Note from the CTH: This post is independently authored by an anonymous guest of the Treehouse. This is part two in a series of independently submitted guest posts. We are unable to determine or validate if the content discussed is indeed the substantive content of an upcoming book, we are the conduit host and present for informational purposes of discussion:
George Zimmerman was not involved in the collaboration of this book and makes no guarantee of its accuracy or content. The comments added here to the known text of the Osterman book were not made by George Zimmerman, and should not be construed as the only comments that George Zimmerman may have regarding the publishing of this book.
As previously presented by the guest author: Upon initial review there appear to be numerous “mistakes” in [an upcoming] book, and even several specific items that we feel are outright fabrications. These aspects may be intended to help the book sell well, but they also present some serious factual concerns.
The areas of concern will be highlighted, and honestly rebutted, during the course of a number of guest posts here at the Treehouse over the next several days.
These areas to be addressed could potentially be damaging to George Zimmerman, and I feel it is important to address each of them individually.
In the next several days the excerpts, responses and summaries you will read are my “Guest Posted” words and my opinion. While I will share the content of the upcoming book, as I know it, the rebuttal or challenge to the book will be mine alone.
The intent of rebuttal is meant to bring these fabrications, falsehoods and concerns to light, and such retort is provided for the benefit of those who will ultimately read the published book and have questions about its accuracy.
I am, quite simply, trying to get out ahead of what “could be” a well intended attempt at public support, which simultaneously creates a significant and potentially damaging series of unintended consequences.
Chapter One – That’s What Friends Are For
(
excerpt) Mark Osterman Writes ~ [...] Then, Shellie and I flanked George as we walked to my car in the [police] station parking lot. I mentioned to George that we thought it wise for them both to stay in our spare bedroom for the night. I then, added, “And, we probably need to stop by the hospital and get you checked out.”
He [George Zimmerman] immediately declined the hospital stop, “I just want to go to your house and try to get some sleep. For some reason, I am bone weary and almost have to sleep right now.” I understood.
For the next fifteen minutes, or however long it took to make the drive to our home in Lake Mary, George recounted what he knew of the deadly encounter with the young black man; we did not know his name at this point.
It was a story he would repeat for my wife, then his family, other friends again and again.
Each time he repeated the events of that night it would literally drain him, almost as if it taxed his very soul to remember those brief few frantic moments. I had always been a mentor for George, but actually learned as much from his as he did from me.
While he spoke, he was in the back seat with his wife because her main priority was to look at his wounds and make sure he did not need immediate attention. I saw him as my best friend, my brother. I hoped and prayed I could guide him through the tragic experience that had shaken him to his core.
I listened closely to George as I drove [...]
(snip) Mark Osterman then claims the following series of statements are made by George Zimmerman as George describes events to him on their drive home from the police station. However, it is in these first-hand accounts by Mark, within the book, that multiple issues arrise:
“I left home on Sunday night to go do my shopping at Target. [...] I got into the car and started driving when I noticed this tall man, ¹looking into a window of a residence.
¹George never stated he saw Trayvon Martin “looking into a window”. This is the first of a series of factually false statements attributed by Mark Osterman to *his friend* George Zimmerman.
I was pretty sure he didn’t live there, because I seemed to recall a shorter guy living there. Anyway, it is raining and it’s dark ¹and the guy is looking in the window.
¹Again, the claim by Mark Osterman, of George Zimmerman stating he saw a guy “looking in the window” is factually false.
So, I stop under a street light to watch him for a moment. Then, I think I should probably call the police and have them check the guy out. Well, the tall man sees me from about seventy feet away and starts toward me and he can see me under the light and knows I’m talking on my cell phone. I’m talking to 911 and the guy, who I now can see is a young black guy, is watching me make the call. He walks to the passenger side window and stands there a moment, then goes to the front of the car, comes around to my window on the driver’s side, then toward the rear of my car, then walks away.
“I couldn’t see him at that point. I didn’t know exactly where he went. I am on the phone and the officer asked me, “Do you still see him?” I said, “No, I don’t see him.” Then the officer says, ²“If you can’t see him, do you still need us to send an officer? We need you to get to a place where you can see him …”
²Again, absolutely not, repeat – NOT, a statement ever given by George Zimmerman to anyone. Total fabrication.
(This is one of those points that will be important later: The policeman’s direction to George can be interpreted different ways. Did George feel the officer was asking him to follow him in his car, or get out of his vehicle to see if he could see where the young man went? George chose the latter.)
I’m walking outside in the rain still on the phone with 911 when the officer says, ‘Are you following him?’
I answered, ‘Yes, I’m following him’ … but I didn’t see him, I am just going in the general direction of where I saw him last.
The officer says, ‘We don’t need you to do that.’
And I say, “Okay.”
The officer on the phone asked me where I wanted the officer to meet me and tells me a responding officer is almost on the scene, about 45 seconds away. I don’t know the exact address inside the complex where I am walking so I just tell them to direct the officer to the club house and I would meet him there. I put the phone in my pocket, turn around to head back to the car, when the guy is right there, fifteen feet away and walking toward me.
He says, “Do you have a problem?”
I say, “No, I don’t have a problem.”
“Well, you do now,” he says, and he’s coming at me.
I look down to get my phone and that’s when he decks me. I saw stars. The punch knocked me to the ground on my back. The guy jumps on top of me, straddles me with his knees up against my ribs and begins to punch me in the face while my head was hitting the concrete sidewalk. When I tried to sit up, he begins to grab my head and smash it on to the concrete again and again and I’m really afraid that I’m going to pass out.
“I notice that I’m about eight inches away from the grass and I try to maneuver my body just enough to get my head onto the grass. About that time a man has come out of his house and I start shouting, ‘Help me, help me!’ ³ The resident says he’s ‘not going to get involved’ but that he would call the cops.
³This is not a quote from George Zimmerman.
I see another man and again shout, ‘Help me, God, help me!” This man says nothing – just runs back into his house and I assume he made a call to the police as well. Two other men saw us out there and did nothing. I finally squirmed onto the grass, but then the guy on top of me takes one of his hands and puts it over my nose and pinches it closed while his other hand goes over my mouth. Afraid I was going to pass out, I desperately got both of my hands around the guy’s wrists and took his hand off my mouth long enough for me to shout again for help.
“For a brief moment I had control of the guy’s wrists, but I knew when he felt the sidearm at my waist. He took his hands off my mouth and nose and went for the gun saying, ‘You’re gonna die now motherfucker.’
“Somehow, I broke his grip on the gun and grabbed it between where the site and hammer is. I got it in my hand, raised it toward the guy’s chest and pulled the trigger.
“The guy sat up and I heard him say, ‘You got it, okay – you got it.’ I am not sure what he meant, but then he pivoted ninety degrees and fell face forward onto the grass and I scooted out from under him.
“I didn’t know I shot him. I actually thought my shot went wide. In fact, I thought he might try to get up again, so after putting my gun back in the holster, I jumped on top of him and pinned his wrist over his head to the ground. A man approached out of the darkness, ‘Are you the police?’ I asked.
‘No,’ the man answered. Then I could see another man emerging from the shadows.
‘Are you the police?’ I called.
‘Yes, I’m an officer.’
I think I said something like, ‘Okay, good,’ and I’m on my knees when the officer told me to put my hands on top of my head. He walked over and pulled my firearm out of my holster and then several officers showed up. I think I realized I had shot the young man when emergency vehicles began to show up. Several officers were bent over the young black man who had not moved.
Then, someone directed an emergency tech to look at my face and head while I was seated on a curb nearby. Another joined him and they cleaned up the cuts, applying some gel to help stop the bleeding on my head. They inserted some gauze tubes into my bleeding nose, and taped some gauze pads to the back of my head.
“They finally told me I had shot the young black man on the grass and that he was dead.
They were already talking to people on the scene about what they saw. I overheard one of the officers tell the medics, ‘Clean him up good if I’m going to take him to the station. I don’t want him bleeding on the inside of the car.’
The last comment was probably not meant for George to hear. When he was telling us the story of the events that night, I understood what the officer was saying. After every shift, officers have to turn their assigned car over to the next officer on duty. It was his responsibility to make sure he handed over a clean and ready car. If it wasn’t clean, the officer would have to take time to clean it himself. George continued:
“While they walked me to the car for the ride over to the station, one of the officers said, ‘We think we have a pretty good idea of what happened here, but the detective is going to talk to you at the station.’
George spoke about the hours he had spent being interviewed by the violent crimes investigator who focused on the same questions again and again. I looked at my friend and saw the weariness in his eyes, also the pain, and the confusion.
From the moment I heard George speak about the shooting, I never once doubted that my friend was trying to survive that night just to make it back to his wife. He felt his life threatened and it was either him or the other guy; a young Trayvon Martin, a name everyone would come to recognize over the next few weeks.
George Zimmerman would also come to own a fame he did not seek or relish in any way. In fact, in short order, everything dug up about George would be spoken of, written about, and discussed in every newspaper, talk show, and major news network from coast to coast.
All I felt for my friend was absolute heartbreak. I wanted him to know I would be there for the long haul, and said so before he and Shellie shut the door to our guest room that night; a night none of us will ever forget.
{ END }
To Be Continued……
Somehow, to me the narrative does not sound like a person relating what another said to them?? Ahh Dunno?
At the risk of overstatement What kind of a moron talks about the specifics of a case in progress. This jerk was in law enforcement unbelievable
there are claims in here Howie that we have never heard before, it does not sound like Georges version, but Ostermans version
SD, according to this version GZ was told that TM was dead while still at the scene, I have read that GZ didn’t find out until he was at the police station. Can you clarify?
SD didn’t write this. It is simply a recounting of what is supposedly in the Osterman book. I know you didn’t ask me, but I’m pretty sure that’s what SD will tell you.
Thanks Stella, I only point it out since SD was pointing out things that were different in the accounting in the book to what was known or believe prior. This is inconsistent is what I was saying.
bori,
I don’t think it’s SD who is pointing those things out. It’s the auother of this thread, and this series who is making those distinctions. Remember, TCTH is only the *conduit* for this series of posts.
So, the comments in red, with a footnote designation, then followed up with the actual footnote in blue, are those of the anonymous “guest poster”.
That’s important, IMO, to remember as we move through this series.
You are absolutely correct CK, getting senile, like Eastwood in my later years, thanks.
Well said, cajunkelly.
auother? dang! I do think I’m gettin Clint Eastwood syndrome myself,
Author…maybe I should type it 100 times as a lesson to review before hitting “post comment”.
bori- SD did not write the above post. It was written by a “guest” who has knowledge of the book. Did you read this section at the top of the post-
“Note from the CTH: This post is independently authored by an anonymous guest of the Treehouse. This is part two in a series of independently submitted guest posts. We are unable to determine or validate if the content discussed is indeed the substantive content of an upcoming book, we are the conduit host and present for informational purposes of discussion:”
I agree with Howie. But then it’s a book, writing is different than speaking. I don’t think this is entirely the truth either. It doesn’t sound right.
Pingback: Inside The Osterman Book – The Danger Discussed – A CTH Exclusive Series «
“Two other men saw us out there and did nothing”…just wondering about this part, were these two of the witnesses? I didn’t realize he was aware of so many people milling about, ignoring his cries for help.
Secondhand information is just what it is secondhand information
I wouldn’t want to comment on details of anything I see as odd about the account in an open forum until the final book is published and released. I wouldn’t want anything changed based on observations of people that have looked at the evidence a lot…like Treepers…that a bulldozer can be driven through, so to speak, after the book is released. Will be interesting to see how this account rolls along.
Thanks for posting this account.
This is an interesting point, are we vetting this book?
yeah, should have thought before I opened my trap…oops…if the mods want to delete, please do.
I’m just jotting down a few notes as the account rolls along.
[The opening chapter title "That's What Friends are For"...needs a little help. May I suggest "What are Friends Like This For?"]
I don’t know much about the publishing world. I think the claim was made by justfactsplz that the release would be paperback and ebook. I’m doubting that it will be released as paperbook right away. Wouldn’t an e-book be easy to change right up to release date?
I do like your title a lot better.
This sucks, ive been arguing the Tcong supporters for months about Georges inconsistencies, They are going to run with this crap as facts………
Where did the reference “Tcong” come from? Exactly what is it referring to? Trying to figure that one out. Please clarify.
its a word some here describe the TM supporters, ive just copied them, sorry for the confusion.
The concern I have (as a moderator) is this: how likely is it that it’s a play off the kingkong (monkey) imagery? We’ve (mods) been tossing it around trying to come with another possibility. This is not addressed at you personally because as you acknowledge, we do tend to just pick up on someone else’s usage.
Heads up for everyone: unless someone can affirm that “Tcong” has some other definition or intent, we will not be allowing it going forward.
Again sunnydaze, I emphasize that my comment here is not aimed specifically at you. I’ve seen that reference used many times on various threads by a variety of people
Very sorry, as u can see from any previous posts ive made i usually refrain from such description, i let my emotions get the best after reading todays entry, my apologies.Pls delete/edit, thx
I completely understand. Not a problem. Ok? ok.
I’d like to leave our little conversation here for others to read, if that’s ok? It truly was not your specific usage that raised the alarm, but the pattern over the weeks where the phrase has been cropping up. Be at peace…..
Thanks Sharon
I’m glad Sharon asked the question about Tcong. I had no idea what it meant but thought it sounded goofy. I didn’t believe it sounded offensive; I just thought it sounded dumb. Believe it or not, I thought the TC was (trial court) and had no idea what the ong meant. I was thinking to myself, “could it mean “ongoing”? If I wanted to offend someone, I probably would have thought of a word that everyone would have instantly recognized. Unlike Sharon, I was too embarrassed to ask what it meant, because I thought it was a common knowledge type of word, like LOL or IMO. Just my two cents!
I’ve seen the term used quite often by many. I always looked at it as being a take off on the Viet Cong who were our enemies in Viet Nam. I never connected it to anything racist. I have no idea what the one who coined the term meant though.
That was my impression(Vietcong) as well, but I see your point Sharon.
That’s what I had sort of thought as well, but frankly, that doesn’t make any sense that I can see. I think we do well to set it aside, since apparently none of us really can explain it, even to ourselves!
I have always wondered what it meant also. I have seen it used all over the internet and it’s been used on here for at least 3 to 4 months.
Have you really?
Yeah seen it used mostly in connection to the Zimmerman case. I know for a fact it’s been used on here since I started posting here which was awhile ago. I just ignored it though if it’s racist I want no part of it.
Tcong=Viet Cong. A metaphor. Insurgents undermining the Capitalist South Viet Nam in the name of the Communist North. Tcong are the similar faction in the United States. Attacking innocent people from ambush. It has nothing to do with King Kong or Monkeys. The Black Gangs are the Cong. The enablers are the Cong. The Socialist Democrat Media is the Tcong Trail. Do not fall for the Racism Trap. Almost anything can be twisted in to some racism fallacy. Cong are Cong. With a C not a K. If it would be more professional we could use full names and toe the legal line. It would require more thought, research, and time. We could source everything.
Now there is a thought, I don’t know what it would do with some of the conversations, though.
Prolly make a big diff. It is fun to make antagonistic statements v the enemy. Penciling the Socialist Democrats who we know are tuning in is a good pastime. But quality surpasses quantity every time. It requires effort, research, sourcing and time. For 10 posts would take the time of one if thought out.
Too True, I’m thinking about Talkleft blog, and how some of those conversations last days w/o any consensus.
@howie that’s 100% the analogy I always thought applied there to that nick but hey I probably need sensitivity training
There are good reasons that ad hominem is considered logical fallacy. There is no need to give him a derogatory nickname when his own words and actions suffice. Simply refer to Martin by his name. It is unwise to give our ideological opponents free ammunition. It merely allows them to distract from meaningful argumentation. (See also: Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke.)
No doubt. Less fun but no doubt.
This makes me sick. Why in the world would this “best friend” think for one minute that it’s a good idea to re-cap George’s supposed statement of events that night? So now there is ANOTHER “statement” out there? WTF was he thinking? Seriously…..why did he do this? I hate the idea of this book at all, but to tell the story about what happened AFTER this night how about George had to hide, etc., that is one thing, but to put in a book more details about that night?? I am speechless.
“This makes me sick. Why in the world would this “best friend” think for one minute that it’s a good idea to re-cap George’s supposed statement of events that night? So now there is ANOTHER “statement” out there? WTF was he thinking? Seriously…..why did he do this? I hate the idea of this book at all, but to tell the story about what happened AFTER this night how about George had to hide, etc., that is one thing, but to put in a book more details about that night?? I am speechless.”
Everything you said Cupcakes, and to try and answer your why question. Osterman seems to have become the self proclaimed MESSIAH OVER GEORGE!
This may have begun as a mentoring and friendship, but since George is getting a bit more attention, Osterman has to come along and take some of the limelight to show his role and his part in George’s salvation. And he thinks he’s saving George again with this book. Very very narcissistic thing he is doing!
The title had my dander up from the get go:
DEFENDING: he’s taking it upon himself to do that
OUR FRIEND: our vs their, “we they” mentality, isolating George as Our friend as though he has no other friends. Beware of people who isolate you from others!
THE MOST HATED MAN IN AMERICA: creates a Lord Privy seal effect of being overdone, hackneyed, unintellectual and condescending toward an adult audience who can distinguish more than the author gives them credit for.
Its a title for a child’s book. No one intelligent would waste a dime on it.
“as though he has no other friends.”…pretty funny, a bunch of strangers from the TH are more “friends” to George than his actual “friends”.
Very succinct gb.
I’ll be less verbose and just repeat what I stated on the thread about this book late last night/early this morning.
I’ma be honest with y’all….and I’ll just let this picture speak the words for me….
For those who don’t know what it is…it’s a TURKEY BUZZARD. They’re bald headed birds of prey.
P.S. I meant “less verbose” for myself gb, since I often get carried away and prattle on and on and on….
I have always found your prattles quite engaging, CK.
And you’ve always spoken my mind, when I’ve been too outraged to say anything.
You see them around here picking at the carcasses of road kill.
Yep, and the really nefarious ones have this attitude;
Oh, man…I see them all the time here and they straight up freak me out!
They are lazy. If ya know what I mean.
I’m curious if the Hero complex that Serino was ascribing to GZ is not a projection after talking to Mark O. It certainly fits that Mark feels like a hero, he took GZ at a time when it would endanger him or his family, keeping from danger.
Now he is trying to save GZ from the bad publicity and scorn of others. I will have to see if Serino’s comments about a Hero Complex, and the timing of Mark’s interview and whether it was Mark that game Serino that impression.
I’ve mentioned before the event when our 14 year old friend (daughter of my best friend years ago) was violently raped, became pregnant, carried the child and placed the little girl for adoption. We saw something similar to what you mention here…. throughout the months of the trial and the pregnancy, all of a sudden we could sense some individuals attempting to find a role within the human drama. It was a little weird, because even though some folks were certainly casual friends and “good acquaintances” we could just “feel” the shift as they “found a role”. The experience was indeed very dramatic, couldn’t help but be–and it went on for months and months. My friend came up with a wonderful phrase for some of those folks: “they’re just along for the glory ride…..”
Because it was a dramatic situation being lived out in a high profile way because of the trial, the immediate family being supportive and plainspoken about their faith, etc. it “attracted attention” of all kinds. And my friend was right on: regardless of what they thought their personal motivation was, some of those people were just attracted to the soaring experience of feeling terribly alive, “on target” and “personally involved” in an intense situation. They
were involved in the way they were becausecreated a role for themselves because of what it did for them on an emotional basis. “….along for the glory ride….” And of course, it wasn’t all glory. Not at all. And, of course, they were not the ones who were aware when the young mother-to-be was grieving her losses, terrified of her attacker, and they were not in the room when she just needed to be held and sort of rocked by her mom as she prepared to face her attacker in the court room–for two full days because she was the only witness. (He had held her at knifepoint in her own home for hours) Yeah. Along for the glory ride. Is that what has happened here? I don’t know. Could be.Mark may honestly believe that he is helping GZ, the money may be secondary or not important at all, but by inserting himself into the story, he is asserting, claiming a piece of the action. Remember that as he has said, he mentored GZ, in essence he is claiming the credit or a least some responsibility in this debacle.
In essence he saying I did that, through GZ. I hope he remembers that if GZ ends in jail it won’t be him in the cold, dark, and lonely cell, it will be GZ.
…and that would be the essence of hopping on for the glory ride. In a transitory situation, appointing oneself a role that brings one into closer proximity, for some credit and some limelight. Tough stuff. Not good.
On the one hand cash. On the other,…mitigate the damage. All in all. Less than pure.
I totally understand that phenomenon Sharon. I think I’ve mentioned before that DH is a twinless twin; his twin sister was killed when they were 13. His baby sister was far too young to have any memory of it, yet she, in recent years has insisted on inserting herself into the tragedy/drama.
This year was difficult for DH, in that it’s the 40th anniversary. How does his “work the system librul societal leech” sister commemorate it? By sending pictures of *her* daughter to relatives and persisting in her belief that said daughter is DH’s twin sister reincarnated.
One; it’s wrong to do that to my DH, who still grieves the loss of his sister in ways that only a twinless twin can understand. Two; it’s wrong to “put that” on the daughter.
I often say it’s impossible to imagine that this sister and my DH came from the same DNA set. They are worlds apart in every conceivable way, not the least of which is morally and politically.
We were discussing it two nights ago and I called it “borrowing drama”.
Wow. That’s another sad example. Folks who do that skip over the painful, dark, alone, cold hours that can’t be avoided by the person who is actually experiencing the whole event–they don’t get to choose only the “advantageous” parts. How painful–for a 13 year old to lose their twin.
It may be time to bury the race card. It was always the Joker anyway. If you get my drift.
I get it.
Howie, you “get it”, as in you’re a twinless twin? I sincerely hope not. That’s something I (with all seriousness) wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.
As DH says, he was born into an intimate (no not sexual) relationship, where others have to learn that. It makes the eternal separation that much more painful.
We just went through the anniversary of her death. I feel so helpless every year. (Her anniversary, coincidentally, is the same as a very traumatic event in my life…same year, same day). Fortunately I’ve moved beyond mine and am able to just “be here” for DH as he moves through it, then beyond it each each year.
As strange as it may seem to some, the fact that he still grieves her so deeply makes me love him that much more. His sister “borrowing drama” enfuriates me and brings out my “momma bear” protection mode like you wouldn’t believe.
OK, sorry guys…off topic.
I will be good.
I *will* be good.
I will *be* good.
I will be *good*.
Dammit, no I won’t.
But I try!
gbishop1, “Beware of people who isolate you from others!” Man that’s some good advise, unless of course you like being entangled in the web of a narcissist or of a sociopath.
This is getting as bad as Flash Gordon.
I know I won’t waste a penny on this book and if someone tried to hand it to me, I would hand it back or use it in my cats litter box. Sorry Osterman’s but I am not giving YOU my money for writing a crappy book about your so called friendship with George. This is all nothing more than a money making bit for them. The only reason they are going on Dr, Phil, is to promote their book. They are not going there to defend their “Friend”
I’m gonna shut up about this because I will only end up telling them where to go and how to get there in some not so nice words.
Oh I concur froggie. If someone tries to give me that book they may end up wearing it as a butt plug. (Yeah, I have less restraint when it comes to bad words.)
I have always loved books, and grieved when ebooks became the norm. I’ve always hated “book burnings”, but this is one book I’d GLADLY watch being tossed on the bonfire of greed. “Bonfire of vanities”??
It does not even deserve the dignity of calling it a book.
I don’t even know where to begin. Expect an Eighth Supplemental from Corey with this book listed.
Now I know where the “peeking in widow” claim made by justfactsplz came from. She says there’s a witness to it. George always said the same thing “looking at houses” or “house” never window.
“I was pretty sure he didn’t live there, because I seemed to recall a shorter guy living there.”
George was very specific in the walk-through, even agreed with the address that the cop mentioned, that it was Frank’s house. So I guess now George is only vaguely aware of who lived there, his fellow neighborhood watchman. Yikes.
Remember this is only a “portion” or part of Chapter One. Based on word count it represents around 20% of the first known chapter…
Then consider the known content described above against this statement from Sondra Osterman:
How anyone could think it “HELPful” to present a permanent and published record, of a witnesses first hand recollections, of comments made by a subject in a criminal case just blows my mind.
Why, would the Osterman crew (all of them) think this would be helpful.? Seriously?
The above would DQ them as admissible evidence. I think. It is as bad as Lester working on the sting of Shellie. Or worse. As far as evidence goes. This was a really bad idea. Especially Dr. Phil. I can see that fiasco coming from my living room.
The email doesn’t mention giving George a copy. The book is about him!
This whole venture is rogue, like those shady companies who send a notice that they will charge you, unless you opt out. Opting out is very aggressive and its downright inconsiderate to the lives of people.
Opting in would have been true friendship, as in, “we’ve written this book, what do you think? If you think it will help and if you wish it, let us know and we can get it published. And take all the time in the world, because we understand there is a lot you have to do!”
At a time when they have so much on their heads, the Zimmerman team has to busy themselves to read a book and challenge items in it, or else it goes to press.
Thanks to the guest poster for doing this series. This is not simply a valuable service to truth, but you are helping George greatly. You are a guardian angel to George, as SD and all the Treehouse team and posters. We are George’s true friends!
Mark Osterman was fired from his job as a Seminole Sherrif’s deputy for moonlighting as security for a con artist, who he believed was very wealthy. From then on his character and reputation only goes downhill. I fear that GZ is going to suffer a great deal just for his association with a so-called law enforcement officer who was conned by a con artist, which are the bad guys he is supposed to be working against.
Lester turned down the state motion for a gag order. Maybe O/W will be in court Monday with a new one. It is called for. Dr. Phil should be stopped too.
I don’t recall George ever saying “looking in windows”, but in one of his statements didn’t he say, “looking in houses”? Usually he said, “looking at houses”, but I think I remember an “in” there once or twice. To me, it seemed more like it was an impression George was getting… he wasn’t sure if Trayvon was looking at or “in” part of the time.
You see where the distinction is huge and can impact the case. Looking at houses is something completely innocent, we all do it. Looking in the houses or windows could be construed as a criminal offense. The prosecution is claiming TM was just looking at houses, innocently, if GZ had said the opposite it removes the profiling issue, GZ had every right to be suspicious, at that point. Big difference.
There is no profiling issue. “Profiling” is not an unlawful activity. Zimmerman need not explain if or why he was suspicious of Martin. It has absolutely nothing to do with defending himself against felony aggravated battery, nor with reasonably believing in imminent death or bodily harm.
So, if George was acting in a lawful manner up to the attack then he was justified. The evidence points his way. The evidence shows Tcong was the Felon. SPD wanted to charge uneeded killing to prevent a felony. The Felony was the Tcong attack. Carpetbagger Corey hijacked the case and charged 2nd degree with no PC and the court let it slide. Is that about it? Now the higher courts are weighing in. Looks bad for the Schemer’s.
From my perspective, it appears that SPD saw no probable cause for anything other than justifiable homicide, and never intended to charge Zimmerman with anything</em..
Essentially, yes. The probable cause affidavit would be laughable if it wasn’t criminally negligent in any evidence to prove the assertion of probable cause.
No, not really. I don’t think the “higher courts” are involved in any way other than the Writ of Prohibition decision.
Well, that is what I meant. Even if the 18th circuit can’t get the law right on appeal they will be reversed. Example the Writ of Prohibition. The defense cited good law. As long as they continue to do so the higher courts will reverse the Circuit Circus. But Serino wanted to go with the manslaughter charge. The State Attorney Wolfinger balked, and set it for a Grand Jury. That is when the case was hijacked by Corey. If the 18th Circuit continues in this the higher courts will strike them down.
This is why I always look forward to your comments. You have a way of bringing us back to what’s really relevant. This book may be good or (more likely) bad for George where public opinion is concerned. But it’s unlikely to have any legal impact on the case. And even if the prosecution does try to make a big deal about certain inconsistencies, I don’t see anything (so far at least) that could have any impact on George’s straight-forward, solid self-defense claim.
Think like a good prosecuting lawyer…… What Osterman is doing here is essentially pre-viewing any testimony he could make on the witness stand. He is boxing himself in.
Think about how valuable it would be to call a witness and know exactly, every scintilla, of what they could, or could not, say.
You start out the approach of testimony by asserting the relationship, the super-special bestest friend evah relationship, between George and Mark Osterman. You establish their blood-brother bond and complete trust etc. etc.
Then you insure the jury hears your witness (Mark) swear that he would never lie, and he also would not ever know George to Lie.
Now, you reference your notes, knowing with published specificity what dispartity exists between this witness and the person you are prosecuting. You know the exact phrases this “witness of self-claimed integrity” has committed himself to about this case.
Do you have any idea what a good attorney could do knowing the only possible answer to each and every question they frame? It is like the ultimate Christmas Gift for a prosecutor…. A several hundred page self-important running of the mouth deposition…
Giddy up !!
Oh, they’ll call Osterman as a character witness fer sure…. Oh he’ll definately be on the prosecution witness list. Of THAT there is absolutely NO DOUBT. Not now.
A good prosecuting attorney would be prosecuting the criminals. He/She would not be here. There are a lot of them. This is hurting them. This is hurting the advocates for poor Black’s. This is hurting justice. But if it is true that the book has a disclaimer what can’t the Corey monster do with it? This case is going down in December. On a Friday night.
A good prosecuting attorney has a staff that checks for any reference to their case – they are very aware of social media. Don’t fool yourself.
And they prosecute criminals. Of which there are plenty.
That my good man is a double edged sword. The defense also knows the answer and that allows plenty of time to research hard facts to counter the ‘permanent record’. What the prosecution can not know is the answers to the cross examination. Fabricating fact to sell a ‘book’ is one thing, doing it on the witness stand is a felony and we have Nifong Jr. to thank for crucifying Shellie and setting precedence in this fiasco.
I thought I could recall one statement GZ answered to an interrogator where he was being pressured to explain what was so suspicious about TM, and he was trying…and said “just looking at the houses”. I took it that he saw an older teen in the rain and dark, one who he had never seen in the Retreat before, “just looking about” (he says on the NEN call). To me, that would be really suspicious for a strange older teen to be doing, standing in the dark and rain looking at houses. It would depend on how close he might be to any house. On the drive through, he was ask exactly “where” TM was standing, and he told where TM had been. Mr. Osterman seems a tad prone to exaggeration, thus “looking in windows.” I’ve know people like that, they aren’t exactly lying, but not the truth either. Those kind of people have no business writing a book, especially in this high profile ongoing investigation of a murder case.
looking at houses while on foot at night in the pouring rain?
Well, yeah.!…he might have been putting a down payment together to be able to move ahead with personal security and long range planning, couldn’t he?
Oh No! You just reminded me of one of my favorite Rolling Stones Songs…She was Hot…In the pouring rain! I gotta go play it now.
That’s me banging on the TV. Who is that Redhead?
She was Hot…Undercover Rolling Stones…By Dan
I was told from the very beginning that George thought Travyon was suspicious because he was looking in a window of a home that George knew the owner was away and asked him to keep an eye on it. This is what Mark said he was told that night so I am baffled this noon time poster says George never said that.
I think you have that a bit confused. They are not saying that George never told Osterman that. They are saying George has never made that statement anywhere that we know of to anyone else, particularly to police. The larger and more important point is this following quote as expressed by Jeralyn at TalkLeft;
“…what they have written and what they say publicly could potentially be used to impeach George as a witness at trial if George testifies differently from what the Ostermans say he told them in their book. All the state has to do is ask George on cross-examination if he ever said X. If George denies saying X, they call Osterman to the stand and ask if George ever told him X. If Osterman says yes, it’s good impeachment evidence.”
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/9/1/221432/1505?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime+%28TalkLeft%3A+The+Politics+of+Crime%29
There is also this sort of thing that Sundance has pointed out;
The Sanford police officer quickly answered, “Oh, don’t worry about it; from what I’ve seen, it’s clean.” This bit of “police jargon” meant, in the officer’s opinion, it was pretty clear what had taken place and there weren’t a lot of questions about the incident.
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/09/01/chapter-one-the-osterman-book-and-the-dangers-of-misplaced-advocacy/#comment-188787
I guarantee you the Scheme Team will get a hold of that statement, and other statements to that effect, and you will hear it repeated ad nauseam from Crump. And if that statement is true I now have to go back and reconsider this entire thing as that is the first real thing I have ever heard that supports the Scheme Teams claims to that effect although there is also much that goes against it and everything else is easily dealt with and not justifiable.
If the Police are attacked by the state how does that help the prosecution? The evidence points to a clean shoot. It is what it is. The state is trying to prove what it is not. The evidence they want to use to prove their case is nonsense. I still see no reason for George to ever take the stand. The set of facts that the state must deal with do not add up to a murder, no matter what math they use. I think George should remain a potted plant. I don’t see how this case can make it to a jury trial.
I agree, u saw what they did to his testimony at the first bond hearing, it does not matter what he says good/bad it will be used against him. After Hannity and his little youtube video he went silent…that is best
here is my question about the impotance about details. does it really make that much of difference? what is the difference between looking through the windows, looking into houses or looking at houses. Windows are part of a house which would allow the defense to basically argue these statements are all the same. zimmerman is not a tape recording. expecting him to repeat his testimony the same every time he testifies is ridiculous. However, it is trully a bad idea for osterman to talk about the night of the shooting while the shooting is still on trial. lets hope osterman will concentrate on zimmerman’s history instead of that night.
Sorry to change the subject a bit but the new judge for Zimmerman is, of course, Debra Nelson
“Zimmerman’s legal team might live to regret forcing the last judge off the case because Nelson runs a tight ship and tends to favor the prosecution, Central Florida lawyers said. A native of South Florida who did a brief stint at the Broward state attorney’s office, Nelson is known for being a no-nonsense judge who keeps lawyers on their toes.
“I don’t think they did themselves any favors,” said attorney Jose Baez, best known for defending “tot mom” Casey Anthony. “She has a reputation of being more pro-prosecution than the previous judge. We have an expression: ‘The devil you know is much better than the devil you don’t.’ ”
Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/08/31/3789399/george-zimmerman-gets-new-judge.html#storylink=cpy.
I could be wrong but I believe there is a nother judge on the George Zimmermann case because of conflict of interest And other things
I also wonder how John Guy the SA on Corey’s scheme team is not conflicted also. He is the one who filed against Shellie.
The way to win this case is use the rules and the law. A judge will be reversed for a clear wrong decision. Besides she may not end up as the judge. She can’t be the judge for both Zimmerman’s. Omara may have to file for another recusal if she does not recuse herself. I would.
Only makes a difference to a prosecutor who has no case and is trying her best to fabricate one. Columbo, Corey is not.
Claiming that GZ said he was looking in the windows goes a long way in proving why GZ had reason to be suspecious of TM. Just saying he is looking at houses doesn’t prove that TM may have had burgularly on his mind. The state is claiming that TM had the right to be where he was, and that he wasn’t doing anything wrong. He was just an innocent young black male walking home with Skittles and Tea. Remember Gilbreth said GZ was profiling TM as a burglar? The whole problem with the false details is that they are provably not true. Listen again to the NEN calls to the dispatcher from GZ. GZ simply says he was wondering about, looking around, and that he looked like he was on drugs or something. There is no where on the recorded calls where GZ ever mentioned any looking in windows.
I may be wrong, but I think somewhere in either the walk-through or one of his statements, George did say something like “looking in houses”. Not exactly the same as “looking in windows”, but it was more than just “looking about” as said on the NEN.
I have the long interview saved andafter listing it again just now, he said that he was standing in the grass looking AT the houses. There was no mention of windows until he had talked about a previous breakin at that location.
Thanks, ejarra. No, I don’t remember him ever saying “windows” when speaking of Trayvon. I just keep thinking that at some point he said, “looking in houses” (rather than “at”). But I could be wrong about that.
I remember George stating “looking at houses” in the Singleton interview. I also believe George may have made different statements to Osterman, (just because, that’s what people do sometimes). People don’t always tell the whole truth. When you tell a story to a friend, you don’t always tell it “exactly” the way it happened. For instance, if I have a conversation with friend “A”, then repeat what was said to friend “B”, I may (consciously), not repeat exactly what or how things were said in the conversation. The facts about what George said are only in the NEN call. Even the walk through is unreliable. The evidence is about the here and now. The only here and now, evidence is on the NEN call.
Nor is it relevant. Calling the NEN is not unlawful behavior. Being in his car in his own community is not unlawful behavior. Getting out of his car to see where someone in his community is going is not unlawful behavior.
The first and only unlawful behavior that night was Martin’s assault on Ziimmerman. Period.
I don’t see anything quoted from the book thus far that in any way damages Zimmerman’s straight-forward, basic self-defense claim.
I don’t see how Corey can make this case at all. It is a textbook on how a prosecutor should not act. The rest is just fodder for the Socialist Democrat Blogosphere. Even Nancy Disgrace is not touching it.
Thank you! I’m reading this thread, shaking my head, none of this matters. Everyone wants a piece of the dead kid’s pie, plain and simple.
V.P. – and that is the tragedy of this whole thing. Lawyers, even TM’s parents, politicians … so wrong. I have teenagers, I was one a while back, I know what type situations they can get into, and I watch my kids like a hawk. And many other parents do too, I know. Bad thingss happen to good, and not-so-good teens.. Especially when they make bad choices, like attacking a stranger
More and more reasonable people are coming to the conclusion. This is just a tragedy. On all fronts.
We going to have to disagree, it is an issue because the prosecution has made it an issue, not in legal terms but to imply GZ state of mind. I believe what the prosecution is trying to establish is that GZ, because of his profiling(pre-judging) of TM as a black young criminal, created a situation that led to the events.
You are looking at it from the pov that GZ actions are all innocent, even prudent by themselves, until the confrontation with TM. I believe the prosecution, is using the profiling to establish that GM had bad intentions, determined not to let the “assh***s get away”. “These fu**king punks” all of this is not by itself illegal, but it to the prosecution it shows that GZ, created this situation and showed a depraved mind, that led to TM’s shooting and death.
Yes. That much is stated in the probable cause affidavit. However, the burden of proof lies with the State to prove that Zimmerman actually did something to provoke Martin into a justified response of battery.
Yes, because presumption of innocence is the legal standard. The State must prove otherwise.
I agree that this is the case the State is attempting to build. My point is that the State has no evidence to support even a probable cause of this construct, much less preponderance of the evidence (for the immunity hearing), much less beyond a reasonable doubt (for a trial).
Zimmerman’s state of mind is utterly irrelevant if the State cannot provide probable cause, a preponderance of evidence, or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman threw the first punch. Based on the material evidence, Zimmerman never threw a punch at all.
That’s all that matters.
Zimmerman could have had malice aforethought, based on any manner of bigotry or other evil. Zimmerman could have wrongly assumed that Martin was up to no good. Zimmerman could have had a hero complex. Zimmerman could simply have been acting recklessly. But unless the State can prove that Zimmerman acted on any of those impulses, they simply don’t have a case. The state of Zimmerman’s mind is inconsequential if he failed to act.
(Side note: that’s why so-called “hate crimes” legislation is inane. A thought is not a crime. A criminal act, regardless of motive, is a crime.)
The State is trying to prove depravity of mind, without having evidence of a crime being committed as a result of that depraved mind.
I understand the prosecutions weaknesses, where I am going is trying to establish with what we know where they might be headed.
One element is established, TM died from a gunshot wound from a gun used by GZ.
They trying provide malice aforethought by using GZ’s statements in the NEN call.
They need his medical records to try to prove that his injuries are of little consequence, so pulling out his gun showed reckless disregard for the life of TM. In which case even if TM punched GZ first, it would not matter.
Can they prove this? At this time I don’t think so.
Chip:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/09/01/chapter-one-the-osterman-book-and-the-dangers-of-misplaced-advocacy/#comment-189001
I don’t see anything in the 20% thus-far revealed from Chapter 1 that materially contradicts Zimmerman’s testimony. Martin sucker-punched Zimmerman, and then put a 40+ second beat-down on him, while pinning him to the ground.
Medical reports corroborate Zimmerman’s injuries AND Martin’s lack of injuries. Eye-witness reports corroborate Martin being on top of Zimmerman, attacking him. Eye-witness reports corroborate Zimmerman screaming for help.
The State cannot prove that Zimmerman did anything unlawful in observing or following Martin. The State cannot prove that Zimmerman even initiated any contact with Martin. In fact, the State’s star witness, as referenced in the probable cause affidavit, corroborates Martin as the one who initially accosted Zimmerman.
What Martin was doing while he was “wandering about”, whether he was looking at houses or looking in windows, and what Zimmerman thought he was doing: none of that matters. Why Zimmerman followed Martin after getting out of his truck doesn’t matter. He was fully within his legal rights to do so. (Even the Scheme Team know this is true; that’s why they and their sycophants are now pushing the completely specious “Zimmerman chased Martin with a gun” narrative.)
Throw Osterman’s testimony out. Throw Zimmerman’s testimony out. Zimmerman still wins on a preponderance of the evidence that a reasonable person would fear imminent death or bodily harm. Zimmerman still wins on a preponderance of the evidence that his use of lethal force ended an in-progress felony aggravated battery.
Go even further, and give the State the benefit of the doubt that Zimmerman somehow materially instigated the assault. Zimmerman still wins on a preponderance of the evidence that Martin’s assault was not legally commensurate with whatever Zimmerman did to instigate. Zimmerman still wins on a preponderance evidence that his 40 seconds of screaming (and lack of any defensive injuries on Martin) demonstrate that he was attempting to flee the assault.
Thus far, this book changes nothing.
I think you’re right. From everything we know now, from all the evidence publicly available, George can’t lose. The only way he could lose is if either MOM makes some HUGE mistake during the hearing, or if the judge simply IGNORES the law.
Now if the book is published as a work of fiction does that matter?
Responding to Mr. Bennet’s assertions: You are probably correct, in theory. But, we are dealing with an unknown jury of human beings. To me, tall he statements statements that GZ said in all investigations, sounded SO true, and reasonable, and credible. I know the jury has to go by evidence and statutes, but they also go by what they BELIEVE. GZ was totally believable, when cooberated by the witnesses and the evidence. He was so careful to NOT exaggerate any detail because that is the kind of person GZ is. He was taught to be that way from birth. I believe that most juries can spot that quality. It was part of the strength of his case. Now, Mr. Osterman comes along, and slightly exaggerates a point here or there probably because he thinks it would strengthen GZ’s case. I think it will do the opposite. I wish GZ co;uld disassociate himself from Mr. Osterman somehow. I know the theory of last minute self defense should be the only thing he needs, but juries are people, and I think GZ had a rock solid case and this book weakens it.
Again: if this case gets to a jury, then Zimmerman’s life is already ruined. I have absolute confidence that a jury will find him not guilty. But the Scheme Team only needs the prosecution to overcome the immunity hurdle in order to proceed with wrongful-death civil suits. They don’t want a conviction. They don’t want “justice”. They want a payday, at Zimmerman’s expense.
If this gets to a jury, which it shouldn’t, there is no way in the world they are going to reach a verdict unless the verdict is innocent. If they can’t get an innocent verdict, it will be a hung jury. The State was always counting on a plea to appease the black community, including for political reasons, and Crump was pushing for it to avoid immunity so he could bring the civil suits. Without a plea, they are sunk. And unless they are drinking their own kool-aid in massive quantities they know it at this point, and I’m sure there have been any number of internal conversations on that very subject. I think they knew it as soon as the racial element was discounted by the FBI — and I have no doubt that the racial element has been discounted completely.
They are trying to prove a new theory of law. Thought is a crime. If you do not understand that you miss the point.
They are trying to break new ground.
Chip – Thanks for being clear, correct and accurate.
I think it matters looking at a house and trying to stay out of the rain is different then looking in a window. If George would have said on the NEN call that the person was looking into a window an George knew he didn’t live there everything would have been different.
Your Honor I would like to call my first rebuttal witness?
Go ahead Mr. BDLR
Your Honor, I call Mr. Mark Osterman as a rebuttal witness for the persecution!
1st paragraph. For some reason I am bone weary???? Come on.
It was a dark, stormy night…
Can you not picture the jury reviewing this? Well after all this he get’s in the car and says “for some reason I am bone weary Mark”
There is so much wrong with this accounting where to start. How about that this accounting doesn’t even match what GZ said on the NEN calls that were recorded and released. Remember GZ said on the NEM call that it was raining, and this guy is just wondering about like he is on drugs or something. GZ never uttered the first word about TM looking in any window. That is easily verified by the recorded call. No where in the NEN call does the dispatcher ask him if he still wanted them to send an officer. No where does the dispatcher ask him to get to a place where he could see TM. He claims that George is talking to 911 when he was on the NEN with a dispatcher. He mentions that GZ sees the person as a young black guy, but never bothers to add that the dispatcher asked him if he was white, black or hispanic. If Osterman is so willing to outright lie about something that can be easily proven on the NEN calls, he will lie about anything and everything. This is literally going to do major harm to GZ’s case. He has added statements that GZ never said, which will add to the state’s attempts to portray GZ as a liar, a manipulator, smarter than the normal guy, and a potential thief.
It seems obvious to me that Osterman’s writing is what he hopes will be the screenplay for a future movie. It is embellished, enhanced, dramatized, deceptive, and provably false. The only thing this guy is looking for is $$$$$$$$$$$$$, and he is willing to sell his so-called friend out for his share of the limelight and the riches he sees before his eyes. Osterman is no better than Crump. I hope he ends up in the same hot place that Crump will eventually spend eternity in.
Actually Min you have a good point, the NEN is on tape, Osterman just lied in a book about what was and wasnt said during that call….Osterman is not credible from that alone.
ooooooWEEEE Minpin! What you said….. tell us how you REALLY feel. Actually, I feel the same. Osterman is no friend. With all the twists and turns of this case, I’m very curious as to his motivation. He is not stupid; he is intelligent, an air marshall. Wanna be big shot? Or has someone got to him or his family, as they say in the crime dramas on TV? FWIW, the writing and phrasing in what we’ve seen so far is, as my kids say, “lame”. Who else is involved in this book?
I think Mr. Osterman is a person who is not as grounded in reality and honesty as is GZ. After all, he fell for the con man, when he was a police officer. I think people who have more solid, healthy, truthful personalities, instinctively reject con men. (They don’t want something for nothing, they know “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”) And, juries can spot them for what they are. GZ was honest, so honest he didn’t even ask for an attorney. He knew he was innocent. Poor Mr. O. does not have that healthy of a character. He doesn’t believe in “Truth has no agenda!” Mr. O. has an agenda of his own, it may be to try to help GZ, but he is mistaken.
I was right with you there until you started bashing Crump. Wth out Crumps efforts, this case wouod have been swept under the rug and we would never know if Zmmerman was innocent or guilty.
Osterman, on the other hand is a small minded opportunist who is attempting to case in on someome who considered him a friend.
I was right with you there until you started bashing Crump. Not glorifying Crump or his tactics but without Crumps efforts, this case would have been swept under the rug and we would never know if Zmmerman was innocent or guilty.
Osterman, on the other hand, is a small minded opportunist who is attempting to cash in on someome who considered him a friend.
With friends like Osterman, who needs enemies?
This may sound stupid, I’m definitely ignorant in law. But, isn’t this hearsay?
Hearsay: “Testimony given by a witness who relates not what he or she knows personally but what others have said, and is therefore dependent on the credibility of someone other than the witness.”
How can Corey claim Zimmerman lacks credibility and rely on Osterman’s testimony as credible?
Yes
No
How so? What exception is there? Or is it not hearsay to start with?
imo, a for-profit book written pre-trial has no inherent indicia of reliability. Particularly when it’s tied to a paid appearance on Dr. Phil. At best, I can see Osterman’s statements in the book coming in to impeach his own testimony at trial about what George told him (as opposed to the truth of what George told him — which would be double hearsay) IF his testimony contradicts the book. And I think even it’s a stretch.
Maybe if it is Ghostwritten it is double hearsay. Maybe there is a disclaimer.
It would be potential double hearsay wrt to the truth of what George said – i.e., that Trayvon was looking in windows, for example, even if the book isn’t written by a third-party. The first hearsay is George’s alleged statement to Osterman, and the second is Osterman’s writing it in the book (both are out of court statements). If the book is offered as evidence of the truth of anything George’s stated, the book is double hearsay. Osterman’s in court testimony about the truth of the statement would be “just” hearsay and, if the testimony is allowed under an exception to the hearsay rule, his book could be used to impeach Osterman — maybe. Just my take on it. There are rulings all over the place on hearsay and even the judges can’t agree when it gets complicated. That’s why I mentioned that the basis of the hearsay rules are the inherent reliability of the out of court statements. If a court were to analyze the book at that level, none of it would come in, imo. Plus, adding the potental for prejudice relative to the probative value of the book — no way.
I got an A+ in evidence AND stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. But take it for what it’s worth.
The testimony was sold on the market. That alone should DQ it.
agree completely
There is a disclaimer.
IMO this is where Lester’s actions come in — refusing to issue a gag order initially has caused this case to implode. Maybe that was his intent all along. And another intelligent
person (Lester) makes seemingly highly-biased comments in court, in writing. He knew what he was doing.
It is hearsay and not admissible only if the author of the book can NOT be cross examined. In other words, if Osterman is on the witness list, then his book is admissible evidence.
Yeah if the book is the actual words of Osterman accurately written then the presence of Osterman for cross examination would reduce the excerpted portions of the book to single hearsay by Osterman’s direct confirmation upon questioning in court and on the record. But if the excerpts with which we are finding factual problems are indeed a part of the actual book, then Osterman has effectively destroyed his credibility as a witness, and the book will likely be irrelevant in terms of any legal impact upon George, since the book is evidently a sensationalizing “not a crime” falsely accused crime story type novel probably meant to make a buck off the plight of a wrongly accused and probably former friend whose notoriety and undeserved infamy has become a property possible for commercial exploitation for profit. What we see here is a boutique book entrepreneur cashing in on his tell all “insider” story, probably hoping it will become a script for a TV movie.
PPK, the impact of the book, may not be in its legal value but in the way it could adversely affect GZ, in the eyes of potential jurors. What sort of impressions will people arrive at from the job the SPD did, to the actions of GZ, etc.
If this case ends up in the hands of a jury, Zimmerman has already lost. If it goes to trial, he has zero chance of being found guilty. But if it gets past the Immunity hearing, his life is ruined anyway.
Getting to trial is the Scheme Team end-game. That’s all they need and want. If Zimmerman loses the Immunity hearing, he loses the statutory immunity to criminal and civil suits related to the lethal use of force.
Are these excerpt’s of the text? Or are they the actual text? He was in the Cop Car not on the curb when attended to. This is all over the place. Won’t be allowed. Contradicts known facts. Not well written.
This book was slapped together In a hurry And it reads like it
What’s with the “officer” on the 911 call? Someone slap me upside the head — haven’t I read hours and hours of argument and discussion about the call going to a NEN, and the conversation was with a dispatcher, not an officer? Word choices, IMO, would be extremely important here. Not liking this one bit!
Officer. As a Federal Marshall is Osterman an “Officer of the court?”
The guy jumps on top of me, straddles me with his knees up against my ribs and begins to punch me in the face while my head was hitting the concrete sidewalk.
who ever wrote this crap must not be from the real book. anyone with basic anatomy should understand that a person’s ribs can not support the weight of 160 lb adult. If martin were on top of zimmerman with knees on his ribs, martin would most likely either fall off on the grass because the ribs provide a very unstable base for the knees or it is just too slippery or martin would had trouble punching zimmerman because his arms are just too freaking long to reach zimm’s face. Judging from how finicky the details are, I get a feeling that the source material is not even from the original book.
Maybe the whole thing will be so bad Corey will be unable to use it. If this is a sample it might be.
e2w,
Your ribs go around your sides. I think that’s what was being described….sitting atop him with the knees tucked tightly against his sides/up under his armpits.
That’s a restraint type posture, keeping the victim “pinned”.
I answered, ‘Yes, I’m following him’ … but I didn’t see him, I am just going in the general direction of where I saw him last.
Here is another statement that is not even from the 911, because it is from the testimony made with serrino. I believe the 911 conversation was some thing like, “are you following him?”, “yeah”, “we do not need you to do that.”, “okay” and that was it. The whole I am just going in the general direction of where I saw him last is a statement from the testimony of serrino. I believe serrino asked george if he were following martin and zimm’s answer was I was just going in the direction of where he went. then serrino laughed and said,”that is following.” sd needs to check his sources because this chapter does not even match with recordings.
NEN, not 911.
Maybe this is why Lester refused a Gag order. I would ask for one right away. On the quick. Yesterday.
btw, why DID Lester refuse a Gag order? With several more recent crimes around the country, I have noticed the judge issued gag orders. Don’t have sources, just general skimming — maybe the one in TX with 11 y/o rape victim?
Why did Lester get the boot? That is the answer.
Already too late since it was already released here. The cat is now out of the bag. No opportunity for this portion to be gagged at least. I don’t see the benefit of releasing this manuscript here so early, especially if it is considered so damaging.
They are already picking it apart at the anti-GZ sites.
Congratulations on creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, I guess.
“Dr.” Phil is going to run with it, on his territory, in a nationally televised program that has already been taped, in 9 days. Read the intro. If they are already picking it apart at the anti-GZ sites, that makes the guest poster’s point, in terms of concerns about the contents which, according to the guest poster, are not accurate in several points.
Et tu, Osterman?
Perfecto.
But fortunately Stare Decisis will decide this tragedy.
I think we need to remember this is a book, and the author(s) have taken some artistic license with some details to maintain a narrative. Some things are obviously what was perceived (911 call instead of actual NEN), others maybe lack of all the facts (GZ was attended to on the sidewalk, rather than in the police vehicle).
The problem lies in this is not a case that is over, it is an active case and inconsistencies could put into doubt, witnesses, GZ testimony and Mark’s.
I tend to disagree because Osterman is quoting George in this book, this is not just Ostermans version on what happened that night
If this book were to be released after the trial, then I could see how artistic license could apply.
But since Osterman’s “freind’s” life and future are on the line, I do not see how publishing this prior to the trial could help Zimmerman at all.
The only one who stands to gain is Osterman and that’s if and only if this book seeks well.
may be I should bring back the 911 tapes just to show what was the actual conversation.
You are missing “the point”. The issue is “truthfulness” the exerpts of the book are recounting what the closest friend in the life of George Zimmerman was TOLD by George Zimmerman.
The closest friend in the life of George Zimmerman is claiming George told him accounts of events – These accounts, by Mark Osterman, of George’s statements, contradict the known evidence – - – - – > implying before the evidence was known there was one explanation from George which was not truthful.
The issue of whether Osterman’s book accurately recounts the factual evidence – vs. whether it is flawed – is not the issue.
The case issue is about George being consistent in his statement(s) and whether those statements align to the evidence…. In that regard Mark Osterman appears to be throwing his friend under the bus by providing details of an accounting that are disparate from the known evidence and previously sworn statements, by Zimmerman, to police.
Consequently this puts Mark O’Mara again, in a seriously tenuous place….
Then you need to think like O’Mara…. not like the traditional paradigm of Mark O’Mara a defense attorney…. but like Mark O’Mara – the semi-detached independent counsel – ….
One of the key witnesses for character credibility, the witness who supposedly knows George Zimmerman better than any other person, is giving a recollection that is inconsistent….. So who is wrong? Why are they wrong? And how does this help?
may be you should look at the source of your material because his recount of the 911 call dramatically different from what was actually recorded. In the actual recording, zimmerman just said, “yes” and “Okay”. However, your source seem to provide a statement of two statements given by zimmerman which is yes, I am following him but I am generally following him with the direction where he was going (paraphrasing). However, the recorded event is dramatically different from your source. It is very much possible that your source was simply looking at a manuscript of the book, not the actual finished version. However, it is a pain in the neck for a lawyer to deal with zimmerman’s best friend publishing his book at this pt because the prosecution will selectively edit the book to influence public opinions(jury pool).
What the heck are you talking about? I’ve read and re-read that comment several times and it makes no sense. (((((must be me I guess))))
It appears that e2w doesn’t understand that the source (guest poster) isn’t the one making the statements. He is simply pointing out the areas that are factually incorrect, and highlighting those areas in red. Yes the recorded calls are dramatically different than what Osterman has written. Isn’t that the whole point of running this series? To get out in front, and highlight the falsities that may wind up in the sold version of the book?
Maybe it would help if you change the name listed with the date of the post to “guest poster” so that you are not taken to the woodshed yet again. Seems like a pretty familiar place for you to be SD. LOL You can write in 2 inch letters “I didn’t write this post” right up at the top, but some will still see your notarized signature at the bottom, next to your Good Housekeeping seal of approval. Your are danged if you do, and danged if you don’t.
Let’s take this with a little grain of salt. This is after all Mark’s recollection of a conversation done after a very stressful conversation. As we know, people tend to embellish some recollections to better reflect what we are thinking. Some of the discrepancies can be attributed to this.
That is not to say that this can be problematic but as long as the differences are slight and not bombshells, it may not affect GZ, substantively, I hope.
I’m not an expert on this subject but, in my opinion, Osterman should keep his mouth shut until after the trial, if a trial is held. Nothing good can come from this, except for monetary gains by the author. The jury pool can/will be tainted, public opinion will be influenced, news outlets that are anti-Zimmerman will pick at every little negative comment.
Agree, but sometimes it helps to be optimistic.
The odds of this getting to a jury are slim to none in my opinion. A motion will eventually put it out of it’s misery. After Nov. 7th on a Friday Night.
+1,000 – And if the masses can’t figure that out…. well, there’s the problem. Guess who they’re voting for? This book is snake-bit..
I disagree, the Crump team got out first with their “story” and it had serious errors to down right intentional falsehood, Discovery is correcting it, but public opinion has already been affected, GZ and MOM are starting to get their point into the media but not what I would call mass media, just preaching to the choir, having someone else from George’s side lay down cover fire is good, it doesn’t have to be perfect, I am sure there are perfectionists on the conservative side, but we are talking general public consumption here, who cares whether its “looking at houses or looking in their windows” this is not the Court, when Crump makes a boo boo, he just slides over a little, not like a mortal sin and has to go off to the monastery for penance, the mass public needs to get the info before say a successful immunity hearing ends, bleeding the steam valve, Osterman is close enough to GZ and ex law enforcement, not family in hiding, that can break into the national media market, let him go at it
stellap: I’ve been thinking the same thing If Osterman has ever cared about GZ and still does the best thing he could do is stop this book for now at least until after GZ is in the clear on the charge against him add a few chapters later on with a better ending to what has happened to his friend. They will pick apart every single word and detail told in this book . I have picked every detail apart in my mind and i’m for GZ. Unless someone is willing to write word for word exactly what GZ said I fear it will harm him . If Osterman truely wont’s to be a roll model for GZ and a true friend putting whats best for GZ first is how.
bori- Mark’s “recollection” could very easily have been refreshed by just listening to the NEN and 911 recordings before he wrote what he did. Those recordings were released long before GZ was even arrested. The “looking in the window” comment along with “do you still want us to send an officer” were nowhere to be found on GZ’s calls.
Taking artistic license in writing a book about a case that is still ongoing is not really considered artistic license, it’s called being a traitor to someone you have the nerve to call your good friend. If the state has their way, and GZ winds up in prison for 25 years or more, I hope Osterman realizes that he may have played a role in that conviction.
Lester was wrong, Corey is wrong, Scott was wrong, DSM is wrong, Bondi is wrong, Scheme Team is wrong. DCA was right.
Ok, I’m still not happy about this, and I’m sure there’s gonna be more “excerpts” in the coming days. But so far, I don’t see a big problem with this. It’s pretty much stuff we’ve heard already, including in some of George’s statements. And I’m not sure what you said here is correct:
“Then the officer says, ²’If you can’t see him, do you still need us to send an officer? We need you to get to a place where you can see him …’
²Again, absolutely not, repeat – NOT, a statement ever given by George Zimmerman to anyone. Total fabrication.”
I haven’t watched it in awhile, but I think during the walkthrough, George DID say something like that. I think it’s another example of George getting his times, distances, and order of events a little wrong, due to the physical and emotional stress he was under. But I’m pretty sure he DID say something like that.
Exactly right, jello. I see nothing here that in any way disputes the material facts of the incident. The State still has absolutely nothing to support probable cause, much less to prove, that Zimmerman committed a second-degree murder. Even entirely absent Zimmerman’s oral testimony, the physical evidence of the case (physical injuries to Zimmerman; no fight injuries to Martin; eye witnesses testifying that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him; etc.) completely exonerates Zimmerman.
Chip – Good to hear you say that. The “State” has no case at all.
Bear in mind: IANAL. There are others who post here who are lawyers, and I defer to them. I’m just a lowly engineer.
That said: the germane FL statutes aren’t especially difficult to read and understand. The only way I could see my assessment being incorrect would be if precedent case law somehow changes the meaning or scope of those statutes.
a fictional account is good for…exactly nothing. Buy the book.
Jello:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/09/01/chapter-one-the-osterman-book-and-the-dangers-of-misplaced-advocacy/#comment-189001
Yeah, thanks SD. Maybe I’m just being overly optimistic that, in the end, the laws that are on the books re. self-defense and evidence admissibility will be followed, and things will all work out for George.
The only person I know who would not convict OJ is my Mom. She did not trust Furman. You remind me of her. Funny. In the end she is always right at 80 yrs. old. Now she is studying Chemistry for the first time. U got a good soul. Thank you for advocating for innocence. It is the foundation of justice.
Thanks a lot, Howie. And that’s very cool about your Mom. Mine is kinda the same way. She’s 85 now, and only within the past 3 or 4 years has she started learning a lot about computers and the internet. I love it when “older” people still wanna keep learning new stuff.
K
The author of the rebuttal appears to be totally focused on the aspects of the book that *could* be damaging to defense in the “legal case” against George Zimmerman. That is totally understandable.
However, there are also aspects to this book which could be far worse. Aspects of the book which could be damaging to the public opinion of the case which will fuel the backlash.
Anything which fuels, or could be used to prove, there was a double standard in the investigation of this case will be used by the race-baiting class against the “optic” of the case. The court of public opinion so-to-speak.
With that in mind I find this additional exerpt “Highly troubling”… (emphasis mine):
Now is’nt that presenting the tone of a predisposition toward innocence. How casually to disregard a little black boy laying dead on the ground. “It’s Clean”.. and stuff. Now how exactly do you think this will be portrayed by the Scheme Team?…. I can see it now…. They will coin the term “A Rush To Non-Judgement”.
This is, just one, of the shortsighted consequences. The book is riddled with them.
Tell me again…… How does this “HELP” George? Anyone?….. anyone?
If that which you just read is in the book, you are absolutely right, it would again light up the claims of preferential treatment by the SPD and/or lack of a Thorough Investigation. Which is proven false, could taint the jury pool. Not good, not good at all.
you guys may forget the fbi report states there is no police misconduct which will dispute any argument about possible corruption within the spd.
e2w, there has been no FBI report concerning the SPD, that I know of. If you seen such a report please post. Thanks
the fbi report on zimmerman is designed to investigate federal rights violations which include police misconduct and hate crimes. until this moment, the case is still under the state level which allows me to conclude that fbi did not found any police misconduct or hate crimes. If the police is tainted by possible police corruption, then corey could also kiss her case good bye because her case is built on the investigative works of sandford police department. In her press conference, she never disputed the work of spd which shows that majority of her evidence is from the original serrino report. There is no way that the prosecution will accuse the spd when the majority of the evidence is frim the original investigation. However, the only new evidence is dd which could mean that the validity of her testimony will be examine at a microscopic level.
e2w, two things, one the Federal authorities rarely step in, until the State is finished with their case. Second, the last I heard in regards to the DOJ and the FBI was they were in an active investigation of the SPD. That is why I asked if you had seen a report.
Even in the case GZ no final report that I’ve been able to find has been made on whether GZ discriminated racially TM, only the results of the FBI interviews, but no accompanying report. The same of the SPD investigation.
If they have their fingers in the air they may see which way the wind is blowing. The Director, not Holder sent the specific agents. Holder is just a political AG. A good agent will follow the truth. I don’t think the FBI is compromised here. Just a feeling. I do not think the FBI plays this game.
See, perfect example…I believe Osterman included this in the book to make it appear that yes, it was a clear cut case of self defense from an assault. Judging by what the SPD saw right away they came to that conclusion pretty quick, but your right, he was too stupid to realize that it will be twisted into exactly what Sundance stated.
Your are right, and that is exactly what not just Crump but, the media. I can see the headlines already.
There was an internal investigation into the SPD where at least three officers were in essence demoted. Serino told the FBI that he was “pressured” by at least three officers to arrest GZ. I have never seen any FBI report that showed no misconduct. It’s doubtful that a report like that exists as Serino admitted corruption with some of the officers. If anything it would show that GZ was being unfairly targeted by some of the officers. One of them, Terkell or whatever his name is said that GZ needed to be arrested to calm the black community, which obviously has nothing to do with GZ’s guilt or innocense.
That’s what I’ve been thinking for awhile now. If there IS still an FBI investigation going on, it might be the opposite of what it was originally. Rather than looking for wrongdoing by George, maybe it’s now looking for wrongdoing AGAINST George….. be that by some members of the SPD, the city admin., Crump et al,, or whoever.
It doesn’t help George at all and Mr. Osterman should know better, he was a former cop. How they ever thought this was a good idea is something I will never understand. I can honestly say I’m speechless and that doesn’t happen very often.
Right from the beginning Crump and the rest of the race baiters kept screaming that there was a cover up by the SPD because he wasn’t arrested immediately. Fire the police chief and get rid of the local prosecutor. How many claimed that GZ had an in with the SPD because his father was a former magistrate in VA? He had an in because he knew some of the officers. Now this idiot comes out in print and brags about his former role in the police department, that he was fired from, and is claiming to be GZ great and good friend. By saying those things he just upped the price tag on Crump’s lawsuit against the SPD.
With everything I read from this guy I see narcissist jumping off the page. This is all about him and what a big freakin deal he is, even if it costs GZ his freedom. He calls himself GZ’s mentor, while GZ was a real mentor in every sense of the word with the black children. Did George ever tell this guy he considered him his mentor? or is that a title he gave to himself? This guys ego has overtaken him mind, body and soul, and has left a morally corrupt shell. I have no doubt he knows that what he is doing is wrong, but he doesn’t care. It’s all about me me me.
I’ll take a stab at it. It helps to establish a pattern of motive for inserting ones self, were discretion is of the utmost importance as a man’s life hangs in the balance. The truth v lies. Where the potential to create profit exists the truth is often inconvenient so it is replaced. Georges closest confidant did it, the Scheme Team wouldn’t hesitate they are experts at it, albeit blinded by greed. This will help George’s civil litigation. Judging by the glimps posted here and Sondra’s email I put the same value on Osterman’s work as I do Dee Dee’s, a big fat ZERO. I dare say the prosecution is not going to be happy with you sundancecracker, for you have provided the conduit that is funneling the sanitizing light directly upon this jackass’ “work” for the world to see. Anybody that has listened to George speak and have read his writings as all of us have, know damn well that is not George being quoted. Mom will easily prove that on cross examination of the Ostermans. I offer you proof in a question: Who wrote the autobiography ‘Dreams from my Father’? Hint: It wasn’t the author.
Ironically Osterman lost his friend’s best interests, blinded by greed, but as an “unintended consequence” his shabby, unauthorized, unapproved, untimely and thrust-ed by greed ‘book’ may be the needed weight to tip the scales of justice for George.
THE TRUTH NEEDS NO AGENDA! . . .
glimpse
“I nodded to the officers” because I RECOGNIZED THEM……… and, “It’s clean”?? Oh my. So Osterman is including this also? And he does not realize that he is stabbing George in the back? Impossible!
Clean means a legal shoot. Nothing wrong with that. If you have to shoot a perp it better be clean.
Right, it’s good, but Mark claimed the officer said this minutes (?) after the shooting, which as stated by SD could open the door for Team Crump to confirm that the PD didn’t do a “full investigation” and jumped to conclusions. They’ve already said that, and this little tidbit provided by George’s BFF backs that up.
This is interesting: Justifiable homicide : a work of fiction / by Mark Osterman.
Justifiable homicide : a work of fiction / by Mark Osterman.
Here is a link to the copyright registration of the aforementioned book.
http://tinyurl.com/9uusxf9
So there is a disclaimer. Good news. Shhh…don’t tell. Better to keep this quiet.
A disclaimer?
Fiction.
Is this the same Mark Osterman? I found this writers biography and it says he was a police officer in Detroit.
http://www.police-writers.com/mark_osterman.html
“Mark Osterman, a Detroit Police Department police officer wrote two crime thrillers: Happiness is a Green Light and Justifiable Homicide.”
And the book’s date is wrong (not to mention the title).
Happiness is a warm gun.
I don’t know. Sondra claimed copyright in her threat mail, I searched the catalog for registration and pre-registration and that is what returned. The fiction part fits, I have reservations when it comes to calling him a writer . . .
I do not believe that is him. The person who wrote that book was/is a cop in Detroit. George’s Mark Osterman graduated high school in Ohio in 1986 and Graduated from Daytona Beach Community College in 1992 as listed on his FB page. According to this article…
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/13/v-fullstory/2893981/air-marshal-took-zimmerman-in.html
Osterman lost his job in 1998. According to his FB page, he became an Air Marshall in 2001. His claim of being a cop for 10 years doesn’t quite fit either. If he graduated from College in 1992 and was fired in 1998, that’s only 6 years not 10.
That is Mark Osterman Sr. The author of the GZ book is Mark Osterman Jr. his son.
Jr’s dad was a Detroit police officer and author of a couple of books.
Ahh OK I knew it wasn’t Jr. dates didn’t add up Thanks SD
Date of Creation: 1991
So it’s not his first stab at writing fiction.
This is Mark’s father who was a cop and has written some crime fiction. This was discuss at a earlier thread. He is the one who it is assumed helped or ghost wrote this book.
That is not this Mark Osterman…see date.
Good observation, thanks for the 411.
“I nodded to several of the officers on the scene that night because I recognized them from ten years before, when I was in the police department.”
10 years before? No it was 12 years before. He was fired in 1998! Small detail I know but if you are writing a book about yourself and or others, accuracy is important. Even the little things can make you look like a liar *cough*
How does anyone trust anything he says? The same man who did/said this…..
“Osterman grew suspicious when he caught Diaz in little lies and when Diaz often didn’t have money to pick up tabs.
“He lied about everything,’’ Osterman said at the hearing.
According to the Sentinel, the officers figured out the check for the Ford was worthless but instead of reporting the car stolen, they hit the dealer up for a friend to get a finder’s fee for the vehicle’s return.”
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/13/v-fullstory/2893981/air-marshal-took-zimmerman-in.html#storylink=cpy
So instead of reporting the vehicle, he tried to find a way for a “friend” to make a quick buck off a finders fee? Any guess as to whether he would get a cut of that “fee”? No doubt he and his cop buddy, took that job thinking they were going to be rolling in the dough off some rich baseball player. Anyone who doesn’t believe he is out to make money, has blinders on. The guy is a creep. A dirty cop who instead of reporting crimes, tries to cash in on them. Makes me wonder what other things he did as a cop to make a buck. What other crimes did he not report and made money off of selling something? Think about that folks. Cops come in contact with a lot of stuff including stolen property, things confiscated etc. Of course this is all just my opinion based on what has been reported in news articles and court reports about him.
I think this is clear, if there was any doubt, certainly this book should take care of that.
Are Mark’s statements to police entered into evidence and how do those statements different from what see here?
Osterman was interviewed by Special Agent Supervisor David M. Lee of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement on April 26th(p77-80), the FBI was also there but it was an FDLE investigation.
http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf
He is listed as a Category A Witness on the redacted second discovery
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/redacted%20second%20discovery.pdf
Here is an explanation for that
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/c32abdb0-dc04-49ff-8120-9a6b760154d5/lb9602_9-24.aspx
And yes, they do differ.
Just finally dawned on me that if Mark O and Sondra actually wanted to talk about “the friend they know” they would, specifically, be talking about everything BUT the death of Travon. They would be telling (only) things “in his normal life” before that night. When the folks who wanted to “tell the world about the Mitt Romney we know” spoke the other night at the RNC, they didn’t start describing Mitt’s political career or his run for POTUS in 2008. They told about things that only they knew that were not generally known by the public.
I remember when justthefactz posted saying there was nothing in the book that happen that night. It was only supposed to be about their friendship with George.
Did she actually say that? What I remember is that I said something to her like, “If the book just talks about what kind of person George is, that’s fine. But hopefully it won’t deal with anything to do with the shooting itself.” I don’t remember her ever answering my question. Rather, it was someone else who said, yeah, the book DOES deal some with the shooting.
I’m gonna have to search it now I don’t want to accuse someone of something if it was actually another poster. But I’m almost positive it was her.
TRUTH: I did say that and honestly believed it was true at the time I said it. Like I said, I have not seen any part of the book before parts of it were posted here.
Can’t find where it is but I know I saw it and she has been the only one with inside knowledge of the book other then I think Ken. I’m not saying anything bad about her just saying I saw it posted.
Yeah I know, it’s cool. But (again, if I remember right) it was Ken who answered my question, and said yes there’s some stuff in there about the shooting.
She actually confirmed it.
Yeah I saw that. I still don’t remember HER saying that, but obviously she did. Good job… I’ll admit you were right if you’ll admit I was… er, wrong?
When I said that I had no idea that there was anything about the case in the book. The first I heard of it was Ken, then I read the segment of the book along with everyone else here. I do admit I am wrong when I am. It was nothing intentional to mislead anyone, it was what I believed to be true when I questioned the author if there was anything that could be used against George in the book.
Fiction…is not admissible.
I really doubt this part of the book was written by Osterman or was said by George and like some other parts of the script it would seem to be literary license being taken with hearsay resulting in a garbled and probably inaccurate “recitation of the facts” which amounts to an abstract generalized sort of interpretation which is storytelling entirely dubious and probably dramatized beyond being “just the facts”. The excerpt that gave me a problem is “Somehow, I broke his grip on the gun and grabbed it between where the site and hammer is.” I am not certain but that particular pistol does not have an external hammer like a Colt 1911 so there is no way to grab the gun “between where the “site” (slide misspelled I suppose) and hammer is …since there is no external hammer on the pistol. The firing pin and hammer is an internal mechanism on that model and has no exposed hammer and hammer spur for thumb cocking like a 1911 or most revolvers.
Somebody should check this to be certain but I think that 9mm automatic George used was a so called “hammerless gun” ……and Osterman would know that and would not write that kind of imprecise “interpretation” referencing a non-existent hammer on a hammerless gun. If this checks out like I am thinking it probably will, then it is good evidence Osterman did NOT write this book, because Osterman knows weapons and has seen the pistol George used would not make that mistaken description involving that detail. I haven’t double checked to make sure but I believe this is correct that it was a hammerless gun George was carrying and Osterman would definitely know that.
IIRC correctly this book was ghost written based on Mark’s recollections, etc. The thing is as you have noticed, when you try to proof-read somebody’s work, you could miss essential details, embellish other, disregard what it is perceived are impertinent, in effect all types of factual errors can occur.
“IIRC correctly this book was ghost written based on Mark’s recollections, ….”
What are you remembering? The Ostermans seem to be claiming authorship when they appear on Dr. Phil, don’t they? Who ever said it was ghostwritten?
One of the things that can happen with online conversations is that a theory or idea is tossed up in the air, and by the time it comes down it becomes, “Well, I don’t remember where I saw it, but it was posted that……….” and then the next person says (only) everything after the “……..” and quotes it as fact.
The core point of this whole series is that the guest poster is concerned about the inaccuracies in the book. So, in fact, whether or not it was ghostwritten, the gp indicates a desire to get out ahead of the Dr. Phil airing.
Whether or not it was ghostwritten is irrelevant to the context and concerns of the guest poster….isn’t it?
It’s so easy to get off on daisy trails….which is why I usually stay out of the details of this mess. I can’t keep track of who said what to who, when they said it and whether or not it matters–and trying to have a conversation based on the assumption that every bit of commentary is relevant drains my brain.
Correct George gun had no hammer. One would figure the guy who taught him to shoot would know this.
This smells like the iced tea / watermelon juice kind of “detail” SNAFU and makes me dubious about the entire “story”. The ghost writer should have never gotten out of his vehicle armed with a pencil and notebook. Obviously the ghost writer was stalking a sensationalized story having a niche market in a narrow time frame, a time sensitive publication of a little kiss and tell insider expose that has been airbrushed heavily with literary license with the facts until it is a little bit drippin’.
No COCKABLE hammer but all guns that fire bullets use a hammer/striker.
Keltec sells this PF9-475 HAMMER SPRING.
http://www.keltecweapons.com/product/pf9-475-hammer-spring/
Not all guns that fire bullets use an “external hammer”, or an internal pivoting hammer as would be normally thought being a hammer like on a revolver or on a single action gun. However that gun George used was a double action only – internal hammer type gun. Different gus have different firing mechanisms and some are hammerless, in which case they will have a firing pin mechanism having a sliding weight and a coil spring strong enough that a pivoting hammer for striking the firing pin isn’t needed. Those guns have a trigger sear, for releasing the striker but they have no pivoting hammer internal or external. Inertial firing pins are cute too, like an inertial nutcracker, on hammer guns.
Waltherppk, Man that is a lot of knockdown for 32 or a 380, you nailed it. The Kel Tec TS-1 chambered in 9mm is a modern Glock style sub-compact utilizing an internal striker. Do you think Osterman may be writing fictional novel? As I am sure you are aware placing your hand firmly between the rear site ((sic) proper spelling is sight) and hammer of a revolver or 1911 style pistol is a tactic that disables the weapon from being fired. With a Kel Tec TS-1 not so much.
I am betting the whole book is plagerized.
from where?
Maybe it is a work of fiction.
http://tinyurl.com/99e9whv
I thoroughly dislike and will not and refuse to use DAO type weapons because it is like the weapons designer doesn’t think the end user really knows whether they want to fire the weapon or not, and single action pull is WAY lighter and more precise and accurate for carefully and deliberately skilfully aimed fire. I would never own a DAO weapon. All combination DA/SA or single action only for me. I like ‘em crisp and responsive not committed to being creepy and clunky. Don’t like a three pound pull (or less) ? Well that’s what safetys are good for.
That is a matter of opinion, I am not sayin’ it’s a bad opinion, but it differs from mine. At a range single action. Carry DAO. This is why it works for me. I live in a gun friendly environment, we have some of the least infringing gun laws in the nation so a little printing is of no concern. I carry a Smith and Wesson DAO chambered in 40cal., on my hip in a black-hawk Serpa II. It is part of my wardrobe at work and at play. It has a fairly long and heavy trigger pull, but consistent and reliable. I always stage my trigger finger on the trigger guard and the retention release on the Serpa II is perfect. At 25 feet, quick draw, rapid fire I hold a softball size pattern 12 out of 14 rounds, consistently. That serves my purpose (self defense). My previous carry was a considerably more expensive Smith and Wesson 915 chambered in 9mm DA/SA however I was never able to get used to the difference in pull from DA to SA so I carried hammer cocked until a accidental discharge. Fortunately it happened at the range and only my pride was injured, the point is, that does not happen with a DAO. Safetys are good for about an extra 1/2 a precious second and don’t belong on a carry, not with today’s DAO technology. Not on mine anyway. Just sayin’.
I got used to match grade triggers on SA too long ago to change. A safety coming off during the draw on an already cocked SA weapon or already released in anticipation of a draw when unsnapping is what I got used to 40+ years ago and there is no half second extra about it, but is integral to the gripping and unholstering. The delay it presents to someone else who grabs a weapon but doesn’t know where the safety is has another benefit I’ll take as a bonus for a crisp trigger pull with an eighth inch or less travel. A softball sized pattern is good for DAO at 25 feet …but how does it do for a fifty cent sized pattern with no first shot misses ? You get the point. SA can’t be beat for precision like a hostage rescue “negotiation” where the perpetrator positively must suddenly stop talking smack or acting stupid and has to start falling. Medulla shots are done SA. Don’t get me wrong DAO is better than using a baseball bat and in a pinch i wouldn’t refuse to use one tossed to me by somebody else. It’s just not the thing I would see and say yeah that is just perfect and just what I want. Like a trout rod I reckon, whatever works for you.
Taurus. Model 65. Rain, Wind, Snow, Grime…don’t matter. .357…158gr…hp. Won’t let you down.
Like a woman…. whatever feels right to you and gets the job done. hehehe
Ya . . . I agree on all points. There is no comparing 3 pounds and a sixteenth of an inch travel to 8 to 12 pounds and three eighth of an inch travel. I too have a long history as an enthusiast for fun and protection, but one accidental discharge really made me think and modern pistols are a different breed altogether. I concede you are right about releasing a safety during draw. I like the way you think and your honesty.
My grandfather taught me with a .38 S&W special; but my lady turn out to be a Beretta 92s I used in the Service.
Nice.
The trigger pull is tricky but with tender loving care and practice, I can make my lady sing.
TLC and practice . . . they say that is how you get to Carnegie Hall, but when your lady starts singin’ I definitely want to be behind her.
That, would be wise!
In the case of GZ, Double-Action saved his life. He got the pistol only to shoot a “Pit Bull” if necessary – to protect his life – not target shoot.
As Josie Wales said…you gotta get mean.
Here is a link to some images og GZ’s gun.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=kel+tec+pf-9&id=D9CF12F1D9EACBB75C10005233CD219DFFEFA244&FORM=IQFRBA
It is a double action only pistol with no external hammer, just an internal striker.
This is a detail that niether GZ or Osterman would get wrong. I would surmise that this was ghost written or severely edited by someone who knows nothing about firearms. Osterman would be at liberty to make this point if it became an issue in court. If Osterman claims that the book is exactly as he wrote it, then this screw up on a minor detail impugns his credibility.
Exactly…. ding ding ding …another portion to be highlighted in RED
Agreed! I have done some technical editing. No one publishes under HIS NAME, until he has read every line of the book. I doubt that Osterman did the necessary editing. This failure discredits the book.
Yeah, actually it has a hammer but it is well inside the frame and has no spur or external portion to make it possible to get a hand in between the back of the slide and the hammer. So that maneuver described in the book would never even be physically possible to be happening. Here’s a closeup view of the internal hammer with the slide removed so you can see what I mean
http://www.shootingillustrated.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/KelTecW7333Si-8830.jpg
If it is fiction I want a signed copy.
²“If you can’t see him, do you still need us to send an officer? We need you to get to a place where you can see him …”
²Again, absolutely not, repeat – NOT, a statement ever given by George Zimmerman to anyone. Total fabrication.
James, after thinking about this, I think it is possible that what he is retelling is what GZ was thinking, if he’s gone, and it I loss sight of him, “the assh*** will get away” and the police is not needed. So GZ is expressing what he was thinking.
I looked up a few of the statements that Osterman claimed GZ made and you can find them almost word for word on different blogs dating back to early March. Was Osterman blogging about this back then. I just googled a few of the statements because I remembered reading about the window and they come up. I always assumed it was bloggers speculating or repeating false false statements from camp TM.
Were any of those comments on blogs from Odessa Girl aka justthefactspls? From another poster here, it is claimed she has been doing an awful lot of blogging for months, and she actually posted some of that stuff here. Do you remember where you saw those blog comments?
Hi Minpin06, I knew you were going to ask, so I found the link for you:
http://disqus.com/OdessaGirl/
Click on link and then click on ACTIVITY, and then keep scrolling down and there is a load more arrow thingy to keep loading more comments.
I haven’t read them all, but I imagine the juicy one’s were probably from a month ago, when a lot was going on, but there’s atleast 4000 of them. She’s a relative of the Ostermans seems like.
Thanks gbishop. I can always count on you to come through. BTW, where has justthefacts gone? Seems that she realized that some that thought she was so innocent and was just trying to help feel deceived. Haven’t seen her around today. It seemed that she knew so much, about so much, but claimed that she never saw or read the book. Perhaps that poster was tasked with selling the book, the Osterman’s and O’Mara. When she said that O’Mara was a tiger in the courtroom, I was wondering where/when that happened since Apr. 20.
I have been out of town and haven’t been home long. The Tiger in the courtroom comes from Omara’s days as a prosecutor.
Also I have not seen the book. I wasn’t tasked with selling the book. I was given the okay to tell when it would be released and when the Dr. Phil show was going to be as it had already come out in the Treehouse.
I want one. With autographs. As long as it is Fiction.
Well, I don’t even have one. As far as fiction is concerned, I have no earthly clue. All I was told was that it was a book about George and what he is really like. I am not a writer obviously but I can tell what a nice person George is. He is very personable, very moral, very friendly, and like my Lord taught he has a servant’s heart and always wanting to help others. He will work a whole party never sitting down even when it is not his party. He is also very respectful. His faith means a lot to him. And Shellie is a very beautiful person inside and out. I was quite upset on other blogs when they made fun of her mugshot. People can be very cruel. I hope she never read them.
I didn’t listen to most of the jail phone calls that were released. It just made me feel like I was eavesdropping or something. But a little part of one I listened to has stuck with me. George asked Shellie if she had done something or other that needed to be done, and she said no, not yet. She then kinda apologized, and said something like, “Sorry, I’ll try to get to that. It’s kinda hard remembering everything.” And George said, “Don’t worry about it. You’re doing fine. You’re doing just great, I’m proud of you.” And Shellie says, “You’re so cute.” At that moment, I had no doubt that those are a couple of really nice people.
on FOX 35 News OrlandoCourt: Zimmerman judge should disqualify himself 2 days ago
Yes, good news. Judge Lester should have stepped down. Now on to the immunity hearing. Free George Zimmerman now, he is innocent of murder. It was self defense period. On Sept. 10 the Ostermans will be on Dr. Phil. They have written a book: DEFENDING OUR FRIEND, THE MOST HATED MAN IN AMERICA, THE GEORGE ZIMMERMAN WE KNOW.
on Appeals court grants George Zimmerman new judge 3 days ago
Thank you Ruzzty. I trust you have heard about the Osterman’s book about George and the Dr. Phil show. It will shed a lot of light on this whole thing.
Not “tasked with selling the book”? That’s just two. There are more.
Nope, not tasked with “selling the book”. Not. at. all.
OdessaGirl•4 days ago−
FYI the Oserman’s book about George will be available for pre-order sometime next week.
IIRC OdessaGirl claimed to be the step-mom of Sondra. If I’m wrong I feel certain someone will correct me.
A recent comment by Odessagirl: (Could she be talking about us?)
“It got so bad I quit posting about the case over there. Someone new over there said they knew my identity and that my associating with racists was bad for George. It is racists that are against George. I choose my own friends and the first person that befriended me when I started posting was Keystone Light, followed by you and many others. I believe in loyalty and standing up for what is right. You have to stand up or you will fall for anything. See, I can get up on my soapbox, too, LOL. Anyway, chatting with you guys is a lot more fun than arguing with those idiots.”
I just googled the comments and a list of the comments came up on different sites. There are to many to list.
Actually I was talking about another thread on the same site I was posting on, not about this site. Someone had posted something on the other thread. I don’t believe I have argued with anyone here.
Thanks for that clarification, because no, I couldn’t remember you getting in what I’d call an “argument” here.
Thank you for that.
*I* said here that she wasn’t doing GZ any favors with her racist tinged comments over on Orlando Click.
I said it then and meant it. I say it now and mean it.
I had said that too actually, CK. I didn’t notice your comment but thanks, makes me feel better
YW gb.
My mouth (fingers) do tend to get me in trouble often.
I like to say I’m brutally honest. Others have said I’m just cruel. (shrug)
I do try to be good, but when my BS meter pegs the needle my fingers get a mind of their own.
I have to honestly say that I like that about you CK because there are times I don’t wanna say anything, like a few days ago when everything was going rah rah rah O’Mara is a superstar, and Osterman the best friend, rah rah rah!
I simply kept away, but when I did peek in once or twice I was glad about that BS meter of yours saying it like it is. It made me smile.
Expressing that dissenting opinion while everyone seems to be making nice is difficult to do, but oh so necessary.
Maybe he plagerized the blogs to write the book. There is a way to check it.
howie, That’s a very interesting thought indeed.
That wouldn’t be the first time it was done either. Early on during the Casey Anthony case someone wrote a book and used all posts from crime forums to write it.
Thanks. That’s what I was referring to in my earlier comment, but I wasn’t certain my memory was correct. So yeah, George DID say that, though just not on the NEN. And that, of course, is NOT in the NEN. I still think it’s no big deal. All that’s going on with the minor discrepancies is that George had the timing, distances, order-of-events a little twisted. And I think that is perfectly reasonable for a person who had just been through what he had been through.
I thank the moderator for identifying “Tcong” which is certainly offiensive to African Americans. I am also offended by people coming up with stupid names for George Zimmerman. This is a tragedy and the compassionate thing to do is respect all parties and look for the truth. The important thing about the message is the understanding of the receiver.
Thank you for that affirmation. I suspected that this was a case in which our ignorance was taking us someplace we would never consciously choose to go. Thank you very much.
Sharon- Are you saying that there is whole new direction for the site, and that political correctness will now prevail. I always believed that the “Truth Has No Agenda” even when it may hurt some feelings and sensibilities. Thinking that the term Tcong automatically represents “kingkong” a gorilla is as much of a stretch as claiming that maccacca was an insult to blacks. Most never even heard the term until the WaPo dug up some obscure definition, and painted Allen as a racist because of it. It gave us Jim Webber who voted in lock step with everything Pelosi pushed forward.
If we are now to monitor ourselves by what may be considered an offense by the blacks, such as falling into a “black hole” as was known to much of what happened in the postal service, then we are doomed. Perhaps someone should post new rules and regs for the site participants. It would be helpful.
I’m not “saying” anything. When we had the conversation this morning asking if anyone knew the etimology of the word Tcong—no one had an explanation for it. At this point we’ve learned several opinions. I do not think that the term Tcong automatically represents anything. I am saying (as I said this morning) that I DON’T KNOW and as a moderator, I was asking for input. Just as we don’t want to go all PC neither do we want to use freedom of speech as an excuse to be unnecessarily rude.
At least I don’t. Do you?
Minpin wants to make the rules and be right all of the time. In my view, being rude to you, Sharon, is a serious infraction. My God – you would think that asking our commenters to refrain from using a word that may be insulting to other commenters is like putting duct tape over the mouths of those folks who did the NOH8 campaign. MinPin, if you can’t abide by a request made to you by mods here, then you can go to your own blog and type whatever you like. What you say here is a representation of who WE are – you have nothing at risk, since you are protected by a pseudonym. Please don’t act and talk like a child.
Agreed.
Perfectly said stellap – thank you.
It was me.
No problem howie….we know you used it first. We just didn’t like the snotty way minpin replied to Sharon….and for that matter, many others in past threads. This has been building up for some time.
minpin…. What on earth does the phrase “Truth Has No Agenda” have to do with the possible use of an offensive term….especially when YOU have no idea as to whether the term is or is not racial in nature? We asked our readership for input upthread, and since no one could give us an exact citation as to it’s meaning, we chose to ask folks not to include it in their comments. Simple as that….no need for further angst and turmoil.
Your continual lecturing of not only the admins, but other commenters as well, has become more than tiresome….it is approaching bullying. Think on that awhile.
I’ve thought about it Ad Rem. I wish SD much good luck in his support for the truth with the GZ case. I hope GZ prevails. I hope Obama is gone come November. Thank you for advocating for that SD. Happy trails.
Is it ok if we make fun of Crump?
There are just to many things that are offensive to African Americans. I’m offended that African Americans are insistent that they are “African” Americans, rather than just plain old Americans. What benefit is supposed to attach to the “African” part. I am a granddaughter of Lithuanian immigrants. I don’t call my self a Lithuanian American. Those whose ancestors came from foreign lands, and passed through Ellis Island don’t call themselves Italian Americans, British Americans, or French Americans. Why the importantance of adding the “African” to anyone who is an American. Do the hispanics call themselves Hispanic Americans?
Take a listen to Chrissy Tingles Matthews how he goes all the way back to Ronald Reagan’s reference to Welfare Queens. That is racissss. Newt’s reference to foodstamp recipents was racisss because we all know he meant blacks, even though he cited the facts that the most of the population that are on foodstamps currently are white.
I’m freakin’ sick and tired of the crap screamed out there by the “African” Americans, as though they really believe Biden when he said about Romney “he’s gonna put you all back in chainnnns” to a majority black audience. Get over it already. Are you offended when black on white crime, which has been on the march, is ignored by the press. Are you offended when someone beats someone to shit in the name of Trayvon.
Please expand on your comments and talk about the “race baiters” that came out early and often that GZ was to be arrested immediately or there will be riots, boycotts, and a bounty was put on his head. If you are willing to have that conservation, let’s go for it.
And that conversation doesn’t belong in this thread. Go to the OT and try it there. I’m sorry I ever gave a damn about what the word Tcong means. I grew up in a family where I was trained not to rude, even inadvertently, to folks I didn’t know very well. Sorry I brought that flaw into this group today.
Hey. I am the one who coined the term. I was relating it to the Viet Cong. Not King Kong. It just came to me when I was typing. it was a metaphor. Quit arguing about it. If we want to drop it then let’s drop it and use proper names. It had nothing to do with King Kong.
Howie, this conversation has gotten far beyond the “word”. Please don’t let this bother you; you didn’t cause the current problem.
It’s not all bad that this conversation has taken place. Because I’ve talked to a lot of people (at other sites) who don’t understand why I come to this site, and especially how I can say I “like” most of the people here. I don’t know where they got it, but some of them think this is a “racist” site. I tell them that, while I’ve seen the occasional comment that made me cringe a bit, there’s nothing really serious. And anytime there HAS been something problematic, the admins and other users have stepped in to fix things. So this thread (I should say this tangent in this thread
) just confirms what I’ve said to them about this place. Good job…
(And this ain’t a slam on you Minpin, I don’t like political correctness any better than you do. But I don’t think ANYONE here likes it, and I don’t think that’s what anyone is trying to do.)
Oh and by the way, I meant to say: This particular word (“xxxxx”) was never on my radar one way or the other… I’m mainly saying that for Howie’s benefit, if indeed he’s the one who coined it.
Ruh roh!! I done been moderated! If it’s because I used that word (though of course I used it only in reference), sorry about that. Just delete that (and this) comment.
Certainly as administrators you decide the spirit of the blog; and I too am concerned about the appearance of things sounding racist especially on GZ threads because of what he is already being confronted with.
However, I do get frustrated at more and more words being off limits due to people misinterpreting them, and holding us hostage to their emotions. Sometimes we’re utterly at the mercy of the person misunderstanding something.
When lecturing to a college class, I used the word “negrito” to describe one of the groups of people who migrated to a different area. A black American student was deeply offended at the word, and said so, in front of the whole class. There were African students, in the classroom, first generation immigrants from Africa, who simply shook their heads at the black student! They were clearly not offended!
Should we strike the word “negrito” from textbooks since it sounds too much like the N word? And I realize I said “black student” but I need to distinguish between her and the students from Africa because there is a huge difference in thinking there.
I don’t know what the solution is, but I would say, rather than ban the use of a word, simply make it a general request, and then see how it goes. (I personally had no idea what Tcong was, I googled it once and it didn’t come up with anything.)
That’s exactly what we did….we made a “general request” for people not to use the word. The word was never “banned”.
Please feel free to say whatever you want on the open thread – except the word that you have been asked not to use. By the way, your tantrums and disregard of requests by our mods are exasperating.
To say the very least…….grrrrrrr.
Minpin, I think your anger is misdirected, what Sharon was asking was/is prudent no one knows for sure the etymology of that term. As such it is only prudent not to use until we do. We strive to speak only of facts, and if we are speculating then we make it clear.
The societal problems with the AA community and others at large, have little bearing on whether we need to behave in the same manner. As you pointed out how the “race baiters” came out to incite the crowds by proclaiming GZ of racism before any facts were known, we or maybe I should say I, don’t want to needlessly offend other readers on this site because I’m ignorant of a term.
This is not censorship, this is acting prudently and in accordance to the goals of the site. The other issues can be discuss at a later time but have nothing to do with her request. BTW I am of Hispanic heritage but when ask my answer is an always has been American, that is what I taught my kids and my wife who is of African descent.
Bingo!
Howie did it! Excuuusee! Meee! I was referring to Viet Cong…with a C. Not King Kong or Monkey’s.
You see what you started, now go have time out!!!!!!LOL!
In the pourin rain? Who is that Redhead? I better watch my language. Someone said it caught on. I only post here. I gotta good branch. This pace is (special)
LOL….now ya did it! Tomorrow morning the New York Slimes will be using it!
Don’t let Howie anywhere near your couch!
Hey.
That’s like one of my all-time favorite lol-cats too!
Adorable, kitty with an attitude!
why is everyone suddenly self imploding? do you guys even remember that the state must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt? there are at least two elements of this crime the state must and they are zimmermen pursued and confronted martin. The confrontation part has already been admitted by the prosecution’s lead detective that he does not know who confronted who. The part of purue is already a really hard part to prove being the physical differences of the two and the state has no evidence to show that zimmerman was running after martin with his gun in hand. Basically the whole case relies on the testimony of dd and dd’s story is still waiting for varification on the phone records. Once dd is proven as a fabricated lie, every thing else really does not matter because the state’s whole affidavit is built on a false witness and 911 recordings. Guys you should calm down and wait for the phone records to come out and the book to come out and see what happens. what is done is already done. ostermans taped their dr phil already and no one has an official copy of the book. Thus, it is just very laughable for us to worry about the effects of the book when the state is betting its whole case on an audio witness who was practically fed the facts of the case during her interview.
I am not imploding. I am amazed. Just when you think it could not get crazier, it does. First Lester get’s 86′d now this. What next? Stay tuned for next weeks episode. I am sure it will be even more exciting. (cue the piano music)
“We” are not “worrying about the effects of the book.” The guest poster requested the opportunity to identify areas in which things were stated that were not so. We are the audience of the guest poster, and the readers of the guest poster’s comments.
Of course, if anyone wants to worry, they sure can. We are a reading audience today, who also have the opportunity to respond. That does not equal self-imploding.
If that is your perception of the Treehouse crowd, e2w, you don’t know us at all!
Well e2w that of course would be the fact that the state has to prove their case, beyond a reasonable doubt, that GZ is guilty of second degree murder. In an “immunity hearing” GZ has to prove, by the preponderance of the evidence, that he acted in self defense.
I believe many here know and understand that once this case goes to a full trial, if it ever does, it is over for GZ with the civil trials which will be brought by Crump against not only GZ, but against everyone from the SPD, the State, the HOA, and anyone even remotely involved in any way.
I will go out on a limb here, and claim that I speak for many of those here for a long time, that GZ should prevail at an immunity hearing, just based on the physical evidence alone.
Remember Crump said that the arresss was only the first hurdle for the Martins. He said that this case has to get past a SYG defense. That is when he meets his big payday as he then is free to bring every wrongful death lawsuit known to man.
The goal is to have GZ found immune at an immunity hearing. You do know that there is a difference right?
I predict that it will be decided at DCA or FSC. Not in Seminole 18th.
a lot of people seem to forget that florida law provides protection for zimmerman even if he were the first aggressor.
Reality strikes deep. E2W you have uncovered the beginning of this travesty. Socialist Democratic forces seek to undermine the standing of Stare Decisis (let the precedent stand) form of law. That is the danger beyond this tragic case. Stogy old decisions made Pre-Obama can not be allowed to slow (3 o’clock road block) the evolution to Social Democracy, Social Justice, or anything Social. In the Post-Obama America. The Post-Obama America=The Post America World. If this makes any sense then you are too aware. According to the National Debt Clock. (source)…see photo of Obama with book…Post American World…or something like that.
Remember. He said the passing cruise ships throw away enough food to feed Haiti…..Unfortuneatly it is one thing he might be right about.
GOOD! After this video was prepared – all the evidence shows that TM was the “First Agressor! The purpose of “SYG” was to prevent this type of STATE bull-shit from developing the way it has. Now this case will run for another year.
The evidence was already known by the prosecution, it just had not been released to the public. The sad fact is that the evidence in late March when the FDLE joined the case, is practically the same on April 11th, when GZ went to jail.
EtoW, I have not checked the Fl statutes, but I believe states with SYG I know Arizona for sure, you are still justified even if you are the primary aggressor provided at some point in the confrontation you say uncle (quit it) and your victim refuses and deadly force is used to stop him from committing grave bodily harm or imminent death.
It is pretty hard not to be the aggressor when you have a gun in your hand. A gun that there is evidence you had out at the start of the aggression from sounds on the NEN tape. A gun you claim the dead person saw.
What evidence do you have that says the gun was out at the start. What sounds do you here that tells you the gun was out oh wise one. I tried to leave you alone but you keep begging for it.
people watch too much movies and believe it is completely possible to run around with guns without actually shooting him self in the face.
For once I just want this person to back up a claim. Been posting for a week now and hasn’t backed up anything. Ignore button would be fantastic.
Ash has found a new witness who claims that just before George shot Trayvon, he twirled the gun on his finger ala an old western gunfighter. Then after firing the shot, he blew the smoke from the barrel, smiled a little knowing smile, and clicked his heals together.
You forgot to mention that GZ said “yippee ki yay, mf” also.
And then pick up his white hat and after blowing the dust off it, he whistled for his trusted steed, mounted it with just one leap and rode off into the sunset while the local women swooned.
All true (but you left out how he saved Timmy from the well on his way outta town).
His faithful dog Lassie did that for him.
ftsk, its really not worth it, she just angers us intentionally with her bs, ignore it, dont feed it , it will go away
That’s the thing it hasn’t gone away and if someone throws out some BS I’m gonna wave the BS flag. All she has to do is answer.
please read your state law. I only argue with facts.
Uh e2w, might I bring up that you stated earlier that there was an FBI report that stated there was no misconduct by the SPD. That was not factual but rather speculative as you later admitted.
how many arms does zimmerman have? He was on the phone with the police, holding a flash light and holding a gun at the exact same time? where is the third arm going to come from? If he was not holding the flash light, where was his night vision googles?
When Georgie was viciously attacked by Mr. Martin, he was holding his keys in his right hand and his flashlight in the other. He had already put his phone in his jacket pocket went he grabbed his keys. He normally keeps his phone in his pants pocket which is why he didn’t find it right away. This is why the keys were found at the “T”.
I’ve often said that the “Keys are the key!”.
It is a fact that at a certain point Mr. Zimmerman had a gun in hand. The question is this. Was Mr. Zimmerman justified? Are you alleging that Mr. Zimmerman had pulled out his gun prior to the attack by Mr. Martin? If so, can you cite any evidence to prove this contention? If you can not, please refrain from further silly posting about the incident. If you can not justify your position on this with anything other than personal speculation go away. Please explain your statement…”It is pretty hard not to be the aggressor when you have a gun in your hand.” Please post the evidence you have that Mr. Zimmerman had his gun exposed prior to being attacked. If you can not accomplish this your posts are vapid, legally insignificant, and inane exercises in stupidity. I await your response.
Don’t hold your breath
itsallboutmeash, Whatever.
This is all a distraction. From the fact that Lester was tossed for (BIAS)….this is the important fact. You can not take this fact away.
“A gun that there is evidence you had out at the start of the aggression from sounds on the NEN tape.”
Enlighten me.
Unless, say, you’re on your back, with a broken nose, pinned to the ground by your attacker, who has been relentlessly attacking you for more than 40 seconds. At that point, once you reach for your gun, you’re defending your life.
Objection. Asserting facts not in evidence.
You have yet to give a reason why it is implausible to believe that Martin saw the concealed firearm after a certain point in his assault of Zimmerman.
This is all so stupid, and based on the theory that some sounds heard, either in the truck or while GZ was by the T, are the sounds of GZ, gun slide.
agree completely with you. f1 has similar clause within its syg section.
What a crock! All of it
I am a bit less concerned from reading the bits today. We know what GZ said on the calls, and it doesn’t match the book. To me that sets the tone, this is all from the authors “memory” of many conversations that happened months ago. Its a story “about” the event, but I don’t see how anyone could see it as factual except by coincidence.
I don’t know what the effect of the book or the Dr Phil show will have either, but keep in mind the audience to be swayed are not TM supporters, or GZ supporters, it is the MUCH larger group who belong to neither camp and know little more than the headlines and pictures of 12 year old Trayvon.
judging from the first couple lines of the novel, it is written in form of a mystery detective novel. It is hard for me to believe osterman could remember the conversation they had the night of the shooting. I question the source material of sd.
……….. “I question the source material of sd”……..
How so?
This book will come out within the week of the ex-navy seal book about the Osama raid. You know the one that Obamas’ government is threatening legal actions over. That could be the reason for,the rush to publish. Obama has to try something deflect the attention away from the osama book.
Thus the silence of the Troops at Obama’s speech in Texas. They Know, We know. Most people know. Almost everyone knows. The silent majority may strike in November.
Isn’t it odd the “all about me” appeared at the time when Lester went bye-bye.
I’m not saying that she’s him, but… her suppositions about what happened that night makes as much sense as her being him. Just saying that one can make the darned theories out of the most irrational facts and try to relate them.
Odd? or expected. Fish flop on the deck.
Hmmm?
Actually on a note. I had to read the Garden of Forking Paths. A short story. The end is the beginning. If that makes sense.
Highly unlikely.
I know that. But that wasn’t my point. She was coming up with pure conjecture without any logic to substantiate what would have happened that night. Saying that she is Lester makes as much sense as what she was supposing as to what occurred that night. Savvy?
Read it a second time. I found out about that today. The mindset. The setting. The outcome. The willingness to bend the mind to the cause. Misdirection. Going to the mat with no redemption. They think they have won the revolution and are fighting counter-revolutionary’s. Amazing. It is not what you think.
Hmm I wonder if she is Corey sister.
More like Mary cutchers’ mother.
Musings from Osterman’s Journal of Interesting Happenings On A Dark February Evening
Figuratively speaking of course somebody dropped an “H-bomb” today ….that is to say somebody “dropped the hammer” on a glaring technical error involving the gun that would not be made under authorship or proofreading by Osterman. So don’t look now but “Houston we got a problem” on the book. Get it ? You won’t nuke it so I just took care of that for you.
Will the book have an errata page or will it require more than one ?
They better start that page NOW. Call it a “Clarification Page”. There is no “hammer” between the sights of the TEK-9.
however we wish to look at this, the media will some how take a negative spin out of the material. Remember god’s plan became some thing else when the martins took a look at it.
Trayvon was looking in windows…
Meh.
Was his nose pressed against the glass or was he just standing ten feet away staring at a wall with a window in it? Not much difference but the phrase suggests a nose against the glass. At least to those predisposed to thinking somebody hanging around in somebody’s yard after dark staring at a wall with a window in it are actually looking in the window, unless the looker is just some dude on drugs staring at a wall while standing in somebody’s yard after dark (mentally not all there is also a reasonable explanation, but even TM’s people have not claimed that he was ‘not all there’)… but that is all, uhhh, normal, err, whatever.
I hear that a last-minute title change will soon be announced. Apparently, they’ve decided to go with If I Did It.
I would title it,”To Kill or be Killed, THAT is the Question”
He may as well title it what it really is, How to insert yourself in a high profile case and make a few bucks off your friend while doing it.
I wonder if they’ll have their own trash cans handy for the book signing.
only if there’s a solitary recipient of the message willing and capable to understand it. Imo, it shouldn’t matter that one (or even several or many) misguided recipients might misinterpret a particular reference. This is a good example because the use of a “c” makes it all but impossible to find offense on behalf of black people. Yet, somehow, you found a way. Similar to the debacle over the word “niggardly” imo.
argh…that was @diane. There was a reply link. Not sure why it didn’t work.
Is anybody curious if the “book” sells many copies?
I have a hard time guessing who the buyer would be, most I suspect are going to download an electronic version unpaid or just read excerpts from articles talking about it. Seems to me it has no juice, no content that would compel me to buy or read it.
Certainly no universal appeal, or moral question that would bring people together for a consensus or a discussion. Seems very dry, a discussion of people. People talking about people, whether themselves, or others, is as low as it gets.
We have more unique and engaging insights in each of the daily threads of GZ, then we will find in the book.
He should call the book “Not My Book, Not His Book, IT;S THE BOOK.
Ok, that’s not bad. Maybe you should stick to jokes instead of theories about this case?
Book him Jello.
Is Ostermann intentionally setting the prosecution up to look stupid by publishing this book?
Alternatively, is the publisher reediting Osterman’s writing to undermine GZ?
The detail about GZ “gripping the gun between the site and the hammer” is a glaring mistake to anyone familiar with guns.
Here is a link to an excellent article on GZ’s little Kel Tec:
http://www.shootingillustrated.com/mobile/article.php?id=995
The use of the word “site” rather than “sight” or “slide” is the first hint. Guns have “sights” and “slides” but they don’t have “sites.”. Ostermann should know this. His publisher and ghostwriter may not.
I got it wrong based on perusing photos by stating that the Kel Tec had a Stryker rather than a hammer as almost all, modern, DAO pistols do. However; the Kel Tec’s internal hammer is so deeply shrouded bybthe slide that it simply isn’t possible to grip the gun between the hammer and any other component unless it is disassembled.
This seemingly minor detail conforms to the various narratives by Crump, Learherman and various useless idiots about GZ unholstering his gun, chambering a round in his gun, taking the safety ff his gun, then cocking his gun in preparation for “hunting TM down like a dog. There are problems with this narrative:
The Kel Tec has a capacity of 7+1, meaning 7 rounds in the magazine plus 1 in the chamber. The gun was recovered with 6 rounds in the magazine and one round in the chamber which combined with the fired casing on the ground equals 8 rounds. Unless GZ switched magazines or removed, topped off then reinserted his magazine, it would not have been possible for him to fire one round and still have 7 in the gun.
The Kel Tec has no external safety.
The DAO and lack of an external hammer makes it impossible to cock the pistol.
Just wondering about the reasons for the obvious screw up. Interestedin others opinions.
That one already got jumped on like a rat terrier on a rat by the gun that killed Hitler.