02-02 George Zimmerman Case – Open Discussion Thread

Use this thread as an open thread just for Zimmerman Case stuff. A place to just dump, collect, or discuss general information about the Trayvon Martin VS George Zimmerman Case.

“The sensationalized, fact-deficient coverage of this case has achieved the
desired results. The networks got their ratings. The politicians got their
talking points. And if it means innocent people get caught in the middle of the
racial enmity they’ve fomented, obviously it’s considered acceptable collateral
damage.
Congratulations, geniuses. Job well done. Jim Treacher, The DC Trawler

REMINDER – Please WATCH THE TONE and CONTENT of Commentary. Please be respectful, courteous and considerate of other readers and contributors. Please avoid hatespeak, angry rhetoric, vulgarity, personal attacks and condescension. If you wish to engage in vitriolic, racist, or bitter angry rhetoric, there are alternative sites on the internet more than welcoming to such considerations. But not here. Thank You.

About these ads
This entry was posted in George Zimmerman Open Thread, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

355 Responses to 02-02 George Zimmerman Case – Open Discussion Thread

  1. eastern2western says:

    it is odd that the media always tend to play favortism when it comes to this story. currently, they put the defense needing money as the title of their reports for the zimmerman case, but they ignore the accusation of evidence tampering from the defense. Could evidence tampering have a much more important effect to the case than the whole george zimmerman is broke angle? Now, lets just see what will happen on tuesday because I kind of want to see what the heck happened to the phone during its trip to california and what story will bernie creat.

    Like

    • libby says:

      I am just being negative, of course, cuz I cant fall in love with a garden variety race lynching by the AA community.
      It also does not thrill me that our news media is so hell bent on participaing in this persecution in such a canniving manner.
      Oh sure, the persecution is playing dirty; lying, tampering with evidence and with tampering with witnesses, but isnt it better that one innocent man be pilloried before the media than to have the racist blacks not get the determind outcome to their lynching that they demanded

      Like

    • hooson1st says:

      e2w

      The public narrative remains that an unarmed black teen was gunned down by a non-black armed individual. This narrative has resonated deeply with the American black community. It has resonated, as well, with the general media which takes its main clues in high-interest locally-focused criminal stories from the local media.

      Until the local media adapts its focus from the prosecution to the defense, the narrative will continue.

      The Zimmerman attempts at media interaction have been desultory.

      Without an intelligent media access plan, the Zimmerman’s are continually on defense.
      They don’t have funds for that and they are not good subjects to advance their own cause because they are not articulate enough to navigate the tricky waters of gotcha interviews etc.

      The only way to effectively counter-act this is with the facts and by relentlessly seeking access to the editors. The editors call the follow-up shots. The reporters report the developments. We aren’t even at trial yet. GZ cannot talk to the press because of the position he is in.

      Robert Jr. is sincere, but sincerity can carry you only so far in this media battle.

      Given these realities, MOM/West prefer to stick to the case in court, make their points there, and try to avoid unplanned and unsanctioned cluster*$%#s like the Osterman misadventure.

      Meanwhile, Crump and Co roll merrily along fielding softball interviews time after time. The public can only have sympathy for Tracy and Sybrina given the loss of their son.

      The media is not the enemy.

      You can complain about it, bash it, criticize it, wax conspiratorial about it, and you won’t accomplish anything. Or you can do something about it.

      The facts of this case are dripping out, slowly.

      If the media looks at the work done in this case on this site, they will notice two things.

      First, they will notice incredible support and sympathy for GZ, and at the same time, overriding this, incredible vitriol and denigration airmed at the Martin/Fulton families, Crump and Co, prosecutors, pro-TM websites, etc.

      Second, if they look deeper, they will see an amazing amount of internet sleuthing, analysis, debate, re-examination of the holes in the case that have provided the GZ side with a chance to prevail against the racially-focused “rush to judgement” against GZ.

      MOM’s calm and methodical approach has served to slowly open some of the local media’s eyes to the fatal deficiencies in the prosecution’s case. In contrast to BDLR’s factually-challenged statement in the latest reply brief, MOM has not launched a media crusade, nor held news conferences. He has acted properly and rationally as befits any defense counsel, responding to press inquiries where appropriate and when courtroom developments have warranted it.

      Like

  2. rumpole2 says:

    Daily Daft Posts at Justarse Quest

    With motions filed and case matters worthy of discussion, JQ peeps are of course pouring over documents looking for the most important aspects to discuss…….

    George’s finances and MOM’s reference to weight gain of 105 lb.

    Really? Is that what they think is important?

    (Since today’s daftness does not relate to the GZ case per se I will post the examples in a RT Members only thread)

    http://randomtopics.org/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=63&p=21040#p21040

    Random Topics GZ Case Discussion

    http://randomtopics.org/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=584&p=21006#p21002

    Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      Yes, that’s what they think is important: not “justice” for Martin, but projection of moral outrage against Zimmerman.

      Like

      • jello333 says:

        Just watch what they have to say on Tuesday morning. I guarantee that no matter how things go for them, good or bad, there will be far more comments about George’s weight (or the expression on his face, or blah blah blah) than anything else. And no doubt they’ll talk about Shellie, too. These people sound like 3rd-graders. I hate saying that, because it’s such an insult to little kids. But you know what I mean… Look at that fat girl! Ewww! Well at least I’m not ugly and have red hair like YOU! I don’t make trash, I burn it! I know you are, but what am I? Nya nya nya….. make me!

        Seriously. It bothers me a lot when little kids do that. But the vast majority of them eventually learn it’s wrong, grow out of it, and become perfectly decent kids as they get older. But the slimebuckets at JQ and other such venues?… I just don’t get it. What’s the deal?

        Like

  3. Ron Callaway says:

    daily caller has articles about George. Not good with puter so don’t do links and stuff.

    Like

  4. Ron Callaway says:

    Just so you know how goofey I am that article is at BREITBART instead of daily caller, Ben Sharpiro. Just woke up and brain still fuzzy. lol

    Like

    • justfactsplz says:

      You’re not alone. I am fuzzy in the brain sometimes too. When I first came here I didn’t know much about the computer either. These kind people are very helpful. I now know how to make a smiley face and post a link.

      Like

  5. selfdefenseadvocate says:

    Just wondering how others (especially residents of Florida) feel about FDLE’s Response to Defense’s request for witness biographies. I know there was some general discussion about biographies on yesterday’s threads but FDLE’s Response certainly gave me some food for thought. The GZ case is certainly not the average run of the mill murder case and imo, should never have gone this far. IMO the attorney for FDLE certainly put forth an excellent argument that I must take personally as a Florida resident who could possibly be thrown into such a situation if I would ever become a witness to a crime in the State Of Florida. I certainly would not want my private information released to anyone accused of a felony or othrwise. In fact, I think Florida laws already allow too much “sunshine” on law abiding citizen’s private lives. Surely, the defense could get the information they need on “Dee Dee” and her ilk from other sources? Here is the link for FDLE’s Response to Defense’s Motion to obtain Witness Biographies:

    http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0213/fdle_memo.pdf

    Like

    • ejarra says:

      The opposing viewpoint to their argument is that a defendant has the right to face his accuser. In providing the best defense, his lawyers need to know as much as they can about the accuser. However, the safety of the witness is also paramount; a conundrum I admit; thus the reason for witness protection programs. It’s DD2’s bio that they are trying to keep away from MOM. Why? I have my theory which I’ll present later. My question to MOM/West is, “Did your office receive the transcript and audio of the Aug. 2nd meeting of DD2?” I say no, and it’s THIS that BLDR is keeping from the defense.

      Like

      • selfdefenseadvocate says:

        Mornin’ ejarra,
        I totally agree that a defendant has the right to face his accuser, but technically a witness is not the accuser. The accuser is the Prosecutor’s office. The job of FDLE is to protect ALL citizens and imo, that is what they are doing with that response. For the most part, FLDE are the ones that didn’t think GZ was guilty to start with. I agree it is BLDR (prosecutors office) keeping much needed information from defense.

        Like

    • ytz4mee says:

      I think that it speaks volumes about the State’s determination to maintain the DeeDee fiction. The unfounded allegations against the defense launched in this Motion by the FDLE are offensive. “Something is afoot” indeed.

      Like

      • boutis says:

        The Memorandum was written by David Margolis, Regional Legal Adviser (RLA) for the Orlando Regional Operations Command (OROC) at Florida Department of Law Enforcement and he is an Adjunct Professor at Seminole State College.
        He is a former Assistant State Attorney at State of Florida. ” August 2008 – December 2011 (3 years 5 months) Orlando, Florida Area. Full time prosecutor in the Ninth Judicial Circuit (Orange and Osceola counties). “I tried more than two dozen cases to verdict before changing my focus to appellate and post-conviction litigation.” From LinkedIn. He graduated from law school in 2008.

        Like

        • ytz4mee says:

          And? This does not change my statement that the State is determined, at all costs, to maintain the fiction of the DeeDee.

          The rot goes all the way to the very, very top.

          I disagree with the good professor. Every criminal defendent is entitled to EVERYTHING that will aid in his exoneration, since he is fighting against the resources of the ENTIRE State. The State has an obligation to prove its claims/charges, and as well be forthright and honest about any and all “evidence” within its purview. That is most definitely NOT happening here.

          Like

          • boutis says:

            He is a very young attorney and very recently employed by OROC. I agree with you.

            Like

          • jello333 says:

            “fighting against the resources of the ENTIRE State”

            Exactly. And that’s one of the main things that’s wrong with our “adversarial system”. As we talked about awhile back, as bad as this whole saga has been for George, he’s actually LUCKY it’s so high-profile. Because otherwise, if he was just your average anonymous defendant, there is no doubt he would have already been forced into a plea and be rotting under the jail. The way things are set up is just sick, and should be unconstitutional. How can a lower- (or even middle-) income defendant, who has probably only a public defender in his corner, POSSIBLY compete against (as you say) the ENTIRE State? Or in some cases, the entire federal government. It’s thoroughly unfair. Even in George’s case, just look at the relationship between the prosecution and the FDLE. Bernie is apparently allowed to walk in and take ANYTHING he wants, no questions asked. But MOM or West?… they have to jump through about a hundred hoops. HOW IS THAT FAIR?! FDLE (and all police and similar agencies) should be NEUTRAL. The prosecutors and defense lawyers should have equal access to everything they have, including their investigative assistance if needed. Our system (and this is just one example) is seriously flawed.

            Like

      • justfactsplz says:

        Something is afoot. FDLE had been on George’s side.

        Like

    • sundance says:

      Witness intimidation is as old as crime itself. The concerns of privacy might be a convenient cover to try and hide who a witness is, but the rights of an accused person should always trump the rights of privacy for those who would accuse, or affirm an accusation.

      The defendant, the person accused, must be able to confront the accuser; That is the cornerstone of our judicial system. Therefore, when you consider rights vs. privacy, the accused must hold higher ground for it is their freedom at stake – not the witness.

      “Freedom” is the most valuable human possession, it should take considerable justification to remove that from a person.

      Like

      • selfdefenseadvocate says:

        These are arguments that we have in philosophy 101 and sound lofty in theory but the bottom line is, people (witnesses) will “dumb up” and know nothing if their lives (or privacy) is threatened. Bottom line is: We either abide by the law or change the law. This would be a moot issue if Judge Nelson had told the state to give up the address of W8 when it came out at the same hearing that W8 was NOT a minor.

        Like

        • libby says:

          It could be a real point if tens of thousands of angry protestors showed up in a town of 50,000 (threatening vigilante action).
          Witnesses in favor of GZ are in much greater danger than any of the state witnesses (how many of trayvon’s family members are in hiding currently?).

          Like

    • justfactsplz says:

      I live in Florida also. I understand the possible consequences of releasing such information about witnesses. On the other hand, Omara needs to find out who Dee Dee is. Bernie bringing her to a depo is not good enough. The defense needs to do some investigation concerning her and her family.

      Like

      • selfdefenseadvocate says:

        Hi jtfp, I remember the judge telling the defense they could ask for her address when they depose her. It irked me that she did that, because it had already come out at the hearing that she was not a minor. Getting a witness’s address is not the same thing as a “biography”. It is the biography that I was commenting about. I sure hope Don West wasn’t just being sarcastic when he mentioned deposing BDL. As a FL resident it was the “biography” that I questioned. If released as Discovery, it means it would be made public and all over the Internet. Yep, we would all lik,e to know ALL about ALL of the “Dee Dees”, but as a FL resident, I’m looking at the bigger picture and my own rights to privacy. ( Sadly, not much left in today’s world). Your last line says it all-“The defense needs to do some investigation concerning her and her family”. That was why they asked the stringy haired judge for witness’s address. but she wouldn’t make state addresses. :(

        Like

        • jello333 says:

          “As a FL resident it was the “biography” that I questioned. If released as Discovery, it means it would be made public and all over the Internet.”

          Ok, now I see what your concern is. And I might agree with you IF this was true. But no… just because it gets into MOM/West’s hands, doesn’t mean WE (the public) will ever see it. The judge can order it handled in such a way that it’ll help the defense, but still never be made public. There are safeguards for stuff like that. Now if MOM/West undercover proof that some things about a witness — say Dee Dee — are lies and part of a conspiracy, then yeah, THAT specific info might come out for all to see. But that’s a little different.

          Like

          • John Galt says:

            +1 All kinds of confidential stuff has already been turned over to MOM. The only leaks of confidential information have been done by the State.

            Like

            • woohoowee says:

              “+1 All kinds of confidential stuff has already been turned over to MOM.”

              This brings back the “head scratching” over Judge Nelson invoking Judge Lester’s ruling, regarding privacy, in a manner which effectively denies the defense certain addresses at the time they are needed in the discovery process. She interpreted Judge Lester’s ruling wrong, IMHO. I don’t see Judge Lester’s ruling to be in violation of rule 3.220(A), but do percieve Judge Nelson’s application of that ruling in violation of the same.

              Like

              • MJW says:

                +1 (to add to a string of +1’s)

                So far, I’m not anti-Nelson like many here, but I think she really blew that call. Judge Lester’s ruling applied to public release of witnesses’ personal information. Not only was Judge Nelson’s decision on DeeDee’s address contrary to Florida law, it made no sense. If she’s going to allow the defense to ask DeeDee her address in a deposition, nothing is protected. All she’s doing is making the defense’s job harder.

                Like

        • justfactsplz says:

          Yes, they do need her address and I know the defense would not release or leak private info.

          Like

    • arkansasmimi says:

      Tho I am not in FL, I wouldnt want my personal info realeased either, just being a witness. IMHO, it could be a reason someone would not want to help or get involved. So many people now dont want to because of all the turmoil. IMHO a no win situation.

      Like

  6. ejarra says:

    My theory on DD

    First, there are two at least two DDs. Who would put their neck out and say that they are someone they’re not to seek “justice for Trayvon? That girl would have to be really, really close to him. I know of a couple, but their names are NOT DD and also their names don’t fit alphabetically for W8. These were 16 yr. old girls that Crump met at the wake and or funeral. They were promised an arrest and that after giving their story, they were told that they would no longer be involved because Georgie would crumble and plead out. Getting info from the SPD was what was needed to mold DD1’s tale to sell it to the very biased MSM and that info and job was handed over to Ryan Juleson. He had the contacts and ability to sell this meme.

    This started to blow up on March 22nd when DD1 had been told that she may have to appear before a GJ. She then wanted out. Wolfinger was going to subpoena her when he “stepped down?” and Corey took over. Corey would not do a GJ but DD1 wanted out and may have even threatened Crump and Juleson that she would tell the truth. They let her out, but had a problem they need another DD. Luckily the state never met DD1, so all they needed was an actress to play the part of DD1. They found an 18 year old women and hired her to play the part of DD1. Now she is called DD2.

    In the DD2 interview by BLDR, it obvious that NO ID was given prior to the interview. He just took Crump’s word that she was DD1 the 16 year old. It was when he asked how long she lived at the first location and her answer, although redacted, had to have been 16 years based on his reaction of “All your life!” It was then that he knew he was screwed and that this girl may not have been who she said she was. She later rambled on with a series of random years and BLDR continued. BLDR needed a reason for an arrest. He was told to interview her and use this as a reason for an arrest warrant. The rest, as they say, is history.

    There you have it, my theory on DD. DD does NOT EXIST; only actresses playing the part of DD.

    Like

    • myopiafree says:

      Hi – I think you are correct. In fact it is OK for a “black” woman to lie, lie, lie, because no charges will EVER BE BROUGHT AGAINST HER FOR DOING SO. This was true for the NiFong case, and it will be true for DD1, DD2 and DD3. Let’s face it, the “Cell Battery” went to “Safe Mode” during that last 40 minutes (confirmed by the “blank” flash-memory).
      DeeDee was telling a totally INVENTED story, fed to her by Crump. Her statements that “TM told me he put his Hoddie up – because it started to rain, and “I’m by that “mail thing”, and “I heard grass”. Simply nuts.

      Like

      • eastern2western says:

        I am not a cell expert, but I would imagine that the battery goes dead to reduce the usage, but it will still have enough juice to maintain the gps data.

        Like

        • myopiafree says:

          Hi Eastern – from my experience, the Cell would shut down EVERYTHING! The absolute minimum. This would keep the “Flash Drive” alive, but that would be it. Every other application would be turned off. IMHO.

          Like

        • ottawa925 says:

          According to DD, she heard a convo between Trayvon and George. So if you believe that, which I don’t, cause that info came from George previously to law enforcement, and I believe she was told to repeat that, then State would have to agree that phone was working PREVIOUS to that convo, and that the GPS would have picked up the route that TM took to the point he confronted George,

          Like

          • jello333 says:

            So basically the State has to decide WHICH lie they’d prefer to use… and any one of them is gonna lead to major problems for them… both during AND after the criminal part of this is over.

            Like

            • John Galt says:

              Not sure, but it sounds to me from MOM’s motion to continue that the State has not turned over the location map for Trayvon’s phone on 2/26 (data source?) or the 2/26 phone data. So I suspect that info nukes the DD story.

              Like

      • rooferx says:

        Don’t forget Gutman’s tape…. “This man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on” There ARE at least 3 different tapes and/or plenty of editing done to the tapes.

        Like

        • John Galt says:

          “She said, Suddenly Martin was cornered!”

          Gutman also helpfully notes that she was prodded by Crump, lol.

          Like

        • myopiafree says:

          If the STATE wants to PROVE that the phone was “working” – they need to show that the phone was “Pinginng” the cell towers. That would be a record maintained by the phone company. Where is that data?

          Like

          • John Galt says:

            Perhaps already produced, but maintained as confidential cell phone record?
            MOM also mentions a map showing locations of Trayvon’s phone on 2/26 at page 11, paragraph 6. Prepared from what data source?

            http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/defendants_motion_to_continue.pdf

            Like

            • LetJusticePrevail says:

              Good catch, JG

              That is an interesting question. When I first read that paragraph I believed the map being referred to was actually the crime scene diagram that merely showed the location where the phone was ultimately found, but the wording says that a “map created… … showing the whereabouts of Trayvon Martin’s phone during the HOURS 2/26″ not the “location” on 2/26. Now, how could such a map be made if there was no access to the phone memory? Ping logs? Doubtful. I don’t believe the ping logs could give the type of detaled information necessary to create a timeline style map. More likely from T-Mobile GPS information maintained by T-Mobile itself.

              Like

              • jello333 says:

                But you know what? Even if it turns out the GPS data, as opposed to the ping logs, are the most important thing, I still say we give a lot of credit to Walther! He’s been on the ping log trail for months and months… So since the purpose of using GPS data is right along the same lines… close enough. ;)

                Like

    • Knuckledraggingwino says:

      I think the local cops and FDLE investigators had an “oh feces” moment when they were dispatched second time to retrieve the Double-Dee-Dee #2 from adult jail after failing to find her in juvenile detention. They might have been amused by BDLR’s resoute continuing of the question after she revealed her true age.

      Like

      • John Galt says:

        Interesting theory. They don’t seem to want to release her “biographical data” (cough, rap sheet) to the defense.

        Like

        • LetJusticePrevail says:

          Since she is an adult, her record will be available by a search of the Dade County databases. Of course, to do that, you need a name…

          Like

    • justfactsplz says:

      You are correct. If they could get away with it they would have a better spoken DD3 do the deposition.

      Like

      • maggiemoowho says:

        They probably could use a DeeDee 3 and get away with it. So far both recording are awful. That might have been the reason they didn’t use good recording equipment(can’t id voices) for something so serious. If DeDe was really able to confirm GZ guilt Crump and the State would have taken every legal step to make sure they didn’t risk having her disqualified and they would have had the clearest recording possible. Even though BDLR asked DD#2 if she was on drugs(like she would admit to it) they can come back and say she was taking something that made her sound half dead during her interview. So I wouldn’t put it past them to bring in a 3rd. It is also flu season she could have laryngitis. Well timed ailments worked for Hillary Clinton. Right now It would not suprise me if they say TM was “catfished” all these years and the real Dede turns out to be a guy.

        Like

        • justfactsplz says:

          Absolutely nothing would surprise me at this point.

          Like

        • hooson1st says:

          They are not trying to get away with anything. They are seeking to prove a conclusion without having any facts to back them up. The confusion over DeeDee’s age is irrelevant to them.

          Like

          • maggiemoowho says:

            I understand what your saying, but if that is the case then they are trying to get away with charging an innocent man with a crime he didn’t commit. That in itself is a crime.

            Like

            • jello333 says:

              It absolutely is. If they know George is not guilty — and I believe they do — then what they are doing is criminal. It’s of course true that they wouldn’t be the first prosecutors to pull this, but that doesn’t matter. It’s criminal, and people should go to jail.

              Like

            • hooson1st says:

              If you are correct in your entirety, then I agree.

              I am not sure that they are convinced that GZ is innocent.

              The fact is that only GZ knows what happened. The decision to prosecute or not prosecute is a judgement call. Clearly, political pressure intruded here.

              A prosecutor, ethically, should not prefer a charge that he/she does not expect to prevail on. In this particular case, a decision was made at a higher level to pursue the case.

              What you have here is an unexplained (in the eyes of the law) killing. Whether justified or not (in the eyes of the law) will be determined.

              Like

            • libby says:

              Unless, of course, if he were percieved to be white in which case, nevermind, no crime involved

              Like

            • justfactsplz says:

              It is a crime and I do think they are trying to get away with it.

              Like

          • woohoowee says:

            “They are seeking to prove a conclusion without having any facts to back them up.”

            Agreed. However, this leads to the obvious question: “From whence did the conclusion come?”

            Like

        • jello333 says:

          When MOM/West get the tape from Gutman, they won’t start trying to compare the details of what Dee Dee said in that with what she said in the Bernie interview. Nope. The first thing they’ll do is have a voice analyst compare the two… and say whether it’s the same person on both tapes.

          Like

      • jello333 says:

        “Wow, you’re speaking a lot more clearly now. I can actually understand you.”

        “Yeah, that Rosetta Stone is an amazing product, eh?”

        Like

    • selfdefenseadvocate says:

      IMO, the Dee Dee “stuff ” (including a minor or adult “Dee Dee”) will never be allowed at trial (if it gets that far). Without corroborating evidence, her statements are simply hearsay. The erased cell phone records can work in the defense’s favor and help to get Dee Dee “stuff” thrown out. I think defense lawyers know exactly what they are doing and they know that the stringy haired judge has to go by the law or get her decisions overturned by the Appeals Ct. I see MOM & West building an appeals case while they are preparing an excellent defense for GZ (not to mention laying groundwork for civil cases that are sure to follow).

      Like

      • jello333 says:

        But I’ll say again: It’s not the defense who now wants the Dee Dee stuff thrown out. It’s the prosecution who wishes she’d just disappear.

        Like

        • John Galt says:

          Dee Dee is the corner stone of the State’s case. From the APC:

          “During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn’t know why. Martin attempted to run home but was followed by Zimmerman who didn’t want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin. When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded the dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.

          Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.”

          Based on currently known information, without Dee Dee, they have no chance of proving: pursuing, scared, attempted to run home, didn’t know why, continued to follow, trying to return home, or confronted.

          Like

          • selfdefenseadvocate says:

            Right on tnhe money, JG. Here is a link to the Probable Cause Affidavit (if it still works)

            http://www.foxnews.com/us/interactive/2012/04/12/state-florida-vs-george-zimmerman-affidavit-probable-cause/

            Like

          • jello333 says:

            Oh I realize all that. And if the prosecution thought the Dee Dee story was true, then OF COURSE they’d want to keep her front and center. But that’s my point: The prosecution KNOWS that it’s all a fraud. THE STUFF THEY PUT IN THAT PCA IS OF NO VALUE IF THEY CAN’T VERIFY THAT IT’S TRUE. And to do that, they’re gonna need Dee Dee to show her face again… but this time to the defense. And I believe the prosecution is terrified of that proposition. Well, maybe not as terrified as Crump is, but still. Which is why I say the prosecution now wishes they had never pushed the Dee Dee narrative. Yes, it’s true that without Dee Dee they have no case. But I believe that they would now gladly trade losing the case against George, in exchange for NO MORE DIGGING into Dee Dee.

            Like

            • ejarra says:

              Try this on for size:

              It’s Apr 3rd the morning after, BLDR and Corey.

              The curtain opens:

              BLDR: I just interviewed DD and I think that something is not right. She was all over this place, then she started to, I don’t know, improvise? Besides she NOT 16, but instead 18.

              Corey: WHO TOLD YOU TO THINK? You are not paid “to think”. Scott intrusted me for an arrest and conviction. Get it? Grow some balls, man! Write up up the affidavit. We’re going for Murder 2.

              BLDR? Murder 2? It’ll never fly. We don’t have enough evidence. Even Sgt. Serino suggested Manslaughter.

              Corey: That’s MY job to worry about it, not yours. Your job is to do as you’re told. Besides Zimmerman will come beggiing for a plea by the time I’m done with him. When he does, everybody wins. Everybody but Zimmmerman.

              All you can hear is the evil cackle of laughter as the curtain closes.

              Like

              • ftsk420 says:

                I think she might have thrown in a When I’m done with him he will be the most hated man in America.

                Like

              • jello333 says:

                Ok, were you hiding in the back floorboard of my car earlier today? My wife and I were out driving around, and as I’ve been doing quite a bit lately, I was trying to get her up to speed on this case. Today I was trying to explain why some of us think there might be two separate Dee Dees. And I told her that I suspected it wasn’t until the interview itself that Bernie began to realize the girl he was talking to was a different girl from the one Crump talked to. That all during the interview Bernie was probably getting more and more nervous. And then I said something like this: “So afterwards, he probably called up Corey and told her that something’s wrong. But Corey, being the evil scum that she is, probably just said Who cares? Just do what I say, and everything will work out.”

                So why were you hiding in our car? ;)

                Like

              • woohoowee says:

                Rewrite to your script, ejarra :-)

                “Corey: WHO TOLD YOU TO THINK? You are not paid “to think”. Scott intrusted me for an arrest and conviction. Get it? Grow some balls, man! Write up up the affidavit. We’re going for Murder 2″

                BDLR: You want that, too?

                Like

          • arkansasmimi says:

            YOU really made some things make sense with this post! THANKS!

            Like

    • sundance says:

      ejarra, that’s exactly what I’ve been saying since April 20th. Yup.

      Like

    • sundance says:

      Yes, this is all they could use from the 4/2 DeeDee interview. Note how ambiguous it is. If the prosecution thought the Crump Story was correct, and thought the DeeDee was on the phone when they encountered was correct, they would have listed more on this Probable Cause Affidavit.

       photo excerpt-from-affidavit-dee-dee_zpsb424eeed.jpg

      Remember, this is when Dershowitz *REALLY* was critical, because the substance of the PCA is SO WEAK.

      Like

    • nettles18 says:

      As I understand it one of the last tasks Wolfinger did on this case was subpoena W8 to appear before the Grand Jury on April 10th. That got him called to a meeting with the Governor and Pam Bondi which ended in him signing a letter asking to be replaced. He set-up for GJ on March 20th (the same day Crump told the world about DD) and Crump’s didn’t like it the idea of a Grand Jury. “The lawyers for Martin’s family, however, said that the move is a way for the Sanford’s local police and prosecutors to pass the buck.”

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/trayvon-martin-grand-jury_n_1367491.html

      Like

      • jordan2222 says:

        That is exactly what happened. I have said all along that Rick Scott is responsible for all of this crap.. Even though it was not an independent decision, he is still the culprit at the state level.

        Maybe one day we will hear more from Wolfinger and others who were involved. IMO, Scott was bullied into doing this.

        Like

  7. myopiafree says:

    I wonder if DeeDee’s lies for Crump will ever “catch up” to her – in later life?

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/time_to_pay_up_tawana_VNfKyp8kwALfSZZE4DdAQI

    Like

    • eastern2western says:

      according to history, everything that was touched by al sharpton and jesse jackson has always turned into poop and lets hope history stays the same for zimmerman.

      Like

      • jello333 says:

        At one time, Jesse had some potential. He could have done some good things, had he not gone the race-baiting route. On the other hand, “Reverend” Al… I’m not sure I’ve seen one good thing come from that guy.

        Like

    • boutis says:

      This is exactly why I think it is possible that entire “hide the witness” games that are going on is because W8 is getting cold feet and did not bargain for being investigated herself. All of the posturing that the witness is being threatened, is only 16 years old, her identity will be leaked, etc is an excellent buildup to her backing out of her testimony. It is an excuse to not proceed which covers a lot of rear ends. Except for Beasley lawsuits.

      Like

      • nettles18 says:

        The defense could argue that W8 went public when she gave her first statement about what she saw to Mr. Crump, the shooting victim’s family and ABC reporter Matt Gutman. Gutman worked to help keep the identity unknown because he was told she was a minor. However, he did speak of knowing her well and deemed her credible. On March 28th, he told Lawrence O’Donnell he had spoken with her several times. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46894844/

        On June 12 2012 Judge Lester ruled that witnesses that had publicly spoken to the press would not have their names redacted in the discovery. In the States 5th Supplemental Discovery they listed 6 witnesses names and addresses. http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/State's%205th%20Supplemental%20Discovery%207%2025%2012.pdf

        If the defense could win the argument that W8 went public with her statement before she went to the law enforcement perhaps her name and address could be revealed as well. We could then see if her name falls alphabetically and have some more information about a possible switch in witnesses.

        Again, that the State of Florida isn’t drilling down on this information is astounding. It’s like they don’t want to know or investigate as they have to turn it over the defense. Before bringing charges I’d think the State should have had the phone information, clearly they did not and know all about what went down with W8. We heard Bernie tell the court we don’t know anything about ABC, if the defense wants to know if they made a recording they should go ask them. How very odd the State didn’t have the same desire to know. What happened to Pam Bondi’s statement promising “no stone unturned”?

        Like

        • John Galt says:

          “Again, that the State of Florida isn’t drilling down on this information is astounding.”

          Crump seems to be protected at the highest levels.

          Like

        • howie says:

          Half of Miami already knows who she is I would bet.

          Like

        • hooson1st says:

          All depends on the definition of “going public”. Being interviewed with your identity concealed as a basis, where does that fit in?

          Like

          • nettles18 says:

            It would be a fight I agree. While she wanted her statement public it could be argued she wanted to remain unknown. Witness 6 also gave a statement to the press on Feb 27th but he spoke from behind a door and I note Judge Lester didn’t include him in the order to release name and address.

            Like

          • MJW says:

            Judge Lester’s ruling is muddled because it doesn’t seem to take into account that some witnesses may go public but not reveal their names, or that the media may cooperate in hiding the identity of a witnesses who have gone public. He says witnesses lose their right to anonymity when they go public, and he specifically exempts witnesses who were just shown from afar talking with law enforcement. That certainly suggests the identity of any witness who has voluntarily made statements on the case is no longer protected. Yet his ruling says:

            The media interveners may provide to the parties the name of any person who has voluntarily appeared or given a statement in a media outlet, including the time and date of the appearance or interview. The State shall, within fifteen days, provide the person’s full identity as provided by Fla R. Crim. P. 3.220 and shall identify which statement in evidence was provided by that person.

            By saying “may provide, Judge Lester essentially makes the public’s right to know into the media interveners’ right to know. He leaves it up to, for example, ABC news, to decide whether to provide the name of a witness who has voluntarily appeared and provided interviews to them

            Like

  8. ottawa925 says:

    I asked this question yesterday, but I think it went unnoticed:

    I do not see a Repy by Defense to FDLE’s Mem. Shouldn’t there have been one? The State deferred to FDLE, but I thought defense should have done a reply to FDLE. No? Or did the defense’s previously filed Mem. on Prosecutor’s Obligation somehow serve as the Reply.

    Just thought defense should have addressed FDLE’s Mem. as an argument back so the Judge can consider. What say you?

    Like

  9. eastern2western says:

    I read both rebuttals from the state, but there is not one singular word about the magic trip to disneyland and I wonder why.

    Like

  10. ottawa925 says:

    Like

  11. ottawa925 says:

    anyone know if NatJackson has ever herself argued a case in a courtroom? just curious.

    Like

  12. art tart says:

    Ron Calloway – here is the link to the video/article you mentioned up thread.

    ZIMMERMAN BROTHER: PEOPLE EXPLOITED CASE FOR THEIR OWN AGENDA:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/02/01/Zimmerman-Brother-People-Exploited-Case-For-Their-Own-Agenda

    Like

  13. hooson1st says:

    This has been probably has been answered before on CTH, but I need a refresher.

    Did TM’s brother have a twitter account where he commented on the possible TM mugging of a bus driver?

    Like

      • John Galt says:

        Trayfon a Momma boy dat nefah efah fite, dat his problem.

        Like

      • nettles18 says:

        Tuesday, Feb. 21st is the same day Tracy says he drove his son halfway to Sanford to meet with Brandy and hand Trayvon over. (page 40/284) http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf

        I believe this twitter account belongs to Stephen Martin, his cousin. On January 25th he tweeted he was the last family member to see Tray besides Tracy. That contradicts Tracy who says he last saw Trayvon on Saturday night after Chad’s football game. Statement also found on Page 40/284.

        Like

        • maggiemoowho says:

          Interesting. I was hung up on Chad being the last to see him, but Stephen writes “Family Member” to see him alive. So he is probably right, he saw Tracy and Stephen. Chad is not a family member. Had to catch myself there.

          Like

      • dmoseylou says:

        I realize the DD dilemma is the foremost concern at this time. I am certain, though, that MOM / West will “connect all the dots” of the many manipulations, lies, deception, evidence tampering, etc. I am most curious to learn of their findings / reports of the ME, autopsy, procedures and protocols.
        The picture of TM at the above “examiner” link is irrefutable evidence of one glaring mistake(?) of the ME. (If this has been previously discussed, I missed it, and apologize for the repetition.)
        Click the link above>>>Note the scar on his left shoulder and the tat on his left upper arm.

        Now click on this link

        http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf?hpt=hp_t2

        It is the body graph done by the ME>>>the scar and tat are diagramed as being on his RIGHT shoulder and upper arm. The ME wrote the same location in the autopsy report. Also, the ME (he/she?) diagrams and writes that the letters (Sybrina) are on the left wrist. I do not know if that is the correct wrist. Any body help me with that one?
        Also, note on the graph the measurements he/she used when noting scars, stippling,
        etc. See anything odd?

        Like

          • dmoseylou says:

            ALSO, does any one have any links to photos of TM that show his hands>>>to verify which hand has the abrasion and which hand has the scar? It is inconsequential, yet the obvious, transparent mistakes (misrepresentations) of the ME demand that every EVERY graph notation re: the skin be validated. Another aggravation>>>The ME did NOT note the degree of the abrasion—-1st, 2nd, or 3rd? Inquiring minds want to know.

            Like

            • selfdefenseadvocate says:

              Sure do miss our traveling friend. Betwenn her and you and the DMan, all one had to do was mention a piece of evidence & one of you three had it at your finger tips. I deleted all of my files & links because you guys always did (and do) such a great job of magically making pictures & documents appear…

              Like

              • selfdefenseadvocate says:

                Sure wish we had an edit button on here! I meant Between- not betwenn.

                Like

              • dmoseylou says:

                I really hope the speed-ster or DMan or any body has those pics I am looking for. Although, even without them, to me the ME is completely discredited. Wrong shoulder, wrong upper arm!
                And I will not even get started on measurements and locations of bullet fragments. If he/she can not accurately note gross visualizations, how does any one accept any
                informational analyses by him/ her?

                Like

            • nettles18 says:

              I noticed in the video Sundance posted about the interview with Chad and Brandy Green, there is a photo Craig Riveira uses near the beginning of his presentation that shows Trayvon’s hands at the 1:02 mark. It’s posted down thread and also at the top of Feb. 3rds Open GZ Thread.

              Like

    • John Galt says:

      Trayvon’s cousin 2/21: “Yu ain’t tell me you swung on a bus driver”

      TRAY’S BIG BRUH@RIP_TRAY9

      Like

    • ottawa925 says:

      I’ve never seen this video … Chad’s real Dad interviewed.

      http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/dad-of-slain-teens-friend-talks/vGfYt/

      Like

      • John Galt says:

        Get Chad’s ping log and find out where he really was.

        Like

        • justfactsplz says:

          Yes, see if he really called his mother. And there we go with the half time story again.

          Like

          • HughStone says:

            Those are the 2 phones that i would think to be used as TMs’ phone and deedee phone.
            Chad (has brandys’ phone) probably was calling Brandy(tracey martin phone) because TM had not returned to the home. So maybe Brandys’ phone = TMs’ phone & Tracy Martin phone = DeeDee phone. Ping location would match on TM(Chad’s side/ Brandys’ phone but not on DeeDee (Brandy/Tracy Martin phone). Records made available to the defense only show days that TM was supposedly “in Sanford.” Not after or before. So if you subtract the Feb 26 info and look at the calls during the other days there would be a lot of calling back and forth between numbers. I bet DeeDee lives real close to where Tracey Martins’ crib iz at. But if that is the case, where is TMs’ phone and how did that other one get out there?

            Maybe, just Maybe.

            Like

            • arkansasmimi says:

              I feel confident that CHAD had his own phone. He got the new IPHONE that came out, THE WEEK IT CAME OUT! Posted on FB. Also with his mom working out of town from Sanford, I really think HE had his OWN phone.

              Like

            • justfactsplz says:

              I always thought that with Trayvon’s phone being in Miami, maybe Dee Dee did not know he didn’t have it and called it and either Sybrina or Jvarhis answered it at about the time T.M. died. So it would show up on T.M. phone bill. Ping logs are crucial. It will be proven they were not talking.

              Like

          • howie says:

            In order to expose the plot it is going to take until November at least. The state will fight tooth and nail to hide the truth. Omara should bring a Dentist on board to help pull teeth.

            Like

        • howie says:

          And Tracy and Brandy.

          Like

      • ejarra says:

        I mentioned that months ago. It it one of the reasons that I believe Chad’s a lier and was not home. The whole NBA meme is what makes me think that; because he had to make that up.

        Like

        • nettles18 says:

          I theorize the half-time story came from the PR firm who has someone on it who loves basketball. Recall when Tracy phoned the police in the morning of Feb 27th, he told them Trayvon was last seen at 8:30 p.m. As we know Tracy wasn’t home then, Chad must have guessed what time he last say Trayvon. So the PR firm built the story about leaving the house at half-time to get snacks. As no one who is telling this story can possibly know for sure they just filled in blanks with what is known (he left at 8:30). The problem was Chad was wrong about what time Tray left the house and helped expose the lies.

          In one statement, the family attended a basketball event on Friday night, Then we have the half-time story on Sunday. In another story, Ryan Julison tells the press that Brandy and Tracy went out for dinner and than attended a basketball event. Someone at the PR firm liked basketball, but Trayvon’s own tweet said he had better things to do than watch BBall. I picked out 3 tweets that I thought conveyed relevance to the shooting. One of them was his BBall tweet. http://imgur.com/GulRf

          Like

          • nettles18 says:

            Also important to note in Tracy’s call, he never told them on Feb. 27th he was last seen headed to the store. If Chad had known that, Tracy would have passed this vital piece of information to the police who were going to look for his son. All Tracy and Chad knew that morning was Trayvon left the house at around 8:30p. They don’t mention where he was headed b/c that developed later when police told Tracy Trayvon had been to the 7-11 store, a cold drink was found in his hoodie pocket.

            Like

            • howie says:

              True. The last known thing according to Chad was he left to go to the store and was on his way home I think. He would have related that to Brandy and Tracy. But they still called juvenile I think. This stinks to high heaven.

              Like

              • ottawa925 says:

                Wasn’t somebody trying to call Tracy and Brandy that night and there was no answer? Stuff stays in the back of my head and pops toward the front when triggered.

                Like

              • jello333 says:

                To me, one of the most incriminating things is that Tracy called juvie and jail before anywhere else. By then he knew, I am absolutely convinced he KNEW that something bad had gone down the night before. But did he worry that Trayvon may have been the one shot and killed? Did he call the hospital or maybe the cops? NO. He calls juvie and the jail. In other words, yes, he was worried that Trayvon may have been involved…. but NOT as the victim, rather as the shooter. What does THAT say about Trayvon, and what Tracy knew about his personality?

                Like

                • hooson1st says:

                  I thought he called to report TM missing first…?

                  Like

                • nettles18 says:

                  Here’s a thought. Tracy was calling around looking for Tray really early in the morning considering it looks like he had a late night himself. Is it possible that he and Brandy had just come home at 7:30, 8 am learned from Chad there had been trouble in the neighborhood and Tray wasn’t home and judging from the calls they made, yes, they thought Trayvon had gotten up to no good.

                  Like

                • arkansasmimi says:

                  I totally agree with your comment!

                  Like

                • hooson1st says:

                  jello:

                  Why would calling juvie or jail first be an indication that he “KNEW” something had gone down bad the night before, beyond the fact that this was not normal TM behavior unless he had gotten into some teenage mischief.

                  In his missing person’s call, he acknowledged that you are supposed to wait 24 hours before making a missing persons report.

                  Tracy’s actions that evening upon returning to Brandy’s that evening (imo) are not suspicious, nor out of the ordinary, for any parent, who is faced with raising a teen who is into the rebellious stage.

                  Like

                  • howie says:

                    Except that he just went to bed. Without trying to locate his beloved little boy who had disappeared on his way home from the 7-11 with the candy.

                    Like

                  • jello333 says:

                    “Why would calling juvie or jail first be an indication that he “KNEW” something had gone down bad the night before,”

                    No, you misread (or maybe I wasn’t clear about) what I’m saying. I’m not saying that him calling jail indicates he knew something bad had gone down. What I’m saying is, if we ASSUME he already knew (which I personally do) then THAT is what would make him calling juvie/jail first significant.

                    Here, I’ll try this: Tracy knowing there was a shooting the night before PLUS Tracy calling jail/juvie before hospitals, etc EQUALS Tracy suspecting that Trayvon was the perpetrator, not the victim.

                    Of course you can argue that I should NOT assume he knew, and you might be right, but that’s a different point. Hope this makes sense.

                    Like

            • ottawa925 says:

              columbo … er I mean Nettles … you state “8:30p” left the house. I’m confused because I thought Trayvon was shot sometime between like 7:13 and 7:17? I thought Trayvon left the house at approx. 6:40p.

              Like

              • nettles18 says:

                I can’t find a link to the call Tracy made the morning of Feb. 27th to police. If someone has it and can post it I’d be grateful. In the call, Tracy tells police his son was last seen the night before at about 8 or 8:30pm. Notably he doesn’t tell police he was headed to the store when last seen.

                Like

                  • nettles18 says:

                    Inexplicably two witnesses who do not know each other (Chad & DD) both tell authorities about half-time in their narratives. With the information Tracy had of 8:30 p.m. leaving the house (which was inaccurate), I think the PR firm filled in the holes to coincide with another event that was happening on Feb. 26th at around 8:30 pm. – the half-time show.

                    Like

                  • hooson1st says:

                    ottawa:

                    i read that differently.

                    Tracy was first asked, “how long has he been missing for”, to which Tracy replied, “last night”. He did not say what time, nor whether he was there at the time, nor anything like that.

                    When asked what TM was wearing, Tracy replied with “probably” this and that with help from Chad in the background.

                    Then he was asked for the “specific time” “you last saw him”, to which Tracy replied, “”around 8:30… 8:00, 8:30 last night.”

                    I agree that Tracy said 8:00 , 8:30, but within the context of his entire conversation, I do not take it to mean that he meant to say that he personally saw TM at that time, but rather, that TM was seen last at that time.

                    In dealing with these situations, who said what, and what did they really mean, one has to tread carefully. To take literally whatever one says under any condition is a recipe to go nowhere.

                    Likewise, in investigating a case, particularly a high-profile case in which the media barges in, greater weight should be (at least, initially) given to what is said to police investigators versus what is said to any particular reporter in a brief encounter.

                    This does not mean that a witness will not lie or mislead the police, but usually, a problematic witness will not outright lie, but rather, leave out salient facts.

                    Like

                  • ejarra says:

                    I agree with the context of what you wrote.

                    This part I is why I believe that Chad lied about when Trayvon left for the store.

                    “I do not take it to mean that he meant to say that he personally saw TM at that time, but rather, that TM was seen last at that time.”

                    Chad was SUPPOSED to be home that night and I am absolutely convienced he wasn’t partly because of that statement. Tracy HAD to have asked Chad when HE say Trayvon last. The 8:30 part originated from Chad. I have no proof, just nothing else makes sense. That it were the idea came from that he left at halftime PLUS that was also what Chad told his father. THE SAME STORY.

                    Plus, no way in hell he didn’t hear sirens or see any flashing lights that night; no way unless he wasn’t there.

                    Like

                  • jello333 says:

                    Either way, Chad is lying. If he wasn’t home, he’s lying in saying he was. If he WAS home, he’s lying in saying that he saw or heard nothing. Of course if it’s the latter, then that has some pretty serious implications.

                    Like

                  • hooson1st says:

                    Chad and sirens:

                    What he should have heard? Questions without definite answers.

                    If he was playing video games with the headphones on, and was a normal teenager, the video sound would have been cranked up way too loud. He was in the front of the apartment. The tragedy took place at the back of the apartment and down the end of the walkway.

                    He was home when his mother got home. Where did he go if he wasn’t home?
                    If he knew that TM had been shot, why wouldn’t he have told his mother?

                    Like

            • hooson1st says:

              The dispatcher should have asked, but it is not dispositive to conclude that something s not said is proof that the sayer did not have knowledge.

              Like

              • nettles18 says:

                It’s an important clue to give police if you want them to find your son I would think.

                Like

              • ottawa925 says:

                I couldn’t reply to you above cause I think we were at maximum on how far over these posts can appear, but hooson? I was just responding to what nettles posted. I had not known anything about 8:30p and nettles was looking for a link, and probably a better one than what i posted. Nevertheless, I agree with YOU, that it doesn’t mean Tracy himself saw him cause we KNOW he was out with Brandy. But he got 8:30p from somewhere or someone.

                Like

              • howie says:

                I don’t think it is fair for you to take everything Tracy says broadly, generally, and excusable but everything George says in his accounts as strict and absolute. If inconsistencies are to be applied, they should be applied equally. The same with DD and all the other witnesses and family. By your logic George is factually innocent.

                Like

            • woohoowee says:

              According to your Madison Times link below Tracy also said:

              “I made several attempts to call his cell phone and it was going straight to voicemail.”

              A phone with a dead battery has functioning voicemail? I don’t think that’s possible.

              Like

              • Chip Bennett says:

                “I made several attempts to call his cell phone and it was going straight to voicemail.”

                A phone with a dead battery has functioning voicemail? I don’t think that’s possible.

                Actually, that’s exactly what would happen. Voicemail is handled by the carrier, not on the handset. That’s why you have to call voicemail to retrieve your messages.

                If the carrier can’t make the connection to the handset, the phone won’t ring. Instead, the call will be diverted directly to the voicemail system. This will happen if the handset is not powered, or if it is in an area in which it doesn’t receive a signal, etc.

                Like

                • woohoowee says:

                  “That’s why you have to call voicemail to retrieve your messages.”

                  My better half tried to tell me this, but it wasn’t sinking in. With this sentence, it *finally* clicked. You ‘splained it better than he did :-). Pssst….don’t tell him he was right! LOL!

                  Like

          • hooson1st says:

            nettles
            re basketball

            That tweet from several months earlier and no doubt reflected TM’s feelings.

            But the annual NBA all-star game is a spectacle, like all other sports spectacles. The sports media make a whole weekend out of it. So it would not be out of character for TM to be interested in watching the game and the pre-game hoopla on a Sunday night.

            Some of the initial confusion about could have come from misinterpretation of what Chad meant by “the game” which did not neccesarily have to mean just the all-star game itself, but the whole TV spectacle. Context is important, if it can be derived.

            Like

            • nettles18 says:

              I take that tweet coupled with the fact that TM left the store at 6:29p and he was not back in the house watching the pre-hoopla some 40 minutes later that he really did have better things to do.

              Like

              • hooson1st says:

                or got side-tracked

                Like

                • jello333 says:

                  If you’re saying he may have been trying to get back in time for the game itself, but had the encounter with George instead, then that kinda shoots down the theory about Travyon being all that interested. Because to enjoy the whole “spectacle”, the pre-game stuff is almost as important as the game itself. I’m more of a baseball guy, and I can tell you that’s how I feel…. it’s the buildup and some of the other events that make the whole thing so interesting.

                  Like

                  • nettles18 says:

                    You will also note the game was so important to Chad that he was playing video games at the time police sirens were invading his community. I’m certain the basketball references we have been fed are the imagination of someone in the PR firm.

                    Like

                  • jello333 says:

                    Ah, good point. I was focused on whether or not his story about not hearing because he had the headphones on could be true. But I hadn’t considered the question that raises: Why was he playing video games instead of watching the ballgame?

                    Like

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    I am still puzzled as to why the SPD did not have someone knock on all of the doors in close proximity to the scene that same night. It’s common sense to me that they would have done that as quickly possible and asking one simple question. Have you seen or heard of anything unusual during the past hour?

                    Like

                  • jello333 says:

                    Yep, that was one of the mistakes they made. I think the cops did a fairly good job overall, but they messed up there. I know they talked to a lot of people within say 100′ or so, and that’s good. But why didn’t they just go ahead and go all the way down the row of houses, all the way to the end (by Brandi’s)?

                    Or wait a minute, now that I think about it. There are a couple of witnesses who say they heard the arguing start up around the ‘T’, right? Well, if the cops talked to those witnesses early on, maybe they thought nothing happened way to the south, and so the people who lived down there wouldn’t have known anything. Hmm…. I don’t know.

                    Like

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    If Chad really was home and was actually waiting on skittles to arrive, doncha think he might have opened the door at least once or twice that night?

                    Do we know yet how Martin was going to get into the townhouse? Was the door locked?

                    Like

                  • arkansasmimi says:

                    What gets me as odd that they didnt seem to canvas the whole area of homes, is they have a dead male with NO ID on them. Thats odd to me that they didnt go door to door.

                    Like

                  • jordan2222 says:

                    We are on the same page about this . Doesn’t sound to me like they made a great effort to find out where he lived.

                    Like

                  • hooson1st says:

                    in reply to all of the above –
                    You raise good questions, particularly why the SPD didn’t go asking all the way down to Brandy’s apartment that night. It could be that when they did the follow-up questioning, no one was home at Brandy’s.

                    As for Chad’s action, the questions are good. I can give all sorts of rank speculation in reply, but I don’t know, and we don’t know.

                    My experience with teenagers is that at different times they decide to do different things for unfathomable reasons contrary to what they had been telling you earlier.

                    At this point, I find Chad’s explanation of his activity that evening more plausible, than trying to explain why he would lie to the police and to his mother.

                    Like

            • jordan2222 says:

              I read that Trayvon hated basketball.,

              Like

          • ejarra says:

            Funny that the first two tweets are also important, in that he had already started telling his friends that he was moving. I believe thos tweets were from the beginning of Feb ’12 just before his birthday. @_LoveThy London for a while, was very high on my short list as to be DD. She’s not anymore, waaay too articulate, but she was close to Trayvon.

            Like

      • selfdefenseadvocate says:

        Thanks for posting that, ottawa. I had not seen it before. We know for sure it is a fabrication by chad dad though, because the game had not even started when TM was on the video at 7-11. Anyone remember what time the game stated that night?

        Like

    • hooson1st says:

      tks, well it seems that his brother could then be deposed on that incident.

      Like

      • hooson1st says:

        errrr, his cousin

        Like

      • diwataman says:

        He’s on the witness list and the State has already spoken to him. Given that he was getting high, practicing slapboxing with Trayvon the night before, knows about the bus driver incident, was close to Trayvon and god knows what else I’m sure of it.

        Like

        • John Galt says:

          Important character witness: never saw Trayvon smoke weed.

          Like

          • nettles18 says:

            Like

            • maggiemoowho says:

              That had to be taken at Brandy’s house because Chads Granmother has photos of Chad the” lil-champ ” with that toy belt on her myspace site.

              Like

            • ottawa925 says:

              That’s a belt for some level of accomplishment for MMA. At the bottom (sideways) it says “Champion”. To me this is evidence that there was MMA style fighting going on in this family.

              Like

              • maggiemoowho says:

                That is a wwf toy belt. They make many different ones and the middle spins. You can buy all different variations at actual matches and on the internet. It is a toy, 100% positive on that.

                Like

                • ftsk420 says:

                  Yup it’s a toy and the middle does spin I think Cena came out with this on WWE a few years ago when the spinning rims were popular on cars. My son has the same one.

                  Like

                  • maggiemoowho says:

                    The ones sold on the WWF site are expensive, Kids spinner belt is 195.00 and adult belt costs 365.00.

                    Like

                  • ftsk420 says:

                    They have replica belt which are way different then the toy price is higher and they weigh more. The replicas aren’t plastic and foam like you get at the toy store.

                    Like

              • maggiemoowho says:

                I thought the same thing when I saw it at first and then asked my husband and he filled me in. He used to like WWF wrestling.

                Like

                • ftsk420 says:

                  I still watch it from time to time mostly for the girls but they haven’t used the WWF name in a few years it’s WWE now.

                  Like

                  • maggiemoowho says:

                    When I was younger, I would watch sometimes with my sister, but it really changed from the early 1980’s. Maybe I’m just getting old though too. :)

                    Like

                  • ftsk420 says:

                    I agree it changed a lot part of the problem is wrestlers don’t seem to know when to retire.

                    Like

            • HughStone says:

              The belt is a cheap one from Wal Mart. Like 20 dollars or something. Its made out of plastic and some sort of foam. I checked the photo EXIF metadata and it has none, maybe because it was uploaded to a site? Did someone remove the photo to erase the data, then re upload photo? How did he get this picture from TM? Was it on TMs’ phone? On TMs’ facebook? Did TM text it to him? Was it a camera or a phone? More likely than not, it was a phone. TM and cousin were probably smoking in the garage. Then TM whips out his phone and snaps a quick pic of cousin. I think it was a personal picture for TM to keep for himself. I dont see a grown man handing TM his phone to snap a photo with a toy. Why did he take so long to post it? Did cousin just get the photo on the date he posted it? If so from who? It all ties into the phones.

              Like

              • arkansasmimi says:

                I wouldnt doubt the cuz had him take on his phone. People do like to act silly. LOL Look at some of the pix people post on fb and such. Prob was just messing around (getting high and such) but I could see it happen that way. We act silly sometimes like that and take pixs.

                Like

            • HughStone says:

              Hmmm, that’s the same day DeeDee was “discovered.”
              COINCIDENCE?

              Like

      • justfactsplz says:

        Chad is not his brother.

        Like

  14. ottawa925 says:

    Of course, our man SD covered all this back in June of 2012, and this may be good to review re: Chad/his Dad, game time, etc. just to see if new events don’t add up to back then or we missed something.

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/06/16/chad-greens-dad-talks-then-chad-and-brandy-green-talk/

    See Tobsters777 post re: time of NBA All-Star game – stating 7:30p eastern for actual game, and
    Cyrano posted he went to NBA website and it listed as starting at 7:00p, however, that could have been pre-game for a half hour. Regardless, the half-time story doesn’t not cut it.

    Like

    • HughStone says:

      Don’t forget about Pre-Game, that usually comes on before it starts for an hour or 2.

      Like

    • sundance says:

      Nettles is definately headed in the correct direction. Remember Trayvon was, at the time, living with Stephen (his cousin).

      Tracy and Brandy never came home Saturday night from the convention / football game. If they went to the game, which I doubt, (I think they went back to the convention)…. Stephen and Trayvon drove back to Brandy’s condo where Stephen stayed the night, they might have taken Chad back with them.

      In the Rolling Stone article Stephen says Tracy loaded his car with some extra clothes on that Sunday morning before he (Stephen) drove home…. but if Stephen was the last person to see Trayvon alive (his own words) then that does not make sense.

      Remember, Tracy gave Trayvon $100 sometime on Fri/Sat. Prolly when Stephen and Trayvon went to the convention to find/check in with dad. Saturday night Trayvon, Stephen and Chad ordered Pizza too, according to some articles…. But then again, according to Tracy one of the reasons he was not too worried on Sunday was because he thought they went to the movies….

      ….. yet in the rolling stone article Stephen left Sunday morning…..

      See how all this conflicts.

      I think Stephen, Trayvon and Chad were home alone for the weekend. Stephen prolly drove T & C to the football game (was Chads dad there?) saturday night, unless Chad wen to his dads, and back to the condo after. Trayvon and Stephen went to the movies and left because it wasn’t their scene (tweets) then went back to the condo.

      Sunday sometime, prolly early-mid afternoon, Stephen leaves. Tray and Chad alone, til Trayvon leaves…. etc…. Tracy and Brandy return late Sunday night never having been home since Fri morn. ==== that’s my guess.

      Like

      • nettles18 says:

        I think the last time Tracy saw his son was Tuesday, Feb. 21st. At that time they met halfway between Sanford & Miami he gave Trayvon or Brandy the money Tray would need for food and movies to get him through the weekend.

        On Friday night, as Chad told police (Page 39/284) his mom dropped the boys off in Orlando. Stephen “Boobie” Martin had recently moved from Miami to Oveida and I think he met the boys and spent the weekend with them. That’s how they got back home Friday night. http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf

        The convention was in Kissimmiee Florida, an hour’s drive from Sanford. I think Brandy made her way to the convention alone and met Tracy there in Kissimmee and gave Trayvon the money his dad left for him.

        On Saturday, as per Brandy, Pg. 32/284 Chad’s coach picked him up and took him to the football game and Tray and Stephen picked him up afterward. The 3 went back to Brandy’s thought about going to the movies but decided to stay in. Stephen told Esquire this in his interview.
        “That last Saturday, after the football game, Trayvon and Boobie went back to Brandy’s place, a lovely three-bedroom unit with granite countertops and hardwood floors they barely noticed. They took baths and thought about going to the movies. Instead, they ended up playing Madden and about fifteen rounds of a card game called Tonk. And talking to girls and watching Friday After Next, the Ice Cube comedy about people getting up to silly weekend fun. Multitasking was their way of life. And Tray loved all comedy, from Martin Lawrence and Will Smith to South Park and Family Guy.

        About 2:00 A.M., they got hungry and cooked up some chicken.

        Boobie’s a sweet kid himself, soft-spoken and shy, working at McDonald’s and trying to get up the nerve to join the Army. He’s wearing a medallion with Trayvon’s picture on it. Every time he goes to Miami Gardens, Trayvon’s grave is his first stop after his parents’ house. After the chicken, he says, he went to sleep and Trayvon stayed up to chat up girls on his computer. He’s not sure when Trayvon finally went to sleep.”

        http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2012/trayvon-martin-1212

        On Sunday, Tracy called to check on the boys just before the convention ended to make sure Tray still had money left to get something to eat. He learned he was o.k. and Tracy and Brandy left the convention at 3pm and maybe hung with friends, went out for dinner and went to a club afterward. They didn’t get to Brandy’s place until after most of the commotion died down in the neighborhood and went to bed thinking Trayvon was with Stephen. (there is a video of Tracy walking through the community in Retreat View saying he called his son around 2 or 3pm to ask him if he had enough money to get something to eat but I can’t find it now). If someone else has it, I’d appreciate you posting it here.

        It’s unlikely Tracy & Brandy went to the football game on Saturday b/c the convention they were at frowns on members leaving for other events. They fine you $200 ($100 to the female and another $100 to the male department heads) so to attend Tracy and Brandy would have had to pay a $400 fine. http://www.renfordpbrowngl.org/downloads/2012_FL_Calendar.pdf See note at the top of this calendar.

        Like

        • sundance says:

          BUT….. from that esquire article:

          ….”That last Saturday, Trayvon went to a football game with his dad and his cousin Boobie”….

          Read more: Trayvon Martin Family Interview – Trayvon Martin Aftermath – Esquire http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2012/trayvon-martin-1212#ixzz2JnHFIKSy

          Like

          • nettles18 says:

            True but for reasons already stated, I think it’s a fabrication that Tracy left the convention to go to Chad’s football game. 1) they would pay a fine for leaving and 2) why would the coach drive to Kissimmee to take Chad to a game Tracy & Brandy were going to anyway?

            As I said, with the information known now, it’s likely that Tracy didn’t see Trayvon after he dropped him off halfway between Sanford and Miami. I don’t think Trayvon was at the convention at all either. I think he, Boobie and Chad hung around Orlando and Sanford all weekend.

            Like

          • nettles18 says:

            Did you catch in that article Boobie telling the tale of taking the phone off Trayvon when he was talking to a girl at the football game? He tells a similar story to police (Page 9/284) but the location is Brandy’s house in that version. http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf

            Like

            • sundance says:

              Yeah, it was also in that article that I found the 3rd evidence that Trayvon was not living with Sybrina or Tracy, but rather with his uncle and aunt (Stephen’s parents).

              I agree it is not likely that Tracy left the convention. But, as with all of this *story*, there are so many inconsistencies it just reflects how many lies, and inconsistent ones at that, are established to protect the narrative.

              Like

              • nettles18 says:

                It would most definitely not reflect well on the narrative if the public were to learn that this troubled teen who was suspended for 10 days from school hadn’t seen either parent in the 5 days before he was killed.

                Like

                • sundance says:

                  Yep. That’s when you begin to get into the “cultural disconnect”, and then recognize why Ryan Julison had to *create* a narrative the *majority* could understand.

                  The BGI circles the cultural wagons on these issues, and affirms an understanding via excuses such troubling issues. It’s the same reason why Sybrina would not be furious at Tracy for Trayvon being unsupervised.

                  However, it also goes back to the aspect of parental *guilt*. Which, when you put yourself back in that March/April/May timeframe, you can see in the psychology of the *parents* words and behaviors.

                  I noted back then that while Sybrina and/or Tracy may not have initially created the Scheme Team Storyline, their guilt surrounding the truth definately allowed them to become complicit.

                  The mirror was just too stark to look into.

                  Like

                • ftsk420 says:

                  If Tracy worked all day and Brandi worked all day Chad would be in school that means Trayvon spent the week by himself. What was he doing all day by himself.

                  Like

                • howie says:

                  My bet is that witness 8 is also a “troubled” teen. With history that the state does not want to disclose. Just a hunch.

                  Like

              • hooson1st says:

                Sundance:

                I reread the Esquire article twice, but did not find evidence in that article that TM was not living with Sybrina or Tracy, but rather with his uncle.

                The article states that he spent as much time at his uncle’s “as anywhere else” and this may be what you are referring to but that, in and of itself, does not clearly answer the question.

                The point you bring up is an important one. Sybrina told O’steen that TM “lived with her.” (2 April 2012 interview). So if he was living with the uncle, then Sybrina has some “splainin” to do as to why she would want to mislead the State investigators.

                Like

                • sundance says:

                  In the Esquire article look at what the neighbor said about Trayvon. Then, here is his aunt telling a radio show that Trayvon was living with her and her husband Stephen.

                  Like

                  • hooson1st says:

                    Sundance:

                    Thanks for reminding me of this link. It definitely sets up a juxtaposition between what Tracy’s sister says (who has less motive to be deceptive) and as to what Sybrina told the authorities, for which many questions remain to be answered.

                    Like

                • hooson1st says:

                  I read it two more times, but am still overlooking whatever the neighbor said.

                  As for the article, it reads as though it had been set up by someone like Julison. However, the author is a pretty good writer (he does lean from the left). It would be interesting to learn the back story on how the article came about.

                  Like

                  • nettles18 says:

                    Reasons Why The Esquire article points to Trayvon living with his Aunt & Uncle

                    1. Aunt Miriam last saw Trayvon the week before he died. He was in Sanford for a week, so it appears when Tracy took him halfway to Sanford his Aunt had seen him and gave him some advice: “Miriam remembers the last time she saw him, just a week before he passed. He was so skinny, she just wrapped her arms around him and told him, You better be good, okay?”
                    2. The chores he did at the house, vacuuming, dishes so he and Stephen could go out together, feeding the dog. How many times in your youth, did you vacuum your Uncle’s home?
                    3. It appears at the end of the day, he returned to Uncle Stephen’s house, “No! Him and my son, they know, if I tell ‘em to be in at ten at night, don’t be in at ten-o-one”
                    4. On page 1 or the article, Trayvon often slept at Uncle Stephen’s neighbors house and she gave him a nickname. “Next door to his uncle Stephen’s house, a modest ranch house where he often spent the night, lived an old lady who called him Mouse.”

                    http://www.esquire.com/features/americans-2012/trayvon-martin-1212

                    Like

                  • hooson1st says:

                    got it, thanks

                    Like

  15. lenore stern says:

    A peace march in remembrance of Trayvon is scheduled Feb. 9 in Miami near where his mother lives. Details are still being worked out. Trayvon would have been 18 on Feb. 5, 2013.

    On Feb. 26, the anniversary of the day Trayvon was killed, Crump said he and Trayvon’s parents likely will be in New York City for what is being called the “Million Hoodie Candle Light Vigil.’’

    Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, the parents of Trayvon Martin, and their attorney Ben Crump were the special guests at an MLK celebration banquet in Daytona Beach.
    Crump said they are calling for participants around the world at 7:17 p.m. on Feb. 26 to put on a hoodie and light a candle in memory of Trayvon to bring attention to a killing he says would not have happened had Zimmerman not been stalking Trayvon.

    Above from the Daytona Times. LOLOL!!!!!!!!!-

    Like

    • the paragons says:

      Hilarious!

      I want to be in NY on Feb 26th!!!!

      Like

    • ottawa925 says:

      I thought they were not supposed to be talking to the press in terms of saying stuff like the last part of your post .. “he says would not have happened had Zimmerman not be stalking Trayvon” … I mean here we go again.

      That goof dogpound complains when Mom/West are on TV complaining about State’s delay in handing over discovery … but THIS … this is different. Isn’t what he is saying going against what they all agreed not to do? or am I mixed up again?

      Like

      • ottawa925 says:

        To clarify … it would be one thing to say … it’s a peace march for Trayvon, it’s another thing to say peace march for trayvon that was stalked like a mad dog by GZ.

        Otherwise we could have battle of the bands … and have a walk for GZ too:

        Peace walk for GZ, or peace walk for GZ who was jumped and brutally beaten by a thug wanna be and who is being persecuted by the black community.

        how’s that?

        Crump is at it again with his mouth.

        Like

      • jordan2222 says:

        Not too many stories have so many players, all telling lies, often contradictory to each other. If one lie is undeniably exposed, a new one quickly replaces it.

        They been repeated so often, that the lies have become “their “truth.”

        As more details are revealed, I guess all of them are left to form their own new version of what happened after Crump shut up.

        I am wondering if ANY of these people who have believed Crump’s lies will feel foolish in the least when the Truth is revealed. Will any of them dare stand up? No answer required.

        Like

    • maggiemoowho says:

      I bet Obamas short bus pulls up. As one tweeter said ” I hope they are registering people to vote at the I am Trayvon Day” and another tweeted back “if they aren’t they are missing a good bet” Maybe they can milk another year out of a dead teen and their lies. This march by the way is for gun control, TM is just a marketing tool. I bet they used the deceased Sandyhook children to get donations also.

      Like

    • Sharon says:

      I haven’t seen any evidence over the past many months that any of them want peace. The threats to kill, maim and otherwise harm George Zimmerman, his family and those who believe he has a right to expect that decisions about charges should be based on the evidence have come only from Trayvon Martin-connected people: his family, his friends, his tweeters, his lawyers and his lawyers’ lawyers. The threats are all from Trayvon Martin’s people. None of them have anything to fear from any of you who are constantly analyzing these things, but you certainly have something to fear from them, based on threats made directly and indirectly.

      Peace, my foot. They not only don’t want peace, they are liars 24/7, but I hear the money’s pretty good so I guess that what’s keep them going.

      Like

      • libby says:

        I may have read (or written stuff) on this blog that was not in the best taste, but I have neither read nor written to my knowledge any threats towards any of the trayvon supporters, family, or witnesses in favor of the persecution on this here blog.
        I have read many threats on the black racist, side, though.
        Peace? They said, “no jutice, no peace” (and I recognized it as a threat back then, too) as they demanded vigilantism

        Like

  16. eastern2western says:

    to me, trayvon just does not look like a basketball fan at all. with all of these pics out there, is there even one picture of him with any basketball related material? the only pic of trayvon in a sports uniform is also a studio production too. the whole story of him going to 7-11 during the all star game could just be a fabrication by it self. Even his best friend dd is not a basketball fan/

    Like

  17. Last summer, after the shooting of 5 year old Nizzel George, the Minneapolis Mayor and Police chief were saying they would like disarm the law abiding citizens.

    http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/160603105.html

    Turns out the shooter was, like Trayvon Martin, 17 years old when he shot up a house and killed the little 5 year old.

    http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/189433451.html

    Obama comes to Minneapolis Monday to sell his gun control plans.

    Like

  18. ftsk420 says:

    So after looking online for something I came across TM school ID and it’s just like I thought it would be. Shows he isn’t so skinny just look his his trap muscles and notice the facial hair.

     photo TrayvonSchoolid_zpse4a5eea1.jpg

    Like

  19. hooson1st says:

    Chad and the Skittles and Occam’s Razor.

    Chad told O’Steen (27 Apr 2012) that Trayvon “wanted a snack” and said that TM “was going to the store”. Chad asked TM “to get him some Skittles.”

    If you assume, as I do, that Chad was being truthful with the investigator, then examine what “snack” TM was going to get for himself upon arrival at the 711.

    The Skittles were for Chad. So the watermelon juice must have been the “snack” that TM was hungry for? i don’t think so.

    Just as likely, the purpose of TM’s trip was to buy the item that the clerk,it turns out, would not let him buy. The three stooges having facilitated the purchase for him, TM then went his way, and when he finally returned near home, the blunts were gone, the Skittles were still with him, indicating that he had not stopped by Brandy’s place, but was headed towards his ill-fated confrontation with GZ.

    Like

    • sundance says:

      Go back to the interview wiith Craig Rivera for the question and answer from Chad about “Skittles”. He never asked for them…. Watch it… you can tell.

      Like

        • jello333 says:

          Wow. The other couple times I watched that, I focused on the person speaking at any given time. But now I watched it keeping an eye on Chad, especially when he was NOT speaking. Now I’m no expert at “reading” what people are thinking by watching their expressions, but Chad is very interesting. So what you might do is watch it once while assuming that Chad’s primary emotion is sadness. Then watch it again, assuming he just might be nervous because of the TV crew. But then watch it while asking yourself… is this kid hiding something, and knows that half of what’s being said isn’t true? That’s what I’m seeing. Again, it might not be fair, and I could be TOTALLY wrong. I’m just telling you guys what I’m seeing.

          Like

        • jello333 says:

          Oh, and one more point I wanted to make about the video… but this has nothing to do with Chad. That slimy reporter! When he said something like, “Zimmerman said he was suspicious of Travyon because he was walking behind people’s houses. But as you can see here, this is simply a sidewalk that happens to go behind these houses.”

          Yet ANOTHER scumbag liar! George talking about Travyon walking behind or “near” houses had NOTHING to do with when he was on that sidewalk!

          Like

      • hooson1st says:

        In the Rivera report, Chad said that Trayvon asked him what he wanted, and that he replied, “Skittles”.

        That in essence is the same thing that Chad told the investigator.

        I will agree that there is a difference from the investigative report which has TM saying that he wanted to get and asking Chad what he wanted.

        In either case it is consistent that Chad asks for the Skittles.

        Like

    • ottawa925 says:

      so Brandi and Tracy leave the kids in the house with no snacks. Brandi, you know ppl are coming, plus your own child and you have no snacks for them? oooooo K

      Like

      • hooson1st says:

        ottawa:

        Those growing teenagers were hungry for snacks, and settle for a pack of Skittles and watermelon juice to assuage their hunger, all this involving a mile’s walk in the rain to the 7-11?? You’d think they would have picked up some Cheetos and beef jerky or something more substantive.

        Like

        • jordan2222 says:

          It is simply foolish to believe that Martin walked all the way to that store in the rain to buy skittles and watermelon juice

          Like

          • arkansasmimi says:

            LMAO I wouldnt.

            Like

            • jordan2222 says:

              With a time line of events and good common sense, any reasonable person can see that the narrative they used is so flawed, it is damn near impossible for it to have happened that way.

              I guess an awful lot of folks had their logic machines turned off during that time.

              Sundance is right about paying close attention to the time line of everything that happened.

              Like

  20. jello333 says:

    Hey! A little help with a couple dates and times.

    First, regarding when Tracy and Brandi are walking around at the scene of the shooting, with the reporter talking to them. I think it’s the one where Tracy says, “Yeah, it was my son”, and Brandi says something about “on the porch”. I know that was the next day, Monday… but does anyone know what TIME that was filmed?

    Second, I recall a few times people here talking about Tracy “looking around”, supposedly in the bushes or something. And some people jokingly saying maybe he was looking for weed that Trayvon ditched. Well, where did that idea come from? Is there a video or something, that shows Tracy “looking around”, or did it come from a written story, or what? Anyway, if there’s any truth to that, I need to know the DATE that occurred.

    Like

    • jello333 says:

      (By the way, in my question above, the “where did that idea come from?” is not referring to the “looking for weed”. No, it’s just the “looking around” part I’m interested in.)

      Like

    • sundance says:

      The interview was between 2pm and 4’ish. The initial broadcast was the 5pm early local news.

      Like

      • jello333 says:

        Thanks a lot; that helps knowing the approx. time. And about the other one I mentioned — where people were talking about Tracy seemingly “looking around for something” — am I just remembering wrong? Or might they be talking about this same video, since he’s kinda looking down at the ground and all?

        (I’m really not crazy. I’ve got a reason for asking, beyond just curiosity. ;) )

        Like

        • sundance says:

          I think they must be talking of this same video. But not sure. I’ve only ever seen one video with both Tracy and Brandi looking around, and that’s the one where she says he was just sitting on the porch etc. etc.

          Like

          • jello333 says:

            Ah ok. If that’s the case, then my little theory (such that it was ;) ), is probably invalid anyway. But here, I might as well say what I was thinking:

            It’s about the possibly far-fetched idea that Trayvon ran back, grabbed Chad, and they both ran back toward George… with Chad carrying a phone with the intent to take some pics of the possible beatdown to come. But once it began, he freaked and took off, dropping the phone in the process. (Again, let’s just forget about whether this is likely or not, and pretend it happened.) So later that night (or the next morning) when Tracy and Brandi get home, Chad is in no mood to admit what he was involved in. Maybe he doesn’t yet even know exactly how it all turned out, or who got the worst of the fight, but he knows it was bad. Or maybe he knows that someone was shot, but thinks Travyon may have been the shooter, and then ran away. Chad doesn’t wanna narc on him. Anyway, he keeps quiet. And from what I understand, he went to school that morning, and supposedly didn’t find out that Trayvon had been killed until after school. And THEN, once that news was broke to him by Tracy or Brandi… THEN he finally admitted about him running back down with Trayvon, including the part about the phone.

            That’s the reason I asked if there might be some later video of Tracy “looking around”. If it was AFTER Chad fessed up, but BEFORE Tracy found out that the cops had the phone, he might have thought it was still lying around out there, and he wanted to find it before anyone else did. But since this video was filmed before 4pm, chances are Chad wouldn’t have yet told Tracy about the phone, etc…. well, assuming again he went to school as they said.

            Heh…I don’t know if I’m making any sense. I know this assumes a lot of things, none of which may be true. Oh well, it was an interesting thought anyway… ;)

            Like

            • justfactsplz says:

              George saw lights like someone maybe video taping.

              Like

              • jordan2222 says:

                Wait.. When did George say this?

                George saw lights like someone maybe video taping.

                Like

                • justfactsplz says:

                  It was told to me in the very beginning when I was told what happened. I was told the account of the incident and tha George said that. I questioned it recently and was again told he said that. At first I thought it was probably neighbors’ flashlights but as time went on I suspected video taping.

                  Like

            • hooson1st says:

              Jello:

              As far fetched as it sounds (and is) , it actually is plausible and would provide the motivation for Chad to freeze up to both his mother and the police.

              Like

        • nettles18 says:

          Here is the February 27th interview. Note at the beginning you can see Tracy and Brandy on the sidewalk walking towards the reporter.

          Like

          • brutalhonesty says:

            thats why john recanted mma….because the martins all saw the news interview john the same day. they know who he is, what he said, and where he lives. no doubt there was some intimidation, even if it was in his own psyche.
            and the police admit not even enough evidence for manslaughter…and they say the witnesses corroberate….and martin says voice not his dad…this is all from “lead investigators on the case” which would be serino and singleton.

            Like

    • rooferx says:

      This one? This is only part of it and I don’t know the date.

      Like

      • nettles18 says:

        This is the video in which I learned that Tracy called his son to inquire about how much money he had left to get dinner that night. I’ll save this link for future. Thanks for finding it.

        Like

        • brutalhonesty says:

          “he did come in the back gate and was going to the back of the house and was sittin out there”……….but other martin accounts talk about the shortcut…I dont recall if its stephen or chad…..but I recall seeing it on the news…they even covered other youth using the shortcut as they filmed while saying thats the path tm took and how its normal for kids to do so and therefor not something gz should have found out of the ordinary….

          Like

        • hooson1st says:

          How does Tracy “for a fact” that Trayvon came back through the back gate?

          Like

          • hooson1st says:

            ooops, I mean

            How does Tracy know “for a fact” that Trayvon came back through the back gate?

            Like

            • jello333 says:

              Very good question. And another thing about that video: A few people have wondered about the “back gate” part, since we had all assumed that that term referred to the gate near Brandi’s house. But I think Tracy just refers to the gates differently than we do, because if I’m oriented right in that video, when he points, he’s actually pointing toward what WE call the “front” gate.

              Like

      • jello333 says:

        I doubt that’s the one re “looking around for something”. But there are a couple of interesting things in it. For one, you can hear “wind noise” at times, and I’m pretty sure nobody is running (as they accused George of doing because of the same sounds). Also, just like Brandi on the other video, Tracy says Trayvon was sitting on the porch. Hmm… that is DEFINITELY an avenue that needs exploring (and I’m sure MOM and West are doing just that).

        Like

    • rooferx says:

      Having trouble posting, but manybuddies has a vid of Tracy walking around the neighborhood during an interview with the sentinel, seemingly the next day.

      Like

      • rooferx says:


        NOT the next day. Vid says March 22nd.
        Not sure where the “looking around” came from….

        Like

      • jordan2222 says:

        I am guessing that the blunt and/or whatever else he had with him, washed away in the rain. He disposed of it after he saw George so there was not much time to find a good hiding place.

        Like

  21. myopiafree says:

    President admits to 1) The danger of assuming a person guilty. 2) The danger of a “rogue prosecutor” for the innocent. 3) Civil rights charge to be brought against the city.
    I hope Bernie learns this lesson VERY WELL. That “Heart Cell phone” was DEAD for the last 30 minutes.

    Rogue prosecutors (promoted by charlatan lawyers) destroy our trust in the Florida Justice System. Eventually George Zimmerman will have to sue because he was falsely accused by DeeDee – who was talking on a “dead” cell phone. How long will it take the STATE to “figure that out”??

    Like

  22. eastern2western says:

    It is odd that crump is that blaming these shootings on the syg laws.

    Like

  23. ottawa925 says:

    Typical Satuday night at The DogPound. Can you guess who is who?

    Like

  24. brutalhonesty says:

    follow me on a line of thought. A negating defense is one which tends to negate an essential element of the state’s case. An example might be a mistake of fact claim in a prosecution for intentional drug possession, where the defendant asserted that he or she mistakenly believed that the object possessed was an innocent substance like oregano. Because this defense simply shows that an essential element of the offense is not present, the defendant does not have any burden of persuasion with regards to a negating defense. At most the defendant has the burden of producing sufficient evidence to raise the issue.

    Like

    • brutalhonesty says:

      Mistake of Fact: A Negating Defense
      December 10th, 2010
      By Jessica Smith
      When a defendant introduces evidence at trial showing that the State has failed to prove some element of the crime, the strategy is sometimes described as a failure of proof or “negating” defense. Mistake of fact is one such negating defense. Mistake of fact offers a defense if it negates a mental state required to establish an element of the crime. State v. Breathette, ___ N.C. App. ___, 690 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2010). For example, mistake of fact is a defense to larceny if the defendant establishes that he or she took the property under a reasonable but mistaken belief that he or she was the lawful possessor of the property. There are numerous cases on point. One is State v. Lamson, 75 N.C. App. 132, 135-36 (1985), a burglary case in which the court held that the trial court erred by not giving an instruction on mistake of fact when there was evidence that the defendant thought he was entering a house where his friend was visiting. Another is State v. Walker, 35 N.C. App. 182, 186-87 (1978), in which the court held that the trial court erred by not giving an instruction on mistake of fact when the defendant and his son mistakenly abducted a child believed to be the defendant’s granddaughter.

      There are, however, limitations on this defense. Most significantly, when the elements of the crime do not require the defendant to know the fact that he or she was mistaken about, mistake of fact is no defense. For example, because a defendant need not know the victim’s age for statutory rape, mistake as to the victim’s age is no defense to this crime. State v. Browning, 177 N.C. App. 487, 492-94 (2006). The same is true for indecent liberties with a child. Breathette, ___ N.C. App. ___, 690 S.E.2d at 4-6. However, mistake of fact can be a defense for some statutory sexual assault charges. For example, if the defendant is charged with aiding and abetting statutory rape, mistake of fact is a defense. This is so because aiding and abetting requires that the defendant knowingly aid the perpetrator in committing the offense. State v. Bowman, 188 N.C. App. 635, 647-50 (2008) (in an aiding and abetting statutory rape case, the trial court erred by failing to instruct as to mistake of fact; North Carolina does not recognize vicarious strict liability). Also, at least one case has held that if the defendant argues that a touching was accidental, mistake of fact may be a defense to a sexual assault on a child. State v. Connell, 127 N.C. App. 685, 690-91 (1997) (in an indecent liberties case in which the State presented only circumstantial evidence that the defendant was awake and intended to touch the child and the defendant’s evidence indicated that he thought he was touching the child’s mother, the trial court should have instructed the jury as to the mistake of fact).

      Mistake of fact, which can be a valuable negating defense, should not be confused with mistake of the law. Mistake or ignorance of law, as a general rule, is no excuse. State v. Howard, 158 N.C. App. 226, 233 (2003); State v. Rogers, 68 N.C. App. 358, 385 (1984). Thus, a defendant charged with rape of a 15-year-old will not prevail on the defense that he didn’t know that having sex with a 15-year-old was a crime.

      http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=1814

      Like

      • brutalhonesty says:

        76-1-502. Negating defense by allegation or proof — When not required.
        Section 76-1-501 does not require negating a defense:
        (1) By allegation in an information, indictment, or other charge; or
        (2) By proof, unless:
        (a) The defense is in issue in the case as a result of evidence presented at trial,
        either by the prosecution or the defense; or
        (b) The defense is an affirmative defense, and the defendant has presented
        evidence of such affirmative defense.
        Enacted by Chapter 196, 1973 General Session

        http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/pdf/76_01_050200.pdf

        Like

        • brutalhonesty says:

          Affirmative vs. Negating Defenses

          An affirmative defense is used to explain or justify the behavior that is alleged to be criminal. But this defense can sometimes be more difficult to prove than a negating defense. A negating defense attacks an essential element of the criminal charge brought by the prosecutor. Because the prosecutor has the initial burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, to negate, the defense only has the burden of creating doubt about one or all of the elements. To do so, the defendent has to produce some actual evidence through eyewitnesses, videos, or other physical proof to support justification.

          However, the use of an affirmative defense is not about attacking an element of the crime, it is usually about justifying or excusing the criminal action. For example, suppose a defendant is on trial for first degree murder of her husband. To prove a first degree murder charge, the prosecutor must generally offer evidence that the murder was premeditated, that is, the defendant planned the murder beforehand. The prosecutor has plenty of DNA evidence to connect the defendant to the murder of her husband, but weak or speculative evidence that the defendant actually planned the murder. The defense may use a negating defense in this case, to show that since the prosecution has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant planned to kill her husband, the jury cannot convict the defendant for first degree murder.

          However, to strengthen the case that the murder was not premeditated, the defense may also introduce additional evidence which shows that the defendant acted in self-defense. This additional evidence may be photos of the defendant after the murder which shows her badly beaten, or witness testimony that someone heard the defendant crying out for help the night of the murder. Self-defense is a commonly used affirmative defense, which justifies a defendant’s unlawful behavior on the basis of protecting oneself. If used successfully, the defendant in this case could be exonerated of the crime altogether.

          http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/criminal-law/affirmative-defenses.htm

          Like

  25. nettles18 says:

    Frank Taaffe walks the route with a camera-man giving a view of the complex.

    Like

    • Lou says:

      I’ve always believed George continued to look for Trayvon. George never followed Trayvon because he lost him. I think this part is what the Trayvonites continuously bring up. He didn’t stalk or even follow though. He LOST Trayvon. I’ve always believed though George should have just said that because he never did anything illegal by looking for Trayvon no matter what the NEN operator said. the reason the NEN operator said that to begin with was for George’s safety.
      btw, the guy that was filming Taafee was a totally disrespectful condescending douche.

      Like

      • nettles18 says:

        I agree. After GZ hung up I think he was standing at T intersection. Perhaps TM heard part of that 2 minute call with Sean and who GZ was calling the police on him. Once he completed the call and he walked to Retreat View Circle, while it may be true he wanted to get a house number it also provides a great vantage point to watch and see if the kid comes out from between the house and can see what direction he goes. After seeing nothing, he walks back and I did hear him say in his statement he looked again down the sidewalk and did not see him. He heard him call out to him just as he passed the T intersection on the TTL side of the T. I don’t think GZ walked down the T sidewalk or down the Retreat View Circle and in that aspect he did take the dispatcher advice and didn’t follow.

        Like

        • jello333 says:

          Yeah, that’s reasonable. But we gotta be careful if we’re gonna word it the way Lou just did: “continued to look for Trayvon” I’m pretty sure he meant the same thing you said… that George was just LOOKING TOWARD the south, where he had seen Trayvon run. But others might interpret “continued to look for” as physically going the direction you’re looking. So rather than “continued to look for”, I’d prefer something like “continued to look OUT for” or “keep an eye out for”.

          Like

          • jordan2222 says:

            I am convinced that George thought Sean wanted him to look for Martin but also believe, he stopped looking as soon as he said, “OK” and was returning to his vehicle. Wouldn’t that be in the opposite direction of where last saw Martin? How could that be referred to as “continued to look?”

            Trayvon found George not the other way around.

            Like

            • jello333 says:

              Yeah, when I said “looked”, I only meant literally that… pointing his eyes in that general direction. While he stood by the dog station talking to Sean, looking toward the south down the sidewalk. Then after he walked the rest of the way to RVC, if he stopped there for a minute, kinda looking south from that vantage point. And then he turns around and heads back west along the top of the ‘T’, toward his truck. He says he looked to the left (to the south) as he was doing that…. just before Travyon approached him.

              Like

          • lovemygirl says:

            I would have been looking 360 for Trayvon, not a dang thing wrong with that.

            Like

        • lovemygirl says:

          He simply said yes to a question, no complex explanation. Are you following him? No Ma’am, I’m simply trying to maintain eye contact 17 seconds after he ran away vs Yes. Trayvon was long gone before he got out of the truck. His verbal response to are you following him is so taken out of context. A simple affirmative response to a question certainly is not an admission to running him down, hot on his heels, as laughable as that is. He simply said yes and OK.

          Like

      • lovemygirl says:

        I agree with a huge exception. He went to see where Trayvon ran. He did not run after him, but went to see if he could see him running out the back gate. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.The idiocy of George chasing Trayvon down with a keychain single cell LED light in the dark is ludicrous.

        Like

    • lovemygirl says:

      I had not seen that one before. Thanks.

      Like

    • ejarra says:

      Watching it now for the first time, too. Nice find,

      BTW, I didn’t know that MOM was paying you. LOL!

      https://twitter.com/BigBoithedog/status/297909093992120320

      Like

    • ejarra says:

      The same Ford F150 P/U Truck is in this video that was talked about months ago. It’s parked pretty much in the same place, too.

      Like

    • ejarra says:

      Too bad they don’t have a NW program anymore. Maybe that house wouldn’t have been robbed. I love the last two minutes.

      Like

    • ejarra says:

      One more reply.

      I wonder who the “bitch” was at the end that made them leave. Maybe one of the witnesses? LOL

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s