SYG defense should be mutually exclusive.

    Perhaps someone can educate me – what does O’Mara mean when he says “when stand your ground is the only law” – is the video edited to make it sound like O’mara really does beleive SYG is George’s only defense – do I not understand Florida law – what about simple self defense?

    • howie says:

      I do not think losing a SYG hearing preclude Self-Defense at trial. It is a Pre-Trial hearing. Gives the D the chance to avoid trial and civil liability. A win and case closed. A loss…proceed to trial. At least that is what I think.

      • Examiner says:

        Even if the Judge decides to allow the case to continue to a trial, the defense will certainly appeal Lester’s decision before any trial takes place. If Lester can’t grow a pair and end this farce, then the appeals court/District court will be the next stop.
        A plain language read of the SYG statute says this thing should end at the SYG hearing.

    • John Galt says:

      “what does O’Mara mean when he says “when stand your ground is the only law”

      I never know what people are talking about when they say “SYG law.”

      Are they talking about the extension of the Castle Doctrine outside a person’s dwelling such that they have no duty to retreat before using lethal force to defend themselves?

      Are they talking about the requirement that police can not arrest a person unless they have probable cause to establish that a homicide was not done in self-defense?

      Are they talking about civil immunity?

      Are they talking about a hearing on a motion to dismiss pursuant to standards not spelled out in the statute?

      AFAIK, this is the bill that Florida enacted in 2005 which passed 39 to 0 in the Florida Senate and 92 to 20 in the Florida House:

      This is the Florida Supreme Court opinion regarding so-called SYG hearings:

      • Brahms says:

        Ok, SYG is just an addendum to the overall self defense law – as is the Castle Doctrine. Where did the term “SYG hearing” come from? Why not “self-dense hearing” or “motion to dismiss hearing”? Sounds like someone is pushing that GZ’s defense be based on the SYG portion of the self defense law. I initially thought that all the talk about SYG applying to this case was just ignorance but I now believe its nefarious – they are attacking SYG by associating it with this case and O’Mara seems to be just fine with that. If O’mara uses SYG it will be very telling because that is paramount to calling George a liar – the claim is that he was punched while unawares (he had no opportunity to retreat) – SYG cannot be germane.

      • Examiner says:

        “Likewise, we hold that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pretrial and, when such a claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the immunity attaches”

        Preponderance of the evidence. FL supreme court ruling. Is it more likely than not that GZ, version of what happened is true?

  71. If you are unwilling to call Mark O’Mara to task with the same veracity you have approached Benjamin Crump, I have only FIVE words. A simple request.


    Sanford, Fla. City Manager Norton Bonaparte, Jr., left, speaks to Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., and Sanford, Fla. Mayor Jeff Triplett, and Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., before a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 20, 2012, to talk about the shooting of Trayvon Martin. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

    Thank you for your prior contributions and I wish you following seas. God Bless.

    • MikadoCat says:

      I don’t and I don’t plan to.

      Crump is what you are wishing for GZ. He is a zealous advocate for his client constantly pushing the envelope, and applying every resource he can. Crump is not someone that anyone sane would chose to make an enemy, and every lawyer in FL knows it.

      I have a lot of concern for GZ, not just MOM or Lester, but the whole process is full of inherent danger. I’m still not making any judgement calls, picking away at facts suits me fine.

  72. Walther PPK says:

    It is suspicious also that the Court and the assemblage of courtiers as an “amen crew” hold O’Mara in such high esteem and compliment MOM publicly in proceedings being so deferential to the “gentleman scholar” colleague who is representing the accused in order to further the illusion for public consumption that GZ has effective representation. Why would there be such adoration for the lawyer for the accused who has provided abysmal representation and public commentary, except as a deception and misdirection of everyone that MOM is actually on the opposition “team” and they all have a shared common mutual interest not in impartial justice for real, but a shared interest agenda in “justice for Trayvon” ? We have been conned. But it’s over now for that con, it is dragged out in the sunshine now where it is being purified by the light of day.

  73. Examiner says:

    [...] A young black male was shot seemingly without reason….
    WOW! sounds really powerful. When taken out of the contextof the question, sounds bad.
    BUT when putting this seemingly damaging statement into the context of the question, it was O’Mara describing the frustration of the Black community. He then goes on to say that there will be a trial and the facts will come out.

  74. Kathy says:

    @minpin…I see your post to me above about the SYG firm and their commentary, but there’s no place to click to reply to that post??? Maybe it’s just my screen, idk? Anyway, I don’t know that firm (I wouldn’t expect to since I’m not in Fla), but their commentary is spot on as far as it goes. Three observations, (1) I believe that there was a relatively recent clarification that the defendant is absolutely entitled to a preliminary hearing on the SY because it’s an immunity statute. But you might expect them to have updated their page about it, so I’m going to go back and check; (2) the person “not engaged in unlawful activity” is a part of the SYG some have latched onto, and it certainly appears that this was the reason for all the “profiling”, “following,” “stalking,” etc. references by the prosecution and their minions, and also the reason why who initiated the physical confrontation is important, so that has to be taken into account; and (3) so does the force meets force element. But I don’t thing that’s a problem in this case, assuming that everything we believe about who was on the bottom getting pouded MMA-style and who was yelling for help is true.
    As I mentioned, the question in my mind now is how Trayvon’s age could impact this. Apparently, the Judge think’s it’s relevant. I know it is to the charge, in general, but I don’t know the answer wrt to the SYG.

    ps….why would I smack you?!

    • Brahms says:

      The only way to get immunity is to argue on the basis of SYG? Isn’t SYG just one of several self defense possibilities when the act happens outside the home? George had no opportunity to retreat so how is SYG germane? Can immunity not be achieved through the Castle Doctrine (not in this case of course) or through basic “self defense” (getting head repeatedly smashed and having attacker go for your gun)?
      Or, has SYG morphed into referring to self-defense law (776.013, F.S) in its entirety?
      Can anyone clear this up?

      • kathy says:

        SYG is an immunity statute. Self-defense is an entirely different animal — a defense only, as it’s name suggests. SYG can be used stand alone or with standard self-defense if the case goes to trial, but only the SYG can be asserted as a basis for walking free on a Judge’s ruling at the preliminary hearing. That hearing also reverses the BoP and places it on the defense by a prepoderence. And, no, you don’t get immunity other than under the SYG. That’s why LE was so careful to run his arrest by the prosecutor first, imo. If George were to win on SYG ground, either at the prelim, or at trial, he is immune from civil prosecution AND HE has a cause of action to recover attorneys’ fees, etc. Even arresting him can trigger the immunity. I’m no expert on that particular law. Just basing my opinion on the commentary and cases I’ve read. But I’m pretty confident on this score.

        • Brahms says:

          Do you disagree with this statement?
          “According to one side, Mr. Zimmerman was the criminal aggressor. Thus, he would have no self-defense rights at all. According to the other side, Trayvon attacked Mr. Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, got on top of him and continued the attack. So Mr. Zimmerman would have had no ability to retreat. Either way, the retreat rules for lawful defenders have nothing to do with this case.”

          It is not logical that the only way to get a dismissal is to use SYG – are you sure about this? Prior to this statute, did all cases of self-defense killing go to trial (no dismissals?)
          What about states that have CC but no SYG?

          • kathy says:

            Apologies in advance for length, and this is just my opinion, but maybe this is the confusion.

            The first part of the statute applies to folks wherever they are and permits the use of deadly force without a duty to retreat, so long as they fear death or great bodily harm to themselves or somone else, or to prevent an imminent forcible felony. The second part creates a presumption that such fear is automatically present when you use such force against someone who breaks into their home, etc (stated generally). That is in addition to the no duty to retreat that now applies everywhere in Florida if the requirements of the first part of the statute (fear of death or great bodily harm) are met.

            So, the main points (actually the only points) of the statute are to confer self-defense rights in public and at home, with no duty to retreat anywhere, and to create a presumption that you fear for your life or great injury if you are attacked in your “castle.” Creating a presumption isn’t altering the state’s prima facie case in home situations, just altering the defendant’s burden of proof on defense – he no longer has to prove fear of life and limb. It is presumed, subject to couple of exceptions.

            Under the statute, you are now immune in EITHER of those situations, but the home situation doesn’t apply here.

            So, here, the only way George is immune is if the first part of the statute applies…this part:

            A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

            (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;***

            Notice that a person is justified in the use of deadly force AND does not have a duty to retreat. Whether you may have had opportunity to retreat is irrelevant. What the statute says is that, even if you did, you don’t have to use it.

            Basic self defense is different outside of the home because there you DO have a duty to retreat. So the analysis outside of the quoted part of the SYG statute would be different as applied in this case. I honeslty don’t know if a case has been “dismissed” on basic self-defense grounds before. However, even if there were, the SYG is a completely different animal. The Florida Supreme Court has specifically ruled that BECAUSE the SYG is an immunity statute, you are entitled to a ruling on the merits at the preliminary hearing stage if you can prove an SYG defense by a preponderence. I linked an article about that case, and I think John Galt may have linked the actual case. The cases to which the SYG (the first part of the law) and the second part, creating the presumption when you’re in your “castle” — are the only two types of cases that get immunity. Not “self-defense”, i.e., in public where you have a duty to retreat.

        • John Galt says:

          “SYG is an immunity statute. Self-defense is an entirely different animal — a defense only, as it’s name suggests.”

          “but only the SYG can be asserted as a basis for walking free on a Judge’s ruling at the preliminary hearing.”

          Statutory immunity pursuant to 776.032 can be asserted in a so-called SYG hearing based on 776.012; 776.013; or 776.031 which include both traditional self-defense and so-called SYG (no duty to retreat) aspects. Note that 776.041 (use of force by aggressor) is not available in a 776.032 SYG hearing.

          There is no separate self-defense statute (or animal). The pertinent statutes are found in Chapert 776 – Justifiable Use of Force. See Standard Jury Instruction 3.6(f) on self-defense.

          Of interest: Post trial motion for immunity granted:

          • kathy says:

            Thanks, John Galt. I can’t open a pdf from where I am right now, but I appreciate the link. When I said a different “animal,” I was referring to common law or another Florida statute. So, if there isn’t one, you’re saying that all of self defense is now subsumed under the various laws referenced and that the only time immunity does not apply is in cases where the “shooter” was the aggressor, and even then, only at the SYG hearing? If that’s the case, I’m very happy to be wrong :)

        • James Crawford says:

          You are obviously an attorney. Can you practice in Florida? If so, you should be George’s new attorney.

  75. I must agree with those who are saying “I’m just not seeing it.”

    As others have said, MOM’s look to corey was the same look I give when I meet someone’s eyes in everyday life – a small smile in acknowledgement, then look away. Whatever it may be, it’s not automatically a sign of collusion or even friendliness – for me it’s just HABIT!

    As to why MOM would admit to the media that JZ/SZ had lied about the money… Well…

    That’s bothered me too, especially because I just don’t see the evidence for perjury. I believe all the persecution’s evidence thereof has perfectly understandable explanations that don’t include an attempt to mislead the court – and I’d ordinarily expect the Defense to be listing them at every opportunity…


    Those who are lawyers, or related to one, would you please chime in here and agree or disagree?

    An attorney may not present argument or evidence they know is false – at a minimum that would be suborning perjury! If an attorney KNOWS his client is guilty – because the client confessed to the attorney – they may still put on a defense based on attacking the state’s evidence, based on some other aspect of law, etc. They may even put on an “insanity” defense, or a “justifiable…” defense, and so on…

    They can NOT however put on a “Factual Innocence” (“my client is innocent because he was 500 miles away at his grandmother’s house when it happened”) defense, presenting witnesses and evidence that they know to be false!

    This is why some (most?) criminal attorneys will say “If you did it, I don’t want to know! !!

    I’ve tried in my life to ALWAYS be the first one to point out when I’ve done wrong, made a mistake, etc. – ESPECIALLY in my career – because having established a reputation for owning my screwups then it gives my denials in other situations total credibility!

    As others have stated in the past, *NO* attorney would go on TV and say the things that MOM has said without the approval of his client – JZ. If he did, that’s clear malpractice and a violation of his code of ethics and his contract with his client. Further, it would be grounds for an appeals-court to throw out any verdict and order a new trial!

    Absent evidence to the contrary, I must therefore assume that JZ approved what MOM said.

    Further, I must also acknowledge the fact that to date we’ve seen NOTHING from Jorge or Shellie denying the allegations – not in the media, in court, nor in any filings.

    We haven’t even seen any member of either of their family step forward to contradict the accusations, where they were all over the place proclaiming his innocence of the murder charge…

    Therefore, it seems to me that there are two possible explanations for this:
    (1) Strategy – for some reason they believe it’s better to let the accusation stand for now, perhaps planning to challenge it later…
    (2) Jorge and Shellie really did try to hide the money. G*d knows I hope this isn’t true, but…

    The only people who know for sure are them, and they’re not talking – but their hired “mouthpiece” is basically saying that they did.

    This seems to me to be the only real option for them if the accusation is true: Admit that you screwed up, and accept the consequences! Where appropriate, try to help people understand WHY you did what you did, but never waiver from saying “mea culpa!”

    As much as it pains me to say it, I’m honestly leaning more and more to #2.

    They’re human. They’ve GOT to be overwhelmed, and anyone could certainly see why an innocent man in Jorge’s shoes would at least try to preserve an option to run rather than be imprisoned for LIFE for what you KNOW was self-defense!

    *IF* that’s truly what happened – if they really did try to hide the money – then the best possible way to handle it would be:
    (1) Own up ASAP – which seems to be what they did by having MOM file papers with the court disclosing the money within a day or 2 of the hearing, well before the persecution even got wind of it.
    (2) Accept the consequences, so as to show that you’re the type of person who admits when they’ve made a mistake and thus minimize the overall damage to your credibility that could – in THIS case – make or break the rest of his life!

    I’ve made a few bad judegments in my career – one of the worst was when I violated “change control” procedures and installed an update on a system – the end result had the potential to cost my employer several million dollars, and could have not only cost me my job but done serious damage to my future career!

    I could have tried to bury it, and odds are good that I’d have gotten away with it – but if I’d been discovered then it would DEFINITELY have been the end of my employment there and seriously harmed my future!

    I did the only thing I believed I could do = I “confessed.” I admitted that I’d broken the rules, and said that I deserved whatever consequence the committee deemed appropriate. I DID promise that I’d never let it happen again, and asked that they please take my up-to-then-perfect record into account when deciding what the consequence would be, though reiterating that I had no excuse for breaking the rules.

    In the end, the “verdict” was much more lenient than anyone expected – they said that I’d shown admirable initiative, however the violation of procedures was a perfect example of why the procedures were so important. They ultimately decided that the lesson had been learned, and no punishment was warranted – and they closed by remarking on and expressing great respect for my unwavering integrity!

    In short, by IMMEDIATELY exclaiming “Mea culpa!” instead of trying to defend, I beat my detractors to the punch and turned a negative into a net positive.

    Under all the circumstances, I’m coming to believe that MOM’s attempting to do the same here. “They were scared, they felt the system had let them down, and they panicked. They admitted their mistake and made things right, but the prosecution decided to try to punish them anyway. George realizes he’s harmed his credibility, and he’s going to have to work to rebuild that trust.

    *IF* that’s really true, given the restrictions he’s operating under, what else could MOM say that would be better than this?

    • Walther PPK says:

      Even when an attorney is involved in a real estate transaction mortgage application or any other business where a finacial statement is needed with regards to transactions involving significant sums, bank statements and income tax returns are pretty minimal documentation. O’Mara knew aboiut the paypal account and getting bank statements as due diligence would have preempted any diclosure omissions of any substantive assets.
      No matter how you try to slice it, O’Mara owns a screwup for which he has done CYA by throwing his clients under the bus for his own failure to do due diligence. The Court absolving O’Mara from sin jsut shows that the Court is protecting its boy, protecting its agent, in a situation where the liability fro the omission is absolutely owned by O’Mara.
      Defending the integrity and skills of O’Mara here is just incredible because it is implausible that O’Mara did his job. O’Mara blew it and blew it bad. And O’Mara double the mistake by blaming his clients. Even if the clients were inclined or did lie to O’Mara, it was O’Mara’s job to reveiew the associated verification statements and documents to confirm the accuracy of what would be presented to the court. It was never a “trust me” situation for this type transaction it was a “show me” situation that has been corrupted into a confidence game. Good lawyering does not even allow for this kind of nosnense to occur where it is part of the lawyers job to keep people honest. O’Mara failed to do that.
      And now his client is paying the price. You can’t keep giving a lawyer a pass on sophomoric screwups, involving huge sums of money and other substantive matters like life and freedom. O’Mara is a debacle, a fiasco in progress. Now aint that progressive, just like a good prog should be.

    • chopp says:

      This is the People v. George Zimmerman case — not the People v. Dedicated Dad. It’s not about you.

      • Walther PPK says:

        Dedicated Dad wants to see the best in people and be affable and understanding, go along to get along, but progs are predatory and exploit that to the hilt. You can’t play nice with progs, they play by their own rules that they make up as they go along. Get in a scrap with a prog don’t expect an magnanimity when they prevail, make it an unecessary false hope to have by fighting to win and getting that done decisively. The last man standing will say how it is going to be.

  76. Rum says:

    Trayvons age is only relevant because his side wants it to be. Not so long ago, 17 year olds could be full members of the US Marine Corp. Now they have to 18.
    TM s age would only matter if he were the one charged.

    • Chuck says:

      Corey and the scheme team keep portraying Trayvon as an innocent, harmless little boy because of his age, then how is it Corey feels 13 year old Christian Fernandez deserves to be tried as an adult for his crimes?

      Christian Fernandez is half the size of Trayvon, and four years younger. How is it that he is potentially dangerous but Trayvon lacked the potential?

      • minpin says:

        Bingo Chuck. Thank you for bringing that up yet again. I am at a loss to believe that Corey would think that TM was a juvy, yet a 12 year old knew exactly what he was doing and committed pre-meditated murder. Corey is trying to have it both ways. Unless the parents come up with some kind of medical reports or evaluations of TM, determining that he was mentally deficient in some way, medically not drug wise, she has no rationality for her decision making. No one ever accused her of being rational in the first place, I know.

    • James Crawford says:

      Two years ago, a Sanford Police officer who was responding to a complaint about an intruder at an apartment complex was ambushed and shot. The perp missed with the first round, then hit with the second and third rounds that penetrated through the arm hole of his ballistic vest. The perp then tried to finish off the wounded officer by firing two more rounds as he stood over his helpless victim. This cop shooter was only 16 and was a dead ringer for TM.

    • kathy says:

      As far as I’m concerned, he’s as good as an adult. Especially from the perspective of this SP who has charged a 12 yo as an adult. I believe that’s a record. That said, I think the law does take his age into account if he is the “victim.” It’s apparent that the Judge is taking both his age and his “victim” status into account and I’m guessing that’s based on his knowledge of the impact of those factors in some regard. When this case first happened, I did read about it briefly. My recollection is that it had to do with the penalty, though, and not the burden of proof. However, I could be wrong about that as it was long enough ago that I can’t recall for sure.

      • James Crawford says:

        I can find info on the shooting, the arrest of the shooter, and the legal complucations resulting from the shooter’s age. However; I can find nothing on the disposition of the case. Who was the lead detective in this cop shootin? Was Chris Serino the detective? Did the shooter go free because Chris Serino screwed the case up?

        I think there is some connection that explains Serino’s hostility towards a citizen that he should have been sympathetic too.

  77. Jamie O'Connor says:

    Watch the video and at the 7:54 mark you will clearly see how Mark O’Mara and Angela Corey look at each other.
    This is exactly what I tried to explain to ItsMIchaelnotMike when he kept saying, “where’s the proof”. This picture and these looks between O’Mara and Corey is the proof. No, I can’t provide a contract between the two but this is all it the proof I need. You can’t convince me that there is no hidden agenda between the two. There (absolutely is an agenda) between Corey and O’Mara as anyone with an open mind can clearly see by simply watching this video. Then consider everything else. Nothing has gone in Zimmerman’s favor.

    Even the fact that O’Mara made sure that Zimmerman was released within 24 hours speaks loudly of O’Mara’s intentions. There is no way to appeal the judges ruling now, because O’Mara made sure Zimmerman was released within 24 hours of the bond being set. O’Mara was basically affirming that the judge made a reasonable decision when setting the bond in the amount of $1,000,000. The timing, making sure Zimmerman was out within 24 hours, would confirm to an appellate court that Judge Lester set the bond at a reasonable amount. There will be no appeal on anything having to do with the bond order.

    • chopp says:

      Stop making stuff up! The conditions he imposed on GZ are appealable.

      • minpin says:

        chopp- The conditions the judge placed on GZ’s family that they are not allowed to comment on the case is a very blatant violation of the family’s constitutional right to free speech. So if one of the family members, and who knows how large GZ’s family is, GZ goes back to jail because of something someone had the first amendment right to say. This is so fu–ed up it is getting laughable, but GZ is going to pay a very big price in the name of “please don’t riot in my state.”

        BTW, Jamie has always been a double agent on this site. Call him out on it, and he will remember your name forever. That means you are over the target.

        If you have the time, go back to the top of this thread and look at those that are calling O’Mara the next GZ messiah. It is very enlightening. Many are admitted liberals who have gone both ways in this case.

        Example, “well maybe at that last moment TM was sitting up because he was going to end the beat down. Gz might have shot him a little too soon.”

        • chopp says:

          I don’t see how Lester has jurisdiction over the family to impose any conditions. If he did impose those conditions, MOM should appeal them. Hell, the whole thing needs to be appealed.

      • Jamie O'Connor says:

        chopp says:
        July 8, 2012 at 6:22 pm

        Stop making stuff up! The conditions he imposed on GZ are appealable.
        Which ones chopp, and how are they appealable?

    • Walther PPK says:

      If there is fundamental error in the finding opinion of the bond order that is improperly prejudicial to GZ or to his wife SZ, (and there is improper prejudicial language) you bet it is appealable. Florida circuit judges have broad authority, but that does not include judicial indiscretion involving use of prejudicial language to compromise and subvert due process which entitles any accused or their wife to a fair and impartial trial concerning criminal allegations which are in dispute. No one has gven Lester jurisdiction to excercise authority to subvert the constitution of the United States, and Lester has no such authority to publish findings of facts that are improper to publish in a bond order related to an accused and the wife of an accused involved in ongoing litigation where such facts as Lester would make improper finding or opinion have not yet been deceided by a jury and in fact may never go before a jury. Lester has usurped and presumed authority beyond what authority the Court lawfully has by his expanding a 2 page proper bond order which should have been narrowly focused, limited, brief, and concise into an 8 page prejudicial political propaganda leaflet.

      • M4 says:

        There is no appealable issue in the bond order. You can’t appeal a finding unless it results in an improper conclusion, which it didn’t in this case. There is nothing unreasonable about the amount or conditions of bond. Nothing in the bond order can be used at trial in any event.

      • Jamie O'Connor says:

        Walther PPK says:
        July 8, 2012 at 6:36 pm
        If there is fundamental error in the finding opinion of the bond order that is improperly prejudicial to GZ or to his wife SZ, (and there is improper prejudicial language) you bet it is appealable.
        I agree Walther PPK, but there are NO fundamental errors in the finding opinion of the bond order that are (improperly) prejudicial to GZ or SZ, according to the judge. Judge Lester seemed to justify every finding with a conclusion and I’m sure he had plenty of help doing it. We’ll see what O’Mara does, but my guess is he does nothing (as usual).

        Do you see any fundamental errors in the bond order that you believe could be overturned on appeal?

        The constitutional issues minpin talked about are a non-issue. The judge can do whatever he wants. He can even issue a gag order.

        • Walther PPK says:

          The only gag order needed is for Lester the jester to gag himself before making a two page proper bond order into an eight page improperly prejudicial propaganda rag using improper legal terminology and wording for conclusory allegations beyond the scope of a proper bond order which is definitely appealable based upon good grounds found in its content and language while simultaneously being good and sufficient grounds that Lester the jester should either recuse himself voluntarily or be removed for cause by the chief judge for the circuit and replaced by a judge who is competent.

  78. Shari says:

    Here is a SYG case that ruled in favor of the defendant. He must of had on hell of an attorney because unlike GZ who was attacked and his life threatened, this guy actually CHASED the man with a knife and stabbed him. Case was thrown out and ruled justified via SYG. Happened in Miami.

    • Shari says:

      I just want to add, where are the marches and protests concerning this case, maybe it’s because the victim wasn’t black and/or because it didn’t involve a GUN. The race baitors made a big enough stink for the woman who is serving 20 year because SYG didn’t cover her, as it shouldn’t have. If any case questions the SYG defense it is the one posted above. GZ is a perfect example of when SYG should be used.

      • Brahms says:

        Could you explain why SYG applies to this case? Are you implying that GZ had the opportunity to avoid the confrontation?

        • kathy says:

          SYG can be applied whether or not you had an opportunity to retreat. It just changes the requirement that you *must* retreat and extends the “castle doctrine” to any place where you lawfully happen to be.

        • minpin says:

          Apparently Brahms you don’t understand the SYG law, or are loath to admit to the provisions in the statute. That is being dishonest and more than a little propagandist.

          • Brahms says:

            No I don’t understand it, thank you. But neither does the Washington Times. What happens in states that have CC but no SYG? Never a chance of dismissal?

            • Shari says:

              It would be self defense, This is why all states need and should have the SYG law in place. Why should criminals have the upper hand. Much safer with the law than without.

              • Brahms says:

                I fully support SYG.
                So a proper self-defense shooting, outside the home, is always defended under SYG; SYG encompasses all legal self defense shootings outside the home. Even though the provision of not having to retreat is not needed for GZ’s defense, SYG is still the name of the law by which the shooting is exonerated.
                Forgive the improper legal terms.

        • Shari says:

          I’m not implying anything, GZ was attacked and had every right to defend himself. As I’ve said hundreds of times, GZ did nothing wrong, he saved his own life.

  79. kathy says:

    @minpin…here’s a link to an article referencing a 2010 Florida Supreme Court ruling confirming that the SYG prelim is mandatory. I haven’t re-read the case, but that’s consistent with my recollection. It resolved the split in the lower courts and would have been after the 2009 cases cited on the firm’s page that you linked

    • kathy says:

      I should have said mandatory “if the defense requests it.” I can’t function without an edit option :/

      • minpin says:

        Thank you kathy. I appreciate your replies to me. I was not aware that one had to have a conceled carry permit to carry a particular size knife. Ya learn something new every day. As to smacking me, for whatever reason I thought you were a Fla. stty, and I didn’t want to insult with bringing up the competitions names. Ha, I see you are not like that at all. Thank you for your support of the SYG laws. I believe something like 21 states have SYG laws on the books. It appears that Fla. wants to be the blueprint for ridding states of those necessary laws.

        • kathy says:

          My pleasure. And no, I’m not “like that” at all, and wouldn’t be even if I practiced in Fla. Funny thing is, I’m a pretty non-confrontational person and I don’t even own a gun. But the idea that someone should have to “run away” from a criminal attack rather than defend themselves is just mind blowing to me. How do we expect to discourage criminal behavior if the criminal has all the rights and the “victim” needs to leave the situation. In every case, the crime’ll be worth a try, no? Oh…wait…

  80. Brahms says:

    “According to one side, Mr. Zimmerman was the criminal aggressor. Thus, he would have no self-defense rights at all. According to the other side, Trayvon attacked Mr. Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, got on top of him and continued the attack. So Mr. Zimmerman would have had no ability to retreat. Either way, the retreat rules for lawful defenders have nothing to do with this case.”

    SYG does not apply.

    • minpin says:

      Yes of course SYG would not apply if you are willing to by into the prosecutions arguments. Who is their only witness that can prove anything even close to what they are arguing, DeeDee. Good luck with that Brahms. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your owns facts, and either is the prosecution. But carry on, it is just another window into the liberal mind set, which actually wouldn’t know a fact if it bit them in the arse.

      • mwsomerset says:

        I think DeeDee might actually make a good witness….if she is coached properly. If she gets a difficult question…just say….”I don’t remember”…..and keep saying, “all I do know is Trayvon said that scary, creepy man was following him and he was scared and running for his life.” Maybe throw in a few tears. This girl seemed so ignorant and simple minded….that if the defense started beating up on her the jury would take pity on her and see her as a young, frighten girl who heard Trayvon’s final words.

        • Jay says:

          “he was scared and running for his life” But she said TM wasn’t gonna run. I hope she is called as a witness. She won’t do to good coach her all you want. Remember the OJ trial Kato he was coached didn’t help though. Sometimes you just can’t fix stupid.

        • chopp says:

          If she says she doesn’t remember, they will refresh her recollection with her prior statements. Also, she can not testify as to hearsay. What TM allegedly said is an out of court statement offered to prove the matter asserted – it is inadmissible. I can think of no exception that would allow it in. Yeah, she was so frighten she did nothing. LOL! A decent aggressive atty would have a field day with her.

          • mwsomerset says:

            If her testimony is considered hearsay then why was it referenced in the probable cause affidavit? Is that even a legal thing to do? I can’t recall if Alan Dershowitz addressed that or not. Surely they aren’t going to use her testimony that she “heard” Zim push Tray and then she heard grass. I agree the defense would tear her apart…especially because she did not contact anyone that Tray was scared and running for his life.

            • howie says:

              As you say, they already did.

            • chopp says:

              Because it bolstered their case and no one objected. It does not qualify as an excited utterance and it is not admissible. It’s hard to litigate these issues when the defense does not have all the discovery at the time. You seem to want it both ways – first she is a good wit and will be sympathetic and now you imply that she is not. Make up your mind…

              • mwsomerset says:

                My own opinion about Deedee and her “account” is one thing….my opinion about whether she could be coached to be a good witness is another. First, she is going to be questioned by the prosecutor who will be asking her rehearsed questions in such a manner that the jury will be able to follow what she is saying. It’s not like Deedee is going to be asked an open ended question….”Tell us what happened that night.” You can bet that there will be a plausible explanation as to why she didn’t contact the police if she thought Tray’s life was in danger. Once the narrative is out there to the jury, O’mara will attempt to pick the account apart based on her taped interview. If she sits there and starts crying and saying she is confused and doesn’t understand the Qs or doesn’t specifically recall some detail and O’Mara starts beating up on her it could very well backfire on the defense. That is all I am saying. However, if she can’t testify to anything Tray said to her and only what she heard during the altercation then saying….I heard Zim push Tray and then the grass, then she will indeed be a poor witness.

            • Jasper says:

              Heard the grass! What a crock! It is so obviously contrived to match up with crime sene photo of the phone in the grass

              • Jello333 says:

                Dee Dee LaCrump, starring in the new crime series, “The Grass Whisperer”… premiering this Fall on MSNBC.

                • Jasper says:

                  Followed by her hit series “Run from da back”!

                  • Jello333 says:

                    Season 1, Episode 1: “So He Put His Hoodie On”

                    Season 1, Episode 2: “It Was a Little Bit Drippin’ Water”

                    Season 1, Episode 3: “You Want That Too?!”

                    Season 1, Ep…………

            • Jamie O'Connor says:

              mwsomerset says:
              July 8, 2012 at 8:27 pm
              Surely they aren’t going to use her testimony that she “heard” Zim push Tray and then she heard grass.
              This may be allowed in mwsomerset – Dee Dee’s claims of hearing what she believed to be Trayvon being pushed or falling to the ground is not much different than the dispatcher asking GZ if he was following based on the sounds he heard in the background. GZ said those sounds were the wind.

              Regardless of the accuracy, people do make assumptions about actions based on sound all the time and sometimes those assumptions are accurate or even logical.

              If they didn’t allow Dee Dee to testify to the sounds she heard, then it would be unlikely the other witnesses would be able to testify that they “heard” a scuffle for a while, indicating the fight started at one location near the Tee and ending where it did. They too are basing actions according to sound.

          • nameofthepen says:

            Hi, chopp. Regarding DeeDee’s statement, and hearsay, it just *might* be admissible.

            Here’s where my love of Judge Judy pays off, lol. I remember her mentioning once that an “excited utterance” is the exception of the hearsay rule.


      • Brahms says:

        mimipin – what are you babbling about?

        The quoted sentences do not imply any allegiance – how did you surmise mine? The quote was an opinion on the aptness of applying SYG in this case. I beleive GZ is innocent – clear?

    • Walther PPK says:

      The non-trivial issue with theories that GZ was the criminal aggressor is that is conjecture and speculation for which no evidence exists to support such theory. It requires more than just theory to constitute probable cause and it takes way more than probable cause to honestly secure a criminal conviction based upon facts and evidence which are not just conjecture, speculation, and theory. You can’t just propose some “alternative plausible scenario” and call it probable cause, and that is what has been done with the criminal allegations against GZ. The prosecution case is a theory and it isn’t even a good theory because it doesn’t square with the facts and evidence.
      It would be hard to call it an SYG case since it would be difficult to SYG while flat on your back getting your brains beat out by an attacker. The only aspect of SYG that would seem pertinent is the associated immunity statute for self defense, and the SYG issue is basically a red herring that is brought in as an attempeted justification for the battery of GZ by TM who is speculated and theorized to have been standing HIS ground against GZ, in response to some again theoretical aggression by GZ. The problem is there is no evidence to support that theory so you can have a theory all day with no evidence and it has no legal weight or meaning, it is conjecture and speculation. On the other hand there is evidence to support a self defense claim by GZ in this situation where other scenarios which may be plausible have no supporting evidence at all. The trayvon apologists don’t seem to understand that there is a weight of evidence and witnesses which supports the account of GZ and even the deposition of DeeDee supports the account of GZ which is ironic if DeeDee is somehow the “star witness” for the prosecution. So the prosecution has nothing, a big fat zero. That is exactly why there never should have been an arrest, much less a trial. No man should be tried on the basis of other people’s unsubstantiated theories supported by no evidence whatever, when all the evidence shows self-defense is what occurred.

      • Sharon says:

        The exposure of the 90% of this iceberg that they never thought would see the light of day is what has the racialists so freaked out. They’ve been playing their victim game for decades at an ever-accelerated pace. They were probably fairly sure of their momentum against the quiet/silent/normal Americans of all races who just kept doing their duty from day to day re jobs, family, paying their bills, etc. They overplayed their hand on this one for the simple reason that they had become very, very accustomed to no one daring to put what they were doing under the microscope and then dragging it into the sunlight.

        The tip of the iceberg is Trayvon Martin’s personal stupidity and his resulting death but it was not the visible ice that sank the Titanic–it was the invisible ice. And the invisible part of this is the presumption of their social engineering, their endless victimhood, their willing mauling of the American justice system for their own purposes, their deliberate designing and building of one cash cow after another based on their phony sympathy and phony advocacy for the “disadvantaged”–that invisible part of this is what has been eating away at the United States of America for decades. And finally. Finally. Finally. They are being called on it.

        That’s why the gloves have come off with the first half black POTUS. The issues that have presented themselves in this mess and which are being deconstructed by Sundance existed before GZ left for the store that night, and they will still be working against the United States after this mess is over. This is no more “just about George Zimmerman” than obama forcing hundreds of auto dealerships out of business was just about “streamlining the automobile business.” Sundance’s work and the research of y’all is a high tide of sorts that working, working, working and undermining their house built on sand.

        This particular situation played into their hands (they thought) and they overplayed it.. They have been so cozy in their “one hand washing the other” world of race-based legal reparations and political payoffs for so long

        I can’t keep track of the details of this whole mess–at all–but wanted to try to say these things because I think I noticed some commenters sort of implying, “Well, so what if MoM is screwing up in this specific way…..” He’s a symptom. He’s not the disease. Maybe they weren’t even saying exactly that–just seemed like to me in a couple of places.

      • Jasper says:

        The pros might be able to prove he followed in his truck which wouldnt make a leap to continued to follow really that far of a leap in a jurors mind which is why SYG is very important here bc it basically takes the whole who was the aggressor thing out of the equation. This is my understanding of SYG as it pertains to the aggressor issue- am i wrong though?

    • ejarra says:

      Question: If someone breaks in your house and finds you hiding in a closet from which there is NO ESCAPE; while “fearing for your life” you end up shooting that person, can you use SYG to defend yourself?

      • ejarra says:

        BTW, I see the answer the same as Georgie’s situation at the time when he shot Mr. Martin.

      • Jay says:

        I don’t think you would even need SYG. When it comes to your home there is no where else to retreat. Shoot to kill and if he moves shoot again.

      • kathy says:

        yes, imo, you would be entitled to immunity under the SYG and the PRESUMPTION that you were in fear of your life even if you weren’t. Subject to exceptions in the statute. The way I read it, it’s not even a rebuttable presumption.

      • ctdar says:

        Years ago our house alarm malfunctioned one early morning, police came out, searched house but after my husband joked that he always kept a baseball bat by side of the bed for self defense. the officer said that only helps you if the intruder is inside, if anything was to happen outside the house drag the person inside than call them.

        • Shari says:

          In the state of Florida we have the Castle Doctrine. If someone breaks into your home and you feel your life and or family lifes in danger, you are allowed to use deadly force. You cannot shoot someone who is leaving.

  81. caruhsel says:

    With the utterance of Barack Obama “If I had a son, he might look just like Trayvon Martin, his edict went out to the least factor in this equation… “Make this go away.” and that is exactly what has happened, and to hell with the collateral damage.
    It is going to go away.

    • mwsomerset says:

      Why would President Obama want this case to go away if….as indicated previously… this case is going to help him get reelected?

      • minpin says:

        Because the Zimmerman case is one of the vehicles, currently a loud vehicle for the Marxist to further his goals of class warfare. Get “his people” all riled up, and they will come out in droves to vote for the first black president yet again. Make those on the planatation, of the left’s making keep the victimology alive and well, and continue the welfare poverty status of the blacks the ongoing mantra and they will all come out to support their government welfare checks. Problem is, the black population is now lower than the hispanic population, and registers at something like 14%. The Marxist xcan’t win with even 100% of the black population. Heck, he even lost alot of that demographic when he “evolved” on the gay marriage issue, and then he signed millions of hispanics onto the welfare roles. Oh Lordy, those hispanics aren’t elegible for our reparations. What a mess the Marxist has created for himself, all in the name of being a “citizen of the world.” Trying to be everything to everyone, makes you nothing to no one, that is unless your are a die hard liberal. Then you will vote for anything but an evil Republican who wants you to breathe dirt air, drink dirty water, and wants grandma over that cliff yesterday. Try as you may somerset, you will never destroy my country, never. We outnumber you.

    • vonjames says:

      If Obama is smart enough to realize it, he won’t let this dispute go to waste. He’ll capitalize on it. Even if it’s just a drive-by rhetorical reference in some speech, he’ll play the race card or invoke emotional responses to this episode. As a politician, his interest lies in promoting conflicts amongst citizens so that he, or the government, can jump in and save the day, right the wrong and attempt to justify his position in order to acquire wealth or additional power.

      If Obama lets this “go away” he’ll regret it.

      • minpin says:

        That is one of the most disgusting racist rants I’ve read here ever. Take your “crisis too good to waste” theory, and put it where…………………

        How did you ever get through the filters here?

        • vonjames says:

          If you read my post carefully, you’ll see that I do not tie anything I’ve said to the race of anyone. And is it really too fantastic to believe that maybe, just maybe, politicians seek power and wealth? That even politicians are selfish?

          I mean, it’s not like I’m bringing up the ‘planatation’ or that I’m talking about ‘the welfare poverty status of the blacks’ or making claims that ‘they ['the blacks'] will all come out to support their government welfare checks’ like another poster here. That would be pretty racist.

        • Brahms says:

          Where is the racism?

      • caruhsel says:

        Apologies, i wasn’t clear with my thoughts.
        This will most assuredly be used by Obama until November to keep a portion of his constituency riled up, registered and voting ready.
        I should have said until its most immediate usefulness has played out.

        Obama used the same strategy before his first term with the Jena6 Tear Down /constant CNN coverage/Al S & Jessie J/ NAACP/Black Panther Raysust Recipe… that recipe inspired The “Get Out The Registration and Vote Movement and that faded quietly away after the election.
        Obama doesn’t mind creating the racial divisiveness when it proves useful.

  82. DiwataMan says:

    Regarding the gunshot wound and it’s range I think what people should understand about that, and about all forensics really, is that so much of it, all of it really aside from DNA, is subjective and not scientifically proven. This even goes for fingerprints; see video series below. One thing to really take away from that series is the study they did by sending fingerprint experts samples to be identified. They found that when information about the case was sent, along with the fingerprints, bias would play a role. That bias does not have to be a conscious one and is exactly why information, other than what is absolutely necessary in regards to a case, should never be sent to any forensics person or medical examiner.

    To understand why the ME used the term “intermediate range” you would have to literally contact that ME and ask. That or at least find out what standard they use to determine that language and what distance in inches falls under the various terms and why. THERE IS NO INDUSTRY STANDARD.

    Here is what’s in the reports, that we have available to us at this point, regarding gunshot distance, if there is something else in the reports that I have missed please let me know.

    ME Report Page 127
    Consists of a 3/8 inch diameter round entrance defect with soot, ring abrasion, and a 2×2 inch area of stippling. This wound is consistent with a wound of entrance of intermediate range.

    Nearly everybody forgets the Lab report which states “contact shot”;

    Lab Report pages 122-3
    One light grey Nike sweatshirt
    One dark grey Fruit of the Loom hooded sweatshirt.

    The sweatshirts each display a hole located in the upper left chest area. The areas around these hole were microscopically examined and chemically processed for the presence of gunshot residues, Both holes display residues and physical effects consistent with a contact shot.

    Distance tests were conducted using fabric cut from the back of each of the sweatshirts, as well as the Exhibit TS-1 pistol(George’s gun), magazine and one of the TS-1 cartridges from Submission 1.

    So we have to ask ourselves why is it that many people focus on what the ME said and omit what the Lab Report said. I think there are two answers. One is people have simply missed it. The other is more nefarious; they do it to support the false narrative. The term “intermediate range” gives the impression, let me repeat that, GIVES THE IMPRESSION, that Trayvon was at a distance far enough away to where George should not have been in fear for his life as he now had control over the situation and ended the assault, if that assault had in fact occurred, I say if it occurred because many out there as we know say George was never really assaulted. In other words he committed murder(because Trayvon wore a hoodie, lolz).

    In my opinion Trayvon was shot while he was still on top of George. W6 John supports that. The 911 call with the yells support that. The Lab Report supports that. And even the ME report supports that.

  83. txantimedia says:

    I’ve been reading this increasingly intensive attack on MOM and frankly I’m not buying it. The man has 28 years of experience and is board certified in criminal law. He took the case assuming that his client was indigent and he would be paid the state rate for his work. Furthermore, MOM has said different things about SYG to different audiences.

    In this interview with the detestable Piers Morgan, he responds to Piers’ question does he think the case rests on who started the fight by saying, “I think that a lot of people believe that, but I think the analysis of the law is a little bit different than that.”

    MOM has defended clients in SYG cases, so I would need a lot more context before deciding the meaning on the quote given. Furthermore, I agree with MOM that Zimmerman has a perfectly good defense under traditional self defense law and does not need to claim SYG.

    He is quoted in this article: “That statute has some troublesome spots, for sure, and I think we are now going to have some conversations as a state,” said O’Mara.

    I agree with that. The SYG cases that have been in the news have included some that were quite absurd. One guy pursued a thief for several blocks before confronting him and then stabbing him to death with a knife. Does that sound like legitimate self defense to you?

    Here’s an interview where MOM addresses SYG and explains its problems very well.

    The bottom line is, this is a very experienced and competent criminal trial lawyer who was willing to take the case when he knew the client had no money. Now you want us to believe that he’s somehow in cohoots with the prosecution (which is a serious breach of ethics and a disbarrable offense) to get Zimmerman convicted. AFAICT, it’s because you object to his style, the substance of some of his comments and the fact that he has cordial relations with the other lawyers in the case. As President of the Seminole County Bar Association, one would expect him to know most, if not all, of the local lawyers and have good relations with them.

    In my opinion, the jury is still out and will remain so until a lot more solid evidence than the innuendo served up here. (And yes, I’ve read all the other posts as well.)

    • What is the difference between using a traditional Self-Defense route, or using Stand Your ground. The answers you seek are within that question?

      Open your eyes and mind.

      Now you want us to believe that he’s somehow in cohoots with the prosecution (which is a serious breach of ethics and a disbarrable offense) to get Zimmerman convicted.

      It is NOT, I repeat NOT, about a conviction. I never said it was, not do I anticipate Zimmerman losing at trial, though there is an increasing risk. This is about O’Mara delivering a trial.

      And feel free to leave at any time. Thanks.

      • txantimedia says:

        I’m afraid I’m not following you. What do you mean by “O’Mara delivering a trial.”

        AFA your closing comment, I thought this was a blog were discussion was allowed. If was going to leave, I wouldn’t announce it like some baby. I’d simply leave and not come back. I post because I *thought* you wanted discussion. If what you really want is for everyone to agree with you, then I’m not your boy.

        • If you don’t understand what delivering a trial means…. well, at this point, it’s hopeless.

          Delivering a trial means GETTING Zimmerman TO TRIAL.

          Defeat any opportunity he has to avoid trial, eliminate his credibility, eliminate his capacity to win immunity at SYG, and get him in front of a jury. that’s what it means.

          • txantimedia says:

            Why do you feel the need to insult your opponents?

            I thought of that after I posted. Still, you’re implying that MOM is attempting to help Crump succeed in civil trial by refusing to attempt to get him released before trial in an immunity hearing. Again, you have a high hurdle to overcome to convince me that a man with MOM’s reputation is suddenly colluding with his opponents to deliver results counter to his client’s best interests.

            I understand your disappointment in MOM. You’ve articulated it well. You’re entitled to call him anything you want. But if you want others to believe you, your case needs to be much more convincing and solid than it is now.

            If you don’t want criticism, please say so. I’ll shut up then and let you say whatever you want without opposition.

            • LOL….. Proving my point that some people don’t even recognize they are ideologically entrenched. You say:

              Why do you feel the need to insult your opponents?

              Um,err, well, why do you feel the need to consider me your opponent? Your slip is showing…

    • Walther PPK says:

      inuendo ? hilarious really

      • txantimedia says:

        I’m sorry you find it hilarious that equating a glance toward another attorney as some sort of earth shattering revelation might be interpreted by someone as innuendo. Either this blog wants honest discussion or it doesn’t. Which is it?

        I’ve followed the discussion about the Zimmerman case for quite some time. I think this blog has done yeoman work at uncovering what really happened, particularly the work regarding Martin’s trip to the 7-11 and its implications for what occurred that night. In fact it was that work that inspired me to blog about the case finally making sense. (One of the biggest questions I had was why Martin attacked Zimmerman.)

        But on this particular subject, as I said, I remain unconvinced. I will remain so until I see some evidence (you know, like 7-11 tapes) that support the allegations against MOM. He has a sterling reputation as a criminal defense attorney, yet this blog is accusing him of having an unethical hidden agenda. That’s a high hurdle to overcome, and will take more than quotes about SYG and innuendo about looks between lawyers to convince me that a man known for his professionalism and ethics has all of a sudden become a nefarious character set to undermine Zimmerman’s defense.

        • Now I’m asking you to leave because you will become an annoying gnat and distract the discussion. This is not about censorship – this is about stopping you from trolling on, and, on, because discussion does not fit your mindset.

          Most, not all, but most, of the folks on this page who are defending O’Mara ARE LIBERALLY minded constitutionally incapable progs. Some of them don’t even know it. Their mind is made up and they cannot see anything except what their ideology will allow them to accept. They are done. They are the institutionalized and legacy media indoctrinated.

          I guarantee you those same O’Mara deniers are more apt to have NOT watched the entire 2 videos either. They don’t need to because their mind is made up. This stuff don’t fit their psyche embedded reference so they don’t need to watch it. They just jump to the comment section and begin to tell everyone it is non-sense.

          They will call this Shark Jumping – Yes, yes, yes….. That’s them. The same ones who voted multiple times in favor of Mark O’Mara in the poll. Yes, yes, yes,…. that’s them.

          They, O’Mara-deniers, take this one post highlighting two to three keen aspects of O’Mara’s less than honorable representation and they dissect it as if this is the only time anything has been shared. They disconnect the other 30+, specific and cited reference points that ADD UP to making this a bigger issue.

          They see this, the interview with O’Mara and the video of him and corey, as “static” or existing all on their own. The O’Mara Deniers do not posess the capacity to see this outline as 3 “more” puzzle pieces, so they cannot see the picture. They view this as the “only” 3 puzzle pieces. Instead these are 3 puzzle pieces in a puzzle already containing 30+ others.

          Ask youself – Did I actually watch all of those two videos?

          Good bye

          • txantimedia says:

            Judge, jury and executioner, huh? Well, it is your blog, and you’re entitled to shut off discussion when you don’t like it.

              • txantimedia says:

                Sigh. Make up your mind. You want me gone or not? Now I have to give you my bona fides?

                OK, fine. I watch EVERY video posted on this site about Zimmerman – many of them multiple times. I’ve read EVERY post related to Zimmerman on this site – some of them 10 or 20 times. I’ve read ALL the posts about MOM and the deteriorating opinions about him. I’ve listened to ALL the 911 calls multiple times. I’ve listened to George’s non-emergency call multiple times. I watched and listened to every witness interview, including “Dede” (which I think is one of the highlights of this blog.) I watched and listened to ALL of George’s interviews and his walk through several times. I’ve pored over all the released evidence multiple times. I’ve read the autopsy report. I’ve read all the evidence submitted to FDLE for analysis. I’ve blogged several times about the case.

                I’m a veteran of the Vietnam era. (No, I never saw combat.) I’m a Texan and a CHL holder. I’ve been a staunch conservative all my life. I hate liberals. I hate “progressives”. I hate communists. I hate what they’ve done to America. I want my country back. And NO ONE will take my guns away from me until after they have killed me. (And I won’t be the only one dying.)

                What else do you need to know? Oh, and I still disagree with your analysis of MOM. Sorry if that gets under your skin (which it clearly does.)

                Now, I’ve answered your question and shown you that I am not who you thought I might be. Do you still want me to go? It’s your blog. I’ll respect your wishes.

        • garnette says:

          Very simply, the man didn’t do his homework to know about how much money was in the accounts prior to the first bond hearing. He has said he knew that they existed but assumed that they had small balances in them so he didn’t think it was necessary to look to see what the balances are. Then, when he got caught in that basic mistake, he blamed it on a man who had been in jail for two weeks. You know what they say about assuming something, and I think MOM has proven that statement is true.

          • Cyrano says:

            Precisely, Garnette! He did not know enough about the accounts to be allowing Shellie to be testifying about them. This worse case scenario happened on his watch. He claims the Zimmermans deceived him. Is this his first case ever? How many clients do you think have lied to him over the years? Is he suppose to just take their word for it? What in the world was he thinking be letting Shellie testify at all? Couldn’t he foresee a situation like this? I could. I remember thinking to myself when I heard that she had testified, “I sure hope she doesn’t say anything that could be used against George”. Why couldn’t they have submitted a written report as to their finances? Didn’t it occur to this experienced attorney that she might say something improper, because she desperately wanted him out of jail?

  84. 2ntense says:

    Other than the money for the Martins and the IPA, this isn’t about George Zimmerman at all. He’s just an easy target, a means to an end. The purpose of this entire case is to undermine and begin to repeal all Stand Your Ground/ Castle Doctrine laws in the US. After that rid the Constitution of the 2nd Amendment. Do you think it is an accident it happened in Florida? Look back over the last 12-15ish years about the things making national headlines then think again.

    • txantimedia says:

      Look, the forces of evil are *always* trying to destroy freedom. This is nothing new. Because, Obama’s trying to get the UN Treaty on gun control signed, so why should they care about SYG? They’re after much bigger fish. It’s up to us patriots to stop them in their tracks.

      The Zimmerman case is one small part of a much bigger strategy that’s been going on for 80 years or more. They’ve been losing ground over the past 15 to 20 years, and they’re irritated about that. But we don’t win this fight by fighting them. We win it by getting the public to understand why self defense is important and what happens when governments confiscate guns.

    • Jasper says:

      It seems that allowing a SYG dismissal would create more outrage over SYG leading to a demand for its repeal if thats what the end goal is here. A trial seems to be the true goal of the State.

      • txantimedia says:

        That should never be the defense counsel’s consideration when deciding strategy. It may well be the state’s motivation, but I think Corey’s is more evil. If you look at the Marissa Alexander case, this is a woman who devoutly hates self defense claims.

  85. Gretchen says:

    Some here are willingly blinded by the luminescence of a “very experienced and competent criminal trial lawyer…” — a constant refrain among those who defend MOM.

    MOM’s manifold errors have been exposed and blogged about here, in detail I might add, yet do not seem to make an impression. One must not look at the growing mountain of FACTS, but must seek to fixate on one thing or another that bolsters a particular viewpoint, apparently.

    Interesting that many comments insist that it was only right and proper that George was called to account for his supposed mistakes, but that MOM must not be called to account for his missteps.

    It is either the basest kind of snobbery, or their ‘truth’ has some kind of agenda. Methinks there is a great deal of gnashing of teeth behind some of these comments. Horns are showing. :-)

    • txantimedia says:

      Facts? All I’ve seen are opinions. MOM should be this. He shouldn’t have said that. He need to be this. He shouldn’t be that. ALL of that is opinion, not fact. Please point to the facts you refer to.

        • txantimedia says:

          OK, let’s discuss one tape. (I’ve read that post several times already. I just went back and read it again. My opinion about it still has not changed.)

          You took issue with the fact that he didn’t say it was his client screaming for help on the 911 tape. Yet you completely ignored or deliberately chose not to mention the fact that he closed the interview with this (exact quote taken from the tape) “The attacks on Mr. Zimmerman’s credibilities are going to pale in comparison to the undeniable objective evidence.”

          Does that sound like a lawyer who doesn’t believe in his client?

          I get that you don’t like MOM. I get that you would have handled many things differently than he has. I get that this is your blog and you’re entitled to your opinion and to claim that it’s fact. I get that you wish George had a lawyer who bit off the head of every person who said something bad about George and fought with the judge every inch of the way. (A Wolverine, if you will.)

          Those are all still opinions.

          I get that you’ve invested untold unrecoverable hours in investigating the case and you’ve had some really remarkable insights. Why do you think I bother to argue about this? I respect your work and what you’ve done. I just think the attack on MOM is detracting from the great work that’s been done, and it’s not based on the same level of factual research that other work has been based on (which is why the other work is so convincing.)

          But again, it’s your blog. You want me to shut up, I’ll shut up.

          • boricuafudd says:

            One question why hasn’t MOM asked for a SYG hearing, I realize that at this point it be pointless but before? If YOU believed your client and you had a means to end this quickly (SYG) why wait? To see what the prosecution had? If you have a strong case as everyone believed, there is nothing to be gained by waiting but, giving your opposition more time to find something anything to use against you. From his 1st interview he said that it was a long road ahead until the trial. I’m looking for the exact quote and will post it when I find it, the impression was that he was preparing for trial from the get go. I will not go as far as claim collusion between Corey and MOM but it does gives the allusion that a trial was always on his mind IMHO.

            • M4 says:

              I think strategically it would have been foolish to rush into a SYG hearing when O’Mara had not received all of the discovery, especially when Zimmerman was out of jail on bond. Now the SYG issue is compromised because Zimmerman’s credibility is severely compromised with Lester, who will hear and decide the SYG issue. Lester has a great deal of discretion as the trier of fact to judge credibility — I don’t see Zimmerman winning a SYG hearing right now. Lester is pissed at Zimmerman for the “potted plant” deception. Zimmerman is out on bond, and there is no rush to proceed with a SYG hearing so soon after Lester issued ripped Zimmerman.

              • Jello333 says:

                Lester will not be the judge at the SYG hearing. Well, at least not if O’Mara does his job. (Yeah I know that’s very debatable right now.) Lester has made several extremely prejudicial statements (both verbal and written) against George…. PLENTY to have him removed from the case. Now it’s j